We have proven a supreame power to be true.....

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
Yes, but it's much harder once you understand it.*

How serendipitously accurate!
That's the exact principle behind propaganda.

*Can I ask directly how much you have actually read about evolution?*

Sure.

*And answersingenesis.com is not a valid source! Have you read any of Richard Dawkins' books, for example? Or have you only read Creationist propaganda about them?*

OK, no, no.

*No, that's where science and Creationism differ yet again. Science is not based on credentialism. It does not insist on qualifications. If you're right, you're right. What it does insist apon is evidence for claims.*

Just try presenting that evidence without credentials.
Hah.

*Um...Yes it is. *

Well, it is said to be.

The way calibration works is that you take KNOWN quantities near the minimum and maximum expected values, as well as in between.
The way calibration does not work is to use surmised quantities.

[James R]

tony1,

I seriously recommend reading either <i>The Blind Watchmaker</i> or <i>The Selfish Gene</i>, if for no other reason than to know your enemy. How can you hope to argue against evolution effectively if you know so little about it?

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
How can you hope to argue against evolution effectively if you know so little about it? *

How can you argue for it effectively if you know so little about it?
You don't even know what it is.
Mind you, I do accept the fact that you fervently believe you know what it is.

You know perfectly well that my comment about the calibration of radiometric dating is right on the mark, otherwise you wouldn't have changed the subject to my "lack" of knowledge about evolution.

Besides, if I "lack" knowledge about evolution, you can blame my teachers, since the teaching of evolution is mandatory where I went to school.

[James R]

tony1,

<i>You know perfectly well that my comment about the calibration of radiometric dating is right on the mark, otherwise you wouldn't have changed the subject to my "lack" of knowledge about evolution.</i>

Radioactive dating methods are well calibrated. I just don't particularly want to get into yet another staple Creationist argument which has already been effectively refuted hundreds of times by different people.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
Radioactive dating methods are well calibrated. I just don't particularly want to get into yet another staple Creationist argument which has already been effectively refuted hundreds of times by different people. *

We may have differing definitions of "effectively."

Keep in mind that radioactive dating is calibrated to some numbers, and accurately enough, most likely.
That isn't the disagreement.
The disagreement is with the idea that various rates were what they are now.

For example, the first attempts at radioactive dating were inaccurate. and admitted to be so, due to the effects of nuclear detonations.
Those effects have been taken into consideration, and radioactive dating methods are deemd to be sufficiently accurate as a result of the calibration change.

One problem is that they were deemed to be sufficiently accurate BEFORE that recalibration also.
How many other circumstances have not been accounted for?

The weakness of radioactive dating isn't based on quibbles about the calibration method.
It is based on the assumption that the unknown can be quantified even though it is unknown.
In other words, the argument against radioactive dating is the same as the argument against atheism, in general.

The atheist basically says that he/she has accepted no proof for God, therefore the existence of acceptable proof is negligible.
While the argument can be considered tautologically valid, it makes no sense, due to the assignation of a value of zero for that which is actually unknown.

[James R]

tony1,

<i>The weakness of radioactive dating isn't based on quibbles about the calibration method. It is based on the assumption that the unknown can be quantified even though it is unknown.</i>

The assumption in science is that things stay the same, or keep changing as they have in the past, unless there is evidence that that is not the case. Various physicists have tested, and are still testing, whether any of the fundamental physical constants (such as might affect radioactive decay rates) have changed over the history of the universe. So far, there is no evidence that they have, at least certainly no where near sufficient to give us a 6000 year old Earth. It is impossible that our dating methods could be that inaccurate.

As I said before, it would be possible for a God at any time to change the rates and leave no evidence of that change. But since such a theory is untestable it is not scientific. Creationism claims to be scientific, and there's the rub.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
The assumption in science is that things stay the same, or keep changing as they have in the past, unless there is evidence that that is not the case.*

I'm glad you said that, because that is the exact problem with science.
What evidence is there that such an assumption is valid?
After all, the entire universe is a special case, a one-of-a-kind situation, yet within that special case are men assuming that the opposite is true.

*Various physicists have tested, and are still testing, whether any of the fundamental physical constants (such as might affect radioactive decay rates) have changed over the history of the universe. So far, there is no evidence that they have, at least certainly no where near sufficient to give us a 6000 year old Earth. It is impossible that our dating methods could be that inaccurate.*

Nothing like heading off an a grandiose scheme of verifying things "over the history of the universe."
Basically, that amounts to guessing how accurate an extrapolation of 15 billion years from known data of about a thousand years might be.

As for a 6000 year old earth, let's look at one of the elements within creation, namely the creation of Adam.
Now, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm not asking you to believe in a literal Adam, merely to consider the situation hypothetically.

At the point of his creation, how old would he be?
My guess is zero.

