Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Read up on how it works. I've already addressed this exhaustively in this thread. Once you understand how it works, go to page 9 of this thread and read my post about 2/3 of the way down the page.Originally posted by: Acanthus
Carbon Dating.
Invented in 1948.
Identifies the relative age of objects up to 60,000 years old with accuracy.
No, it wouldn't. If the cosmic microwave background were different, it would simply necessitate a different initial state for #2, and that initial state is arbitrary. No reasons are given why the initial state must be as described, other than you want it to match data actually predicted by a real scientific theory.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Any evidence that contradicts #1 would necessarily contradict #2. Thus, #2 would be falsified in the same way as #1.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
How could #2 be falsified, in your estimation? What evidence would render it false? You do realize that I can conceive of evidence that would render #1 false.
Triangulating the position of distant objects using parallax IS observing points of data in the past -- just as sensing photons emitted from your monitor is observing points of data in the past. If we cannot confidently state that the universe is old because it appears old, then you cannot confidently state that there is a monitor in front of your face because there appears to be.Further, if we were able to go back in time at some point in the future to examine points before #2 began, it would give us an observation that would allow us to differentiate between the two. It's really not a difficult concept.
Why should we assume that the initial state of #2 is the same as #1 predicts at that point? Analogously, why would we assume that we live in the matrix if it doesn't appear that we do?All a mechanical model states is that, given an input, this is the output at this point x and time t. Thus, assuming that the initial state of universe #2 is the solution to the model of #1 at t=10,000 years ago for all x, then they both give identical predictions for all points from t=10,000 years ago onwards.Also, what part of a universe appearing out of nowhere with a false appearance of age is consistent with any mathematical models of cosmic mechanics? Or do you mean to say that your theory should only be governed by field equations where you arbitrarily decide that they should begin to hold?
But those mechanical models only hold in universes with regularities, and you have not described such a universe.If you are still struggling with this, then I highly recommend withdrawing from the conversation, learning about differential equations, or reading a book on mechanics (chemical/mechanical/electrical engineering and physics all have forms of mechanics, all of which happen to be governed by field equations with virtually identical forms since all deal with conservation of mass/energy/momentum/electrical charge). Look up Duhamel's Theorem. There are literally entire books that you could read on this topic.
Respond to my repeated request in the other posts and we'll see who is ignorant.The only reason I appear dumb to you is because you're ignorant. See above.Nonsense. You cannot make predictions in a non-naturalistic universe, and the universe described in #2 is not naturalistic. I covered this already. Fucks sake, you're dumb.
I'm not saying either way. I'm only saying that science cannot tell us one way or the other.Originally posted by: Babbles
So are you saying that the initial Carbon 14:Carbon 12 isotope ratio just happened to coincide to demonstrate evidence that the universe was created 10,000 years ago? As such any measured current ratio today is relevant to a ratio previously 'created' 10K years ago.
Seems to me that is sort of forcing a non-demonstrable fact to fit one's hypothesis.
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As I've pointed out previously, there is absolutely no scientific way to test whether the universe came into being 10k years ago during a creation event or 10 billion years ago due to a big bang. As long as the initial state of the creation event is the same as the predicted state of the big bang model at that time, both models predict identical futures. Thus, neither is a valid scientific hypothesis as neither can be tested to the exclusion of the other. This does not imply that evolution is false, nor that creationism is true.
Carbon Dating.
Invented in 1948.
Identifies the relative age of objects up to 60,000 years old with accuracy.
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Read up on how it works. I've already addressed this exhaustively in this thread. Once you understand how it works, go to page 9 of this thread and read my post about 2/3 of the way down the page.Originally posted by: Acanthus
Carbon Dating.
Invented in 1948.
Identifies the relative age of objects up to 60,000 years old with accuracy.
So are you saying that the initial Carbon 14:Carbon 12 isotope ratio just happened to coincide to demonstrate evidence that the universe was created 10,000 years ago? As such any measured current ratio today is relevant to a ratio previously 'created' 10K years ago.
Seems to me that is sort of forcing a non-demonstrable fact to fit one's hypothesis.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not saying either way. I'm only saying that science cannot tell us one way or the other.Originally posted by: Babbles
So are you saying that the initial Carbon 14:Carbon 12 isotope ratio just happened to coincide to demonstrate evidence that the universe was created 10,000 years ago? As such any measured current ratio today is relevant to a ratio previously 'created' 10K years ago.
Seems to me that is sort of forcing a non-demonstrable fact to fit one's hypothesis.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That's exactly the point. The exact age of the universe cannot be measured except by assuming that the universe originated in the big bang. However, we have no scientific way of ascertaining whether the big bang happened or if one of these other alternatives was the real way that it all went down. Only philosophy can guide us in this regard prior to the advent of time travel, at which point the question may be addressed scientifically.
