|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 4:52:03 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I've yet to see a coherent definition of entropy for the last two pages!
The change in entropy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the absorbed heat, divided by its temperature.
quote:
UCD resulting in more and more complexity over inderterminate periods of time requires evolutionists to suspend the constancy of uniformitarianism. The classic example is "punctuated equilibrium" as a mechanism to explain away missing links.
What is nonuniformitarian about punctuated equilibrium? Uniformitarianism does not require that evolution runs at a uniform rate, with giraffe necks growing so and so many centimeters per million years. Uniformitarianism in this context just means that the processes of variation and selection are always in effect. P.E. does not deny this.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 4:59:25 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Uniformitarianism has a specific meaning in geology, but more generally it refers to the idea that the laws of nature do not change in time. Using this assumption, scientists have demonstrated the occurence of catastrophes like supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts, or even the hypothesized birth of the moon from a collision of a planetoid with the early earth. So, as it is used, uniformitarianism does not exclude catastrophes. Bravo, es, more amazing circular reasoning. Just like evolutionism, you can use any assumptions you like to "prove" your religion, I mean theory, of uniformitarianism.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 6:30:37 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1385
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
but more generally it refers to the idea that the laws of nature do not change in time.
Just because something operates in a certain manner does not mean that it was created with the same processes that it operates by. In fact, I would say that many things are not created by the normal processes of their operation. For example, it seems rather silly to say that the processes that create sound from your computer speakers are the same processes that created your computer speakers or that the processes that are responsible for water coming out of your garden hose are the same processes responsible for the creation of your garden hose. The same can be said about the universe. It is not logically necessary for the processes that the universe operates by to be the same processes that created it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 8:28:07 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
but more generally it refers to the idea that the laws of nature do not change in time.
Just because something operates in a certain manner does not mean that it was created with the same processes that it operates by. ... It is not logically necessary for the processes that the universe operates by to be the same processes that created it.
Certainly if you turn the clock all the way back to the era of the Big Bang, the environment becomes so extreme that the laws we know no longer apply very well, or at all. But science does not require that extreme an application of uniformitarianism.
And also certainly Last Thursdayism is a philosophical possibility, but it is not one that could ever be demonstrated through scientific endeavor.
Uniformitarianism is an assumption of science. Insofar as it can be tested, it has been, and it has passed these tests.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 9:10:14 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1385
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
And also certainly Last Thursdayism is a philosophical possibility, but it is not one that could ever be demonstrated through scientific endeavor.
Naturalistic processes producing the universe and everything in it is also a philosophical possibility, but it is also not one that has ever been demonstrated through scientific endeavor.
quote:
Uniformitarianism is an assumption of science. Insofar as it can be tested, it has been, and it has passed these tests.
The production of the universe and everything in it through naturalistic processes has not been tested/demonstrated and is no more scientific than saying that God did it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 11:40:27 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
The production of the universe and everything in it through naturalistic processes has not been tested/demonstrated and is no more scientific than saying that God did it.
So far, there is no widely accepted scientific theory of universe-production. So there simply is no consensus scientific view on the matter. If you like, science remains 'agnostic' on that issue. The age of the earth and the age of the universe, however, are matters that have reached the level of scientific consensus - they are both billions of years old.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 1:41:39 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 359
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
I think part of the problem is that creationists don't understand science really. In this specific case, regarding uniformatarianism, the problem seems to be thier misunderstanding of what an assumption is in science, and how they are applied.
This is how it works. In science, assumptions are often made. A theory is them created with that assumption in place, and then the predictions made by this theory is matched with reality to see if they are accurate.
For example, uniformatarianism is an assumption made in science. The theories created with that assumption in place create predictions, which are then tested. If these predictions are accurate, it indicates that the assumption was a good one. The fact that many different lines of evidence can be compared with predictions made by more than one theory, all based on the assumption of uniformatarianism, and that THEY CAN BE CROSS CHECKED WITH EACH OTHER, shows us that uniformatarianism is a very good assumption.