How old would he look?
Like a fertilized egg, i.e. minutes old?
Like a newborn babe, i.e months old?
Like an adult male, i.e. years old?

My guess is say about 30 years old.
Why?
No reason, after all, his actual age is zero, so any appearance at all would have the appearance of some age other than zero.
Scientifically speaking, any test you're likely to perform will confirm his apparent age.
No test will confirm his actual age.

The universe is very similar to that.
So, test away.

*As I said before, it would be possible for a God at any time to change the rates and leave no evidence of that change. But since such a theory is untestable it is not scientific.*

Another reason why science is so useless.
Science is actually limited to testing testable speculations, prima facie.
Why people would believe the conclusions of a field of study that limited is beyond me.
Mind you, it is not the collection of data which is the problem, it is the conclusions.
Many people decide that God doesn't exist on the basis of data that have nothing to do with God, AND collected by a system which admits to not being able to test everything.

*Creationism claims to be scientific, and there's the rub.*

That IS a problem.
After all, with science so severely hampered by limitations, why would anyone want to take known answers and sully them with a system that is known to generate only questions?
That is like trying to learn backwards.
Mind you, with creationism, at least one has answers.
With science, one only has more and more questions, with those all generated from nothing.

[James R]

tony1:

I said: <i>The assumption in science is that things stay the same, or keep changing as they have in the past, unless there is evidence that that is not the case.</i>

You said: <i>I'm glad you said that, because that is the exact problem with science. What evidence is there that such an assumption is valid?</i>

For a start, it's a convenient rule of thumb. But if we throw it away, all science becomes useless, because all science is based on the principle of induction from previous observations. Secondly, induction seems to work rather well in practice. We use science to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow just like it did yesterday and the day before and the day before that, and usually it does. We predict that a carbon atom will always react with oxygen atoms in a particular way, just because it always has in the past. And it always does. Science is based on this.

<i>After all, the entire universe is a special case, a one-of-a-kind situation, yet within that special case are men assuming that the opposite is true.</i>

This seems like an irrelevant point to me. For example, you, tony1, are a special case of a human being. There's nobody quite the same as you. But that doesn't mean I can't predict how you'll act in certain circumstances and almost always be right.

<i>Nothing like heading off an a grandiose scheme of verifying things "over the history of the universe." Basically, that amounts to guessing how accurate an extrapolation of 15 billion years from known data of about a thousand years might be.</i>

There's no guessing involved. There are ways of testing, by comparing astronomical observations against geological ones and present experiments. It's the scientific method - experimentation and observation, not guesswork.

<i>As for a 6000 year old earth, let's look at one of the elements within creation, namely the creation of Adam. [snip]
... after all, his actual age is zero, so any appearance at all would have the appearance of some age other than zero.</i>

Yes. God could have created the world five minutes ago with the appearance of it being billions of years old, and we'd never know the difference. There's nothing wong with that hypothesis, but it's not science. As a working hypothesis it is scientifically useless, and also goes against Occam's razor. That doesn't mean it might not be true, though.

<i>No test will confirm his actual age.</i>

Precisely. Any scientific theory must, at least in principle, be falsifiable. If there's no way I can possibly show Adam is zero instead of 30 years old, the hypothesis of his age is non-scientific.

<i>The universe is very similar to that.</i>

Where's <i>your</i> evidence? What makes you so sure? Because some guy wrote a book for you? What made <i>him</i> so sure, and what makes you so quick to take his word for it?

<i>Another reason why science is so useless. Science is actually limited to testing testable speculations, prima facie.</i>

Yet science has produced, among many other obvious things, the very machine you are using to read this post. That makes it far from useless, if you ask me. Science is not the perfect mechanism for reasoning about the world, but it's far and away the best thing we have.

<i>Why people would believe the conclusions of a field of study that limited is beyond me.</i>

Because every <i>other</i> field of study is even more limited.

<i>Many people decide that God doesn't exist on the basis of data that have nothing to do with God, AND collected by a system which admits to not being able to test everything.</i>

True. That's their mistake, not the fault of science.

<i>Mind you, with creationism, at least one has answers.</i>

Answers backed up by nothing better than somebody's say-so. Answers which directly contradict facts which anybody can go out and check for themselves. Not very good answers.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
For a start, it's a convenient rule of thumb. But if we throw it away, all science becomes useless, because all science is based on the principle of induction from previous observations.*

It's definitely convenient.
However, given that the universe is a special case, and the end of the universe would also be a special case, what reasoning techniques would lead one to the previous observations for a special case?
Isn't it rather obvious that there wouldn't be any?

*Secondly, induction seems to work rather well in practice. We use science to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow just like it did yesterday and the day before and the day before that, and usually it does.*

That would be the lottery fallacy.
Based on previous observations, every ticket you have ever purchased failed to win the prize.
Reasoning from that using the scientific method, one would conclude that no one could ever win the prize.