Wrong. The initial state in #2 is that state predicted by #1 at t=10,000 years ago. Period. You are just confounding the simple statements I made with the retarded babbling going on in the back of your head.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No, it wouldn't. If the cosmic microwave background were different, it would simply necessitate a different initial state for #2, and that initial state is arbitrary. No reasons are given why the initial state must be as described, other than you want it to match data actually predicted by a real scientific theory.
All I can know is the location of said object from the time I began observing it. I can infer its previous positions if I make certain assumptions (i.e. that the universe has always been governed by the same field equations, that these equations trace back to an initial state we call the big bang). You simply neglect these assumptions because you have been taught in school that they're true. However, if you bothered to read any scientific paper on the subject, you would see these listed as assumptions. Some papers even investigate what would have happened (or maybe what did happen) if these assumptions didn't always hold (e.g. what if the governing equations or their parameters changed over time?).Triangulating the position of distant objects using parallax IS observing points of data in the past -- just as sensing photons emitted from your monitor is observing points of data in the past. If we cannot confidently state that the universe is old because it appears old, then you cannot confidently state that there is a monitor in front of your face because there appears to be.
Because that's what theory #2 claims. The point of the Matrix is that there is no way to concretely know that you're in it - you can only arrive at that conclusion through philosophical exploration. Now you're getting it.Why should we assume that the initial state of #2 is the same as #1 predicts at that point? Analogously, why would we assume that we live in the matrix if it doesn't appear that we do?
I don't think you know what "regularity" means in the context of mechanics. Thus, I'll pardon your ignorance and move on.But those mechanical models only hold in universes with regularities, and you have not described such a universe.
I didn't bother to respond to your post because it's a fool's errand. No hypothesis can ever be proved true - it may only be proved false. You are just demonstrating for the umpteenth time that you have completely missed the boat of what science is. I can create infinitely many theories that explain any observation by simply adding infinitely many parameters. Choosing which model is "right" is simply a philosophical exercise, usually accomplished by applying Occam's Razor. Case in point - try fitting two data points with a line, then polynomials of order 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. You can do this in Excel. All of these models are equally valid from a scientific standpoint (assuming that the two points are all of the data we have), so only additional data will allow us to rule out some of these other models.Respond to my repeated request in the other posts and we'll see who is ignorant.
Not true at all. We deduced the big bang from observations of converging world lines. We make measurements of its age based on our observations of the speed of light and trigonometry, among other things, naturally.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
That's exactly the point. The exact age of the universe cannot be measured except by assuming that the universe originated in the big bang.Originally posted by: actuarial
Why choose 10,000 years ago? It is so arbitrary. It is the same as 10 million years ago, and 10 seconds ago. It doesn't add any substance.
Choosing billions of years ago is at least based on backing up the data we have to the earliest point in time. We came to that number through calculation, not through guess.
Yes, we do. I just described how we deduced it.However, we have no scientific way of ascertaining whether the big bang happened or if one of these other alternatives was the real way that it all went down.
You're a moron.Only philosophy can guide us in this regard prior to the advent of time travel, at which point the question may be addressed scientifically.
No, a fact is a fact, period. A hypothesis may be rendered invalid if an observation is collected which contradicts the hypothesis. Infinitely many hypotheses exist which may explain any data set. The existence of one of these hypotheses does not invalidate any of the others. This is where literacy would have helped you save face.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Gee, ya think?
And of course, according to Cyclo, any scientific fact is rendered invalid if we can come up with a conceivable magical alternative explanation that cannot be falsified.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not saying either way. I'm only saying that science cannot tell us one way or the other.Originally posted by: Babbles
So are you saying that the initial Carbon 14:Carbon 12 isotope ratio just happened to coincide to demonstrate evidence that the universe was created 10,000 years ago? As such any measured current ratio today is relevant to a ratio previously 'created' 10K years ago.
Seems to me that is sort of forcing a non-demonstrable fact to fit one's hypothesis.
And the last bastion of defense for an ignorant pseudo-intellectual has been reached. In lieu of any rational statements, throw a random, childish insult in every post! Unfortunately for you, it doesn't come close to compensating for your ignorance, which has been definitively exposed herein for everyone to see.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You're a moron.
Because you say so? Yeah, that's not arbitrary. :roll:Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Wrong. The initial state in #2 is that state predicted by #1 at t=10,000 years ago. Period.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No, it wouldn't. If the cosmic microwave background were different, it would simply necessitate a different initial state for #2, and that initial state is arbitrary. No reasons are given why the initial state must be as described, other than you want it to match data actually predicted by a real scientific theory.
