If so, what is the evidence?

If so, what is the evidence?

 

Mostly, it's been never finding evidence that the laws of physics were ever any different in the far past on Earth. That's how science works, looking at evidence. If there is none, we assume the answer is no, until something shows us differently.

As far as we can tell, they were the same. There don't appear to be any aspects of the early Earth which are inconsistent with current physics. For example, people have used the Oklo "natural nuclear reactor" to test whether the value of alpha (the fine structure constant) has changed. http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019

 

Mostly, it's been never finding evidence that the laws of physics were ever any different in the far past on Earth. That's how science works, looking at evidence. If there is none, we assume the answer is no, until something shows us differently.

 

Excellent, you admit it is just belief and assumption.

 

Excellent, you admit it is just belief and assumption.

 

I don't find any evidence for god(s) or unicorns either, so the default is they don't exist. How is that a belief? It looks more like absence of belief due to absence of evidence.

 

Neither here nor there, I suppose, since you reveal that you weren't interested in learning anything anyway.

This is really philosophy rather than science. But, yes, I think we all make assumptions like this about the world around us. We assume that the Sun will rise tomorrow and apples will fall from trees, until we have a reason to think otherwise.

 

So science also works on certain assumptions. But those beliefs and assumptions would be (are) modified by evidence, when it is available. If possible, the assumptions are tested directly. sometimes that isn't possible.

 

Is this surprising to you?

 

I don't find any evidence for god(s) or unicorns either, so the default is they don't exist.

 

Great so we can add that to the set of things you have no evidence for. I do. But I won't get into that here.

How is that a belief? It looks more like absence of belief due to absence of evidence.

 

To assume something unknown without knowing, and without evidence is belief.

 

 

Neither here nor there, I suppose, since you reveal that you weren't interested in learning anything anyway.

 

Well, I know that Einstein felt time was a fourth dimension. Now for proof..? I think it is a lot more.

Edited April 11, 20169 yr by dad

 

Well, I know that Einstein felt time was a fourth dimension.

 

He certainly built a useful model based on that. It works very well.

 

Now for proof..?

 

Science doesn't really do "proof".

 

I think it is a lot more.

 

What is a lot more than what?

This is really philosophy rather than science. But, yes, I think we all make assumptions like this about the world around us. We assume that the Sun will rise tomorrow and apples will fall from trees, until we have a reason to think otherwise.

 

So science also works on certain assumptions. But those beliefs and assumptions would be (are) modified by evidence, when it is available. If possible, the assumptions are tested directly. sometimes that isn't possible.

 

Is this surprising to you?

 

The issue is where it actually works and where it is belief.

We've had so many of these discussions about science as a belief. None of them are interesting, since they rely on a tortured definition of "belief" that somehow includes absence of belief as belief. Like bald is a hair color, or my lack of stamp-collecting means I'm an anti-stamp collector, someone who doesn't believe in stamp collecting.

 

It's also painfully obvious there's a HUGE agenda going on with dad. He's here to preach, not to learn or discuss. Is there a good reason to go through this crap ad nauseam?

 

The issue is where it actually works and where it is belief.

 

It works where it is testable.

If the underlying assumptions/postulates/axioms (or, if you must, "beliefs") were wrong then the model wouldn't work. So they are tested indirectly. And sometimes have to be changed or abandoned.

 

There is a vast literature on the philosophy of science, if you are interested.

We've had so many of these discussions about science as a belief. None of them are interesting, since they rely on a tortured definition of "belief" that somehow includes absence of belief as belief. Like bald is a hair color, or my lack of stamp-collecting means I'm an anti-stamp collector, someone who doesn't believe in stamp collecting.

 

It's also painfully obvious there's a HUGE agenda going on with dad. He's here to preach, not to learn or discuss. Is there a good reason to go through this crap ad nauseam?

There is a possibility dad may learn something, regardless of an agenda. Your explanations rock.

We've had so many of these discussions about science as a belief. None of them are interesting, since they rely on a tortured definition of "belief" that somehow includes absence of belief as belief. Like bald is a hair color, or my lack of stamp-collecting means I'm an anti-stamp collector, someone who doesn't believe in stamp collecting.

 

It's also painfully obvious there's a HUGE agenda going on with dad. He's here to preach, not to learn or discuss. Is there a good reason to go through this crap ad nauseam?

 

Pot meet kettle. We will see who has the agenda. Well, actually I will be banned because of an agenda here soon. Fine with me.

 

 

It works where it is testable.

