Remember me
▼ Content

Creation


Creation07-08-2019 20:59
olyz
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?
07-08-2019 23:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
olyz wrote: How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?

We don't know.

Personally, I don't believe it, but my time machine is in the shop. I won't be able to check until it can pass the State inspection.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-08-2019 02:26
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
olyz wrote:
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?


The hyposthesis that things were long ago as they are now is still just a hypothesis.

All we ever have at our disposal are best guesses based on the information available. Some of those guesses can have a high confidence and other a low confidence.

It is NEVER the case that because we cannot know for certain then we cannot know at all. Because we can NEVER know for certain.

Creationism a few thousand years ago lacks evidence, there is evidence that the Earth is older than a few thousand years.

So practically speaking we know. Of course this could all be the Matrix and you can play "Twilight Zone" with any topic.
08-08-2019 06:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
olyz wrote:
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?


You don't.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 06:35
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
olyz wrote:
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?


You don't.


You don't know you're not in the Matrix.
08-08-2019 06:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
olyz wrote:
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?


The hyposthesis that things were long ago as they are now is still just a hypothesis.

This is actually a theory, not a hypothesis. Hypothesis stem from existing theories. They act a bit like a 'use case' for a theory and often take the form of a question about that theory. Science uses the null hypothesis of a theory, which asks the question, "How can I show this theory to be wrong?".
tmiddles wrote:
All we ever have at our disposal are best guesses based on the information available. Some of those guesses can have a high confidence and other a low confidence.

A theory is an explanatory argument. All theories begin as circular arguments, even scientific ones. If a theory is falsifiable, it is a theory of science. That is the definition of a theory of science. A theory of science will remain a theory until it is falsified. Theories that are not falsifiable can never be falsified. They remain a theory forever.
tmiddles wrote:
It is NEVER the case that because we cannot know for certain then we cannot know at all. Because we can NEVER know for certain.

You are describing the circular nature of theories here.
tmiddles wrote:
Creationism a few thousand years ago lacks evidence, there is evidence that the Earth is older than a few thousand years.

The Theory of Creation simply states that life appeared on Earth as the result of the act of some kind of intelligence. Time is not specified. The intelligence does not even have to be a god. We could all be the result of a horrible lab accident and they decided to dump it on Earth to get rid of it, for all we know. This theory is not falsifiable. It is not science. The only way to test it is to go back in time to see what actually happened. For this reason, science has NO theories about past unobserved events.

The Theory of Abiogenesis states the life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events. This theory is also not falsifiable. It is not a theory of science. It IS mutually exclusive with the Theory of Creation though. One of them MUST be False. They might BOTH be False!

Putting time constrains on when a past unobserved event is rather pointless. The only way to check is to go back in time to see what actually happened.

tmiddles wrote:
So practically speaking we know. Of course this could all be the Matrix and you can play "Twilight Zone" with any topic.

No, we don't know. Supporting evidence only means something to religions. Science doesn't use it.

I said before that all religions are based on some initial circular argument, with other arguments extending from them. This is philosophically a very good definition of 'religion', since religions do not require a god or any deity. By this definition then, there are two religions here: The Church of Abiogenesis and the Church of Creation.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 07:08
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Creationism a few thousand years ago lacks evidence,

Time is not specified.


Time was specified in the original post. I agree that further back you go the less "impossible" it would be that things started from scratch just then.

Into the Night wrote:Supporting evidence only means something to religions. Science doesn't use it.


Observations and experiments are conducted in science. The more of them the more the confidence with which a hypothesis can be assumed to be true.

I think a gambler has a loaded die that always comes up 6. I roll it once, well maybe I got lucky. I roll that die 100 times and it comes up 6 every time the hypothesis that it's loaded is now much more reliable than it was.

Science and statistics as tools that benefit greatly from experiments and observations ("evidence").

Into the Night wrote:religions are based on some initial circular argument,


Good point. Not all of religion though.

Much of what's called insanity is based on circular reasoning. If your concept cannot be disproven it can be anything.
Edited on 08-08-2019 07:11
08-08-2019 07:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Creationism a few thousand years ago lacks evidence,

Time is not specified.