*This seems like an irrelevant point to me. For example, you, tony1, are a special case of a human being. There's nobody quite the same as you. But that doesn't mean I can't predict how you'll act in certain circumstances and almost always be right.*

That's the lunacy of the scientific method.
Your own special case life and death are irrelevant?

*There's no guessing involved. There are ways of testing, by comparing astronomical observations against geological ones and present experiments. It's the scientific method - experimentation and observation, not guesswork.*

Testing, by scientific standards, guesswork, by any other standard.
You seem congenitally unable to see that there is no way to establish "observations" of something that supposedly happened 15 billion years ago.
Why?
No OBSERVER.

*God could have created the world five minutes ago with the appearance of it being billions of years old, and we'd never know the difference.*

We have a written statement that indicates that it wasn't five minutes ago.
We have nothing that indicates that it happened 15 billion years ago, other than some calculated guesswork generated by a mutual admiration society that quotes and requotes each others' guesses.

*That doesn't mean it might not be true, though.*

That's a step in the right direction.

*Precisely. Any scientific theory must, at least in principle, be falsifiable. If there's no way I can possibly show Adam is zero instead of 30 years old, the hypothesis of his age is non-scientific.*

Such a gigantic limitation would point to the uselessness of the scientific method, however, to you it is proof of the value of the scientific method.
It's as though you admit that science is useless, but the admission that it is useless is actually proof of its usefulness.
Strange.

*Where's <i>your</i> evidence? What makes you so sure? Because some guy wrote a book for you? What made <i>him</i> so sure, and what makes you so quick to take his word for it?*

Part of the evidence is that the counterevidence is so mickey mouse.
What makes me so sure is God.
What helps keep me so sure, is the vagueness and uncertainty of the opposing debaters.
If you were so sure you were right, you'd have some power in your arguments.

*Yet science has produced, among many other obvious things, the very machine you are using to read this post. That makes it far from useless, if you ask me. Science is not the perfect mechanism for reasoning about the world, but it's far and away the best thing we have.*

I think engineers built the machines.
In some cases, scientists left the field of science to build the machines.
Is it possible that some of those scientists believed something that couldn't be proven by the scientific method?
Such as believing they could make a fortune outside the field of science?
I wonder what previous observations or evidence they could have had in order to found a special case computer manufacturing facility?

*Because every <i>other</i> field of study is even more limited.*

One is not limited at all by the study of the Bible.
One is admittedly limited by the scientific method.
Not only that, the Bible discusses all of life and time, the creation of time and the universe.
Science can't even deal with the issue of time, except to use it as a measuring tool.

*True. That's their mistake, not the fault of science.*

It is the fault of science, since science also makes claims that religion is invalid because it is not subject to the scientific method.

*Answers backed up by nothing better than somebody's say-so. Answers which directly contradict facts which anybody can go out and check for themselves. Not very good answers. *

You only say "not very good" answers because they aren't in the form of a question, which is the only thing acceptable to the scientific mind.
Besides, what fact is contradictory to...?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1, KJV).

Has science established the absence of the beginning, the sky, the earth and/or God?

[James R]

tony1:

I find it interesting that you are so quick to dismiss something like the scientific method when clearly you understand it so poorly. Well, let's see if we can shine a little light for you...

Science is built up bit by bit. At each step, ideas are tested against the available evidence. Different tests are cross-checked against each other and new predictions are made. Scientists go out and look for evidence related to those predictions. If the predictions are verified, they become part of science, too. So, science is a cumulative effort based on rock-solid foundations.

You argue that the universe is a "special case". What do you mean by that? That it only began once? Well, every time I push a trolley it's an event which has happened only once in that particular time and place. So what? Does that mean the laws of mechanics might suddenly stop applying? No. But how do I know they'll work this time? Simple - because they've always worked before. My question to you is: what makes the beginning of the universe any more exempt from the laws of physics than anything else?

<i>That would be the lottery fallacy. Based on previous observations, every ticket you have ever purchased failed to win the prize. Reasoning from that using the scientific method, one would conclude that no one could ever win the prize.</i>

There is independent evidence that people win lotteries, which can be checked. To reason from just the one piece of information about my losing tickets would be contrary to the scientific method, which checks all available evidence before drawing conclusions. Similarly, conclusions about the start of the universe draw on many different types of evidence.

<i>Your own special case life and death are irrelevant?</i>

I don't see your point here.

<i>You seem congenitally unable to see that there is no way to establish "observations" of something that supposedly happened 15 billion years ago.</i>

All you have to do is look out into space and you can <i>see</i> evidence of what happened 15 billion years ago. Surely I don't have to explain the finite speed of light to you, do I, tony1?

