44% of people are idiots.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hmmm. Funny that this:

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?

Became this:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.

Now you're trying to cover your tracks after realizing that I've been right all along! Can't keep track of what you're arguing?

Classic.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.

I think that the real danger isn't so much the question of where we all came from (hey, as long as they don't come into my lab and force me to change the entire premises that go into my experiments, they can believe whatever they like), as the problem of people deciding that this holds certain consequences for the world as it is now...consequences which render the scientific method pointless. If evolution didn't happen, why should we fund institutes that use its principles to unravel the secrets of the cell? If the currently accepted models of geology rely on an old earth for their predictive ability, why should we allow geologists to refine these models (and better predict weather, the locations of natural resources, earthquakes etc) with public money?

The proof is in the pudding, in my opinion. If current scientific theory is bearing fruit and includes a few philosophical facts which could be argued another way (but there is no compelling reason to change, and plenty of arguments for the status quo), then we should maintain our course. If future evidence lends more weight to a different philosophical basis, then we should move to that. Quantum physics, for example, was somewhat of a shock to mainstream rationalist scientists...but it works, and scientists have adapted.

Ironically, my current work touches somewhat on the debate. I do directed evolution on rationally redesigned proteins. Yup, evolution and intelligent design, together at last.:laugh:

So far the directed evolution portion is showing much more promise.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Now you're trying to cover your tracks after realizing that I've been right all along! Can't keep track of what you're arguing?

Classic.

Meh, you can think whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right. At the end of the day, you're still an idiot.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Now you're trying to cover your tracks after realizing that I've been right all along! Can't keep track of what you're arguing?

Classic.

Meh, you can think whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right. At the end of the day, you're still an idiot.

No response to the obvious parallels between your statement:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.

And mine:

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
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.

Well? How are those different?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jagec
I think that the real danger isn't so much the question of where we all came from (hey, as long as they don't come into my lab and force me to change the entire premises that go into my experiments, they can believe whatever they like), as the problem of people deciding that this holds certain consequences for the world as it is now...consequences which render the scientific method pointless. If evolution didn't happen, why should we fund institutes that use its principles to unravel the secrets of the cell? If the currently accepted models of geology rely on an old earth for their predictive ability, why should we allow geologists to refine these models (and better predict weather, the locations of natural resources, earthquakes etc) with public money?

The proof is in the pudding, in my opinion. If current scientific theory is bearing fruit and includes a few philosophical facts which could be argued another way (but there is no compelling reason to change, and plenty of arguments for the status quo), then we should maintain our course. If future evidence lends more weight to a different philosophical basis, then we should move to that. Quantum physics, for example, was somewhat of a shock to mainstream rationalist scientists...but it works, and scientists have adapted.

I agree completely. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, and as was ignored/not read by many of these idiots, is that I have used the ideas of evolution extensively in my research.
That said, I refuse to come down and state my philosophical standing on the "issue" because it is completely irrelevant. I only enter into the discussion to point out that it is a philosophical issue, thereby demonstrating the hypocrisy of those demonizing their opponents in the name of "science." Of course, some people can't see the forest for the trees, even once you've taken them up in a hot air balloon at a high altitude to give them a nice view of the big picture.

Ironically, my current work touches somewhat on the debate. I do directed evolution on rationally redesigned proteins. Yup, evolution and intelligent design, together at last.:laugh:

So far the directed evolution portion is showing much more promise.

Yes, about all I can say about intelligent design is that it's much smarter than I am.

 

[JRich]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Recent poll finds only 14 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution

Holy crap..

These the same people that put a Democrat in the President's office?

christians are predominantly repubs.

Evolution is a crock. It didn't happen in 7 days, nor 10,000 years, but I can't reasonably accept all this occured randomly. Perhaps what we see as evolution was actually the process of creation. I dont know. I do know there's no chance in hell we just randomly got here.

Facepalm

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Well? How are those different?

