[nealric]

Headcase: I believe we are at an impasse- viz. both of us think the other does not understand the issue, and I'm afraid no amount of spilled electronic ink will rectify that.

It was fun. I miss debating philosophy. Hume's advice when philosophical exasperation is reached is to drink beer. Hume generally gave good advice.

... But you are still stuck in Platonism

PS: Sorry about the post edits. It's not because I'm trying to hide my tracks- it's just the way I write. I very often go back and revise my ideas as I think. I never knowingly edit them after someone responds.

 

[jonathanjong]

Ah, do we agree now Head_Case? I've not changed my mind on anything, so perhaps our disagreements were misunderstandings?

 

[wink]

evilking said:
Sigh.

This is why the current estimate for the age of the earth comes not from terrestrial samples, but from meteorites. In the 50 years since this was calculated (I know you probably haven't had time to catch up on such recent work) ALL other non-terrestrial data has supported this theory. Yes, all of it. This includes the age of lunar samples and the age of the sun.

Of course if you have a contradicting theory about stellar evolution or cosmochronology or any of the basic physics that make up most dating methods, I'd love to hear it..

How does dating a meteorite differ from dating earth rocks?
Same method, same problem.

I had a 2 year subscription to New Scientist which I let lapse about 6 months ago, and I have never read any article that has caused me any concern about my beliefs.

I liked the articles on cosmology, but detested the peurile added speculation that was placed in every article to give it an evolutionary spin.

The Cassini probe has shown the moons of Saturn are hotter than they should be if the standard explanation of how the solar system came to be is true.

 

[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fido2: An alternative to the Universe having been created by an eternal being or having evolved out of nothing is that the Universe is eternal. By your lights, something has to be eternal; so, why not the Universe? Also, the inference that there is a Creator is the same kind of inference that there are multiple dimensions, etc. Of course, we can debate about the merits of each inference, but let's not pretend that the latter is obviously ridiculous and the former obviously valid. Head_Case: 1. Oh, I agree. But I didn't reduce epistemology to method; I just said that it's an appropriate concern for epistemology. 2. I meant spilt, as I said. It's the past tense and part participle for the verb spill. It is an alternative to spilled. Your pedantry needs more scholarship. 3. I didn't understand most of that; that's what I'm talking about. Perhaps analytic philosophers are just dumber than continental philosophers; or better – perhaps I'm just dumber than you – but many of us can't see why you can't state your arguments clearly and concisely. Why do you refuse to list premises and conclusions for easier analysis?

Now we're right back where we started. Scientific study has shown that the universe is not eternal. It had a starting point approx 14-17 billion years ago..correct? I get the feeling I am talking to brick walls here...

Inference on multiple dimensions? Have or have not Physicists shown mathematically that other dimension exist?

 

[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wink /img/forum/go_quote.gif How does dating a meteorite differ from dating earth rocks? Same method, same problem.

Because, after formation, meteorites don't do anything. There are no tectonic plates, no shifting of matter, no life, there's not much going on, on any level. Sure, they could be taking the scenic route through the universe, but they can only land once!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wink /img/forum/go_quote.gif I had a 2 year subscription to New Scientist which I let lapse about 6 months ago, and I have never read any article that has caused me any concern about my beliefs. I liked the articles on cosmology, but detested the peurile added speculation that was placed in every article to give it an evolutionary spin.

All publications have their pitfalls, if you want a complete picture, look at more than one source. Although, I've always enjoyed New Scientist...

Quote:

Originally Posted by wink /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Cassini probe has shown the moons of Saturn are hotter than they should be if the standard explanation of how the solar system came to be is true.

This is interesting, not in an "OMG! Evolution is teh HOAX!" way, but in new refinement/progression of cosmological mathematics/modelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wink evilking, Hope this helps. http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm Regards, Wink.