Time was specified in the original post. I agree that further back you go the less "impossible" it would be that things started from scratch just then.

Time is not specified by the theory. I know time was specified in the post. I addressed that. Read it again.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Supporting evidence only means something to religions. Science doesn't use it.


Observations and experiments are conducted in science.

WRONG. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Any data that comes from an observations is likewise subject. Observations are not part of science, even observations within experiments. They are evidence only.
tmiddles wrote:
The more of them the more the confidence with which a hypothesis can be assumed to be true.

A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a theory. A hypothesis stems from an existing theory. No magick point in time occurs when a theory 'graduates'. No theory is ever proven True. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. Literally mountains of it mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.
tmiddles wrote:
I think a gambler has a loaded die that always comes up 6. I roll it once, well maybe I got lucky. I roll that die 100 times and it comes up 6 every time the hypothesis that it's loaded is now much more reliable than it was.

WRONG. You have denied probability mathematics. A die (even a loaded die) is a randR number. If you suspect a gambler has a loaded die, measure the die for balance. That's what the casinos do.

I used to deal blackjack, paigow, craps, poker, and a host of other games in the casino. I am still lead dealer with 30 years of experience at a business party casino company.

I have personally seen dice on a crap table go for three hours without making either the point or rolling the seven-out. They are my personal dice. They are not loaded or weighted in any way, and they are not 'shapes' (irregularly shaped dice). They came straight from a casino supply company and I have checked them for balance, and for face accuracy with a micrometer.

All 25 casino dice I own are straight and true. They are legal to be put into play by any casino. Did you know the Las Vegas Gaming Commission can walk up to any crap table at any time and demand to check the dice? They have plainclothes officers too. They look just like any other tourist, and they play the games to check the accuracy of the dealer.

Dice, Roulette, Pai Gow, and slot machines all use randR numbers. That means the numbers can repeat any number of times in a row, or not at all, or anything in between. There is no memory to the random number. The previous roll, spin, or Pai Gow hand means NOTHING to the next roll, spin, or Pai Gow hand. Zero. Nada. Nan. NOTHING.

A random of type randN has a memory. This is the type of random number from poker or blackjack. Once pulled, the card cannot be pulled again. That remains true until a reset event (such as a shuffle).

tmiddles wrote:
Science and statistics as tools that benefit greatly from experiments and observations ("evidence").

Science ONLY uses conflicting evidence. It does not use supporting evidence at all.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:religions are based on some initial circular argument,


Good point. Not all of religion though.

All of religion.
tmiddles wrote:
Much of what's called insanity is based on circular reasoning.

Much of religion is insanity too.
tmiddles wrote:
If your concept cannot be disproven it can be anything.

Attempt to force negative proof fallacy. You really keep running into that one. No one is required to prove a negative.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 08:59
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
Time is not specified by the theory.


The Biblical theory says 15000 years.

Into the Night wrote:All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
tmiddles wrote:
I think a gambler has a loaded die that always comes up 6. ... 100 times

WRONG. You have denied probability mathematics....
All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.


What if you can't weight the die? Are you clueless? What about after 1000, or 10000 rolls? Still clueless? If it was your money you wouldn't have any idea what to wager would be the 10,001st roll?

Everything that actually happens is subject to phenomenology. So can any useful research be done? Yup

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:religions are based on some initial circular argument,


Good point. Not all of religion though.

All of religion.


Define religion.
08-08-2019 16:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
tmiddles wrote:The Biblical theory says 15000 years.

What the "biblical theory" states differs from Christian to Christian because there is no such theory in the Bible, only in the minds of Christians.

Decades ago I used to debate fundamentalist Christians on Creationism and no two of them believed the same age of the earth.

tmiddles wrote: What if you can't weight the die? Are you clueless? What about after 1000, or 10000 rolls? Still clueless? If it was your money you wouldn't have any idea what to wager would be the 10,001st roll?

You both are arguing different things and talking past each other.