We have no non-arbitrary reason to believe that they are not true, seeing as how they hold in every observable instance. You make the same assumptions literally every moment of every day when you assume that there is a real world exterior to your consciousness that behaves in a regular manner.All I can know is the location of said object from the time I began observing it. I can infer its previous positions if I make certain assumptions (i.e. that the universe has always been governed by the same field equations, that these equations trace back to an initial state we call the big bang). You simply neglect these assumptions because you have been taught in school that they're true.Triangulating the position of distant objects using parallax IS observing points of data in the past -- just as sensing photons emitted from your monitor is observing points of data in the past. If we cannot confidently state that the universe is old because it appears old, then you cannot confidently state that there is a monitor in front of your face because there appears to be.
So?However, if you bothered to read any scientific paper on the subject, you would see these listed as assumptions. Some papers even investigate what would have happened (or maybe what did happen) if these assumptions didn't always hold (e.g. what if the governing equations or their parameters changed over time?).
Because that's what theory #2 claims.Why should we assume that the initial state of #2 is the same as #1 predicts at that point? Analogously, why would we assume that we live in the matrix if it doesn't appear that we do?
I've had it since the beginning. The problem is that you think that your #2 is somehow different than positing that we all live in a false reality, and that it has any bearing whatsoever on scientific investigation.The point of the Matrix is that there is no way to concretely know that you're in it - you can only arrive at that conclusion through philosophical exploration. Now you're getting it.
Which is creationist code for, I can't dispute the facts, so I'm just not going to address them.I don't think you know what "regularity" means in the context of mechanics. Thus, I'll pardon your ignorance and move on.But those mechanical models only hold in universes with regularities, and you have not described such a universe.
So then nothing is a scientific fact in your world, huh?I didn't bother to respond to your post because it's a fool's errand. No hypothesis can ever be proved true - it may only be proved false. You are just demonstrating for the umpteenth time that you have completely missed the boat of what science is. I can create infinitely many theories that explain any observation by simply adding infinitely many parameters.Respond to my repeated request in the other posts and we'll see who is ignorant.
Wrong wrong wrong. Only models which are falsifiable are scientifically meaningful.Choosing which model is "right" is simply a philosophical exercise, usually accomplished by applying Occam's Razor. Case in point - try fitting two data points with a line, then polynomials of order 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. You can do this in Excel. All of these models are equally valid from a scientific standpoint (assuming that the two points are all of the data we have), so only additional data will allow us to rule out some of these other models.
But that is exactly what you have claimed in this thread. To wit, that the existence of your unfalsifiable 10,000 year just-so story invalidates the commonly accepted age of the universe as a scientific fact.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Infinitely many hypotheses exist which may explain any data set. The existence of one of these hypotheses does not invalidate any of the others.
Physician, heal thyself!This is where literacy would have helped you save face.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And the last bastion of defense for an ignorant pseudo-intellectual has been reached. In lieu of any rational statements, throw a random, childish insult in every post! Unfortunately for you, it doesn't come close to compensating for your ignorance, which has been definitively exposed herein for everyone to see.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You're a moron.
You didn't read my post on page 9, did you? Didn't think so. Drag your knuckles in that direction, then get back to me.Originally posted by: Babbles
Well the half-life of carbon-14 has been determined and as such the existing ratio (on Earth) can be used to extrapolate backward the date of organic material . . . so I feel confident that this is a scientific methodology. The half-life of carbon-14 is only ~5700 years, so in your hypothetical creation of the Earth the use of carbon-14 for more than two half-lives would exceed the lifetime of the universe (i.e. 10,000 years).
Unless you were to make a hypothesis that half-life of isotopes will increase exponentially over time - but, at least to my knowledge, that has never been demonstrated in a laboratory.
In my experience as an analytical chemist, I feel you are verging on something we would refer to as "testing into compliance" (granted typically used for pharma research). In other-words if you look hard enough and evaluate data and/or samples enough then you can eventually find some data somewhere that will fit within expectations. It doesn't matter if it is statistically sound or not, but hey, you got a number that works and you can run with it. Right?
For some reason, in the professional scientific field this practice is frowned upon.
I never said it has any bearing on scientific investigation. In fact, I've insisted the absolute opposite from the beginning. Unfortunately, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, so you've got lost in the shuffle.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
I've had it since the beginning. The problem is that you think that your #2 is somehow different than positing that we all live in a false reality, and that it has any bearing whatsoever on scientific investigation.
