Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Reality Check]

You really don't need to, just look @ the Scientific Method...

Just look at a repeated delusion about the scientific method which does not even mention scientific theories !
4 March 2016 Daniel: Learn what science and the scientific method actually are before making comments about them!

 

[RussDill]

Well if something has "An End"; Ipso Facto means it's not Eternal...i.e., it has a Beginning. I was merely establishing that the Universe had a Beginning.

This is a very naive view of time that assumes that time exists outside of reality. Our universe is a closed universe, with respect to both space and time, there is no space you can travel to that is outside our universe, and no time you can travel to that is outside our universe. Follow the path of any particle, or any world line, and you will not be able to "exit" the universe, either in space or time.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Cherry picking and quote mining a random opinion about education/propaganda

Then have generations Indoctrinated with Propaganda...

You complain about Wikipedia and then link to a woo "natural health" web site, e.g. "There is No Disease – Your Body Can Maintain Optimal Health" !

14 March 2016 Daniel: Cherry picking and quote mining a random opinion in a letter about education and propaganda!

Cherry picking and quote mining a random opinion in a letter is abysmally ignorant, Daniel. That is a single teachers opinion about what (and maybe how!) he teaches. It is mostly about the conflict between religion and science and the constraints of teaching a introductory modern physics course to undergraduates.Teaching and Propaganda

The response by Vit Klemeš (PHYSICS TODAY, March 2000, page 100) to a report about the Kansas State Board of Education’s decision to exclude evolution theory from its science standards has rekindled some old issues in the perennial science–religion debate in education. In particular, Klemeš poses the question of the proper relationship of science to politics and ideology. This discussion has caused me to reflect on my own role as a teacher and, in particular, to remind me of two of my former students, Doug and Jamal. Both of them had taken my introductory modern physics course during their freshman or sophomore college year.

 

[Daniel]

So since Quantum Mechanics blew up in your face you come over here to attempt to totally redeem yourself?? My word...

Daniel: Well if something has "An End"; Ipso Facto means it's not Eternal...i.e., it has a Beginning. I was merely establishing that the Universe had a Beginning.

This is a very naive view of time that assumes that time exists outside of reality.

What in the World?? Pray tell, what led you to conclude... from my statement above, that I even IMPLIED "time exists outside of reality"?


regards

 

[ehcks]

What in the World?? Pray tell, what led you to conclude... from my statement above, that I even IMPLIED "time exists outside of reality"?

What he's saying is that time is a part of the universe. This means that there can not be a time "before the universe." Time does not have a beginning, because it makes no sense to say that time had a point in time at which it started. There's nothing "before" it to compare it to.

Since time can't have a beginning, and time is a property of the universe, the universe also can't have a beginning.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel : The real point is the no one knows if the universe had beginning or not

So ...

... unsupported assertions as usual from Daniel.
You derailed into the delusion that "The Entire Point is the Universe had "A BEGINNING" when asked about a heast death of the universe.
14 March 2016 Daniel: The real point is the no one knows if the universe had beginning or not !
Standard cosmology states that physics breaks down at t=0 and so we cannot say what happens there. Thus cosmology starts with the universe in a hot dense state at t > 0.

A minor point is that this is a creationist lie about the universe having a beginning.

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Cannot understand that Penrose wrote an argument against a Creator

""How big was the original phase-space volume W that the Creator had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics and with what we now observe? ....
This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10¹²³."
Prof. Roger Penrose: The Emperor’s New Mind; p 343, 1989

14 March 2016 Daniel: Cannot understand that Penrose wrote an argument against the existence of a Creator !
it is not a good argument since it is an argument from incredibility as what follows (and is quote mined!) shows: How special was the big bang?

This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10^123 successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

 

[Minoosh]

Not really, just a few Gate Keeper's @ the Top would do the trick. Throw some Tensor Calculus around and pretend it's "Science".

I'm not sure what the passage quoted is meant to prove, except that one person interprets his job that way.

You really don't need to, just look @ the Scientific Method...

Here you are directing me away from a source you cited and saying I don't need to read it, I can trust your interpretation ... But why should I? It's your cite and I wanted to evaluate it for myself.

That's Blind Faith.

Admitting I don't have the skills to evaluate many claims of theoretical physics is blind faith?

That's just Ignorance. Try and put any of those 'Dating Methods' in The Scientific Method ...You'd have better luck putting the Space Shuttle into a Thimble.

This is where I'll repeat the questions I asked earlier. How old is the earth? Do you believe dinosaurs were real? Did they die in the flood?