<i>We have a written statement that indicates that [the world wasn't created] five minutes ago. We have nothing that indicates that it happened 15 billion years ago, other than some calculated guesswork generated by a mutual admiration society that quotes and requotes each others' guesses.</i>

Wrong. First, what evidence do you have that your written statement was not written by a fallible human being rather than the divine Creator? How do you know your Creator isn't stringing you along and the universe isn't really five minutes old? But those are religious questions; back to science. You are wrong to say we have nothing that indicates the age of the universe is 15 billion years. There's plenty of evidence. Your characterisation of scientists as a mutual admiration society is quite childish, tony1. Sounds almost like sour grapes to me. Weren't you good at maths at school?

I said: <i>Any scientific theory must, at least in principle, be falsifiable. If there's no way I can possibly show Adam is zero instead of 30 years old, the hypothesis of his age is non-scientific.</i>

You replied: <i>Such a gigantic limitation would point to the uselessness of the scientific method, however, to you it is proof of the value of the scientific method.</i>

Exactly. It means we throw out as useless any story which is supported by nothing better than somebody's say-so. That guards against human error.

I said: <i>Where's <i>your</i> evidence? What makes you so sure? Because some guy wrote a book for you? What made <i>him</i> so sure, and what makes you so quick to take his word for it?</i>

You replied: <i>Part of the evidence is that the counterevidence is so mickey mouse.</i>

You have failed to demonstrate that you even understand the counter-evidence.

<i>What makes me so sure is God.</i>

How do you know it's not all in your mind?

<i>If you were so sure you were right, you'd have some power in your arguments.</i>

Power, tony1? Science is not about power, although religion might be. Scientists can sometimes come across as equivocal to the lay person, because they express their doubts clearly and admit they don't have all the answers. That's a very different attitude to religious fanatics. My arguments have a power, but it is a subtle power. To appreciate it requires a certain amount of education. Sadly, there are many people who want quick, easy answers.

<i>I think engineers built the machines.</i>

That's naive of you. Every major development in technology starts with some scientist or other building a crude prototype in his lab. You obviously have no experience of basic research.

<i>I wonder what previous observations or evidence they could have had in order to found a special case computer manufacturing facility?</i>

That manufacturing facility could not exist without prior knowledge of semiconductor physics, which is grounded in quantum mechanics, which developed from Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's electromagnetism (with a little help from Einstein and others). Your manufacturing facility owes its existence to at least 500 years of previous observations and evidence.

<i>One is not limited at all by the study of the Bible.</i>

Not unless your particular interpretation of the bible leads you to ignore all other types of knowledge.

<i>Not only that, the Bible discusses all of life and time, the creation of time and the universe.</i>

No it doesn't. Where does the bible mention trilobites, for example? Don't be silly.

<i>Science can't even deal with the issue of time, except to use it as a measuring tool.</i>

I don't understand what you mean by this.

<i>...science also makes claims that religion is invalid because it is not subject to the scientific method.</i>

This shows a serious lack of knowledge. Science does not make any claim as to the validity or otherwise of religion. It does refute various mistakes in the bible, but we can put those down to human error. The bible was not written yesterday, but in a time where our knowledge of science was much more sparse than it is today. We can forgive the people of the past who did not have the benefit of today's knowledge. The fact that such errors appear, though, tells us that the bible is not a work of any being who <i>did</i> possess today's knowledge.

<i>Besides, what fact is contradictory to...(Genesis 1:1, KJV).</i>

Nothing. But no fact supports it, either. Except the bible's say-so.

[Teg]

If then the world was created, we must assume it was an alteration of something that came prior to it, and that, whatever it was, was a form of something prior and so on and so on.

First of all that must be the wierdist "if... then..." statement. Why does everything need a starting point with you people? It is a very grave limitation. Perhaps you should ponder this: if such a god were to exist then that being seems content to cut us of from other systems and yet give us the ability to see their light. For this reason any being would also necessarily devious. I know that fits with your fairy tales of a god that tempted men with things out of their reach, but it seems insane that if a being were to exist that this being would have traits similar to our most contemptable members.

[Xelios]

"Why does everything need a starting point with you people..."

Easy, the human mind cannot comprehend infinity. Try and think about something existing for an infinite amount of time without trying to put in a beginning. We're just not designed to think that way.

[Tiassa]

Why does everything need a starting point with you people?

Just a fanciful extrapolation on Teg's point.

Nothing ever begins.

There is no first moment; no single word or place from which this or any other story springs.

The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making.

Thus the pagan will be sanctified, the tragic become laughable; great lovers will stoop to sentiment, and demons dwindle to clockwork toys.

Nothing is fixed. In and out the shuttle goes, fact and fiction, mind and matter woven into patterns that may have only this in common: that hidden among them is a filigree that will with time become a world. (Clive Barker, Weaveworld)

I'll skip the genre-specific literary esoterica, since it's beside the point. But I will say that I think people seek to create starting points because there are none to which we can directly relate.

