Originally posted by: Mwilding
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.
Technically true, but Occam's Razor is hawking a big fat lugey in your face.
I presume you can elaborate and tell me why, right?Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Everything you said was incorrect and so demonstrative.
If I input the state of the universe 10,000 years ago, as predicted by cosmological theory taking the big bang as t=0, as an initial condition to the appropriate field equations, then solved those equations, they would predict the same thing as the cosmological theory using the big bang as a starting point. Are you really going to dispute this?Oh, please, do elaborate.
Thanks. Your sympathies are truly appreciated, even if wrongly directed.I'm sorry you worked so hard to learn so very little.
You don't know how to argue. The first rabbit you pulled out of your hat was a fallacy, in case you missed it. My argument is now demonstrated, so prove me wrong. Tell me why I'm wrong.Originally posted by: daniel1113
Would you like me to disprove that god exists, too?
You have to prove your argument, or at least present some evidence, if you want us to take you seriously.
Ah, another misapplication of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is only a heuristic - a rule of thumb to guide the search for truth - rather than a deterministic law. Thus, if I say that it was 30° yesterday morning and 35° this morning, and we had never recorded temperatures previously, Occam's Razor would say that a line is the simplest way to explain all known data. However, the Razor would be wrong, as obviously temperature does not have a linear dependence on time. Thus, while it is useful as a heuristic when developing models, it does not tell us whether a model is right or wrong.Originally posted by: Mwilding
Technically true, but Occam's Razor is hawking a big fat lugey in your face.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If I input the state of the universe 10,000 years ago, as predicted by cosmological theory taking the big bang as t=0, as an initial condition to the appropriate field equations, then solved those equations, they would predict the same thing as the cosmological theory using the big bang as a starting point. Are you really going to dispute this?Oh, please, do elaborate.
No one said it scientifically invalidates current cosmological models you illiterate putz. Unfortunately, you do not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a model (nor do you even allow for any such difference in your statements), so there is little point in continuing this discussion until you get yourself some scientific education. I provide such an education, but I doubt you could get in to my program based on the idiocy I have witnessed in this thread, so you'll probably have to go elsewhere.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No, the point is that it doesn't scientifically invalidate the current cosmological models like you cliamed, retard. That's the whole point of methodological naturalism which obviously eludes you. Not to mention the very idea makes your creator out to be a incredibly decieitful being. Look up Last Thrusdayism, your ideas are not even original and they've been resoundingly dismissed.
The fact is that the universe would look the same in either case that I described above. Morons like you don't grasp the concept of an initial value problem, even when described in the simplest terms I used above. If you did, you'd realize that the 10k model is a subset of the solution of the 10 billion year model and, therefore, mathematically identical over the course of all recorded observations (which makes it scientifically identical prior to the advent of a time machine).The fact is that the universe looks billions of years old, becuase it is billions of years old. Only morons like you can't seem to get a handle on that.
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.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No one said it scientifically invalidates current cosmological models you illiterate putz.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No, the point is that it doesn't scientifically invalidate the current cosmological models like you cliamed, retard. That's the whole point of methodological naturalism which obviously eludes you. Not to mention the very idea makes your creator out to be a incredibly decieitful being. Look up Last Thrusdayism, your ideas are not even original and they've been resoundingly dismissed.
But only one would be a scientifically valid description.The fact is that the universe would look the same in either case that I described above.The fact is that the universe looks billions of years old, becuase it is billions of years old. Only morons like you can't seem to get a handle on that.
No, it isn't "scientifically identical" because it proposes that things popped into existence by magic 10,000 years ago with an unexlainable appearance of age. It is a useless hypothesis, utterly solipsistic and devoid of value.Morons like you don't grasp the concept of an initial value problem, even when described in the simplest terms I used above. If you did, you'd realize that the 10k model is a subset of the solution of the 10 billion year model and, therefore, mathematically identical over the course of all recorded observations (which makes it scientifically identical prior to the advent of a time machine).
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Well, for some, believing in "evolution" means admitting that humans evolved from apes, rather than via some divine creation, and that is enough to make them dismiss the entire concept.