Now, lets look at your assumption: That there is a creator. What predictions can be made with this assumption in place? How can they be tested? How can we ever know that this is a good assumption to make?
Basically, other than faith, do you have any reason not to accept uniformatarianism? If you reject is because it collides with your faith, thats fine. Just don't pretend that you have any reasons to reject uniformatarianism based on science.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 8:13:10 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think part of the problem is that creationists don't understand science really. No, BVZ, actually the whole problem is that uniformitarian naturalists confuse "science" with "scientism". They fail to understand the significant difference between "observational science" and "origins science". And they flat out refuse (at least all the u-n's posting here do) to accept the obvious fact that their assumptions are untestable and unfalsifiable. Thus, uniformitarian naturalism is a faith-based religion, pure and simple!
quote:
Basically, other than faith, do you have any reason not to accept uniformatarianism? If you reject is because it collides with your faith, thats fine. Just don't pretend that you have any reasons to reject uniformatarianism based on science. Basically, other than faith, do you have any reason to accept uniformatarianism? If you accept it is because it agrees with your faith, thats fine. Just don't pretend that you have any reasons to accept uniformitarianism based on science.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 12:24:53 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Basically, other than faith, do you have any reason to accept uniformatarianism?
The fact that we can perform spectroscopy on the light from distant stars provides very strong evidence for the uniformity of the laws of electromagnetism (spectral lines are recognizable as corresponding to the same lines produced by atoms today in the lab) and some evidence for the uniformity of the nuclear forces and gravity (if these laws were very different, stars would not exist or might be noticably changed).
There are alternate assumptions one could make: the universe was created last Thursday with the light 'on the way', prankster aliens create every star in the sky by means of complicated flashlights pointed at the earth, we all live in 'the Matrix' and all that 'light' is simply programmed code in a supercomputer, we are all deceived by demons into seeing a consistent delusion...
Most of these alternate assumptions are quite untestable. The scientific assumption of uniformitarianism is testable. Insofar as it has been tested, it has been found to be valid. Uniformitarian assumptions lead to an old earth. There is no difficulty for light to have travelled from distant stars over millions or billions of years. Our measurements of that 'old' light show that the laws of physics were the same back then. This consistency makes us more comfortable with our uniformitarian assumption.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 1:19:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3143
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The scientific assumption of uniformitarianism is testable. Insofar as it has been tested, it has been found to be valid. Uniformitarian assumptions lead to an old earth. Sure, it's been tested for the duration of recorded history. Tell me again how long that is? Voila - we have 5000 years of tested uniformitarianism. Thus, uniformitarian assumptions lead to a young earth!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 5:54:34 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sure, it's been tested for the duration of recorded history. Tell me again how long that is? Voila - we have 5000 years of tested uniformitarianism. Thus, uniformitarian assumptions lead to a young earth!
When you look at the stars, you look back in time. The fact that we can see the Andromeda Nebula with the naked eye confirms uniformitarian assumptions for about two million years' worth of history.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 6:05:14 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sure, it's been tested for the duration of recorded history. Tell me again how long that is? Voila - we have 5000 years of tested uniformitarianism. Thus, uniformitarian assumptions lead to a young earth!
When you look at the stars, you look back in time. The fact that we can see the Andromeda Nebula with the naked eye confirms uniformitarian assumptions for about two million years' worth of history.
You had me at, "When you look at the stars". Everything after that is an assumption. You don't know that energy takes that long to get from star A to earth B.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 6:10:09 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
What laws of nature would those be and in which cases does it suit us for them to be inconstant? The most obvious one is entropy which must be suspended by evolutionists for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years. And no, I won't be responding to the tired old "closed/open system" debate if you wish to raise it.
I know that it isn't exactly what the OP is addressing, but I guess this is what started this whole discussion. Have we decided that entropy must be suspended for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years?