You're finally right about something: it isn't our inability to differentiate that makes them invalid hypotheses. I misspoke when I said that. I already admitted it, which you already knew because you already quoted that post.

That doesn't imply that they are scientific hypotheses, however. If time travel is possible, then they might be scientific hypotheses. But, to this point, you have been unable to propose any other method by which only one of the two may be falsified.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Well? How are those different?

You're finally right about something: it isn't our inability to differentiate that makes them invalid hypotheses. I misspoke when I said that. I already admitted it, which you already knew because you already quoted that post.

That's all I've been arguing since the start! Holy shit! Hows about you just STFU when I tell you to STFU from now on? Mmm-kay? :|

That doesn't imply that they are scientific hypotheses, however.

No, only one is a scientific hypothesis, because it makes real predictions which are falsifiable.

If time travel is possible, then they might be scientific hypotheses.

No, the 10K model will never be a scientific hypothesis, and the big bang model already is.

But, to this point, you have been unable to propose any other method by which only one of the two may be falsified.

There is no way to falsify your just-so story, because it is entirely arbitrary and non-naturalistic. That's why we don't even have to consider it -- just like we don't bother worrying about jesus fairies pushing around the little gas molecules. I've already covered how the big bang model could be falsified.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
That's all I've been arguing since the start! Holy shit! Hows about you just STFU when I tell you to STFU from now on? Mmm-kay? :|

That's not what you were saying. Perhaps if you grasped English, you could have conveyed the one point in less than 500 posts. Or perhaps that's not all you were arguing... Maybe you were saying ignorant crap like this:

No, only one is a scientific hypothesis, because it makes real predictions which are falsifiable.

Both make identical claims about everything that has happened in the last 10,000 years. Thus, both are falsifiable using the same tests. I have proposed one additional test that may be used to falsify one but not the other, but it requires technology not yet (and perhaps which never will be) available. You still haven't gotten that figured out? Really? This was the entire point I was making.

No, the 10K model will never be a scientific hypothesis, and the big bang model already is.

In your twisted, uneducated world? Yes. In reality? No.

There is no way to falsify your just-so story, because it is entirely arbitrary and non-naturalistic. That's why we don't even have to consider it -- just like we don't bother worrying about jesus fairies pushing around the little gas molecules. I've already covered how the big bang model could be falsified.

It's not entirely arbitrary - only the initial time parameter is arbitrary. Otherwise, it is governed by the same laws as the alternative. And science places no condition on whether something is "naturalistic" or not when considering whether a hypothesis is valid. That is simply your bastardized attempt at applying Occam's Razor, which everyone else in this thread has already recognized as a philosophical, not a scientific, tool.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
That's all I've been arguing since the start! Holy shit! Hows about you just STFU when I tell you to STFU from now on? Mmm-kay? :|

That's not what you were saying.

Yes it was. Go back and read the thread. Here, I'll quote myself, thusly, and like so...

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No, it isn't true, because something is not invalidated as a scientific hypothesis simply because I can postulate that magical undetectable fairies are the real reason things appear to happen naturally.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No, the point is that it doesn't scientifically invalidate the current cosmological models like you cliamed, retard.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You said, "Thus, neither is a valid scientific hypothesis as neither can be tested to the exclusion of the other." This is simply false for reasons I've already explained. Hypotheses are not invalidated because magic is still real in your world.

Those are all on the first page of this thread. The discussion could've been over at that point if your head wasn't so far up your ass you can see your own pancreas.

No, only one is a scientific hypothesis, because it makes real predictions which are falsifiable.

Both make identical claims about everything that has happened in the last 10,000 years.

Only one makes real predictions. Yours only says things are "just so."

EDIT: and actually, that isn't so. What does yours say happened at its initial state? How did things appear in that state at that point? The big bang model has an answer.

Thus, both are falsifiable using the same tests.