These numbers do not surprise me.
Indeed. They've been frightened/tricked into dismissing evolution out of hand because it's "incompatible with Christianity." Which is total BS. It's entirely compatible with Christianity. There are a lot of Christians who believe in evolution as well. You don't HAVE to believe in evolution if you don't want to, but it's not an either/or thing unless you're entirely closed-minded.
I never said that they were invalidated by my statements - I said that they never were valid scientific hypotheses because they cannot be tested. They are theories, which are different from hypotheses. This is the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument: by saying that the FSM causes each individual observation to occur as observed, it explains every data point ever recorded perfectly. Thus, it is a theory that explains the data very well. However, it is not a hypothesis because we cannot test whether the FSM exists. Unfortunately, you cannot see this because you're so blinded by your completely misplaced hatred of me. You don't even know how I feel about this subject, yet you've gone over the top to demonize me based on my simple, absolutely correct, statements because you inferred (incorrectly, I might add) that I was arguing against evolution, science, big bang theory, or anything else. In other words, you are so full of fail that you assumed that I was also failing, despite the complete lack of evidence to support your position.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.
Why?But only one would be a scientifically valid description.
It's a theory, not a hypothesis. And it is scientifically identical, since it cannot be differentiated from the big bang theory using any known test, since they are mathematically equivalent over the field covered by the 10k theory (i.e. they make identical predictions for all observations in the last 10k years). Thus, the only way to distinguish between them scientifically requires technology that does not currently exist - a time machine to take us back before the 10k theory predicts the beginning. Thus, since both explains all available data equally well, they are scientifically identical. If you claim otherwise, please tell us: how can we experimentally distinguish between the two theories?No, it isn't "scientifically identical" because it proposes that things popped into existence by magic 10,000 years ago with an unexlainable appearance of age. It is a useless hypothesis, utterly solipsistic and devoid of value.
CycloWizard where is your God now?Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If I input the state of the universe 10,000 years ago, as predicted by cosmological theory taking the big bang as t=0, as an initial condition to the appropriate field equations, then solved those equations, they would predict the same thing as the cosmological theory using the big bang as a starting point. Are you really going to dispute this?Oh, please, do elaborate.
No, the point is that it doesn't scientifically invalidate the current cosmological models like you cliamed, retard. That's the whole point of methodological naturalism which obviously eludes you. Not to mention the very idea makes your creator out to be a incredibly decieitful being. Look up Last Thrusdayism, your ideas are not even original and they've been resoundingly dismissed.
The fact is that the universe looks billions of years old, becuase it is billions of years old. Only morons like you can't seem to get a handle on that.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I never said that they were invalidated by my statements - I said that they never were valid scientific hypotheses because they cannot be tested. They are theories, which are different from hypotheses. This is the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument: by saying that the FSM causes each individual observation to occur as observed, it explains every data point ever recorded perfectly. Thus, it is a theory that explains the data very well. However, it is not a hypothesis because we cannot test whether the FSM exists. Unfortunately, you cannot see this because you're so blinded by your completely misplaced hatred of me. You don't even know how I feel about this subject, yet you've gone over the top to demonize me based on my simple, absolutely correct, statements because you inferred (incorrectly, I might add) that I was arguing against evolution, science, big bang theory, or anything else. In other words, you are so full of fail that you assumed that I was also failing, despite the complete lack of evidence to support your position.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.
Why?But only one would be a scientifically valid description.
It's a theory, not a hypothesis. And it is scientifically identical, since it cannot be differentiated from the big bang theory using any known test, since they are mathematically equivalent over the field covered by the 10k theory (i.e. they make identical predictions for all observations in the last 10k years). Thus, the only way to distinguish between them scientifically requires technology that does not currently exist - a time machine to take us back before the 10k theory predicts the beginning. Thus, since both explains all available data equally well, they are scientifically identical. If you claim otherwise, please tell us: how can we experimentally distinguish between the two theories?No, it isn't "scientifically identical" because it proposes that things popped into existence by magic 10,000 years ago with an unexlainable appearance of age. It is a useless hypothesis, utterly solipsistic and devoid of value.
