Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

A conversation about Creation.

Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 4:44:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
During the time I was playing a game both I and Master Kage enjoy, and talking on many different subjects, Kage stated he was an Agnostic, and this conversation followed:

Me: I personally believe in God as a combination of the Bible and scientific plausibility.

Jessa K (another person who was there, who served to introduce the question that led to the conversation): Scientific plausibility?

Me:The descriptions of God in the Bible are exactly as He would have to be to be an all-powerful deity.

Kage: But God is a supernatural force.

Me (furthering my earlier statement, because there are only so many characters allowed; Kage posted before I could finish it, thus the conversation is sometimes a bit off): He'd have to exist outside of time, for example.

Kage: Ah.

Kage: I understand what you're getting at, now.

Me: A supernatural force doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. It means that He is something that would not occur in nature, and bypasses it.

Kage: Yes, but a supernatural force takes no scientific nature.

Me: Though to be fair, He's actually manipulating metaphysics to gain the desired effect.

Kage: "He's?" God has no determined gender.

Me (this is a fast paced debate, and this was not in answer to his last comment, yet again): He did so to create the universe, which is evident based on the fact that it would require action a dimension outside of time and space to cause such (I would like the reader to know I was refering to a dimension of reality, not a dimension of the universe, thus refering to a seperate part from the entirety of existance, such as the multiverse, if there actually are other universes) an event.

Me (in answer to Kage's earlier question [ I type swiftly]): "He" is what He is refered to as, because of the fact that He was male while walking the earth, and refered to Himself as the Father (by this, I mean the portion of Himself that was still controling reality outside of His body; It's difficult to explain [That was part of the actual conversation]).

Kage: There is a possibility that God and the Big Bang Theory are linked.

Me: Pfft... The Big Bang Theory is inherantly flawed.

Kage: Hardly. It is the most accepted alternative cause for the existance of the universe.

Me: We know far too little about the universe, and while a similar event might have occured to allow for the universe's existance, the way they invision it now is almost certainly flawed, just because of lack of knowledge. Scientists admit that.

Kage: Besides, I was just saying you can easily link the Big Bang Theory to God.

Me: Thus, the creation of the universe definitely does have to do with God, but many of the things we currently think occured are most likely incorrect.

Kage: For example, God would easily be able to cause the explosion of the Big Bang Theory.

Me: And yes, you can link the event that occured, which is approximated by the Big Bang Theory, to God.

Kage: Besides, I do believe that the Big Bang was the cause of the creation of the universe.

Me: Most of the measurements of time made by the scientific community are incorrect, as well, because they rely on assumptions as to the original chemical composition of objects, which is unknown.

Me: Also, certain events that would normally take a certain ammount of time could be sped up by manipulation of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

Kage: Yes, we need more information before we can produce an accurate standing of the universe. (I assume he meant before we can fully understand, but that's just me)

Me: Indeed. We do not even fully understand the laws of physics, and the underlying metaphysical laws, either.

Me: For example, gravity and extreme cold can cause the laws of physics to not apply normally.Thus, metaphysics, the underlying laws dictating how the laws of physics opperate.

Me: That is also the basis of why magic and miracles could apply, as well.

Kage: Honestly, Magic could just be highly advanced science.

Me: Manipulation of the laws of physics' opperations, and causing things that should be impossible to occur... it would require interference from beyond our universe/dimansional plain, though.

Me: And I agree, most "magical" phenomina have a good chance of being the result of technology.

Kage: Hmm... We should set up an organized debate on DDO on the creation of the universe.

Kage: Yes, it could be advanced technology or evolved science.

Me: However, I am also allowing for the existance of true magic that opperates under the original principles: a spirit or the devil (ect.) giving power to manipulate reality in ways that would not normally be possible.

Me: Perhaps we could, Kage, but I prefer to do it in person, because of the time it takes to respond, and the limits on rounds. You can only correct your arguements to counter your opponent's a limited ammount of times in such an event, making it relatively limited (no offence to the readers).

Kage: You're given 3 days to respond, and you can limit the ammount of time.
Of course I would respond rather quickly. And neither of us have limited knowlenge on the subject.

Me: Yes, I know it would work, and it would allow for public viewing. Those are the advantages of such a system.

Kage: Drakkoniss, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Me: I was just thinking of screenshoting what we have said, to keep record of it.

