44% of people are idiots.

[Atheus]

CycloWizard and Cerpin Taxt are both partly right - CycloWizard is right that what he is saying is technically true, and Cerpin Taxt is right in saying that it means absolutely nothing.

There's no point in telling him it's not true because the original argument began with "there is no way to prove" and there is no way to actually prove anything outside of maths. Yes of course there's no way to prove the universe wasn't created 10000 years ago by someone trying to fool us into thinking it's billions of years old. There's also no way to prove the universe does not exist inside a supercomputer, or in your own mind, or in the mind of someone else. It's meaningless. It's not even science.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Atheus
CycloWizard and Cerpin Taxt are both partly right - CycloWizard is right that what he is saying is technically true, and Cerpin Taxt is right in saying that it means absolutely nothing.

There's no point in telling him it's not true because the original argument began with "there is no way to prove" and there is no way to actually prove anything outside of maths.

No, the argument began when CycloWizzer claimed that the naturalistic model's prediction about the age of the universe was not scientific because it couldn't prove the falsity of his made-up bullshit. He isn't "partially" right about that. He's entirely wrong.

Yes of course there's no way to prove the universe wasn't created 10000 years ago by someone trying to fool us into thinking it's billions of years old. There's also no way to prove the universe does not exist inside a supercomputer, or in your own mind, or in the mind of someone else. It's meaningless. It's not even science.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the ideal gas law is no longer science because we can't prove that the Evil Genius hypothesis is false. Yet, that's precisely what Cyclo would have us believe.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Same ol' same ol' from you. You can't address the arguments so you just declare that you're right. Pathetic. Any time you think you can muster up the stones, my arguments remain, heretofore unrebutted by you.

The problem is that I have completely and utterly rebutted every argument you've made. The only person who doesn't seem to understand that is you. The reason you don't understand it is because you fail to see the difference between a philosophical and a scientific question. I'll rehash for your benefit: a scientific question is one that may be tested by observation. As I've asked 3-4 times before, please demonstrate how one may test between the two universes that I've described in this thread without a time machine, then you will have proved me wrong and yourself right and that big trophy will be all yours.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the ideal gas law is no longer science because we can't prove that the Evil Genius hypothesis is false. Yet, that's precisely what Cyclo would have us believe.

The "ideal gas law (sic)" is not "science." It's a mathematical approximation to reality suggested by the molecular theory of gases. It generally holds at low relative pressures (i.e. pressures far from critical pressures), but at higher relative pressures it breaks down completely and should be replaced by a more suitable equation of state. Yes, the "ideal gas law" is really an equation of state, not a law at all. You really have fallen off the wagon. However, I digress in favor of my previous, often-repeated yet unanswered question: how can we scientifically discern between the two universes that I have proposed without a time machine?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Same ol' same ol' from you. You can't address the arguments so you just declare that you're right. Pathetic. Any time you think you can muster up the stones, my arguments remain, heretofore unrebutted by you.

The problem is that I have completely and utterly rebutted every argument you've made. The only person who doesn't seem to understand that is you.

What's the environment like in this alternate universe you've constructed for yourself?

The reason you don't understand it is because you fail to see the difference between a philosophical and a scientific question. I'll rehash for your benefit: a scientific question is one that may be tested by observation. As I've asked 3-4 times before, please demonstrate how one may test between the two universes that I've described in this thread without a time machine, then you will have proved me wrong and yourself right and that big trophy will be all yours.

The test is falsifiability. Your just-so story failed already, for reasons already given repeatedly.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Yes, but that doesn't mean that the ideal gas law is no longer science because we can't prove that the Evil Genius hypothesis is false. Yet, that's precisely what Cyclo would have us believe.

The "ideal gas law (sic)" is not "science." It's a mathematical approximation to reality suggested by the molecular theory of gases.

Now I think I've heard everything. The ideal gas law is not science, eh? Wow.

It generally holds at low relative pressures (i.e. pressures far from critical pressures), but at higher relative pressures it breaks down completely and should be replaced by a more suitable equation of state. Yes, the "ideal gas law" is really an equation of state, not a law at all. You really have fallen off the wagon.

None of this means that the ideal gas law is not science. Newton's laws of motion don't hold everywhere either, yet they are still useful, and they are still science.