It doesn't need to be decided. It's clear that the second law of thermodynamics does not have to be suspended for evolution to take place. The only quibbling in the forum seems to be about the presence or absence of intelligence, but this has no relevance to that law. Despite intelligent input, the internal combustion engine does not disobey the 2nd law.
quote:
But as for the question raised by Drj, if by uniformitarianism, we are refering to the thought that the present is the key to the past, I would agree because we can understand geography by observing present day processes. But uniformitarianism to the exclusion of the possibility of catastrophism, I would reject because it is too exclusive. It rules out possible explanations before they have a chance to present themselves.
Uniformitarianism has a specific meaning in geology, but more generally it refers to the idea that the laws of nature do not change in time. Using this assumption, scientists have demonstrated the occurence of catastrophes like supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts, or even the hypothesized birth of the moon from a collision of a planetoid with the early earth. So, as it is used, uniformitarianism does not exclude catastrophes.
Despite the fact that I don't think that life as we know it arose (or even could arise) without intelligence, I don't see any reason to disagree with what ES has said here. Perhaps that's because I've been bombarded with a thousand different definitions of entropy in the last few days, and I don't fully understand it anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 7:27:21 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
You had me at, "When you look at the stars". Everything after that is an assumption. You don't know that energy takes that long to get from star A to earth B.
Allow me to quote BVZ
quote:
For example, uniformatarianism is an assumption made in science. The theories created with that assumption in place create predictions, which are then tested. If these predictions are accurate, it indicates that the assumption was a good one. The fact that many different lines of evidence can be compared with predictions made by more than one theory, all based on the assumption of uniformatarianism, and that THEY CAN BE CROSS CHECKED WITH EACH OTHER, shows us that uniformatarianism is a very good assumption.
The assumption that the speed of light is 'uniformitarian' leads to the conclusion that electromagnetism, nuclear physics and gravity are uniformitarian.
The assumption that gravity is uniformitarian leads to the conclusion that the universe is 14 billion years old.
The assumption that nuclear physics is uniformitarian leads to the conclusion that the earth is 5 billion years old.
Although there are assumptions in science, these assumptions produce interwoven results that produce a consistent picture that provide some assurance (not proof) that the assumptions are valid.
Each of these tests might have failed in some way. Starlight might show that atoms had different spectral lines back then (whenever 'then' was). Radiometric dating might show that the earth was older than the universe.
If you reject the assumption of uniformitarianism, this consistency is just a coincidence.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 7:28:44 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sure, it's been tested for the duration of recorded history. Tell me again how long that is? Voila - we have 5000 years of tested uniformitarianism. Thus, uniformitarian assumptions lead to a young earth!
When you look at the stars, you look back in time. The fact that we can see the Andromeda Nebula with the naked eye confirms uniformitarian assumptions for about two million years' worth of history.
You had me at, "When you look at the stars". Everything after that is an assumption. You don't know that energy takes that long to get from star A to earth B.
Actually we do. From relativity, we know that the speed of light is the maximum speed that information can travel. From empirical measurements, we know the speed of light. We can calculate the distance using geometry. The distance divided by the speed of light gives us how long ago the light was emitted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/27/2008 10:48:10 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1964
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sure, it's been tested for the duration of recorded history. Tell me again how long that is? Voila - we have 5000 years of tested uniformitarianism. Thus, uniformitarian assumptions lead to a young earth!
When you look at the stars, you look back in time. The fact that we can see the Andromeda Nebula with the naked eye confirms uniformitarian assumptions for about two million years' worth of history.
You had me at, "When you look at the stars". Everything after that is an assumption. You don't know that energy takes that long to get from star A to earth B.
Actually we do. From relativity, we know that the speed of light is the maximum speed that information can travel. From empirical measurements, we know the speed of light. We can calculate the distance using geometry. The distance divided by the speed of light gives us how long ago the light was emitted.
Additionally, if the speed of light had been faster in the past, those spectral lines would have shifted towards blue. There are other fundamental constants of nature which are dependent upon or related to the speed of light which, if altered, would leave behind physical evidence that we don't find.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/28/2008 12:50:56 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1385
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Additionally, if the speed of light had been faster in the past, those spectral lines would have shifted towards blue. There are other fundamental constants of nature which are dependent upon or related to the speed of light which, if altered, would leave behind physical evidence that we don't find.