Kage: Hmm...

Me: That way we could perhaps we could post it on the DDO forums, instead of having to go through the trouble of repeating ourselves.

Kage: That could be considered advertising.

Me: As I can scroll back up in the chat, I could record it all with ease. I shall screeny it now, actually, too. I could post the dialogue instead of the screenshots themselves.

Kage: I suppose...

Me: Well, then, I shall start now.

...

Oppinions?

I think I may have missed some stuff higher up about the Bible not only being a religious doccument, but a history book, and a book of wisdom, which can help you out in complicated situations in life, but I can't scroll up to find that, and I've had so much conversation since then that the chat log became full, and I couldn't scroll up to it if I tried.

I hope this doesn't go against the forum rules... It's my first post, so I could have made a mistake.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:08:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 4:44:27 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:

Me (this is a fast paced debate, and this was not in answer to his last comment, yet again): He did so to create the universe, which is evident based on the fact that it would require action a dimension outside of time and space to cause such (I would like the reader to know I was refering to a dimension of reality, not a dimension of the universe, thus refering to a seperate part from the entirety of existance, such as the multiverse, if there actually are other universes) an event.

How do you know this action outside this universe that created this universe came from a person?
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:15:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do not. I just believe that it is more likely than not, considering the very intricate rules that reality plays by. The Periodic Table is a good example of that, with each of the elements being aranged so that they have certain traits based on the number of electrons and protons, making clearly visible patterns.

The existance of a God-figure causing the orderliness of the universe and its laws seems more likely than a non-living being. It still remains largely a matter of faith, though, and as I said, the Bible also is a large part of my reasoning.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:20:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 4:44:27 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:

Me: Pfft... The Big Bang Theory is inherantly flawed.

Why do you think that?

Me: We know far too little about the universe, and while a similar event might have occured to allow for the universe's existance, the way they invision it now is almost certainly flawed, just because of lack of knowledge. Scientists admit that.

We know enough about the universe to know that this theory is true. For example, all objects in the universe are moving away from each other. If you wind back time, they get closer and closer together. If you keep winding that clock back, they meet at one point.

Me: Thus, the creation of the universe definitely does have to do with God, but many of the things we currently think occured are most likely incorrect.

Why do you say that?

Me: Most of the measurements of time made by the scientific community are incorrect, as well, because they rely on assumptions as to the original chemical composition of objects, which is unknown.

Can you back up these assertions?

Me: Also, certain events that would normally take a certain ammount of time could be sped up by manipulation of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

Could you also back this up as well?

Me: Indeed. We do not even fully understand the laws of physics, and the underlying metaphysical laws, either.

As I said, we know enough to know that the big bang happened. Our lack of knowledge keeps us from knowing what started it.

Me: For example, gravity and extreme cold can cause the laws of physics to not apply normally.Thus, metaphysics, the underlying laws dictating how the laws of physics opperate.

Could you back up that assertion?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:31:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:15:19 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
I do not. I just believe that it is more likely than not, considering the very intricate rules that reality plays by.

Reality plays by rules because of causality. No supernatural required.

The Periodic Table is a good example of that, with each of the elements being aranged so that they have certain traits based on the number of electrons and protons, making clearly visible patterns.

They are that way because of the causal nature of those elements. No supernatural force required.

The existance of a God-figure causing the orderliness of the universe and its laws seems more likely than a non-living being. It still remains largely a matter of faith, though, and as I said, the Bible also is a large part of my reasoning.

The universe is orderly because of causality. Different objects have different effects on other objects. We can use mathematics top make numerical analyses of these relationships. Again, no supernatural required.

People thought that design was the only thing that could explain thunder, the complexity of life, the existence of stars, the change of seasons, the motions, or planets and more. However we find that natural forces can explain these.

Now theists are rolling back their God-of-the-gaps arguments to areas still hardly touched by science. Lets not make the same mistake our ancestors have made thousands of times. Lets not make any supernatural assumptions. I think it very likely that there will be a natural explanation for the order in the universe, just like there has been a natural explanation for about everything else in the universe.