Wrong. You've provided no explanation why the initial state in your fairy tale is non-arbitrary, thus it makes no predictions.

{snip}

No, the 10K model will never be a scientific hypothesis, and the big bang model already is.

In your twisted, uneducated world? Yes. In reality? No.

WTF are you talking about? You don't think cosmology is a science?

There is no way to falsify your just-so story, because it is entirely arbitrary and non-naturalistic. That's why we don't even have to consider it -- just like we don't bother worrying about jesus fairies pushing around the little gas molecules. I've already covered how the big bang model could be falsified.

It's not entirely arbitrary - only the initial time parameter is arbitrary.

Nonsense. The entire initial state of literally EVERYTHING is arbitrary in your story.

Otherwise, it is governed by the same laws as the alternative.

And why is that so? Because you say so? No, that's not arbitrary.

And science places no condition on whether something is "naturalistic" or not when considering whether a hypothesis is valid.

Are you fucking high? Science is not necessarily naturalistic? WTF is wrong with you? How the fuck do you propose that we conduct scientific methodology without methodological naturalism?

That is simply your bastardized attempt at applying Occam's Razor, which everyone else in this thread has already recognized as a philosophical, not a scientific, tool.

http://tinyurl.com/acg6p7

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ you are a fucking moron.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Yes it was. Go back and read the thread. Here, I'll quote myself, thusly, and like so...

Maybe if you could quote an entire sentence rather than snipping at random points, or perhaps if you could write coherently without appearing to go into a Tourette-related spasm, or perhaps if you... oh never mind. You're obviously very single-minded at this point, so we'll disregard all of your previous shenanigans. Oh wait, you're still clinging to some of them:

Only one makes real predictions. Yours only says things are "just so."

EDIT: and actually, that isn't so. What does yours say happened at its initial state? How did things appear in that state at that point? The big bang model has an answer.

#2 predicts that things proceeded as suggested by the field equations from the instant everything appeared until the present day and on into the future. The big bang doesn't suggest how things appeared in its initial state either.

WTF are you talking about? You don't think cosmology is a science?

Nonsense. The entire initial state of literally EVERYTHING is arbitrary in your story.

And why is that so? Because you say so? No, that's not arbitrary.

Wow, you really are illiterate. Or just dumb as hell.

Are you fucking high? Science is not necessarily naturalistic? WTF is wrong with you? How the fuck do you propose that we conduct scientific methodology without methodological naturalism?

That is simply your bastardized attempt at applying Occam's Razor, which everyone else in this thread has already recognized as a philosophical, not a scientific, tool.

http://tinyurl.com/acg6p7

Ah, and guess what the first link is: the Wikipedia page for "Naturalism (philosophy)," which suffers from the same problem I mentioned for Occam's Razor: it can only suggest a theory, never tell us if the theory is actually correct or not.

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ you are a fucking moron.

Maybe if you were capable of waging an actual discussion instead of posting things like the always-insightful "Complete and total bullshit, and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the purpose and method of scientific investigation. Just STFU. S.T.F.U.," people would have any idea what the hell you're talking about. Instead, you brow beat me to death with your own idiocy, then are surprised when I can't figure out what you're talking about. Instead, you seize on one statement made in a late-night post, ignoring everything else posted. You chop each and every post into 30 different parts, responding to each with an epithet or three, and are amazed that no one can follow you. You repeat the same ignorant claptrap a thousand times and are surprised when yelling it at the top of your lungs doesn't make you right. You then whip out selective memory and Tourette's syndrome to ice the cake. We must be on the internet because I'm pretty sure otherwise I would have punched you in the throat long ago and then gone on with my life.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

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 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.

You are making the dumbest argument in the history of mankind.

I weep for your ignorance.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

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.

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.