Who do you think is suppressing the truth - and more, inventing large fields of study and manufacturing evidence that large creatures called dinosaurs lived on a planet that is 4 billion years old?

I could argue in favor of the simplest explanation - that the earth appears to be that old because it is that old - rather than take on faith your rejection of many fields of inquiry. I get that we can't go back and run controlled experiments, which you seem to feel are required for any discipline to qualify as science.

What is your belief/theory/explanation for the origin of the universe? That it happened as described in Genesis? If so, OK, you believe that. I see your pronounced negativity regarding many areas of inquiry - but what do you positively affirm?

 

[Minoosh]

Wouldn't 10 x 10^123 = 10^124? I may be missing something here.

 

[Reality Check]

Wouldn't 10 x 10^123 = 10^124? I may be missing something here.

It is 10^10^123
This is 10^{10000000...00 (for 123 zeros)} - a really, really big number !

 

[hecd2]

Daniel: Well if something has "An End"; Ipso Facto means it's not Eternal...i.e., it has a Beginning. I was merely establishing that the Universe had a Beginning.

The so-called "heat death" of the universe is not an end. Temperature and usable energy only approach zero asymptotically.

 

[Daniel]

I'm not sure what the passage quoted is meant to prove, except that one person interprets his job that way.

So you think this is a personal job reference...

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”
Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

Seriously??

Here you are directing me away from a source you cited and saying I don't need to read it, I can trust your interpretation

No, trust "YOUR" interpretation. And, doesn't he tell you "WHY" it isn't Science in the Quote?

Admitting I don't have the skills to evaluate many claims of theoretical physics is blind faith?

No, following "so-called" Experts in Lieu of those skills is.

This is where I'll repeat the questions I asked earlier. How old is the earth?

I have no idea...and neither does anyone else. Allow me to explain:

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "DATING METHODS" are outside of the Scientific Method; " Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.
You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !

1. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "controlled by the scientist" so as to measure the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

2. And, Independent Variables are VITALLY Essential (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments...So can you please elaborate: How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur to use it to extrapolate "age".
It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.

Ergo...

A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to and Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell.... ???

Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.

Do you believe dinosaurs were real?

Yes, and they're mentioned in Scripture. SEE: Job (Leviathan and Behemoth)

Did they die in the flood?

Yes.

Who do you think is suppressing the truth

@ the Top...satan, he's been @ it from the beginning.

- and more, inventing large fields of study and manufacturing evidence that large creatures called dinosaurs lived on a planet that is 4 billion years old?

1. May I ask, where on Earth are you coming up with your points? If it's an evo-site, can you email them and say " ROTFLOL ".

2. 4 Billion Years old, eh? Well go ahead and Scientifically Validate...Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then Experiment that Validates your claim...?
Please HIGHLIGHT the "Independent Variable" for us....?

3. Can you also touch on HOW in the World Soft Tissue (Collagen, Intact Blood Vessels, Red Blood Cells, DNA) can last 85 Million years?? I think the World Record Holder is 550 Million Years!!! LOL

I could argue in favor of the simplest explanation - that the earth appears to be that old because it is that old

That's not "Science" love. I could argue the simplest explanation for burn marks on my garage wall are Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons.

rather than take on faith your rejection of many fields of inquiry.

Don't take anything on anyone's word; assess these things for yourself.

I get that we can't go back and run controlled experiments, which you seem to feel are required for any discipline to qualify as science.

Yes Experiments (Hypothesis TESTING) is a part of the Scientific Method; it's what makes Science, "SCIENCE" and differentiates it from Story Telling.

What is your belief/theory/explanation for the origin of the universe? That it happened as described in Genesis?

Yep.

If so, OK, you believe that. I see your pronounced negativity regarding many areas of inquiry - but what do you positively affirm?

Well "Origins" inquiries aren't "Science" love. SEE: Scientific Hypotheses/TESTING/"Independent Variables" ect above.

Check This for Positive Affirmations: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11173246&postcount=819


regards

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: How the scientific method verifies ice core dating

Try and put any of those 'Dating Methods' in The Scientific Method

Let us try this, Daniel.
Observations:
In summer dust is deposited on ice fields forming a layer of dark snow.
In winter, snow with little dust in it is deposited on ice fields forming a layer of white snow.
The snow on ice fields is compacted into ice by the weight of accumulated snow.
Scientific hypothesis: Each dark layer in an ice core is a year of accumulated ice.
Testable, falsifiable predictions:
* Some snow will have built up on structures with known ages, e.g. archeological remains of century old expeditions (Scott. etc.).
* Some layers will contain volcanic dust corresponding to eruptions recorded in historical documents or even in living memory.
* The isotopes of layers will show atomic tests which have known dates.
* More complicated test: The gases trapped in the layers will reflect the composition of the atmosphere for which we have records back many decades.
The hypothesis passes the tests. It is now a scientific theory !
Scientific theory: Each dark layer in an ice core is a year of accumulated ice.