However, I digress in favor of my previous, often-repeated yet unanswered question: how can we scientifically discern between the two universes that I have proposed without a time machine?

That you do not recognize the refutations provided to you does not mean that your silly challenge has not been met.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How about this, Cyclo. Tell me what is science, to you. Give me an example of something that is a tested and valid scientific hypothesis, according to you.

 

[MrToilet]

Don't forget about the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created everything....plants, animals, and midgets.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
The test is falsifiability. Your just-so story failed already, for reasons already given repeatedly.

Give me a single example of a test that would falsify one and not the other. That's the only thing I've asked you for in this entire thread, and you haven't done it yet. Put up or shut up.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
The test is falsifiability. Your just-so story failed already, for reasons already given repeatedly.

Give me a single example of a test that would falsify one and not the other.

If the cosmic microwave background were different, it would falsify the current estimations about the age of the universe.

That would not falsify your fairytale, however, because it can account for any data whatsoever.

That's the only thing I've asked you for in this entire thread, and you haven't done it yet. Put up or shut up.

What the fuck are you talking about? You asked for a test that would falsify your unfalsifiable fairytale, not a test that could falsify the naturalistic model. Holy fuck do I seriously have to remind you what your OWN arguments are?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
How about this, Cyclo. Tell me what is science, to you. Give me an example of something that is a tested and valid scientific hypothesis, according to you.

Now you can meet my challenge, fucktard. Take a swing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
If the cosmic microwave background were different, it would falsify the current estimations about the age of the universe.

That would not falsify your fairytale, however, because it can account for any data whatsoever.

So are you are finally willing to admit that the two theories make identical predictions over the past 10,000 years?

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
If the cosmic microwave background were different, it would falsify the current estimations about the age of the universe.

That would not falsify your fairytale, however, because it can account for any data whatsoever.

So are you are finally willing to admit that the two theories make identical predictions over the past 10,000 years?

I haven't kept up on the whole debate you guys have going, so if I'm off base just let me know.

The argument is that the universe was created at X date by some supernatural being, and then natural forces were put in motion? This would mean our backdating of the universe wouldn't account for the fact that a bunch of it was just set there by this being? If I'm off let me know.

The only problem with this I have is a person choosing that X date by faith. Why not 30 seconds ago, or 10 seconds ago, or 10 years ago, or 50 years ago?

It's fine to say the theory holds up under anything we can test, since it's true. If you set something partially constructed in motion, looking backwards will make it appear that the system has existed longer than it has. Putting a number on that theory is ridiculous though, as the theory is equally good at 10 seconds ago as it is 10,000 years ago, as it is 10 million years ago.

It comes back to what I was saying before: this 'theory' adds nothing. It doesn't answer a single one of the questions, it just adds a step which doesn't logically need to be there.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
If the cosmic microwave background were different, it would falsify the current estimations about the age of the universe.

That would not falsify your fairytale, however, because it can account for any data whatsoever.

So are you are finally willing to admit that the two theories make identical predictions over the past 10,000 years?

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.

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.

For example, where is the sediment layer corresponding to a 100% GLOBAL flood, occurring at the same time on every single continent and including a massive number of fossils?

Why is is that an amazing number of the enzymes needed for life are very similar across species, but that occasional mutations which add, change, or destroy functionality are always propagated in a evolutionarily predicted manner? Why would humans (and simians) possess all of the enzymes necessary to create our own vitamin C save one, but possess a pseudogene which codes for said enzyme, but which is defective? Evolution predicts some of this and explains the rest. But no good engineer would accuse this of being intelligent design.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
If the cosmic microwave background were different, it would falsify the current estimations about the age of the universe.

That would not falsify your fairytale, however, because it can account for any data whatsoever.

So are you are finally willing to admit that the two theories make identical predictions over the past 10,000 years?

No. Yours isn't a "theory" and it doesn't make predictions, for reasons already given and unaddressed by you.

EDIT: Let me explain some more, since it seems that failing to teach you your errors will only serve to prolong this ridiculous intellectual beating I'm delivering to you.

The predictions that scientific theories make can be generalized to say "it must be true that X, and it cannot be true that not-X, because if not-X were true, then my theory is false." Your proposition that the universe were created 10,000 years ago in some state of illusory age cannot make such a claim, because there is no non-arbitrary reason why the universe could not have been created with a different appearance, and it would not have followed from this alternative appearance that the age of the universe was not 10,000 years in any case. Hence the fact that your claim is deemed simply preposterous and dismissed outright.