You are correct that any rational human who observes a particular six-sided die come up "six" many consecutive times will probably suspect the die and perhaps will call the handy Nevada Gaming Commission guy to spot check it.

Into the Night is absolutely correct that a fair, balanced six-sided die can come up "six" any number of consecutive times.

tmiddles wrote:Define religion.

Oh, pick me! Pick me!

Religion (noun) : a dogma that is assumed without rational/science support (although such a basis may nonetheless be claimed) and is believed per the guidance of someone who is accepted as an authority (one's self may be that authority).

Dogma (noun) : a set of beliefs and principles that serve as a guide for living one's life.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-08-2019 20:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Time is not specified by the theory.


The Biblical theory says 15000 years.

The Bible doesn't give an age for the Earth or even how long it took to create it.
All that is given for the creation intervals is 'day', which in Hebrew (the language Genesis was written in) can mean any period, not just the 24 hour day.

Example: The void, where the Earth is initially formed, has NO Earthly day. The Earth hasn't formed yet!

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.
tmiddles wrote:
I think a gambler has a loaded die that always comes up 6. ... 100 times

WRONG. You have denied probability mathematics....
All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.


What if you can't weight the die? Are you clueless? What about after 1000, or 10000 rolls? Still clueless? If it was your money you wouldn't have any idea what to wager would be the 10,001st roll?

A loaded die IS a weighted die. Casinos check dice by spinnning them and looking for wobble. Rolling the die will not tell you it's weighted or shaped.
tmiddles wrote:
Everything that actually happens is subject to phenomenology.

WRONG. What happens really happens, but what YOU perceive to be happening is what phenomenology is all about.
tmiddles wrote:
So can any useful research be done? Yup

There is a lot of useful research. None of it is science. Science isn't 'research' or a 'study'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not use supporting evidence. It does not use consensus.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:religions are based on some initial circular argument,


Good point. Not all of religion though.

All of religion.


Define religion.

Any initial circular argument that has arguments extending from it. In other words, anything that is based on the arguments of faith.

I define a fundamentalist as any one that tries to prove the circular argument or use it in a proof. I define a fundamentalist religion as any religion that essentially teaches the same thing to all of its members.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2019 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
IBdaMann wrote:
You are correct that any rational human who observes a particular six-sided die come up "six" many consecutive times will probably suspect the die and perhaps will call the handy Nevada Gaming Commission guy to spot check it.


After 14000 rolls it won't matter (maximum). The dice are changed at each 8 hour shift, and that will let you roll them about 14000 times on a typical craps table pace (about once every 2 seconds or slower).

The casino can test their own dice. They know they put fair dice into the game. Each die is registered before going into play (see the little numbers on them?) The last thing a casino wants to do is put funky dice into the game and risk their license to print money casino license.

If a casino is losing money on a table, they will switch out the dice, cards, or whatever, early. On the craps table, the Boxman checks this activity as part of his job. He also never takes his eyes off the dice once they are delivered to a player until they are brought back in by the croupier.

If funky dice are found, the security tapes are reviewed to see where they came from. They can go back as far as a year in detail. If the player is still on the floor they will be arrested by casino security, taken back to the back room to have the courtesies of casino gambling explained to him 'their' way, then call the cops to pick up what's left. The player will then have to undergo a felony trial.

It's nicer than it used to be with the Mob. They just took you out and put your body in a shallow grave and let the coyotes lunch on what they dug up.

The penalty for putting funky dice into a game of craps, or having equipment to make them, or forging casino chips or having the equipment for it, is life in the Nevada State prison system. The nearest one for that is 200 miles out in the middle of the desert. If you escape, it's you and your orange jumpsuit in the middle of the desert...good luck.

Oh, you might get away with it a few times, but all it takes is getting caught once. There are cameras on every table, throughout the slots, at each cashier's window, and in the parking lots. There are often angled mirrors in casinos too, allowing security to observe a game from a distance. They also use one-way glass and catwalks overhead the pit in some casinos. They have plainclothes that look like tourists. They enter through their own door so no dealer, cashier, or player knows who they are. They are watching players AND dealers.