We already know this natural explanation. That explanation is causality. Causality is the reason we have order and laws in the universe.
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:50:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, we don't have enough information to know the theory is correct. The information strongly points to such a thing occuring, but it is still a theory, which is why it is called the "Big BangTheory". There are many things we do not know, so we cannot just accept it as fact, based on scientific principles. There is also the fact that we do not know what has occured in other parts of reality than this universe, and there could be evidence left over from interference that has not been discovered. I state that not because of my belief in God, but because I realize that there are things that could make the theory be discovered to be incorrect. I am a realistic thinker in this matter, not holding blind faith on a theory that occurs this soon in the human race's existance. There were so many advances in the 20th and 21st centuries; Who's to say we shall not become all the more advanced later in this, or perhaps the next century or later. You must also realize that we only view the universe from earth and the rest of the Sol System, which means we have a limited point of view from which to discover things.

The very fact that we use the ratios of chemicals in rocks to date them, among other things, shows the flaw. We are guessing at a certain ratio earlier in the rock's existance, which is how radiometric and carbon dating works. We have no idea what level those chemicals are, frankly, and we make presumptions that may seem to be adequate guesses, but are in fact a shot in the dark.

I apologize for using the word "definitely". As I said, it was an oppinion, and I have previously stated the reasoning of my stating that many of our current ideas are incorrect, which is how young science is, and how much we still do not know.
What I would say if I had not been talking with Kage, who knows me well and alread understood many of my points before the discussion, would be "Thus, the universe's existance almost certainly is a result of events caused in a dimension uneffected by time, which I already stated, and I believe supports the view that there is a God."

The theoretical manipulation of atomic and subatomic particles could result in anything possible to exist in the universe, because of the formation of elements and compounds in certain structures, which as I said earlier causes dating to be difficult, if not impossible. Due to the fact that this is theoretically possible, I stated as much, and if anyone, God would be able to do such a thing. This is assumed based on earlier points made involving the manipulation of the laws of physics and metaphysics, which would allow most anything to be possible.

Based on the fact that we do not fully understand the laws of physics, nor all that happens in the universe, some of which could concievably make things appear to not be as they seem, and contaminate the data.

What I speak of concerning gravity and cold refers to such things as superconductivity, the slowing down of time, ect. It is not commonly known that these things happen in the universe, so I understand why you'd ask.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 12:20:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Im sorry, but what utter nonsense.

At 1/1/2012 6:50:38 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
No, we don't have enough information to know the theory is correct. The information strongly points to such a thing occuring, but it is still a theory, which is why it is called the "Big BangTheory". There are many things we do not know, so we cannot just accept it as fact, based on scientific principles.

Break.

No, the reason we call something a Theory in science, has nothing to do with the fact that we do not have enough information to know if the theory is correct. The theory of Gravitation for example, has ample evidence and we have a very very good understanding of it, yet it is still a theory.

We automatically call any attempt at explaining a phenomenon or observation, as a theory. A theory can never become a fact. You have a fundemental misunderstanding regarding science, and what a Theory is.

There is also the fact that we do not know what has occured in other parts of reality than this universe, and there could be evidence left over from interference that has not been discovered. I state that not because of my belief in God, but because I realize that there are things that could make the theory be discovered to be incorrect. I am a realistic thinker in this matter, not holding blind faith on a theory that occurs this soon in the human race's existance. There were so many advances in the 20th and 21st centuries; Who's to say we shall not become all the more advanced later in this, or perhaps the next century or later. You must also realize that we only view the universe from earth and the rest of the Sol System, which means we have a limited point of view from which to discover things.

Sure. And maybe we are all simply brains in vats, and our current perceived reality is all fake.

This is the problem with your argument. There are a near-infinite amount of things that COULD be true, that would completely mess with our current understanding of reality and the universe around us. And, most of these things are undetectable or cannot be disproved without exhaustive knowledge.

Discounting the current evidence and the theories that are postulated based on these evidences, simply because of a possible future discovery that would shatter it, is impractical.

The very fact that we use the ratios of chemicals in rocks to date them, among other things, shows the flaw. We are guessing at a certain ratio earlier in the rock's existance, which is how radiometric and carbon dating works. We have no idea what level those chemicals are, frankly, and we make presumptions that may seem to be adequate guesses, but are in fact a shot in the dark.

This is wrong, for two reasons.

Firstly, we can recognize similar strata based on both the composition of the strata above and below, as well as the fossils we find within them. Based on this, we can, and have, dated the same rocks from the same strata at different locations. And guess what? The dates match. And they match for other methods of radiometric dating, as well. If what you claimed was true, then we would have multiple, different readings, even between different samples within the same vicinity, let alone samples within the same strata from different locations entirely.

