the Big Bang

[Thorolf]

My understanding is that a) this is not correct - potassium is as subject to external influences as any other element, like Carbon. What makes potassium a "constant" is the fact that, within volcanic rock, it is isolated from those influences, and the decay and resulting argon can be detected.

This is dealing with radiometric dating and is from Wikipedia (since I don't specialize in this area, I'm afraid that this is the best I can do): "Although radiometric dating is accurate in principle, the precision is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed. The possible confounding effects of initial contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.

Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on different samples from the same rock body but at different locations. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample."

The rather lengthy article talks about various types of radiometric dating, including potassium-argon and the various potassium isotopes I mentioned in my last post.  Here's the address of the full page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Thank you. I think the summary of this is "you were right, Thor." 

Yes, but their calculations are based on several assumptions... the fact that they are experts in the field does not preclude them from making assumptions, or from error.

A nonsequitur, which I covered in my last post.  No one said that error was an impossibility, so why do you continually bring this strawman up?   

a) it's not a strawman, and b) because you continue to give deference to alleged "expertise" as an argument. It's actually a logical fallacy in and of itself, and one that I have been trying to get you to recognize as blind trust in these experts that is akin to faith. Calling it a strawman and ignoring the argument is NOT a rebuttal.

I don't recall saying that there isn't knowledge about radioactivity - and as far as I am aware, only one potassium isotope is used, and it is considered the only leigitimate option for dating truly "old" objects.

See article.

I did. It seems to support what I said.

I'm talking about evidence casting doubt, or giving cause to reconsider an existing theory.

It's constantly being reconsidered by scientists throughout the world.  Constantly. 

Egad, Vern. Are you just not getting me, or are you stuck on something you THINK I'm arguing?

I was SPECIFICALLY responding to the comment that an alternative theory is required for consensus to reconsider... I said that an alternative theory is NOT necessary, just sufficient evidence to prompt reconsideration.

You seem to THINK I'm arguing something else, and I don't think you're bothering to read what I'm saying.

To clarify - you are AGREEING WITH ME.

[julrich]

scientists say life began to evolve on earth about 4 billion years ago, and he sun will continue to support life here with its energy for about 4 billion years more.  I wonder if man's coming to consciousness and hearing from God in the middle of this symmetry has any significance.

shalom
big julie

[metis]

Thank you. I think the summary of this is "you were right, Thor." 

Not at all.  Again, you're distorting what I'm saying and what the article confirms.  It states that, generally speaking, the dating process is generally accurate and that there are various types of techniques and that they are used to cross-check each other.  That's what I posted dealing with the article.  I never claimed that dating was entirely precise.  Therefore, it's important to not make a mountain out of a mole-hill.  Because of this, it is up to you to provide some evidence as to why potassium-argon dating and it's related techniques are not reliable enough to at least give us a general idea as to when certain events happened.  We don't need an opinion-- we need evidence. 

a) it's not a strawman, and b) because you continue to give deference to alleged "expertise" as an argument. It's actually a logical fallacy in and of itself, and one that I have been trying to get you to recognize as blind trust in these experts that is akin to faith.

I give deference only in regards to the fact that there are those who are much more knowledgeable than I am in this area.  But deference does not mean "blind trust" and nor does it any kind of blind "faith", which is another straw-man you just create.  I just don't understand why you continually do this. 
   

I was SPECIFICALLY responding to the comment that an alternative theory is required for consensus to reconsider... I said that an alternative theory is NOT necessary, just sufficient evidence to prompt reconsideration.  You seem to THINK I'm arguing something else, and I don't think you're bothering to read what I'm saying.  To clarify - you are AGREEING WITH ME.

So offer up your "sufficient evidence".  Where is it?  The fact that we do not make statements in terms of being absolute is not "evidence".  You haven't offered up anything of the kind, which has not only been noticed by myself, but also by another who was involved in the discussion, who was probably wiser than I to get out of it.

And an "alternative theory" will be asked for in my next post.



continued 

[metis]

You've made mention that you do not know how your deity made the universe so you'll not debate your position on this aspect of the BB.  You've also mentioned that religion need not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that science is subject to.  So let's deal with these items.

If you're a Christian, and you obviously are, you believe, I assume, that your deity made the universe and all that's in it. Are these religious concepts that fall outside of any kind of scientific scrutiny?  No, and here's why.