Can you count, Daniel !
1 ice core layer = 1 year
2 ice core layers = 2 years
...
6000 ice core layers = 6000 years (still naked eye counting!)
...
100,000 ice core layers = 100,000 years (I suspect that somewhere around here microscopes are needed)
...
300,000 ice core layers = 300,000 years.

14 March 2016 Daniel: How the scientific method verifies ice core dating !

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: How would you test that the Earth orbits the Sun with an experiment

I have no idea...and neither does anyone else. Allow me to explain:

Followed by lying non-science, Daniel.
Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows that the scientific method is been used to create and test dating methods.
14 March 2016 Daniel: How the scientific method verifies ice core dating !

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows that experiments have Independent Variables and Dependent Variables.

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows the statistical tests that are used to test observations against a scientific theory have Independent Variables and Dependent Variables.

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows that ranting about propaganda and long ignorant rants are non-science.

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows that Hypothesis TESTING can be done by Observations or Experiments.
14 March 2016 Daniel: How would you test the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun with a controlled experiment?
Would you change the orbit of the Earth or the Sun ?
In the real world we note that for example that the phases of Venus are explained by the Earth orbiting the Sun.

 

[abaddon]

Fifth time of asking, Daniel.

What caused your god?

Why can you not address this simple question?

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Can you explain why you are lying about Intact Blood Vessels

Can you also touch on HOW in the World Soft Tissue (Collagen, Intact Blood Vessels, Red Blood Cells, DNA) can last 85 Million years??

14 March 2016 Daniel: Can you explain why you are lying about Intact Blood Vessels, etc? Are you mindlessly a parroting creationist lie?

What was probably found was soft tissue and structures. No actual "Blood Vessels". No actual "Red Blood Cells". No actual "DNA". The tissue was found originally inside 68-million-year-old fossils and is 68 million years old! The discoverers think that iron preserved the tissue: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
Some of the claims look dubious because they rely on analogies with bird structures but we now know that birds are probably cousins of dinosaurs and not directly related.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Fifth time of asking, Daniel.

What caused your god?

Why can you not address this simple question?

OOH I know that one!

http://i.imgur.com/gBKH3cj.gif

 

[Reality Check]

Daniel: Abysmal ignorance about scientific theories - they are validated before

You're confused: Blind Conjectures change, "Actual" Scientific Theories don't change. They're either Validated or Falsified LONG BEFORE they ever become Scientific Theories...

That statement is beyond confused, Daniel.
14 March 2016 Daniel: Abysmal ignorance about scientific theories - they are validated before they become scientific theories; validated during their lifetimes and falsified at he end of their life times !

Strictly speaking Scientific Theories always exist as either valid Scientific Theories or invalid Scientific Theories. Commonly there is the assumption that Scientific Theories are valid.

The scientific theory of evolution started in 1859 and has been changed several times as new discoveries were made, e.g. Mendel genetics, etc.
The scientific theory of gravitation started with Newton. It lasted as a VALID scientific theory for almost 300 years until the orbit of Mercury was noticed. It remained as a VALID scientific theory until it became a VALID approximation to General Relativity.
Special Relativity started in 1905 and is still a VALID scientific theory.
General Relativity started in 1915 and is still a VALID scientific theory.

 

[abaddon]

OOH I know that one!

http://i.imgur.com/gBKH3cj.gif

LOL

 

[Minoosh]

Daniel,

Your copious cutting and pasting is browbeating, in my opinion. I don't know what else to call it. I'm writing to you, person to person, and I don't counter with long slabs of boilerplate, which I interpret as being quite rude. I say I can't access an article and you just double down on the claim that I don't have to read the article; your quote says it all. Good manners, IMO, would be to provide a live link to the article, not to keep repeating the same sentence.

So you say the earth's age hasn't been proven as science - fine. Neither has Genesis. If you think the bible proves it, fine. Not everyone believes it in this literal a way. Please don't respond by continuing to post more and more typographical assaults. I mean, OK, that's your right. It's just not terribly persuasive.

Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.

I find you personal style of argument mind numbing, so I guess that makes me doubly mind-numbed now.

ETA: Triply numbed, since another poster has begun arguing in your confrontational style of prose.