Think of all the starting points in life: I made a joke to a friend the other day about compartmentalization; what amazed me was that the other person with us understood the line. Essentially I made a point about her compartmentalization of time. Time is a valuable commodity 'twixt her divisions. At the time of the discussion, she was impatient, waiting to get to our destination and park the car; "I want to get there so we can have fun," she complained.

The counterpoint is found in where she draws the lines equalling "fun". I looked at it as the whole period being fun, from one place and one moment into the next. Somehow, the fun "began" when we arrived at one place and "ended" when we left it.

But think about it for a moment: one begins a day, a task, a work week, a month, a year .... One of the things marijuana does to a person is to melt their sense of boundaries. This is both good and bad; to the good, unpleasant things like going to work each day becomes an ongoing life process without beginning or end, and one can recognize the artifice of any boundaries they choose to construct to accommodate a conceptual definition. To the bad, some of the casualties of this boundary decimation include ideas most of us, stoned or not, agree on. Again, this is good or bad depending on circumstances, but what of interpersonal boundaries? When you're a stoner, the boundaries of a personal relationship often become formal and thus consensual in a new light: when, for instance, a young career-stoner named Tiassa woke up to the sight of his girlfriend shagging the life out of his best friend on the bedroom floor less than ten feet away, it didn't trigger the usual alarms. Sure there was a violation, but rather than using the affair as leverage to leave her in the gutter, what eventually stopped my contribution to the relationship was the fact that the violation of the melted boundary had the mere effect of stealing away the twinkling charm that could hold me in sway. In the end, I stopped trying not because she slept around but because I was sick of her personality. (Speaking in currency of karma, it is worth noting that this was the second time a girlfriend of our circle's association started making the round, for want of better; both times, the friends survived and typically the first boyfriend had to counsel the second and then the two would laugh at the third--in neither case did it progress to a fourth person. Interesting that. The karmic lesson being that we're doing okay; last I heard, A was a prostitute in Portland and C had left T, the third boyfriend, and was living on the Oregon coast with five kids by what turned out to be 3 different fathers and a severe methamphetamine addiction. Go figure, I suppose.)

There are the mundane starting points, the high-esoterica starting points, and all manner of points in between. Only one starting point has any real, practical foundation: that of one's birth. Conception is a fair enough argument, but one achieves no true self until birth at least, and the self is the center of the compartmentalization that leads to starting and ending points. Without a notion of the self, there is no association between an event and the self, and thus no concept of how the self relates to the starting point. But even the posts I write, the books I read, the songs I hear, and so forth ... they all have arbitrary starting points (which, incidentally, is the next line in the Barker passage, but that's a mere aside of lesser significance for the current purpose).

The point of all of this is that I think people are simply accustomed to boundaries, and key among those conceptual boundaries are beginnings and endings. Technically, the creation story of my pseudo-Wiccan tradition is exceptionally vague and says things like the Universe came about in a fit of joy. Not helpful on this occasion, eh? It doesn't even specify whose joy, when we get right down to it.

Think about this, as a trippy digression: We humans are the only intelligence yet known to function with memory relationships such as we do. Historical records, scientific records ... perhaps our purpose in the Universe is merely to be its eyes, ears, memory, and awareness. Perhaps through the entire living endeavor, the Universe itself is manifesting its senses in the form of Life. In this sense, it is useless to speculate about the origin of the Universe beyond a certain degree of conceivability, as the Universe itself is not capable of knowing its own origin, and thus, among our living tasks, is the acquisition of this knowledge come hell, high water, or supernova. The Ultimate Starting Point is perhaps a mystery to the Process Itself. Is there any wonder, then, that people are fixated on starting points? The mystery of what this living Universe is manifests itself in every manifestation of the Universe (e.g. every planet, star, person, bug, rock, speck of space dust, association of the components of the Univerese, &c. ... every thing). But it's a mystery, and by any definition it would seem fair to call that answer, the Ultimate Starting Point, God. I propose nothing more than the Unmoved Mover, the Unnamed Namer, the First Cause; I do not propose Jehovah, Jesus, Bramhan, Damballah, Lucina, ad infinitum. The nearest academic explanation I can give you is the modern High Magickal interpretation of the triad Ain/Ain Soph/Ain Soph Aur of the Qabalistic Tree of Life. (It must be noted that when it comes to notions of Limitless Light, I accept that prejudices toward light and dark, while relevant to the living experience, have little if any value in the grand, cosmic scheme.)

I would continue and begin citing, but I'm not here to spill an entire theology today. I think it had something to do with starting points, so I'll go ahead and make the joke for you that marijuana also seems to melt ending points, so rather than doing the Bugs Bunny/Yosemite Sam Shut up shutin' up routine (only partially because I can't remember it off the top of my head), I'll leave it at the simpler possibility expressed above that people are accustomed to boundaries, and in their compartmentalization schemes they learn that beginnings and endings are important; we invent religion to explain the beginning and to anesthetize ourselves against our fear of death. That's just a relative for-instance, though, since this is a religious forum--a nifty little example that happened to be just at hand.