When someone claims there's a deity or deities, they're stating that something exists that should be detectable one way or another.  That falls under the umbrella of science and not just religion.  On top of that, if one states that this deity creates, that's cause and effect, which again falls under science, since science deals with cause and effect.  Therefore, if one states that these assertions need no objective evidence, then maybe you're dealing with mere guesswork and superstition. 

Therefore, religion does not get a free pass on this.  With that in mind, let me ask you these questions:

1. What objective evidence can you provide that indicates a deity or deities exist?

2. What objective evidence can you provide that indicates there's only one deity?

3. What objective evidence can you provide that this deity "created" our universe and all that's in it?

Shalom,
Vern     

[Thorolf]

Speaking of strawman... you really ought to stop crying about what you perceive (incorrectly) to be strawmen, then respond with a plethora of your own.

I readily admit that science and philosophy are different, and as such are held to different standards. I can't prove scientifically that God exists, and you know it. Yet you insist on repeatedly asking for "objective evidence" of a subjective experience. THAT is a strawman.

You also appear to be attempting to quantify "spirit" into objective, detectable terms. I guess one possible response could be that science has not yet figured out how to do that, and so it remains subjective - but no matter how I respond, at this time it cannot possibly have anything to do with science. The two are, at least at the current time, fundamentally different. And how would we expect any differently when science can't even objectively detect things that theoretical science believe are actually there... obviously, science can't answer all of the questions yet - so why bother asking questions that you KNOW can't be objectively answered? (strawmen)

It is science that MUST hold itself to a higher standard, because they claim a standard based on objective evidence and logic, as opposed to religion which makes no such claim. I am pressing this issue because I perceive that a LOT of supporters of science treat it on par with religion, and have not been maintaining those standards as they should - NOT because I argue that religion should be on par with the allegedly self-imposed standards of science.

I believe that position has been quite clear, so aside from the desire to build another strawman, I'm confused why you are now wanting to bring religion into it.

Quite frankly, I suspect that you want to deflect the focus off of what I maintain are the failures of science to maintain its own standards - could that be because it's becoming abundantly clear that I'm right?

Thank you. I think the summary of this is "you were right, Thor." 

Not at all.  Again, you're distorting what I'm saying and what the article confirms.  It states that, generally speaking, the dating process is generally accurate and that there are various types of techniques and that they are used to cross-check each other.  That's what I posted dealing with the article.  I never claimed that dating was entirely precise.  Therefore, it's important to not make a mountain out of a mole-hill.  Because of this, it is up to you to provide some evidence as to why potassium-argon dating and it's related techniques are not reliable enough to at least give us a general idea as to when certain events happened.  We don't need an opinion-- we need evidence. 

Who is doing the distorting here? I am noting that potassium-argon dating is unreliable in certain conditions, like when it's not sealed in volcanic rock, due to a number of factors (such as contamination). You responded by distorting MY position and citing an article that notes, quite specifically, that contamination is a factor that must be accounted for... I never said that you claimed the method to be "entirely precise" (another strawman).

And, I believe I said this before - but if you want to BELIEVE that the methods of dating are correctly and accurately accounting for environmental or other possible contaminants, as well as with the assumptions (unobservable) on which potassium-argon dating is based, then that is entirely your prerogative. You certainly don't need to entertain my questions and concerns about the method.

And no... it's not up to me to provide any more evidence than I have. I researched the subject, and found a number of areas where the "experts" in the field acknowledge potential issues that need to be accounted for. I don't need to go and find an alternative dating method, or test potassium-argon myself to look for more flaws. I only need to find what I consider to be reasonable doubt about the test's veracity and reliability - and I believe that I have. You don't have to accept my thoughts on the matter... that's up to you. Just don't pretend I haven't provided what I have provided for the sake of knocking down yet ANOTHER strawman.

a) it's not a strawman, and b) because you continue to give deference to alleged "expertise" as an argument. It's actually a logical fallacy in and of itself, and one that I have been trying to get you to recognize as blind trust in these experts that is akin to faith.

I give deference only in regards to the fact that there are those who are much more knowledgeable than I am in this area.  But deference does not mean "blind trust" and nor does it any kind of blind "faith", which is another straw-man you just create.  I just don't understand why you continually do this. 

There is citing arguments by "experts," and there is accepting their statements. It seems to me that you have been not only accepting their conclusions without question, but that you have then jumped all over me for NOT being so open to accepting their conclusions without question.

That, my friend, is blind faith.

Without that blind faith, you wouldn't be presenting statements to me based on consensus, or noting what you think "experts" believe as arguments that are supposedly designed to convince me that I am wrong in my view that so many "scientists" have been lax with the standards of the scientific method and the presentation of theories to the general public to the point that they have turned science into a religion. Clearly, faith that those experts know what the heck they're talking about without bias or preconception is REQUIRED in order to even make the suggestion.