One possibility for the laws appearing to have been constant is that, if the evidence did show that the laws were different in the past, evolutionists could argue that those laws were different in such a way that could have originated life & the universe. Instead, the evidence resists naturalistic explanation. The laws remain constant and we do not observe them originating life, we do not observe them originating solar systems, galaxies, etc... The laws of physics as we know them do not account for the origination of such existences and they resist the conclusion that such existences emerged because the laws were different in the past. This suggests that something beyond (or at least other than) the laws of physics (as we know them) originated them. Whatever originated the universe and everything in it is, at the very least, beyond nature as we know it. This makes the notion that unknown naturalistic processes originated it no more testable than the notion that a supernatural entity originated it and the fact that the evidence does this resists naturalistic explanation.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/28/2008 1:00:46 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/28/2008 2:07:58 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 359
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
You had me at, "When you look at the stars". Everything after that is an assumption. You don't know that energy takes that long to get from star A to earth B.
Allow me to quote BVZ
quote:
For example, uniformatarianism is an assumption made in science. The theories created with that assumption in place create predictions, which are then tested. If these predictions are accurate, it indicates that the assumption was a good one. The fact that many different lines of evidence can be compared with predictions made by more than one theory, all based on the assumption of uniformatarianism, and that THEY CAN BE CROSS CHECKED WITH EACH OTHER, shows us that uniformatarianism is a very good assumption.
The assumption that the speed of light is 'uniformitarian' leads to the conclusion that electromagnetism, nuclear physics and gravity are uniformitarian.
The assumption that gravity is uniformitarian leads to the conclusion that the universe is 14 billion years old.
The assumption that nuclear physics is uniformitarian leads to the conclusion that the earth is 5 billion years old.
Although there are assumptions in science, these assumptions produce interwoven results that produce a consistent picture that provide some assurance (not proof) that the assumptions are valid.
Each of these tests might have failed in some way. Starlight might show that atoms had different spectral lines back then (whenever 'then' was). Radiometric dating might show that the earth was older than the universe.
If you reject the assumption of uniformitarianism, this consistency is just a coincidence.
In addition to this, science is pragmatic. We know that uniformatarianism MIGHT be wrong. But we will continue making that assumption for as long as it is useful to do so.
For example, we KNOW the newtonian laws are not 100% accurate. But when designing a dam for instance, they are accurate ENOUGH. So an engineer will assume the correctness of the newtonian laws while building a dam, even though he KNOWS the laws are not 100% accurate. It sounds strange, but the fact of the matter is it is all we have. It is all us humans have to work with, so we do.
Scientific thoeries are tools, and they are only worth something when they are useful. The theories that created the MRI machine is based on uniformatarianism. The fact that a machine that complex can work with the assumption of uniformatarianism in place, shows us the validity of that assumption. And an MRI machine is only one example.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/28/2008 2:19:03 AM
|
|
|
EcclesFruitcake
Posts: 48
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
One possibility for the laws appearing to have been constant is that, if the evidence did show that the laws were different in the past, evolutionists could argue that those laws were different in such a way that could have originated life & the universe.
The laws are constant to annoy evolutionists?
Scientists assume and advocate uniformitarianism.
quote:
Instead, the evidence resists naturalistic explanation. The laws remain constant and we do not observe them originating life, we do not observe them originating solar systems, galaxies, etc...
I did not know scientific theories, that is, naturalistic ones started with the assumption "Assuming the suspension of known physical laws".
Besides, life propagates here and now and distant observations i.e. of stuff that occurred billions of years earlier, are mounting up the data on the epoch of galaxy formation. This is stuff which happens or happened and is precisely the kind of thing the scientific laws are modelling under the assumption of uniformitarianism!
quote:
The laws of physics as we know them do not account for the origination of such existences and they resist the conclusion that such existences emerged because the laws were different in the past. This suggests that something beyond (or other at least other than) the laws of physics (as we know them) originated them.