Secondly, there is no guess work required. Many of the daughter products that we use to date a rock, cannot be produced in nature other than a radiometric decay by its parent. Furthermore, radiometric dating on Zircon for Uranium-lead decay, is quite accurate, due to the nature and property of Zircon, which strongly rejects lead but readily accepts Uranium when formig, therefore we do not have to guess as to how much lead a zircon sample has been contaminated with.

I apologize for using the word "definitely". As I said, it was an oppinion, and I have previously stated the reasoning of my stating that many of our current ideas are incorrect, which is how young science is, and how much we still do not know.
What I would say if I had not been talking with Kage, who knows me well and alread understood many of my points before the discussion, would be "Thus, the universe's existance almost certainly is a result of events caused in a dimension uneffected by time, which I already stated, and I believe supports the view that there is a God."

Here is the problem with your argument.

You have not presented any arguments or evidence to support that a Universe must be created by something outside its dimension. There is no evidence of that, and i doubt you could ever come up with such evidence.

What you have done, is simply dismissed the other explanations for how the universe came to be, and therefore concluded that yours, the explanation that, by its very nature cannot be dismissed, must be correct. Of course, your reasons for dismissing the other explanations are flimsy at best, but you cannot conclude that something is true simply based on the dismissal of another explanation. You are, in essence, committing a false dichotomy.

The theoretical manipulation of atomic and subatomic particles could result in anything possible to exist in the universe, because of the formation of elements and compounds in certain structures, which as I said earlier causes dating to be difficult, if not impossible. Due to the fact that this is theoretically possible, I stated as much, and if anyone, God would be able to do such a thing. This is assumed based on earlier points made involving the manipulation of the laws of physics and metaphysics, which would allow most anything to be possible.

Yes, and theoretical manipulation of memories by this God character could result in anything possible to exist n the universe, because of the formation of false memories and planted evidence that give the illusion that we have lived for more than 30 years, when infact this entire earth and the unvierse was created last week, with all the objects and our memories being implanted. Due to the fact that this is theoretically possible, and if anyone, God would be able to do such a thing, makes your argument utterly useless.

Again, this is why your argument utterly fails, and why it is also absurd nonsense.

What I speak of concerning gravity and cold refers to such things as superconductivity, the slowing down of time, ect. It is not commonly known that these things happen in the universe, so I understand why you'd ask.

Actually, yes, these things are quite common in the universe.

Before, when you said that gravity and extreme low temps cause the laws of physics not to apply normally, that is not true. Things like superconductivity, time dialation, etc, none of these are prohibited by the laws of physics, nor are these violations or the laws not being applied "normally" at all.

And i fail to see why you would go on with "Thus, metaphysics..." since none of this is evidence of the supernatural, and therefore you cannot conclude that the metaphysical, supernatural world exists based on any of this.
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 4:38:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I apologize if I made my meaning unclear, tkubok. By my words concerning the definition of a theory, I meant that, as it is a theory, even with ample evidence to support it is correct, such as gravitation, which you mention, there are still many things that we do not know, and a theory which is vastly supported could still be proven to be wrong or in need of alterations to make it correct as more evidence is gathered, and what we know of it becomes more in measure and it becomes a more complex theory. We can still indeed use such theories in practice and mathematical calculations as if they were definite facts, which they may be, but we cannot be absolutely certain they are so.

As I state in my above apology, and before then, there is still much we do not know about the universe, which could cause our current calculations and theories to be proven inadequate, and in need of change. I am not saying it is a relatively sound theory, and in all likelihood, as I have said in my earlier posts, something very similar most likely occured, but there is a good chance that at least parts of the Big Bang Theory are incorrect, just as Einstein's calculations concerning gravity have been proven to be incorrect, causing us to have a need to correct them, and creating the idea of "Temporal Gravity", which has not been completely explored yet. I am of the belief that we are too young as a race to fully understand such things as of yet.

I do not mean to sound ignorant in my statements... I suppose they are of the nature that allows for many to possibly misunderstand the meaning of them, and the depths of my knowledge (not to sound narcissistic [I also would like to express my regret that I make so many mistakes in spelling {even though many do not notice} in case that comes up in the future or makes me appear... of relatively minor intellect).