Unfortunately, it looks like you didn't take all of the math courses that I did, which is standard for a chemist. You call my equations, "not-so-fancy," then admit that you don't understand them (e.g. "whatever the fuck that would mean" and "It just doesn't make sense."). Unfortunately, these things that you don't understand are the crux of the issue and are conceptually very simple. The bottom line is the concept that two processes proceeding with identical governing laws from an identical state will yield the same states in the future. Oh, and that equation that I "made up" is something you should have recognized as a chemist, since it is simply a first-order reaction rate equation. I'm sure if you wander over to the PSU chemical engineering department, they would be happy to explain the magical equations to you. Until then, keep it in your pants.

You still don't get it. I got the equation - me saying "making it up" is because you are using the wrong equation. Carbon-14 concentration should not be described as first-order reaction rate. My comment about t=0 "whatever the fuck that means" is because it does not make sense when describing carbon-14. You can not set t= something then determine some equilibrium of carbon-14. It does not act work like that. Carbon-14 is constantly being formed in the atmosphere - there is no equilibrium per se and the formation is not linear, logarithmic, or whatever. Well I suppose the formation of each molar amount can be described as such but when looking at the totality of the Earth you can not mathematically describe the formation of it. The amount created is random, the amount that goes into the biome is random, and so forth.
That is why carbon dating requires the use of looking at ratios of the isotopes.

Basically you are using an equation that does not apply - again you essentially made something up.

I suppose the 'crux of the issue' is this:

The bottom line is the concept that two processes proceeding with identical governing laws from an identical state will yield the same states in the future.

Your assumptions are all wrong; I believe somebody else already called you out on this.

Using carbon-14 as some sort of evidence to support alternate hypothesis on the age of the universe is just ridiculous. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. Carbon-14 can not be used that way.

I get what you are trying to argue, and on one hand I agree with you. However I think your fundamental problem is that you want to describe your hypothesis while assuming you are working in a closed system and equilibrium rates apply. Fundamentally it is not a closed system and as such so many things begin to fall apart.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Recent poll finds only 14 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution

Holy crap..

These the same people that put a Democrat in the President's office?

Where would you put Bush on the evolutionary tree? Underneath it being pissed on by chimpanzees in the lower branches?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Recent poll finds only 14 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution

Holy crap..

These the same people that put a Democrat in the President's office?

Where would you put Bush on the evolutionary tree? Underneath it being pissed on by chimpanzees in the lower branches?

Both of you, in the corner, NOW. Ten minute time out!

 

[Acanthus]

Have we settled the dinosaur argument yet? I dont want to read 7 pages of this garbage.

"testing faith" is not an answer.

 

[A Casual Fitz]

This thread is amazing; a very entertaining read. Well done Cyclo and Cerpin!

 

[Paratus]

The basic problem with Cyclo's argument is his point is essentially worthless. He's absolutely correct that we can't tell the difference between a 13 billion year old universe that follows physics as we know it and a 10k year old universe created to look like it's a 13 billion year old universe that follows that same physics.

However in science this is basically a degenerate case. He makes it seem like this is a big deal but scientifically there is no difference. When we use our scientific theory of evolution to make predictions about how animals have evolved over billions of years versus how they've been "created" 10k years ago to look like they evolved over billions of years we come to same conclusions and our calculations would be the same.

Now there is no scientific reason to believe that the universe is 10k years old. When Cyclo tries to show the natural universe theory vs his young universe hypothesis are equivalent he obfuscates by letting you believe they are equally vaild. They are not. The 13 billion year old number is derived from multiple natural observations, cosmic background radiation, size of the observable universe, etc. The 10k number is based on nothing or the bible, or whatever. It's nothing more than a random assumption and is not scientific

His call to verify "evolutionary theory" by traveling back in time is also hypocritical because he happily uses other theories, (which he has a PHD in no less), without subjecting to same level of insane scrutiny. I'm sure he hasn't taken his "time machine" and used it verify that light refracts in the eye of everyone who's ever lived or will live according to Snells law. I'm pretty sure he just uses it as another tool. Just like evolution.

PS I did read the entire thread