So I says to Mabel, I says ....

(Someone in the world knows why that line is funny; I would like to meet them.)

thanx much,
Tiassa

[Teg]

The problem with assigning birth as a starting point lies in the niggling details. If you perceive the birth as a new unique consciousness, then it can be deemed so. Upon closer inspection we can dismiss the originality of the child due to the relation to parents. In that way we are ultimately just an extension of our parents, specifically and the human race in general and above that all life. Everything was something else at some point. Down to every molecule and atom in our body we are a recycled object.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
I find it interesting that you are so quick to dismiss something like the scientific method when clearly you understand it so poorly. Well, let's see if we can shine a little light for you...*

I understood it well enough to blow everyone else into the weeds in the various sciences.
Of course, I've since graduated school.
It's too bad you're still stuck there.

*You argue that the universe is a "special case". What do you mean by that?*

Hint: how many universes are you familiar with?

*That it only began once?*

Well, how many times have you experienced a different universe?

*Simple - because they've always worked before.*

So, the laws of physics concerning the big bang are so obvious because they've always worked before?

*My question to you is: what makes the beginning of the universe any more exempt from the laws of physics than anything else?*

The universe looked at a physics textbook and decided that was the way it had to begin?
Are you capable of understanding that the laws of physics may be different for different instances of a universe?

*There is independent evidence that people win lotteries, which can be checked. To reason from just the one piece of information about my losing tickets would be contrary to the scientific method, which checks all available evidence before drawing conclusions. Similarly, conclusions about the start of the universe draw on many different types of evidence.*

Perhaps you're missing the point.
The lottery analogy was drawn not to highlight the concept of "previous observation" which I can see you understand, but to highlight the impossibility of predicting the winning ticket based on previous observation, which I suspect that you can't understand.

Similarly, there isn't any previous evidence for the start of the universe.

*"Your own special case life and death are irrelevant?"

I don't see your point here.*

Wow!!
You see no connection between the terms "your life" and "special case?"
You are definitely the most thoroughly indoctrinated student I have ever come across.
Your life means nothing to you?
Is it possible that a person could be so dense?

*All you have to do is look out into space and you can see evidence of what happened 15 billion years ago. Surely I don't have to explain the finite speed of light to you, do I, tony1?*

I'm not sure that you can demonstrate your own ability to see objects 15 billion lightyears away, if that's what you're getting at.

*First, what evidence do you have that your written statement was not written by a fallible human being rather than the divine Creator?*

It was written by a fallible human, and not by the divine Creator.
Of course, so are science textbooks, so what on earth could be your point?

*How do you know your Creator isn't stringing you along and the universe isn't really five minutes old? But those are religious questions; back to science.*

Let me see....
I have a choice between risking that the Creator is stringing me along, or risking that you are stringing me along.
Hmmm.
Sorry, that's a no-brainer.
Nothing personal.

*You are wrong to say we have nothing that indicates the age of the universe is 15 billion years. There's plenty of evidence.*

It's easy to say "plenty of evidence."
What is your evidence that what you call evidence is in fact evidence of what you say it is evidence of?
Methinks that you would be like a cop who arrests the nearest person to a crime scene, because there exists such a thing as evidence, AND the person was near the crime scene, just as the perpetrator would have to have been.
Case closed.

*Your characterisation of scientists as a mutual admiration society is quite childish, tony1.*

How else do you explain the endless quoting and requoting of each other?
And the bestowing of "prestigious" prizes on one another?

*Sounds almost like sour grapes to me. Weren't you good at maths at school?*

Sorry, it is impossible to get marks higher than mine, so it isn't sour grapes.
It is related to that issue, though.
Scientists, in general, get lower marks than I did.
That might have some bearing on my opinion.

*Exactly. It means we throw out as useless any story which is supported by nothing better than somebody's say-so. That guards against human error.*

All your doing is proving my point that you have no clue.
I was sort of kidding when I said that evidence of not being able to prove anything is a gigantic limitation.
Here you are, saying that is actually proof of the value of science.
Have you lost your mind?
How do you hope to prove that not being able to prove something is actually proof of being able to prove something?
Are you not aware of the term "mutually exclusive?"

*You have failed to demonstrate that you even understand the counter-evidence.*

This coming from a guy who can't tell that his own life is a special case?
How can you be sure that you understand anything at all?
(No sarcasm intended, by the way)

*<i>How do you know it's not all in your mind?</i>*

Among other things, I know that what you are talking about IS in your own mind, and I'm not talking about that.