The laws describe possible ways in which such and such can happen and predict how such and such will develop. They have a scope and are not perfectly precise or accurate.
But they are the best we got.
quote:
Whatever originated the universe and everything in it is, at the very least, beyond nature as we know it. This makes the notion that unknown naturalistic processes originated no more testable than the notion that a supernatural entity originated it and the fact that the evidence does this resists naturalistic explanation.
If said unknown naturalistic processes exist and become known they may be testable in some manner.
While I am of the mind that the laws are invariable I will check the best before date on Murphy's Law first.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/28/2008 11:33:40 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1385
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake
The laws are constant to annoy evolutionists?
Scientists assume and advocate uniformitarianism.
So? Perhaps they have no choice, given the data, but to do so.
quote:
I did not know scientific theories, that is, naturalistic ones started with the assumption "Assuming the suspension of known physical laws".
I never said they did.
quote:
Besides, life propagates here and now and distant observations i.e. of stuff that occurred billions of years earlier, are mounting up the data on the epoch of galaxy formation.
All of which is faith based speculation. One must resort to faith based speculation to explain galaxy formation, no one has ever observed the formation of a galaxy.
quote:
This is stuff which happens or happened and is precisely the kind of thing the scientific laws are modelling under the assumption of uniformitarianism!
Again, no one observed the formation of a galaxy. Claiming that nature as we know it produced it is faith based speculation, no less faith based and no more scientific (testable) than saying God did it.
quote:
The laws describe possible ways in which such and such can happen and predict how such and such will develop. They have a scope and are not perfectly precise or accurate.
No, people speculate ways in which such and such happened within the laws, but those speculations are faith based. No one has observed them. If we could observe the formation of galaxies and the origin of life within unguided naturalistic processes, then we can conclude that the current laws do allow for the formation of galaxies. The evidence prevents us from doing so.
quote:
But they are the best we got.
The point is that, the best you got is faith based speculation. No observation whatsoever. The evidence makes it such that the best you can develop is based on faith and non - observable. The best you got is non - testable (non repeatable, non - observable) garbage and the evidence seems to be designed so it would be that way. It resists naturalistic explanation.
quote:
If said unknown naturalistic processes exist and become known they may be testable in some manner.
Again, that's an "if." It makes sense that most committed naturalists would love to discover an unknown naturalistic law that could better explain the origins of the universe, life, and everything in it than the laws that we know, because the laws that we know do a terrible job (since, we never observe the emergence of galaxies, life, etc... within those laws and naturalists are hence forced to resort to faith based speculation).
If the evidence shows that the laws of physics were substantially different sometime in the past, naturalists can say, "look, the laws of physics can change, and hence we can postulate that the laws of physics were different in such a way that could have plausibly produced life." No, the evidence resists such postulations.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/28/2008 3:51:33 PM
|
|
|
EcclesFruitcake
Posts: 48
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline
|
Betta,
When I look at the universe I don't think things like galaxies always formed in the past because we can see them but that galaxies form because they had to, that is, they did what they did necessarily.
This forgoes the generalisation from past experience which tells us nothing but to expect the expected and opens up the ability to understand why such and such acts as it does.
Thus general laws can explain instances of events which are covered by the law and our laws cover such things as the formation of stars and galaxies. Whether we have the data to make precise models of a particular galaxies formation is a different matter.
I have to wonder if I am severely stunted in my ability to fathom that which is true due to your repeated and emphatic statements that the laws and their consequences which are derived from observation and experiment are merely faith based speculations.
I must ask, by what measure other than testing a law in every imaginable way and submitting it to experimental conformations and refutations do you use to ascertain whether something is true or works or is not just speculation?
I consider saying that something is true is saying precisely that it has passed every test which could have falsified it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/28/2008 4:55:50 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1385
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake
When I look at the universe I don't think things like galaxies always formed in the past because we can see them but that galaxies form because they had to, that is, they did what they did necessarily.
The fact that galaxies exist does not mean that they formed through naturalistic processes and there is no reason to believe that naturalistic processes formed them.
quote:
This forgoes the generalisation from past experience which tells us nothing but to expect the expected and opens up the ability to understand why such and such acts as it does.