Now, if you have examined their positions in detail, asked questions, played devils advocate, etc... and have come to the conclusion, based on scientific examination without bias or preconception, that they are correct - then I apologize for the "blind" part.

I just don't really have the impression that you have done these things. Again, if I'm wrong, then I apologize.
   

I was SPECIFICALLY responding to the comment that an alternative theory is required for consensus to reconsider... I said that an alternative theory is NOT necessary, just sufficient evidence to prompt reconsideration.  You seem to THINK I'm arguing something else, and I don't think you're bothering to read what I'm saying.  To clarify - you are AGREEING WITH ME.

So offer up your "sufficient evidence".  Where is it?  The fact that we do not make statements in terms of being absolute is not "evidence".  You haven't offered up anything of the kind, which has not only been noticed by myself, but also by another who was involved in the discussion, who was probably wiser than I to get out of it.

And an "alternative theory" will be asked for in my next post.

More strawmen from the "stop building strawman" guy.

One more time... I made an argument of LOGIC. I was NOT, in this particular vein, denigrating a particular scientific theory. I was ONLY noting that an alternative theory is NOT required for consensus to reconsider a scientific theory, as had been suggested earlier in the thread. I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying, but you are clearly not responding in line with either the spirit of content of the initial post. This, of course, leads me to believe that you aren't bothering to read my comments, but skim them and frame them according to your perception of what I believe and the positions you either think I am, or want to believe that I am taking.

I do not think you have been dealing with me based on what I have been saying very often in this forum.

In the interest of at least getting us on the same planet - I am not arguing against the BB theory. I am not arguing against potassium-argon dating. I am not arguing in favor of a particular number of years for the life of the Earth, or of the universe. I am not really making any scientific argument whatsoever, for that matter.

What I am doing in this thread is questioning theories (although, on second thought, that's what science is SUPPOSED to do - so maybe I am making a scientific argument?), espeically those that are presented as fact or are otherwise presumed to be accurate when there are serious questions to be asked.

I do have my own motives for doing so, and readily admit such, but make no mistake - I am not maintaining the positions you seem to think I am.

[metis]

Speaking of strawman... you really ought to stop crying about what you perceive (incorrectly) to be strawmen, then respond with a plethora of your own.

I think that your use of such demeaning speech is truly unfortunate and uncalled for.  To say one is "crying", even though not obviously meant to be taken literally, is not acceptable in my book.  It's simply an attempt to demean someone.  Therefore I'm discontinuing this discussion with you.

I can't prove scientifically that God exists, and you know it. Yet you insist on repeatedly asking for "objective evidence" of a subjective experience. THAT is a strawman.

A "strawman" does not mean a question that is difficult to answer or even too difficult to answer, but means that the person is being misrepresented and then criticized on that misrepresentation.

Yes, I know you cannot find "objective evidence" of a deity or deities, but not because it's a "strawman".  It's because we cannot confirm they exist.  If you or anyone else wants to believe they exist anyway, that's clearly a choice that you and they have.  But don't expect a free ride on this.  The minute that you say "God created...", that's now science and the question of what objective evidence can be presented to substantiate it kicks in. 

If I said "It's not possible that a deity created our universe", I truly would expect you to ask me what evidence I have for that.  If I said "There's no such thing as a miracle", I'd expect questions as to how I would know that.  So, it's not a "strawman" to ask for evidence.  There's plenty of theistic scientists that would love to prove a deity exists.

Anyhow, as I mentioned, this is my last post with you here.  But let me just say that I leave with no hard feelings or animosity in any way-- and I mean that.  So with that...

Shalom & goodbye,
Vern         

[Thorolf]

A "strawman" does not mean a question that is difficult to answer or even too difficult to answer, but means that the person is being misrepresented and then criticized on that misrepresentation.

Not exactly, but whatever.

The point boils down to this - we were not communicating. I was arguing one thing, and you were arguing against me with something completely different.

I'm sorry we couldn't connect. I thought my point was clear, but I kept being told that I was arguing against BB, or radiometric dating, or what have you.

And then being told *I* was the one building the strawmen. HA!

It's probably for the best that this draws to a close, regardless the justification. No point tilting against windmills.

[gluadys]

Here's the example that helped start this whole thing:

Quote from: metis on December 04, 2007, 12:35:37 PM
Our Earth is close to 5 billion years old, and yet humans are only a mere 5+ million years old.