Don't **** with the casinos.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-08-2019 20:41
08-08-2019 21:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
olyz wrote:
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?


Because I understand what linestone is.

Because I understand what river erosion does.

Because I understand what flood deposition looks like.

Because I understand what amount of heat flow out of the earth would be needed to get here and how long that would take. Millions to billions of years.

Because I can look at the deep field image from Hubble and see that the universe in at least 12 and a half billion years old.

If you need me to explain any of this post away. I might respond but I don't come here often. Try Utube.
08-08-2019 21:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Tim the plumber wrote:
olyz wrote:
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?


Because I understand what linestone is.

Because I understand what river erosion does.

Because I understand what flood deposition looks like.

Because I understand what amount of heat flow out of the earth would be needed to get here and how long that would take. Millions to billions of years.

Because I can look at the deep field image from Hubble and see that the universe in at least 12 and a half billion years old.

If you need me to explain any of this post away. I might respond but I don't come here often. Try Utube.

All of this is great stuff to understand.

Now all you need is to understand the difference between "speculation" and "knowing."

You gave many good examples of why you would speculate as such. You still don't know.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-08-2019 22:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
olyz wrote:
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?


Because I understand what linestone is.

Because I understand what river erosion does.

Because I understand what flood deposition looks like.

Because I understand what amount of heat flow out of the earth would be needed to get here and how long that would take. Millions to billions of years.

Because I can look at the deep field image from Hubble and see that the universe in at least 12 and a half billion years old.

If you need me to explain any of this post away. I might respond but I don't come here often. Try Utube.

All of this is great stuff to understand.

Now all you need is to understand the difference between "speculation" and "knowing."

You gave many good examples of why you would speculate as such. You still don't know.


I do know.

I fully know, at least enough, about flood deposits to know that the world flood in the bible is bullshit.

I know enough about river erosion that there has never been a world flood.

It is unavoidable for me to know this.

That you are mad is not my problem. Enjoy being banned from any decent forum.
08-08-2019 23:05
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
IBdaMann wrote:Creationism ..age of the earth.


If you count back, treating the Bible as a historic text, then it would be roughly 15,000 years to let there be light.

IBdaMann wrote:
Religion (noun) : a dogma that is assumed without rational/science support (although such a basis may nonetheless be claimed) and is believed per the guidance of someone who is accepted as an authority (one's self may be that authority).

Dogma (noun) : a set of beliefs and principles that serve as a guide for living one's life.


Into the Night wrote:
Any initial circular argument that has arguments extending from it. In other words, anything that is based on the arguments of faith.


Dogma has a lot of derogetory spin on it but OK.

I would say that one's Religion is their assumed/believed take on existence. That everyone has religeon just as everyone has politics. The converstations are similar too:
So what's your Religion?
Oh I'm not religious at all. I believe we are just made up of molecules and that's all there is.
So what are your Politics?
I'm not political. I don't even believe the government should be involved in our lives at all really.

Those claiming to not have it often have the most developed and specific version.

The most popular religion in the world can you guess?

Knowitalism

Ask a question and they can nail it. Probably the most satisfying religion since ancient grandpas explained that the sun moved across the sky on the back of a Turtle.

Oddly enough many of the worlds major religions have an element of humility and mystery that more appropriately corresponds to reality than masses of people who fancy themselves as believing in "Science".

Into the Night wrote:
The Bible doesn't give an age for the Earth


Yes but it's sequential. This happened, than this. So some people (not me) has walked it back so to speak. Treating 7 days as 7 days and so on. The language being Gods.

Into the Night wrote:All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.


Oops I only finally looked that up. Misunderstood it as random chance till now. Got it it's how our perception can distort an observation from it's true reality.

IBdaMann wrote:
Now all you need is to understand the difference between "speculation" and "knowing."


An example for you and ITN on the proper use of research/science/speculation/knowing for the betterment of mankind. How that is legitimate or illegitimate. It would help. It sometimes sound like you dismiss everything as essentially pointless.
10-08-2019 03:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
olyz wrote:
How do you know the earth wasn't created a few thousand years ago, along with sea shells on mountain tops?