Now, just quit posting. You've been resoundingly trounced, and obviously outmatched by an intellect vastly superior to your own.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
How about this, Cyclo. Tell me what is science, to you. Give me an example of something that is a tested and valid scientific hypothesis, according to you.

Now you can meet my challenge, fucktard. Take a swing.

Still waiting for an example from you, Cyclo. Why is it so difficult for you to name a single established scientific fact?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No. Yours isn't a "theory" and it doesn't make predictions, for reasons already given and unaddressed by you.

You still don't know what a theory is, huh? Here, I'll give some basic definitions that you probably should have learned at some point, at least if you had finished high school. I'll even pull them directly from Merriam-Webster to avoid any possible confusion.

science - knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science (there are other definitions, but this one is the obvious choice for this discussion)

theory - 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis

hypothesis - a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences (again there are others, but this is the only one that applies)

model - 11: a description or analogy used to help visualize something (as an atom) that cannot be directly observed
12: a system of postulates, data, and inferences presented as a mathematical description of an entity or state of affairs ; also : a computer simulation based on such a system <climate models>

Now that I no longer need to assume that you're acquainted with the relevant terminology, we can begin the rest of your education. I'll restate my proposal for your convenience. I propose two theories:
1. The universe started billions of years ago as a big bang. Things have evolved since this time on cosmological scales as predicted by the theory of relativity and its related mathematical models of cosmic mechanics.
2. The universe started 10,000 years ago at an initial state identical to that predicted for this time point in the previous theory. Things have evolved since this time on cosmological scales as predicted by the theory of relativity and its related mathematical models of cosmic mechanics.

As I have already stated, it is clear that, since both of these theories are governed by the same field equations (i.e. mathematical models of cosmic mechanics), they will always give identical predictions from the same initial state. Therefore, the predictions of theory #2 are identical to theory #1 from 10,000 years ago onward forever.

 

[CycloWizard]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
No. Yours isn't a "theory" and it doesn't make predictions, for reasons already given and unaddressed by you.

1. The universe started billions of years ago as a big bang. Things have evolved since this time on cosmological scales as predicted by the theory of relativity and its related mathematical models of cosmic mechanics.
2. The universe started 10,000 years ago at an initial state identical to that predicted for this time point in the previous theory. Things have evolved since this time on cosmological scales as predicted by the theory of relativity and its related mathematical models of cosmic mechanics.

As I have already stated, it is clear that, since both of these theories are governed by the same field equations (i.e. mathematical models of cosmic mechanics), they will always give identical predictions from the same initial state.

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.

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?

Therefore, the predictions of theory #2 are identical to theory #1 from 10,000 years ago onward forever.

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.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
How about this, Cyclo. Tell me what is science, to you. Give me an example of something that is a tested and valid scientific hypothesis, according to you.

Now you can meet my challenge, fucktard. Take a swing.

Still waiting for an example from you, Cyclo. Why is it so difficult for you to name a single established scientific fact?

*crickets chirping*

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

1. The universe started billions of years ago as a big bang. Things have evolved since this time on cosmological scales as predicted by the theory of relativity and its related mathematical models of cosmic mechanics.
2. The universe started 10,000 years ago at an initial state identical to that predicted for this time point in the previous theory. Things have evolved since this time on cosmological scales as predicted by the theory of relativity and its related mathematical models of cosmic mechanics.

As I have already stated, it is clear that, since both of these theories are governed by the same field equations (i.e. mathematical models of cosmic mechanics), they will always give identical predictions from the same initial state. Therefore, the predictions of theory #2 are identical to theory #1 from 10,000 years ago onward forever.

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.

 

[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.

 

[CycloWizard]

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.

Any evidence that contradicts #1 would necessarily contradict #2. Thus, #2 would be falsified in the same way as #1. 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.

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?

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. 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.

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.

The only reason I appear dumb to you is because you're ignorant. See above.

 

[CycloWizard]

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.

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.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Carbon Dating.

Invented in 1948.

Identifies the relative age of objects up to 60,000 years old with accuracy.

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.