They are not only scientifically consistent, they are mathematically consistent as I have already demonstrated. I can prove this on an abacus. You simply refuse to accept it because it offends your preconceived belief system.
They are not only scientifically consistent, they are mathematically consistent as I have already demonstrated. I can prove this on an abacus. You simply refuse to accept it because it offends your preconceived belief system.Originally posted by: ElFenix
your creationism example merely tricks observers within the system to observe that the system is older the system in your example b is. that doesn't make the two examples 'scientifically' consistent.
science involves the ability to falsify hypothesis, theories, and sometimes even laws. your creationist example does not allow someone within the system to falsify the hypothesis that the universe/earth is only 6000 years old. therefore it is unscientific.
you can 'prove' anything by going outside of the system. doing so, however, is not science.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So, BBT cannot be a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, at least not relative to my alternative hypothesis #2.
Yes, that is what I want to hear. Now, I'd like you to acknowledge that, since there is no observable difference, there is no scientific way to discern between the two theories and that the question of the OP is therefore philosophical and not scientific.Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, there is no difference to an observer inside the system between your two examples. that is correct. is that what you want to hear?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, that is what I want to hear. Now, I'd like you to acknowledge that, since there is no observable difference, there is no scientific way to discern between the two theories and that the question of the OP is therefore philosophical and not scientific.Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, there is no difference to an observer inside the system between your two examples. that is correct. is that what you want to hear?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Maybe this will help:
Merriam-Webster definition of "theory":
2: abstract thought : speculation
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Apples and Oranges. Creation is a speculation, BBT is a scientific theory. The two should not be discussed together because one was invented from human imagination, the other pieced together from observable facts and evidence. They are not in opposition any more than Charles Xavier and Albert Einstein could be for the World's Smartest Man title.
So, BBT cannot be a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, at least not relative to my alternative hypothesis #2.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, that is what I want to hear. Now, I'd like you to acknowledge that, since there is no observable difference, there is no scientific way to discern between the two theories and that the question of the OP is therefore philosophical and not scientific.Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, there is no difference to an observer inside the system between your two examples. that is correct. is that what you want to hear?
Wrong. One day, it is quite possible that we could prove either of your hypothesis true or false. One cannot set out to disprove either one until they have first been proven. The beauty of it, and my entire point, is that doing so has already begun on #1, while #2 has no scientific evidence to even get started!Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You can never prove a theory, you can only disprove it. As someone disparaging my scientific credentials, you should have known that.Originally posted by: palehorse74
So why did you bother asking if all you're going to do is pick or choose the replies that support your predetermined conclusion?
I can demostrate the BBT through a series of snow-balling experiments that ultimately support the theory itself. (There are many books that will connect the scientifically proven dots for you).
The same cannot be done with Creationism - the dots cannot be connected scientifically.
EDIT: So BBT is on its way to being scientifically proven one day; while Creationism, in terms of the scientifc method, can't even get off the ground!
As a counter to your OP, I would propose that you do the opposite: Scientifically prove each hypothesis true. I guarantee that you have more success with #1 than you will with #2.
My "faith" lies entirely in the scientific method.
As an aside, my Deism has its roots in the scientific method - physics specifically. I used to worship the energy throughout the Universe itself; but the unknowns surrounding energy led to my labeling it "God" - if, for no other reason, than "God" being the only English word to adequately describe that which defines and comprises everything!
In other words, I pray to the Universe' collective energy, and draw personal strength from energy within myself.
I know, I'm nuts...
LOL... I may be older than you, son. Why is it that you've taken to insulting those who question the purpose of this thread, your motives, or your methods?Unfortunately, you're just some ignorant kid who thinks he can talk down to me because I proposed a question that makes him feel uncomfortable about his unexamined belief system. I say it's unexamined because you don't even consider it a belief system: you think it's somehow scientific.
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Maybe this will help:
Merriam-Webster definition of "theory":
2: abstract thought : speculation
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Apples and Oranges. Creation is a speculation, BBT is a scientific theory. The two should not be discussed together because one was invented from human imagination, the other pieced together from observable facts and evidence. They are not in opposition any more than Charles Xavier and Albert Einstein could be for the World's Smartest Man title.
So, BBT cannot be a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, at least not relative to my alternative hypothesis #2.
Well it is falsifiable via math. If the math, which is the language of our universe, isn't making any sense then the theory is likely to be false.
The difference between your scenarios is that there is evidence for one (red shift, simpler stars on the outskirts of the unvierse, etc.) while the other has no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am not defensive, he adamantly and defensively maintains. Hehe, you don't know what you feel so you dance, not knowing you do.
And, of course, you are profoundly arrogant. You get nothing from religion/mysticism because you know nothing about what can be had and think your knowledge is ultimate. You are a cave man thinking the shadows that appear on your cave wall are reality. You believe in your assumptions and don't know what you feel. The door to knowledge lies through the heart and there you are numb. You can't let yourself feel. And you haven't the faintest idea what I am talking about.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.
Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.
2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.
Can anyone suggest a scientific method to disprove either hypothesis?
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Maybe this will help:
Merriam-Webster definition of "theory":
2: abstract thought : speculation
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
theory (the'?-re, thîr'e)
n., pl. -ries.
- A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
- The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
- A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
- Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
- A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
- An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.
Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.
2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.
Can anyone suggest a scientific method to disprove either hypothesis?
3. The universe was created 10 minutes ago, with all objects and persons springing instantly into being with everyone's memories programed to know what they know at this instant, and all objects manipulated such that an appearence of advanced age (billions of years) is entirely artificial, i.e. same as #2.
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.
Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.
2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.
Can anyone suggest a scientific method to disprove either hypothesis?