Scientists can sometimes come across as equivocal to the lay person, because they express their doubts clearly and admit they don't have all the answers. That's a very different attitude to religious fanatics. My arguments have a power, but it is a subtle power. To appreciate it requires a certain amount of education. Sadly, there are many people who want quick, easy answers.*

Scientists come across as equivocal because they have no answers.
Thus they have no choice but to admit they don't know, or lie.

*Your manufacturing facility owes its existence to at least 500 years of previous observations and evidence.*

Missing the point again.
The guy who builds one for the first time has no previous observations, though.

*Not unless your particular interpretation of the bible leads you to ignore all other types of knowledge.*

I don't ignore all other types of knowledge.
I'm merely waiting for any other type of knowledge to say something useful and non-contradictory.

*Where does the bible mention trilobites, for example?*

My mistake.
I can see how the existence of trilobites would vastly overshadow the creation of the universe for a guy who can't tell that his own life is a special case.

*Nothing. But no fact supports it, either. Except the bible's say-so. *

Science is silent, and religion says something.
According to the rules of the court, I have to rule in favor of religion.

*Originally posted by Teg
Why does everything need a starting point with you people?*

Try going on a trip without starting.

*Originally posted by tiassa
So I says to Mabel, I says .... *

I'm glad you realized that some things have to have an end, too.

[James R]

tony1,

It is interesting that you choose to respond to parts of my post, selectively, while conveniently leaving out many of the major points. Your style is also instructive. As to your multiple assessments of my knowledge and skills, which are based on your own imagination more than anything else, well, they are neither here nor there, so I'll ignore the personal asides for now. Instead, I'll just stick to the substantive points you've raised, which are quite few.

<i>The universe looked at a physics textbook and decided that was the way it had to begin?</i>

Very likely. It seems to have consulted the textbook since then.

<i>Are you capable of understanding that the laws of physics may be different for different instances of a universe?</i>

May they? How do you know?

<i>The lottery analogy was drawn not to highlight the concept of "previous observation" which I can see you understand, but to highlight the impossibility of predicting the winning ticket based on previous observation, which I suspect that you can't understand.</i>

The lottery is a random process. The creation of the universe was constrained in many ways by those laws of physics it read in the textbook.

<i>I'm not sure that you can demonstrate your own ability to see objects 15 billion lightyears away, if that's what you're getting at.</i>

*sigh* It looks like I <i>do</i> have to explain the speed of light to you after all. It's like this: the speed of light is finite, so to cover any distance takes time. That means that if I stand opposite you I do not see you as you are now, but as you were a few nanoseconds ago. Similarly, if I look at an object 15 billion light years away, I see it not as it appears now, but as it was 15 billion years ago, since light has taken that long to travel from it to my eye. Clear enough for you?

<i>[The bible] was written by a fallible human, and not by the divine Creator. Of course, so are science textbooks, so what on earth could be your point?</i>

My point is that although you admit (now) that your book has no monopoly on truth, you still persist in saying that its story is 100% correct and science is wrong. Your book constitutes one piece of evidence for Creation - the only piece, as it happens. My science textbooks constitute more evidence on their own. And they are also based on observation and experiment, which is an immense independent source of evidence. Weigh them up, and the scientific explanation has everything on its side.

<i>What is your evidence that what you call evidence is in fact evidence of what you say it is evidence of?</i>

What's yours? Easy shots again, tony1. Try some real arguments.

I said: Your characterisation of scientists as a mutual admiration society is quite childish, tony1.

You said: <i>How else do you explain the endless quoting and requoting of each other? And the bestowing of "prestigious" prizes on one another?</i>

People in the same field of study tend to share knowledge. Science is a multinational effort which progresses through the sharing of information and ideas. It's very democratic, actually. As a scientist, when you do good work you occasionally (rarely) get recognised with a prize. In religion you get promoted to Archbishop or something. It's kinda the same thing.

How do you explain the endless quoting and requoting of the bible?

<i>How can you be sure that you understand anything at all?</i>

I measure myself against others and also seek their opinions. You should try it sometime.

<i>Scientists come across as equivocal because they have no answers. Thus they have no choice but to admit they don't know, or lie.</i>

More easy shots, tony1? *yawn*

Regarding manufacturing facilities:

<i>Missing the point again. The guy who builds one for the first time has no previous observations, though.</i>

You've missed this point several times now. You don't start with nothing and the next day have a semiconductor factory. What happens is a gradual building of knowledge and expertise. From theory to prototype to commercialisation to mass production. Maybe missing this concept has impeded your ability to understand evolution, too. Just a thought.

[Xelios]

Sorry, it is impossible to get marks higher than mine, so it isn't sour grapes.
It is related to that issue, though.
Scientists, in general, get lower marks than I did.
That might have some bearing on my opinion.

Lies will not get you to heaven tony... unless of course you count dropping out of school as getting high marks.

[Teg]

Try going on a trip without starting.