Yes, since you can't recognize the difference between science and philosophy, I'm a creationist. No wonder you didn't finish high school.Which is creationist code for, I can't dispute the facts, so I'm just not going to address them.
Every observation is a fact. There are no "validated" theories, however, which is what I very clearly stated.So then nothing is a scientific fact in your world, huh?
That's exactly the point I've been making the entire thread. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. Since you can't falsify the big bang using current technology, you've simply assumed that that's the way it happened. The universe could just as well be 10^99 years old and would appear exactly the same. That wasn't so hard now, was it?Wrong wrong wrong. Only models which are falsifiable are scientifically meaningful.
I have never claimed that any hypothesis or theory invalidates any other hypothesis or theory. If I did, please point it out to me now or quit making crap up. I will, however, chuckle that you think that because something is commonly accepted that it is a scientific fact. That's just the icing on the cake of ignorance.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
But that is exactly what you have claimed in this thread. To wit, that the existence of your unfalsifiable 10,000 year just-so story invalidates the commonly accepted age of the universe as a scientific fact.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You didn't read my post on page 9, did you? Didn't think so. Drag your knuckles in that direction, then get back to me.Originally posted by: Babbles
Well the half-life of carbon-14 has been determined and as such the existing ratio (on Earth) can be used to extrapolate backward the date of organic material . . . so I feel confident that this is a scientific methodology. The half-life of carbon-14 is only ~5700 years, so in your hypothetical creation of the Earth the use of carbon-14 for more than two half-lives would exceed the lifetime of the universe (i.e. 10,000 years).
Unless you were to make a hypothesis that half-life of isotopes will increase exponentially over time - but, at least to my knowledge, that has never been demonstrated in a laboratory.
In my experience as an analytical chemist, I feel you are verging on something we would refer to as "testing into compliance" (granted typically used for pharma research). In other-words if you look hard enough and evaluate data and/or samples enough then you can eventually find some data somewhere that will fit within expectations. It doesn't matter if it is statistically sound or not, but hey, you got a number that works and you can run with it. Right?
For some reason, in the professional scientific field this practice is frowned upon.
You said:Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I never said it has any bearing on scientific investigation. In fact, I've insisted the absolute opposite from the beginning. Unfortunately, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, so you've got lost in the shuffle.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
I've had it since the beginning. The problem is that you think that your #2 is somehow different than positing that we all live in a false reality, and that it has any bearing whatsoever on scientific investigation.
So go fuck yourself.As long as the initial state of the creation event is the same as the predicted state of the big bang model at that time, both models predict identical futures. Thus, neither is a valid scientific hypothesis as neither can be tested to the exclusion of the other.
No, because you argue like creationist, your statements can be translated as such.Yes, since you can't recognize the difference between science and philosophy, I'm a creationist. No wonder you didn't finish high school.Which is creationist code for, I can't dispute the facts, so I'm just not going to address them.
Wtf are you talking about. Every observation that confirms a prediction of a scientific theory further validates that theory.Every observation is a fact. There are no "validated" theories, however, which is what I very clearly stated.So then nothing is a scientific fact in your world, huh?
Again, wrong. I've already given examples of things that would falsify the big bang. If we did not observe converging world lines, the big bang would be falsified.Since you can't falsify the big bang using current technology.
It isn't hard for you to be wrong -- a principle which you have exemplified thoroughly in this thread.you've simply assumed that that's the way it happened. The universe could just as well be 10^99 years old and would appear exactly the same. That wasn't so hard now, was it?
I understand exactly what C-14 is, how it's produced, and how it's used to date things. I took all the same chemistry courses you did.Originally posted by: Babbles
It is somewhat interesting, and oddly ironic, in that you do not understand what carbon-14 is.
I did read your so-called 'proof' and while you threw out some not-so-fancy equation, you fundamentally do not understand the chemistry and biology of the production of carbon-14.
Simply put, if you did then you would not have attempted to make up some equation to define a static value at t=0 (whatever the fuck that would mean) or any other time value. It just doesn't make sense.
You fundamentally do not understand what you attempted to prove, which is sort of a cardinal sin in research. Or so I've been told.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The predictions made by this theory, as I presented it, are absolutely identical to those made by big bang theory. And I agree with you - there is no way to scientifically test the two yet, though a time machine would allow us to do so.Originally posted by: jagec
No, the only "predictions" which young-earth creationism make are those which are conveniently non-falsifiable. However, as science advances, sometimes these predictions can be tested, which usually results in further modification of what is "actually" being predicted.