If the underlying assumptions/postulates/axioms (or, if you must, "beliefs") were wrong then the model wouldn't work. So they are tested indirectly. And sometimes have to be changed or abandoned.

 

There is a vast literature on the philosophy of science, if you are interested.

 

 

 

You have tested nothing either in deep space or the far past on earth actually. Ain't that a bitch?

 

Pot meet kettle. We will see who has the agenda. Well, actually I will be banned because of an agenda here soon. Fine with me.

 

 

I can absolutely see happening if every time someone tries explaining something you don't understand and arguing "Faith"

 

Just curious though do you even know how Faith is defined?

 

The common definition is the belief of something you can't see or measure.

 

Which is the opposite in those regards to physics which all about measurements.

Yet every time we mention measurement you argue that's faith...

You have tested nothing either in deep space or the far past on earth actually. Ain't that a bitch?

 

We can observe things in deep space (and from the far past) and compare them against our models. That's all science does.

 

Of course it is possible that we are being misled and that a number of unknown (and unknowable) factors conspire to make our models work even though they don't reflect "reality" (whatever that is). It is also possible that the universe sprang into existence 5 seconds ago and just happens to look exactly like it was 14 billions years old. But neither of those have anything to do with science. (And they are not really philosophy, if you are more than 14 years old.)

Edited April 11, 20169 yr by Strange

I can absolutely see happening if every time someone tries explaining something you don't understand and arguing "Faith"

 

 

Me too, becase some here will not admit it. aLAS IN CASE THERE WAS SOME HONEST PERSON WANTING TO DISCUSS the issue there is a place

 

 

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-time.7941706/

 

Just curious though do you even know how Faith is defined?

 

Basically it means believing without proof or real evidence just like cosmology and many life sciences do.

 

The common definition is the belief of something you can't see or measure.

 

Which is the opposite in those regards to physics which all about measurements.

Yet every time we mention measurement you argue that's faith...

 

You think you measured what laws existed in the past? No you have a circular belief system that is closed minded and simply assumes a certain state existed.

Well, at least you have given up the dishonest pretence of "only asking". Is it OK to lie, in your religion? Is your God proud of you? And your mum?

There was a pretence?

Well, at least you have given up the dishonest pretence of "only asking". Is it OK to lie, in your religion? Is your God proud of you? And your mum?

You could not answer. Is your mom proud?

 

We can observe things in deep space (and from the far past) and compare them against our models. That's all science does.

 

 

Let's see one where you do that for the far past on earth. You need to learn I see.

 

 

 

Pot meet kettle. We will see who has the agenda. Well, actually I will be banned because of an agenda here soon. Fine with me.

Fine with me, too.

Fine with me, too.

 

 

Since I think this is your first post, it has about as much content as the other would be wizzes who posted. Cograts.

Edited April 11, 20169 yr by Phi for All
once is enough with the link, please

You have tested nothing either in deep space or the far past on earth actually. Ain't that a bitch?

Except we have. The fine structure constant and nuclear coupling can be and have been checked. The Oklo reactor, for one example

So your tactics so far are to ask a question you don't want answered, but when it's answered anyway, you deny the answer and claim nobody knows. And you think that's a valid approach. And you're really belligerent, claiming you'll be banned on ideas instead of breaking the rules of civility and evidence.

 

You're very par for the creationist course. You bring absolutely no new lies to the table for debunking, choosing to rest on dubious and misrepresented laurels. Meh is a good response to your posts.

Except we have. The fine structure constant and nuclear coupling can be and have been checked. The Oklo reactor, for one example

No it can't! Stay tuned to next post for why

So your tactics so far are to ask a question you don't want answered, but when it's answered anyway, you deny the answer and claim nobody knows. And you think that's a valid approach. And you're really belligerent, claiming you'll be banned on ideas instead of breaking the rules of civility and evidence.

 

You're very par for the creationist course. You bring absolutely no new lies to the table for debunking, choosing to rest on dubious and misrepresented laurels. Meh is a good response to your posts.

You have produced no evidence just a smell so far.

Oklo involved a series of miracles that had to happen. Things like a magic dunk. The whole site dunked miles under at just the right imaginary moment in time. Later at just the right time boom a magic elevator ride back up to the surface....need I go on with your fable?

No it can't! Stay tuned to next post for why

 

You have produced no evidence just a smell so far.

 

Oklo involved a series of miracles that had to happen. Things like a magic dunk. The whole site dunked miles under at just the right imaginary moment in time. Later at just the right time boom a magic elevator ride back up to the surface....need I go on with your fable?

That's totally convincing, he lied.

 

No substance to your so-called rebuttal