When does the trip start? Is it the moment of departure from domicile? Is it when you arrive at the destination? Truthfully that trip has no start. Tiassa would say that trip started at birth, but from the perspective of birth as a continuation of the parent and so on. Starting points only blurr reality.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
It is interesting that you choose to respond to parts of my post, selectively, while conveniently leaving out many of the major points.*

Of course.
You build castles in the sky, and I examine the foundations.

*Very likely. It seems to have consulted the textbook since then.*

It must have skipped over the pages on phlogiston.

*May they? How do you know?*

I don't have to.
We were discussing your capability to understand different concepts.

*The lottery is a random process.*

Since your large point was that science deals with previous observations, science cannot deal with lotteries.

* Me:I'm not sure that you can demonstrate your own ability to see objects 15 billion lightyears away

You:...I see it not as it appears now, but as it was 15 billion years ago, since light has taken that long to travel from it to my eye. Clear enough for you?*

A lightyear is a unit of distance.
Are you capable of grasping that?

*My point is that although you admit (now) that your book has no monopoly on truth, you still persist in saying that its story is 100% correct and science is wrong.*

Oh no.
The Bible still has the monopoly on truth.
Science books are still crap.
You simply haven't read old ones to see how full of crap they are.
And, you can't extrapolate into the future to see that today's science books will be just as full of crap thirty years from now as 30 year old science books are today.

*Your book constitutes one piece of evidence for Creation - the only piece, as it happens.*

Well, there is that other piece, namely creation itself.

*My science textbooks constitute more evidence on their own.*

About the only thing they are evidence of is that a lot of trees were cut down.
You obviously haven't read them in any critical sense.

*And they are also based on observation and experiment, which is an immense independent source of evidence. Weigh them up, and the scientific explanation has everything on its side.*

Except truth.
While I don't dispute that a lot of people have weighed and measured things, and wrote the numbers down, those numbers they wrote don't actually prove what you say.
What they prove is that you didn't bother to read them, and decided to accept someone else's summary instead.

*What's yours? Easy shots again, tony1. Try some real arguments.*

I guess it's easier for you to not answer.
My evidence that creation is the evidence of creation is, just for starters, that the words are the same.
In your argument, you end up basically saying that some guy found a rock therefore creation isn't true.

*People in the same field of study tend to share knowledge.*

Of course, this tends to compensate for the "vast" amount of evidence you claim.
Since it is shared knowledge, the fact that some statements appears in many books isn't evidence of quantity of evidence, but of sharing of evidence, as in "sharing a brain."

*How do you explain the endless quoting and requoting of the bible?*

Only one book.

*I measure myself against others and also seek their opinions. You should try it sometime.*

Ha ha ha!
LOL!
OK, I don't think very highly of your ability to think.
There I tried it.
It works great!
Thank you.

*More easy shots, tony1? *yawn**

You make it too easy, JR.
Scientists equivocate because they don't know.
You yawn, and prove my point.
It is too easy.

*You've missed this point several times now. You don't start with nothing and the next day have a semiconductor factory. What happens is a gradual building of knowledge and expertise. From theory to prototype to commercialisation to mass production. Maybe missing this concept has impeded your ability to understand evolution, too. Just a thought. *

Of course, this from the guy that can't connect "your life" with "special case."
What previous observation concerning the success of his efforts, would the first builder of a semiconductor plant have?
I realize that such a thing is a great stretch for a scientific guy such as yourself.
Science doesn't deal with success very often.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Lies will not get you to heaven tony... unless of course you count dropping out of school as getting high marks.*

Just a shot in the dark.
Try asking yourself how I can say that you can't get marks higher than mine without knowing your marks.
You can't say whether yours are higher or lower without knowing mine.

[James R]

tony1,

Lots of bluster there, but very little substance. Let's see...

<i>Since your large point was that science deals with previous observations, science cannot deal with lotteries.</i>

Science deals with lotteries in the best way it can. It can do no better than a probablistic explanation. But then again, neither can anything else. And the probablistic explanation explains a hell of a lot about lotteries, as it turns out.

Only fundamentalist religious people are silly enough to think they have all the answers.

<i>A lightyear is a unit of distance. Are you capable of grasping that?</i>

I thought you got high marks, tony1. Go back and re-read my explanation one more time. It is clear from the context that I understand the concept of a light year rather better than you do. Just to clarify for you: A light year is the distance that light travels in a year. Therefore, if light is carrying information from a source one light year away, that information will be out of date by one year when it reaches the observer. Do you understand now, or do I need to explain it again?

<i>While I don't dispute that a lot of people have weighed and measured things, and wrote the numbers down, those numbers they wrote don't actually prove what you say.</i>

Of course not. Nobody claims they do. You're the one who's claiming absolute truth here.

<i>OK, I don't think very highly of your ability to think.</i>

Thankyou for your opinion. You are in the minority, however.