No one is talking about throwing out evidence, contradicting evidence, or anything else of the sort. I'm simply asking people to recognize the difference between a philosophical question and a scientific one. As you keenly observed, this question may become scientific at some point in the future, but it certainly isn't right now. Thus, at this point, it is intellectually dishonest and/or ignorant, for those to claim intellectual superiority because they support one side of an essentially philosophical debate. Note that I have said absolutely nothing about which side of this debate I take, because it doesn't make any difference one way or the other.Don't get me wrong, changing the current theory to fit the evidence is exactly what scientists do, too...but they don't do it in a reactionary format, they don't throw out a growing mass of evidence, and they DO make predictions which can be tested and are often proved to be true.
Great - you made me state the same principle 500 times and now I slipped up once. Congratulations - your knuckle dragging abilities have saturated my brain. And why can't you conduct a rational argument without resorting to childish language? Cursing is the last recourse when language and reason fail.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You said:
So go fuck yourself.As long as the initial state of the creation event is the same as the predicted state of the big bang model at that time, both models predict identical futures. Thus, neither is a valid scientific hypothesis as neither can be tested to the exclusion of the other.
Please show me one place where I argued that either the 10k theory or the big bang theory is correct. Otherwise, quit with the idiotic strawmen.No, because you argue like creationist, your statements can be translated as such.
:roll: You really should have stayed in school.Wtf are you talking about. Every observation that confirms a prediction of a scientific theory further validates that theory.
Right, the big bang can be falsified in general. However, the big bang cannot be falsified relative to the 10k universe I've proposed in this thread, which is what we were talking about. Try to keep up.Again, wrong. I've already given examples of things that would falsify the big bang. If we did not observe converging world lines, the big bang would be falsified.
Partial quoting, dodging the question? Check. Surely you're not defeated already, are you?It isn't hard for you to be wrong -- a principle which you have exemplified thoroughly in this thread.
I agree that it offers no advantage - it's simply a thought exercise. Occam's Razor definitely suggests one theory should be favored over another, but that tells us nothing of the relative merit of the theories in and of themselves. Thus, it's laughable to me that people on either side of this debate will demonize those on the other side for being ignorant/hating science/whatever else when, in reality, it's a purely philosophical question that both are answering. In the end, we may all have the same favorite color, but we simply get the effect of that color from photons of differing wavelengths.Originally posted by: jagec
Hmm. Well, it's true that Occam's Razor is a philosophical argument, and many philosophers would argue that objects do not possess an attribute of "history" which could be used to distinguish a recent object from a physically identical old object.
Philosophy being the underpinnings of all science, it is pointless to argue about the color of the walls if we haven't even poured the basement.
Be it known that I do believe that this argument for creationism is unnecessarily complex and offers no advantage over the commonly accepted model of origins, and has the disadvantage of appearing to be the sort of thing that someone came up with after watching "The Matrix" too many times.
I do, but apparently you can't understand what you yourself wrote. You claimed that the big bang model is not a valid scientific hypothesis BECAUSE you made up an unfalsifiable just-so story. That's like saying the kinetic theory of gases is not a valid scientific hypothesis because nobody has proven that there aren't little magical Jesus fairies pushing the molecules around a certain way whenever anyone is watching. It's absurd, and if you had an ounce of sense you'd know that.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Wow, you really forgot your dunce cap this time. You honestly can't understand the difference between saying that two things are not valid hypotheses and saying that the existence of one hypothesis invalidates the other?Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You said:
So go fuck yourself.As long as the initial state of the creation event is the same as the predicted state of the big bang model at that time, both models predict identical futures. Thus, neither is a valid scientific hypothesis as neither can be tested to the exclusion of the other.
It was obvious a long time ago that language and reason failed to convince you of anything.And why can't you conduct a rational argument without resorting to childish language? Cursing is the last recourse when language and reason fail.
Show me where I have argued that you have argued that. Physician, heal thyself!Please show me one place where I argued that either the 10k theory or the big bang theory is correct. Otherwise, quit with the idiotic strawmen.No, because you argue like creationist, your statements can be translated as such.
In other words, and again, you can't dispute the facts.:roll: You really should have stayed in school.Wtf are you talking about. Every observation that confirms a prediction of a scientific theory further validates that theory.
So what? It doesn't follow from the unfalsifiability of your 10K model that the big bang is not a scientific hypothesis. That's what you have erroneously claimed, and that's what you've heretofore failed to realize.Right, the big bang can be falsified in general. However, the big bang cannot be falsified relative to the 10k universe I've proposed in this thread, which is what we were talking about. Try to keep up.Again, wrong. I've already given examples of things that would falsify the big bang. If we did not observe converging world lines, the big bang would be falsified.