To be fair, I believe a hypothesis is the initial attempt to explain a phenominon like you say, with it becoming a theory once it has been tested and has evidence to support it, though I suppose it depends on use, as many people use the words interchangeably...

I did not, nor do I wish it to be thought that I have such fundemental misunderstandings of science, and I again wish to apologize, as I did not test my words to prevent possible misinterpretations in the future.

I shall acknowledge that you are correct, and there are many possibilities as to what is true that we believe to be so, and as I meant to emphasize in the passage you quoted, there are still so many things we do not know, and we are so young as a civilization that much of our current understanding of reality could be incorrect. I did not mean to be interperated as saying that we should abandon all of our current beliefs, but merely wished that specific fact to be stated and understood: we still have much to learn as a civilization. I am merely skeptical as to how long the Big Bang Theory will remain in its current level of regard.

On the matter of dating, the comparison of organisms and composition of the strata mearly gives a relative date, not a definite one, and as to how old the rock actually is, it is difficult if not impossible to be certain. The radiometric dating correlations intrigues me, and while I have no arguement to deny the fact that the dating of multiple types' matching in strata thought to be of the same time period does support your claim, as I said earlier, with manipulation of atomic/subatomic particles to form certain compounds and formations that make up the various strata and other things which are dated (or, actually, the precursors which eventually formed those things with time and various other stimuli effecting them) taken into account, the evidence could very well be incorrect, though it would be impossible at the current time to prove either of those arguements to be correct. It would seem unlikely that you are wrong on this matter, however I could very well be correct, and if you are in fact talking about an intelligent being causing these things, instead of natural processes, that would make it nigh impossible to stumble onto the fact that such a thing occured, unless there is some particle that exists at a level so small that our current equipment cannot detect it, and which has effects that are so negligable that they have not been detected, either. If the entirety of the universe was created as a result of intelligent design, then said particle would be effectively everywhere, unless it has already decayed into non-existance, in which case humanity would have to invent EXTREMELY accurate ways of measuring things, and have a supremely vast ammount of knowledge to discover what effects it used to have, and why there are infintesimal discrepancies in what the universe should be without said particle ever having existed. For these reasons, we are unfortunately in a deadlock, and Christian and non-creationist-scientific views on the origins of the universe most likely will remain that way untill such a time said particle's effects on reality can be discovered, or we begin deeper inter-dimensional research/the end of time comes, whichever of the three come first, not taking the afterlife into account, at which point dead scientist's views could be changed, but there would be very little possibility of that effecting the living at all. As you can see, I like to be very thorough in my thoughts and statements. I mean no disrespect to you or any of your presumed scientific colleages, and I would very well appreciate it if you continued to work for the betterment of humanity and to discover new scraps of information, but I would also not choose to forget that there are variables and unknowns that cannot be accounted for with current scientific methods, and I doubt will be able to for many years to come, if ever.

No, you are probably right, I will not be able to come up with such evidence, as it is based on the presumption that causality has some sort of standing in the universe's existance. We know far too little about temporal physics and/or the relationship to various spacial and extra-dimensional factors to definitively say such a thing. Regardless of the fact that it would seem apparently paradoxical to the lay man that the universe should be able to exist without an underlying cause that is not from within this universe, I realise that we know far too little to say while being 100% certain it is factual. That has been my one doubt when I ponder such things: the lack of knowledge humanity has in the field of temporal/inter-spacial/dimensional physics (yes, I realise I just invented that term, but I am refering to a theoretical feild of research and understanding that deals with all the effects from within and without the universe that come into play with regards to what occurs within it; thusly, that term will probably be revised eventually, should the human race survive, untill such a time as the fields combine and more research and cooperation takes place between them, along with the obvious fact that the effects of other dimensions on this one would have to become more certain, among other factors I will not deign to comment on). Because this generation is so early in the saga of humanity's serious scientific research, I continue to have to guess, and I wish I did not, but it must be so.

Because of that, much of my thoughts on such matters remain within the realm of philosophy, and oppinion. They may never be proven while I am alive, or at all. If so, then so it shall be.

If you would, I would very much like to see a response from you, goodsir.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 6:04:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Drak,
It always amazes me how the humble behave. (Sarcasm)

You are explaining the concept of how a definition is applied and people here respond.
(In a lofty british tone "You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science actually is!)