Such and such is never observed to form the universe, life, and everything else in it.
quote:
Thus general laws can explain instances of events which are covered by the law and our laws cover such things as the formation of stars and galaxies.
Just because there exists physical laws does not mean that the laws as we know them are responsible for the formation of the universe and everything in it. In fact, the evidence seems to contradict such things, which is why billions of years must be speculated.
quote:
Whether we have the data to make precise models of a particular galaxies formation is a different matter.
Again, you are assuming the laws as we know them account for the formation of everything, but there is no reason to believe such an assumption is true.
quote:
I have to wonder if I am severely stunted in my ability to fathom that which is true due to your repeated and emphatic statements that the laws and their consequences which are derived from observation and experiment are merely faith based speculations.
I never said that the laws are faith based. We know the laws because we can observe them now. The notion that the laws as we know them created the universe is faith based and the notion that naturalistic processes produced the universe and everything in it is faith based. You are assuming the consequences here. You are saying, "If naturalistic laws created the universe and everything in it, the universe would exist. The universe exists, therefore naturalistic laws created it." Just because the universe exists does not mean that naturalistic laws are responsible for its creation. I can just as easily say, "if God created the universe, it would exist. The universe exists, therefore, God created it." The notion that the universe and everything in it is a consequences of its current laws is not derived from observation. No one has ever observed these laws create the universe and everything in it.
quote:
I must ask, by what measure other than testing a law in every imaginable way and submitting it to experimental conformations and refutations do you use to ascertain whether something is true or works or is not just speculation?
The laws have never been tested to produce the universe, stars, galaxies, life, and everything else within the universe. They are only speculated to have done so.
quote:
I consider saying that something is true is saying precisely that it has passed every test which could have falsified it.
So, if I said that everything in the universe (including ourselves) was created yesterday (including your memories and the evidence), the test that could have falsify it is the test of our existence. If we don't exist right now, then that would falsify the notion that everything was created yesterday. So it passes every test that could have falsified it and, according to you, is true.
If I said that undetectable fairy dust causes the earth to rotate, it passes every test that could have falsified it. If the earth didn't rotate, then it wouldn't pass every test that could falsify it. So, by your standards, such must be the case.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/28/2008 5:26:54 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/28/2008 8:41:15 PM
|
|
|
EcclesFruitcake
Posts: 48
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake
When I look at the universe I don't think things like galaxies always formed in the past because we can see them but that galaxies form because they had to, that is, they did what they did necessarily.
The fact that galaxies exist does not mean that they formed through naturalistic processes and there is no reason to believe that naturalistic processes formed them.
No reason? Are they consistent with the laws or not? Consider what they explain: Why do you think planets are spherical? Why is the core of the earth predominantly iron?
You seem to be of the opinion that we can know nothing for sure. Fine. The next best thing is what is useful and what works.
quote:
This forgoes the generalisation from past experience which tells us nothing but to expect the expected and opens up the ability to understand why such and such acts as it does.
Such and such is never observed to form the universe, life, and everything else in it.
By such and such I merely mean some object in the universe
quote:
Thus general laws can explain instances of events which are covered by the law and our laws cover such things as the formation of stars and galaxies.
Just because there exists physical laws does not mean that the laws as we know them are responsible for the formation of the universe and everything in it. In fact, the evidence seems to contradict such things, which is why billions of years must be speculated.
At what point do the physical laws become worthless? I see no reason or evidence to suggest that they are not accurate enough to describe how stars are born and how they die or how galaxies can form - granted the stuff has to be there first.
quote:
Whether we have the data to make precise models of a particular galaxies formation is a different matter.
Again, you are assuming the laws as we know them account for the formation of everything, but there is no reason to believe such an assumption is true.
No reason? They can model what we see! This is why we like them and why we use them! Further not 'everything' just that which is natural and only while the laws remain consistent with evidence. Even if you reject that natural laws are responsible most of what is observed agrees with them.
quote:
I have to wonder if I am severely stunted in my ability to fathom that which is true due to your repeated and emphatic statements that the laws and their consequences which are derived from observation and experiment are merely faith based speculations.