That's a theory (two, actually - and possibly a couple more if you read between the lines), but was hardly presented that way.

If this is your example, I question your understanding of what a theory is.  I would say this falls more into the category of "How do they know that?"  If you haven't heard how these dates were arrived at, it may seem they were picked out of a hat.  But if you ask "How do they know that?" legitimately (and not as dismissing the statement without foundation), then it is usually possible to find out how they know that. 

If the universe started from a singularity, then speed would be relative to distance from that point - not from Earth.

All points in the expansion are technically the center, but I know what you mean.  We are not located in the center, and since the expansion continues, how far we are from the center is continually changing.  However, I've not seen a figure attached to that in any of my readings.

Nothing in today's universe is located at the centre because the centre is now the circumference.  What you are assuming is that the universe is like a circle (two-dimensional figure) seen from a three-dimensional perspective.  It is not.  It is like a circle seen from a two-dimensional perspective.  Everything in the universe is on the "circumference" and has no access to what, from a three-dimensional perspective would be the interior and centre of the circle. 

Of course, in reality we are dealing with four+dimensions, but it is hard to visualize that in any meaningful way.  What you need to come to grips with is that relative to the universe we are Flatlanders.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

Unless your position is that time is relative to position in space... that would be a fascinating concept.

Isn't it?  I have heard that according to the Theory of Relativity two observers viewing the same events might see them occurring in a different temporal order.   There are, of course, some pretty stringent condition attached to getting that result. 

I agree - but with that comes the uncomfortable moments of admitting the "I don't know" parts.

I haven't found that to be a problem for scientists.  Maybe you are speaking of high-school teachers who have issues of low self-esteem?

Actually, it just means that it is going to take a single piece of convincing contradictory evidence - or at least it should.

It would have to be really contradictory, not just anomalous. And let's remember that when a theory is supported by multiple lines of evidence, something problematical in one of those lines is not enough to tear up the theory by the roots.  It is generally seen as preferable to try and preserve a theory which explains a dozen different phenomena, even if some data seems to cast doubt on the theory's capacity to explain one of them. 

Find something that shakes up all the lines of evidence, and there is more likely to be a reaction.   That is the sort of thing that changes major theories:  not just one piece of data, but more and more and more bits of data that require more and more and more adjustments to the theory making it more and more cumbersome. 

See above point... it doesn't take an alternative theory - it takes reason to believe that the "consensus" is wrong.   

Got one?

[sobeit9]

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

As usual, she was far ahead of her time

We know that the first dimension of a line is produced by an infinity of points. A surface or two dimensions is produced by an infinity of lines extending out at the point at right angles. We know a cube is created by similar lines extending out from the surface. We cannot visualize a four dimensional object created in the same way since it is beyond the limits of our perception

But what exactly is a point? It has no dimensions so doesn't exist but IS as potential. Though not existing, it is the source and the boundary of everything and taken as a simultaneous whole, is NOW within which existence occurs. Remembering this, read the following article just to get the gist of what the author is driving at.

http://www.integralscience.org/genesis/genesis.html

This point can be what we define as the source of the point of the big bang.  From this perspective, a point is a limit.  From the article:

The entire universe--matter, energy, space and time--burst into existence about 15 billion years ago from what appears to be a singular point of infinite potential and impenetrable mystery. Because space and time themselves did not yet exist in this mysterious origin, we cannot say where the universe came from or what existed before it. Without space, there is no "where". Without time, there is no "before". Beyond our capacities to sense or even to conceive, this cosmic Mystery abides eternally ever present in the heart of all things. We and the cosmos are none other than this Mystery.

In the first moments of creation, the universe was in a state of unity, a singular point containing all possibilities for the manifestation of energy, matter, space and time. Full of infinite potential, the universe contained implicit within itself the vast expanse of intergalactic time and space, the fundamental forces and particles, the wondrous varieties of matter and energy, and the subtleties of complex organizational patterns that would later unfold in the forms of galaxies, planets, and life. All this diversity of form, however, was present only implicitly in the singular unity of this primordial seed. The cosmos at this stage manifested only the quality of unity, having no distinguishable forms of manifestation, not even space or time.

God exists outside of space and time without dimension  within which everything IS as potential so for us is smaller than a point.  Yet "isness" not bounded by time and space, is a medium within which everything continues to exist that is limited to time and space.

Once a person begins to contemplate these things it becomes obvious why so many prefer arguing politics while downing quality scotch.