True, but its application becomes more valid as we add data and/or complexity to a system. In this case, instantaneous creation of a massive dynamic system at a level of complexity that far exceeds that which exists in just a single animal cell on a scale too large to imagine is not nearly as logical as a system that developed to that level of complexity over time.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Ah, another misapplication of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is only a heuristic - a rule of thumb to guide the search for truth - rather than a deterministic law. Thus, if I say that it was 30° yesterday morning and 35° this morning, and we had never recorded temperatures previously, Occam's Razor would say that a line is the simplest way to explain all known data. However, the Razor would be wrong, as obviously temperature does not have a linear dependence on time. Thus, while it is useful as a heuristic when developing models, it does not tell us whether a model is right or wrong.Originally posted by: Mwilding
Technically true, but Occam's Razor is hawking a big fat lugey in your face.
Yes, I'm the special kind of idiot who can make arguments without resorting to third-grade tactics like name-calling. I'm the special kind of idiot with letters after his name and peer-reviewed publications on his CV. I'm the special kind of idiot who knows what he's talking about, demonstrates it, then gets laughed at by people walking around with bloody knuckles. And yes, I just busted out the logical fallacies in an effort to speak your language. Any other questions?Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Wow you are some special kind of idiot. I'll have to get back to this later when I have time to kill in the airplane terminal.
Originally posted by: nwfsnake
News flash: 50% of the population is below average!
No, the Razor is either right or wrong - it can't be more or less valid. This is because the assertion that the theory with fewer parameters is more appropriate is either right or wrong. As I've said, both of these theories predict all of our data equally well because they make identical claims about everything that's happened in the past 10,000 years.Originally posted by: Mwilding
]True, but its application becomes more valid as we add data and/or complexity to a system. In this case, instantaneous creation of a massive dynamic system at a level of complexity that far exceeds that which exists in just a single animal cell on a scale too large to imagine is not nearly as logical as a system that developed to that level of complexity over time.
The kind of idiot that doesn't know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. The special kind of idiot we all smile at while ignoring your drivel. The kind of idiot with the letter "L" on his forehead. The kind of idiot.......Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, I'm the special kind of idiot who can make arguments without resorting to third-grade tactics like name-calling. I'm the special kind of idiot with letters after his name and peer-reviewed publications on his CV. I'm the special kind of idiot who knows what he's talking about, demonstrates it, then gets laughed at by people walking around with bloody knuckles. Stay in school, kid.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Wow you are some special kind of idiot. I'll have to get back to this later when I have time to kill in the airplane terminal.
...who can laugh at people like you who lack the faculties required for literacy, deductive reasoning, and reasoned argument. Yes, that kind of idiot.Originally posted by: Iron Woode
The kind of idiot that doesn't know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. The special kind of idiot we all smile at while ignoring your drivel. The kind of idiot with the letter "L" on his forehead. The kind of idiot.......
yep, keep digging that hole.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
...who can laugh at people like you who lack the faculties required for literacy, deductive reasoning, and reasoned argument. Yes, that kind of idiot.Originally posted by: Iron Woode
The kind of idiot that doesn't know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. The special kind of idiot we all smile at while ignoring your drivel. The kind of idiot with the letter "L" on his forehead. The kind of idiot.......
Originally posted by: mugs
Fortunately 99% of the population Don't care.
It's essential for me to argue with someone whose only response to a clear, concise mathematical statement is that the one making said statement would only do so because of religious reasons. I'm going to kick you into this hole momentarily. Just a little more dirt now.Originally posted by: Iron Woode
yep, keep digging that hole.
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
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.
you know next to nothing of the Natural Sciences, yet you continue to tell people who do know, that they are wrong.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It's essential for me to argue with someone whose only response to a clear, concise mathematical statement is that the one making said statement would only do so because of religious reasons. I'm going to kick you into this hole momentarily. Just a little more dirt now.Originally posted by: Iron Woode
yep, keep digging that hole.