I never said that the laws are faith based. We know the laws because we can observe them now. The notion that the laws as we know them created the universe is faith based and the notion that naturalistic processes produced the universe and everything in it is faith based. You are assuming the consequences here. You are saying, "If naturalistic laws created the universe and everything in it, the universe would exist. The universe exists, therefore naturalistic laws created it." Just because the universe exists does not mean that naturalistic laws are responsible for its creation. I can just as easily say, "if God created the universe, it would exist. The universe exists, therefore, God created it." The notion that the universe and everything in it is a consequences of its current laws is not derived from observation. No one has ever observed these laws create the universe and everything in it.
The universe exists and it can be modelled. I am talking about the creation of stuff like galaxies in the universe not the universe itself...I would not be so bold.
quote:
I must ask, by what measure other than testing a law in every imaginable way and submitting it to experimental conformations and refutations do you use to ascertain whether something is true or works or is not just speculation?
The laws have never been tested to produce the universe, stars, galaxies, life, and everything else within the universe. They are only speculated to have done so.
Sure, but they are also coherent, reliable and harmonious.
quote:
I consider saying that something is true is saying precisely that it has passed every test which could have falsified it.
So, if I said that everything in the universe (including ourselves) was created yesterday (including your memories and the evidence), the test that could have falsify it is the test of our existence. If we don't exist right now, then that would falsify the notion that everything was created yesterday. So it passes every test that could have falsified it and, according to you, is true.
If I said that undetectable fairy dust causes the earth to rotate, it passes every test that could have falsified it. If the earth didn't rotate, then it wouldn't pass every test that could falsify it. So, by your standards, such must be the case.
Agreed. Although I think you need to be more specific about the fairy dust one.
Bear in mind you that have come up with examples which specifically can not be tested, while the laws are equally good explanations but also pass actual experiments and make actual predictions and are broad in their scope.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/29/2008 12:55:52 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1385
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake
No reason? Are they consistent with the laws or not? Consider what they explain: Why do you think planets are spherical? Why is the core of the earth predominantly iron?
Saying that some naturalistic processes is responsible for such is no more scientific than saying God did it. You have never observed such naturalistic processes producing the Earth, you only speculate that they did.
quote:
You seem to be of the opinion that we can know nothing for sure. Fine. The next best thing is what is useful and what works.
Speculation about the formation of the universe and everything in it through naturalistic processes is useless and it does not work. Naturalistic processes have never been shown to produce the universe, galaxies, life, etc...
quote:
By such and such I merely mean some object in the universe
But saying that unguided naturalistic processes produced life, the universe, and everything in it is faith based speculation.
quote:
At what point do the physical laws become worthless?
I never said that the physical laws are worthless, just that the physical laws as we know them do a terrible job at explaining the origins of the universe and everything in it. We never observe the origins of the universe, of galaxies, life, etc... so speculating methods by which they produced such is faith based.
quote:
I see no reason or evidence to suggest that they are not accurate enough to describe how stars are born and how they die or how galaxies can form - granted the stuff has to be there first.
If you want to claim that the laws of physics as we know them produced galaxies, life, the universe, etc... through unguided naturalistic processes, the burden of proof is on you. It is not for me to show that there is evidence that it has not, it is for you to show that there is evidence that it did (and that it plausibly could have). As it stands, you can't demonstrate the emergence of such so you must resort to faith based speculation.
quote:
No reason? They can model what we see!
You can speculate the laws of physics originating life, the universe, and everything in it. However, you nor your models have ever been able to demonstrate the formation of such.
quote:
This is why we like them and why we use them! Further not 'everything' just that which is natural and only while the laws remain consistent with evidence.
We observe various phenomena and we label them "laws." I don't dispute that the laws of physics are what they are, but there is no evidence that they could have plausibly produced the universe and everything in it.
quote:
Even if you reject that natu | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