Also, thanks so much for the PM about Young Earth. I've never, ever, read any similar... article about the sham that is evolution and general physics. I really enjoyed such gems as "The Sun is shrinking" (

), the revolutionary new calculations in "Population Growth" (because human behaviour always follow neat, simple equations), and my favourite "Oil pressure". Rocks are porous, so oil shouldn't be under "great" pressure. I know, it's mind-blowing, I mean those volcanoes have been erupting all the freaking time, even letting off hot gases now and then, how come the magma still under "great" pressure?

I had a great time on that site, all those well reasoned, well researched, well supported arguments. Clearly, I need to to sit down and have a long hard think about my beliefs.



EK

 

[jonathanjong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now we're right back where we started. Scientific study has shown that the universe is not eternal. It had a starting point approx 14-17 billion years ago..correct? I get the feeling I am talking to brick walls here... Inference on multiple dimensions? Have or have not Physicists shown mathematically that other dimension exist?

Yes, the Big Bang occurred...what 13.7 billions years ago, more or less? But that's show that the Universe is eternal. The quantum vacuum could've eternally pre-existed the Big Bang; the Big Bang could be the most recent of an infinite series.

Theoretical physicists come up with mathematical models that might or might not correspond to empirical observation. So, yes, physicists have come up with multi-dimensional models of the Universe...and the models explain empirical observations. But this isn't conclusive proof. No theories can be conclusively proven. I'm not a cosmologist, so I don't know which model of the Universe best explains the observations. At any rate, the mathematical models can't "show" anything about the world, really.

 

[wink]

evilking sais:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wink View Post
How does dating a meteorite differ from dating earth rocks?
Same method, same problem.

Because, after formation, meteorites don't do anything. There are no tectonic plates, no shifting of matter, no life, there's not much going on, on any level. Sure, they could be taking the scenic route through the universe, but they can only land once!

So, when the meteorite lands on the earth's surface with a reasonable ompact, it doesn't get contaminated by the earth? I dont thikk so...

If there is any radioactive elements in the meteorite when it starts it's journey, how much lead is in the sample - or is it all U235/8?
So, all the dating of the meteorite can tell us is what the ratio of U235/238 to PB (lead) is when it's tested.

As I have stated before, all the rest is pure conjecture.
Dating of meteorites cannot possibly tell us how much U235/238 and Pb they had when they started their journey, so any dating is invalid.
Please, try and understand this.

 

[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, the Big Bang occurred...what 13.7 billions years ago, more or less? But that's show that the Universe is eternal. The quantum vacuum could've eternally pre-existed the Big Bang; the Big Bang could be the most recent of an infinite series. Theoretical physicists come up with mathematical models that might or might not correspond to empirical observation. So, yes, physicists have come up with multi-dimensional models of the Universe...and the models explain empirical observations. But this isn't conclusive proof. No theories can be conclusively proven. I'm not a cosmologist, so I don't know which model of the Universe best explains the observations. At any rate, the mathematical models can't "show" anything about the world, really.

 

[9pintube]

The one and only J.C.

 

[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9pintube /img/forum/go_quote.gif The one and only J.C.

AYE! I second that nomination!

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Hey, Fido, he may have just knocked the props out from under most of the preceding dozens/hundreds of posts.

 

[12Bass]

Hmm... not sure the person mentioned, if he actually existed, even qualifies as a philosopher....

 

[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey, Fido, he may have just knocked the props out from under most of the preceding dozens/hundreds of posts.

Oh well...you can try but in the end what can you really do?

Quote:

Hmm... not sure the person mentioned, if he actually existed, even qualifies as a philosopher....

well if you're not sure then maybe you should just zip it? heehehehe

 

[wink]

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short View Post
Hey, Fido, he may have just knocked the props out from under most of the preceding dozens/hundreds of posts.

Not really, Speculation is always speculation.
Mathematical models and philosophies do not take the place of reality.
What is true/real is true/real.
Mathematical models and philosophical points of view may be real, but until they have been proven they remain models and philosophical points of view.

 

[12Bass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... well if you're not sure then maybe you should just zip it? heehehehe

Since when should the voice of reasoned skepticism be silenced?