They do not read for your intent, their responses lack maturity and social grace, so you have to be very clear with these people or you will wind up spinning your wheels.
They also possess a low reading comprehension.

Please do not let these people drive you off.
It will be great practice to become more succinct.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:01:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 4:38:09 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
I apologize if I made my meaning unclear, tkubok. By my words concerning the definition of a theory, I meant that, as it is a theory, even with ample evidence to support it is correct, such as gravitation, which you mention, there are still many things that we do not know, and a theory which is vastly supported could still be proven to be wrong or in need of alterations to make it correct as more evidence is gathered, and what we know of it becomes more in measure and it becomes a more complex theory. We can still indeed use such theories in practice and mathematical calculations as if they were definite facts, which they may be, but we cannot be absolutely certain they are so.

I have several things wrong with this comment.

First off, you, in your original comment i responded to, went on to say "It is still a theory", then trailed off to "So we cannot just accept as a fact". In other words, you started off with talking about it as a theory, and then you went on to talk about it as a fact. Again, a theory can never become a fact, and therefore we could not, even if we wanted to, accept the Big bang theory as a fact. This is the first thing that i tried to correct in your statement.

Secondly, get rid of this notion of absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is a red herring. We cannot know anything for sure. As i said before, if we were brains in vats, if this was the Matrix, everything around us would be false, and we would have no way of knowing this.

Thirdly, you are correct, a theory will most definitely have alterations. but very very rarely is a theory completely wrong. It would be the same as waking up tomorrow, and finding out that Gravity no longer existed. In other words, absurd to the point of near-impossible. Which takes me to my main problem with your comment, as well as your initial post.

You seem to be rejecting a theory(or, at the very least, claiming that it is flawed) simply because of the possibility of it being proven wrong in the future, i.e. the lack of knowledge today. If you simply disbelieve due to lack of evidence, this is fine, i do the same with God. But you are specifically talking about rejecting a theory, not from lack of evidence, but the possible appearance of new evidence that would disprove it. This is a fundamentally flawed method of denying or disregarding a belief.

Take the theory of Gravitation for example. We know quite a bit about this theory. How much do we know? We have no idea. Maybe weve already figured out 90% of the theory, maybe weve only scratched the surface. But i doubt either of us reject this theory, despite how much knowledge we may or may not have about it. What if all of our knowledge about Gravity only accounts for .000001% of all the possible knowledge we could ever attain about gravity? Yet, despite this, we accept this theory because all the evidence we have points to this theory. What we DONT know has no bearing on what we DO know.

If that wasnt bad enough, in your initial post, you also seem to be using this as a reason to accept, and even claim that "Therefor God definately created this universe". I fail to see how disproving one theory automatically proves another theory right.

On the matter of dating, the comparison of organisms and composition of the strata mearly gives a relative date, not a definite one,

Small break.

What do you mean by "Definate"?

Radiometric dating, any form of radiometric dating, also has a small margin of error. None of the methods of dating give definate dates. We cannot tell at what exact year a rock cam from, only from within a margin of a couple hundred years.

and as to how old the rock actually is, it is difficult if not impossible to be certain.

Another break.

Again, you are being a bit ambiguous as to what you mean by "Certain". If you are talking about absolute certainty, again, this is a red herring. If you are talking about how old the rock actually is, to the second, then yes, you are right, it is impossible to know how old within seconds, the rock is. If you are talking about how old the rock is within an error margin of a hundred years or so, then no, you are wrong, and we are certain to a high degree of accuracy, how old the rock is.

The radiometric dating correlations intrigues me, and while I have no arguement to deny the fact that the dating of multiple types' matching in strata thought to be of the same time period does support your claim, as I said earlier, with manipulation of atomic/subatomic particles to form certain compounds and formations that make up the various strata and other things which are dated (or, actually, the precursors which eventually formed those things with time and various other stimuli effecting them) taken into account, the evidence could very well be incorrect, though it would be impossible at the current time to prove either of those arguements to be correct.

Actually, no. The argument you provided, can easily be shown to be not correct. And its not correct for two reasons.

First off, we already know the methods in which each isotope is confined, the rate it decays, what affects decays, etc. Zircon, again, has a crystaline structure that is specifically suited to reject Lead but accept Uranium, giving us accurate readings. Coupled with this, is the fact that we cannot slow a decay rate down nor can we increase the decay rate at a noticeable rate without major implications, we know that the dating methods are accurate.

This leads into the second reason, which is directly responding to the argument of "Well, what if there was some sort of unknown mechanism that we are yet unaware of that changed the decay rate". But i will SAVE this argument for a second post, because you have ignored it in my first reply to you.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:09:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 6:04:16 PM, Gileandos wrote:
@Drak,
It always amazes me how the humble behave. (Sarcasm)

You are explaining the concept of how a definition is applied and people here respond.
(In a lofty british tone "You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science actually is!)

They do not read for your intent, their responses lack maturity and social grace, so you have to be very clear with these people or you will wind up spinning your wheels.
They also possess a low reading comprehension.

Please do not let these people drive you off.
It will be great practice to become more succinct.

Actually, no. When we are discussing things within their context, for example, science, the proper use of definitions apply.

It in fact takes a higher reading comprehension to discern and distinguish the laymen usage of words from their proper usage. Unless you seriously think that an English teacher marks down a students paper for improper spelling, grammar and punctuation simply because the teacher lacks the necessary comprehension of sentences like "so i waz runin 2 this guyz house wen his krazy motha yelled @ me", you are wrong.

But, i suppose, if you lived in the ghetto, social grace would be defined as above.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:48:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Before i start, lets just recap a bit. Lets remember that absolute certainty is a red herring and meaningless. Now, with that out of the way...

At 1/2/2012 4:38:09 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
It would seem unlikely that you are wrong on this matter, however I could very well be correct, and if you are in fact talking about an intelligent being causing these things, instead of natural processes, that would make it nigh impossible to stumble onto the fact that such a thing occured, unless there is some particle that exists at a level so small that our current equipment cannot detect it, and which has effects that are so negligable that they have not been detected, either. If the entirety of the universe was created as a result of intelligent design, then said particle would be effectively everywhere, unless it has already decayed into non-existance, in which case humanity would have to invent EXTREMELY accurate ways of measuring things, and have a supremely vast ammount of knowledge to discover what effects it used to have, and why there are infintesimal discrepancies in what the universe should be without said particle ever having existed. For these reasons, we are unfortunately in a deadlock, and Christian and non-creationist-scientific views on the origins of the universe most likely will remain that way untill such a time said particle's effects on reality can be discovered, or we begin deeper inter-dimensional research/the end of time comes, whichever of the three come first, not taking the afterlife into account, at which point dead scientist's views could be changed, but there would be very little possibility of that effecting the living at all.

Oh God no.

I didnt bother including, nor responding to the entire last part of your message, because it encompasses the single largest problem that i have with your argument, which is.....

Speculation cannot be used as a means to an end.

Your entire argument rests on a "What if" scenario, one that may or may not come. And this is wrong. And heres an example to show why this is wrong.

You are walking down the street next month on February the 4th, and you might pick up a lottery ticket. This winning ticket, might grant you 100 million dollars.

Clearly, the above scenario is possible. Nothing prevents it from occurring.

Its still today. Its still January 3rd. You do not have a hundred million dollars in your bank account. Now, heres the question.

Do you live your life as if youre going to win that hundred million dollars, or not? Do you start spending tons of money tommorow because you might win a hundred million dollars next month?

The answer, i would hope, is no. No one would. If it did occur, it would be a pleasant surprise, but everyone on this entire earth with half a brain would continue their lives as if that scenario would never occur.

Now, lets go back to your argument. you claimed that christians and non-creationists alike are in a deadlock. One one side, we have non-creationists, who have evidence of the big bang, evidence of how the universe began. On the other side, we have christians, and this "What if" scenario. So, which has the upper hand? As i stated before, what if scenarios are meaningless to contemplate, and even more meaningless to use as a reason for belief.

For this reason, i would say that the non-creationists have the upper hand. There is no deadlock, not until christians, creationists, can come up with evidence or arguments that are not based on speculation.
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 4:42:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And now to respond...

No, I do not intend on allowing myself to be driven off so easily. I thank you for your care, Gileandos.

Yes, I understand what you are meaning, tkubok, in that a theory can never become a fact. I have a headache right now, and I don't feel like responding, as I would like to be able to think straight and make adequate responses to your comments, rather than attempting to do so while I can't think straight, and possibly making myself look like a fool.