3. The universe was created 10 minutes ago, with all objects and persons springing instantly into being with everyone's memories programed to know what they know at this instant, and all objects manipulated such that an appearence of advanced age (billions of years) is entirely artificial, i.e. same as #2.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll pose a question here that all of you know the answer to, but I'll pose it just to make you think about it a little.
Consider the following two hypotheses:
1. The universe was formed from the Big Bang billions of years ago. Life formed spontaneously and evolved to what we know today.
2. The universe was formed 6,000 years ago. Every bit of matter was positioned just so such that it matched the position and velocity of the Big Bang model (i.e. its initial condition exactly matches that predicted by Big Bang theory). Life was formed and microevolution occurred.
Can anyone suggest a scientific method to disprove either hypothesis?
The point is that you cannot scientifically discern between the two hypotheses as stated. Therefore, the question of which is correct is not in the realm of science and is purely philosophical in nature. The reason I brought it up was because, while I am not a Creationist, I'm tired of people pretending to ride the high horse of scientific thought in deriding Creationists. This simply demonstrates the ignorance of those trying to claim that their idea is scientific while the other is not, since it is clear (as we have agreed) that neither of them is scientifically distinct from the other.Originally posted by: ElFenix
yes, the question is philosophical. why? because you're asking a question that cannot be answered by someone stuck in the system. it's not a question that science is seeking to answer, nor purports to answer. it's like asking what was before the big bang?
that doesn't mean the big bang theory (the actual one, not the conjectured one you're starting to argue from) is not falsifiable by new observation (which, as i'm sure you're aware, the observation would be the same in either system in your post). that is what makes the proper big bang theory of the origin of the universe scientific.
I couldn't agree more. This is exactly why I created this thread.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But if it's philosophical or scientific, either one, why do people giggle? Hehe! It seems that no matter what people think, they become wedded to their ideas and invest emotions in them. This points out to me that ideas meet emotional needs, needs that are unconscious.
This is, I think, far more dangerous in the scientist than in the religious person. A person of faith chooses to have faith whereas the scientist is rational and unbiased in all but his unconscious life where prejudice runs unscientifically rampant. Nothing is more dangerous than a fanatic that thinks he's objective and has objectivity as his religion.
Originally posted by: Vic
Actually, the universe came into existence at the time that I first became sentient, which was about in my 2nd or 3rd year, and the size and scope of the entire universe is confined to the limitations of my senses.
I try to avoid mentioning this because I've found that some people take offense at it.
No, actually, I'm quite right. A theory can never be proven because there are infinitely many theories that may be formulated to describe any data set. As I have demonstrated above, #1 and #2 are scientifically equivalent, since there would be no observable difference in the universe if one were true and the other were not.Originally posted by: palehorse74
Wrong. One day, it is quite possible that we could prove either of your hypothesis true or false. One cannot set out to disprove either one until they have first been proven. The beauty of it, and my entire point, is that doing so has already begun on #1, while #2 has no scientific evidence to even get started!
You've insulted me with your own ignorance. You claim to be in a position to tell me what science is, though you clearly are not. You've also demonstrated that your only interest in this thread is demeaning Creationists rather than considering the OP in the spirit that it was intended, so I'm done with you until you do so.LOL... I may be older than you, son. Why is it that you've taken to insulting those who question the purpose of this thread, your motives, or your methods?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The point is that you cannot scientifically discern between the two hypotheses as stated. Therefore, the question of which is correct is not in the realm of science and is purely philosophical in nature. The reason I brought it up was because, while I am not a Creationist, I'm tired of people pretending to ride the high horse of scientific thought in deriding Creationists. This simply demonstrates the ignorance of those trying to claim that their idea is scientific while the other is not, since it is clear (as we have agreed) that neither of them is scientifically distinct from the other.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The point is that you cannot scientifically discern between the two hypotheses as stated.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
You're right - you just put forth another hypothesis that is completely consistent with both of mine in a scientific sense. Then, you are starting to see that this is a purely philosophical question rather than one of science, and I applaud you for reaching that point.Originally posted by: sirjonk
3. The universe was created 10 minutes ago, with all objects and persons springing instantly into being with everyone's memories programed to know what they know at this instant, and all objects manipulated such that an appearence of advanced age (billions of years) is entirely artificial, i.e. same as #2.
Okay, I think I'm gonna have to call an end to Cyclo's fun. You guys are all missing the point, and badly.Originally posted by: senseamp
Did you live all your life, or did a creator make you this morning and just put all the memories in your head as if you already lived a long life to trick you?
Also, why would this all powerful Creator want to waste his time meticulously creating a universe to match a theory that people would have 6000 years later? Wouldn't that also mean that the authors of the Big Bang theory created the universe, including themselves, using this Creator as volunteer labor? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
I also said that they are not scientifically distinct. However, the point is that we can never scientifically know how the universe's initial state was defined because all physical manifestations present now could have arisen from infinitely many initial conditions. On this, I think, we can agree.Originally posted by: ElFenix
i have not agreed that they are scientifically distinct from each other. in fact, i disagree that they are scientifically distinct from each other. THE big bang theory is scientific because it can be falsified using the rules of the system from within the system. THE creationist argument is not because it cannot be falsified using the rules of the system from within the system. THAT is the distinction.
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Vic
Actually, the universe came into existence at the time that I first became sentient, which was about in my 2nd or 3rd year, and the size and scope of the entire universe is confined to the limitations of my senses.
I try to avoid mentioning this because I've found that some people take offense at it.
it's entirely possible that you are all just figments of my imagination here for my amusement. that when i turn away from something it turns into a cloud of electrons. and that my life has just been one giant reality tv show.