Because I understand what linestone is.

Because I understand what river erosion does.

Because I understand what flood deposition looks like.

Because I understand what amount of heat flow out of the earth would be needed to get here and how long that would take. Millions to billions of years.

Because I can look at the deep field image from Hubble and see that the universe in at least 12 and a half billion years old.

If you need me to explain any of this post away. I might respond but I don't come here often. Try Utube.

All of this is great stuff to understand.

Now all you need is to understand the difference between "speculation" and "knowing."

You gave many good examples of why you would speculate as such. You still don't know.


I do know.

I fully know, at least enough, about flood deposits to know that the world flood in the bible is bullshit.
You don't even know what the world looked like then. You have no idea of the Great Flood happened or not.
Tim the plumber wrote:
I know enough about river erosion that there has never been a world flood.
Then you know nothing. River erosion has nothing to do with floods or their damage (other than perhaps causing a few!).
Tim the plumber wrote:
It is unavoidable for me to know this.
Were you there?
Tim the plumber wrote:
That you are mad is not my problem. Enjoy being banned from any decent forum.

Define 'decent forum'. How do you know he's banned anywhere?


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 04:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Creationism ..age of the earth.


If you count back, treating the Bible as a historic text, then it would be roughly 15,000 years to let there be light.
It is unknown. The Bible doesn't say.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Religion (noun) : a dogma that is assumed without rational/science support (although such a basis may nonetheless be claimed) and is believed per the guidance of someone who is accepted as an authority (one's self may be that authority).

Dogma (noun) : a set of beliefs and principles that serve as a guide for living one's life.


Into the Night wrote:
Any initial circular argument that has arguments extending from it. In other words, anything that is based on the arguments of faith.


Dogma has a lot of derogetory spin on it but OK.

I would say that one's Religion is their assumed/believed take on existence. That everyone has religeon just as everyone has politics. The converstations are similar too:
So what's your Religion?
Oh I'm not religious at all. I believe we are just made up of molecules and that's all there is.

This is the religion of atheism.
tmiddles wrote:
So what are your Politics?
I'm not political. I don't even believe the government should be involved in our lives at all really.

This is the politics of anarchists.
tmiddles wrote:
Those claiming to not have it often have the most developed and specific version.

The most popular religion in the world can you guess?

Knowitalism

Not a religion, for it is not a circular argument. The most popular today seems to be Buddhism.
tmiddles wrote:
Ask a question and they can nail it. Probably the most satisfying religion since ancient grandpas explained that the sun moved across the sky on the back of a Turtle.
There are still some that believe that.
tmiddles wrote:
Oddly enough many of the worlds major religions have an element of humility and mystery that more appropriately corresponds to reality than masses of people who fancy themselves as believing in "Science".
Science isn't a religion, for it is not a circular argument.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Bible doesn't give an age for the Earth


Yes but it's sequential. This happened, than this. So some people (not me) has walked it back so to speak. Treating 7 days as 7 days and so on. The language being Gods.
You don't even know if it's sequential, or how long a 'day' is.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.


Oops I only finally looked that up. Misunderstood it as random chance till now. Got it it's how our perception can distort an observation from it's true reality.
It goes further than that. It defines 'reality' and 'real'.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Now all you need is to understand the difference between "speculation" and "knowing."


An example for you and ITN on the proper use of research/science/speculation/knowing for the betterment of mankind. How that is legitimate or illegitimate. It would help. It sometimes sound like you dismiss everything as essentially pointless.

Not at all. We both accept any falsifiable theory is a theory of science. Science is not research or speculation. Science is not a casino. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2019 04:32
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(614)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
An example ... proper use of research/science/speculation/knowing for the betterment of mankind.

Not at all. We both accept any falsifiable theory is a theory of science. Science is not research or speculation. Science is not a casino. It is just a set of falsifiable theories.


Yes but your negations of every use of research/data/science/ect presented leaves one wondering what you consider kosher.

So? An example of "doing is right" please




Join the debate Creation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
excessive heat creation factor4006-02-2017 18:40
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact