mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
When will Jesus come back ? Options
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, August 18, 2018 11:24:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
will wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Okay. So if I understand you correctly, you are simply saying the size of the universe is really only what we can "see"; that we can "see" only 13.8 billion light-years in any direction, and have no idea what may be beyond that.

No. Not quite.
The observable universe is nominally 13.8 billion light-years in any direction, simply because that is the maximum distance light (at the speed of light) could have travelled in the 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. It’s not quite as simple as that, but that’s a near enough illustrative explanation.

Although we don’t currently have the technology to ‘see’ beyond that distance, it does not follow that we ‘have no idea what may be beyond that’.

To the authors of the Bible the observable universe was considerably smaller, due to the technological limits of the time and no real scientific method, but they still had an idea of what lay beyond – in hindsight a very poor idea, yet still it persists. Brick wall

At the start of the 20th century the observable universe consisted pretty much only our Milky Way galaxy, but hypotheses (ideas) existed about what may be beyond that. The scientific method confirmed or rejected the validity of each.

Likewise today, our technology enables us to ‘see’ ‘information’ as distant as the Big Bang – most distant ‘light’ equates to furthest back in time – and the laws of physics, applied to what we can ‘see’, enables us to make accurate predictions about what we can’t. The scientific method tests or rejects the validity of those predictions.

I wrote:
You need to visualise every point moving apart proportionally to every other, with no static central point;

FounDit wrote:
Except for those points that may be in close proximity to one another and thus colliding at times?

Correct.

FounDit wrote:
So scientists don't create models to explain phenomena being studied and hypotheses about how things might be? Have you told them about this? I ask because I read constantly about scientists creating models to explain things. So I have to wonder what part of that is inane.

I know what scientific models are, how they are used within the scientific method and what their limitations are. I have no idea what picture you have in your head and I’m not prepared to get into a protracted debate to try find out. I’ve witnessed your argument against climate models, and look where that led you. Your misunderstanding of how science works is a belief without evidence; I’ll take you advice and conclude it’s pointless to use logic and reason to convince you otherwise. Whistle

If you have the integrity, it would be quite simple for you to find out for yourself how inaccurate your statement was. I’ve attached links to each specifically inane or inaccurate section to get you going.

O-kay-y-y. Hmm, first you say, "This [models] is an utterly inane and inaccurate description of how science works; so utterly inane and inaccurate that it seems pointless to attempt to correct you. Suffice to say, every single aspect of your daily life is made possible by a scientific method that bears no resemblance to that paragraph."

Then you say, "I know what scientific models are, how they are used within the scientific method and what their limitations are."

You then provide me with links that are apparently supposed to reveal to me that science doesn't use models, but actually doesn't mention models at all. It does, however, support my statements of changing hypotheses and theories with new information. Meanwhile, I can find links that refer to modelling every day. The IPCC being just one example:
8 Climate Models and Their Evaluation

Models are the Building Blocks of Science

I'm not sure what to think of this. It appears one of us doesn't know what he is talking about, or is totally confused, but since I can find evidence of scientific modelling all day long, the scale seems to be tilted in my favor, indicating I'm not quite as inane as asserted.

FounDit wrote:
Okay. The above mentioned definition of the 13.8 billion light-year "observable universe" obviates this analogy.

As a biologist I’m reluctant to simply dismiss the poor old amoeba… What I was getting at was that the bowl is analogous to the 20th century concept of the observable universe and the puddle was to the current observable universe.

FounDit wrote:
But pointing out to them their "lazy comfort of pious Faith" is exactly the kind of language I think is unnecessary, and damages any future chance, or possibility, for an opening for persuasion.

FounDit wrote:
Once again, you misunderstand me. What I was referencing is the effort of many who rely on science to denigrate and deliberately offend those who believe. That is the perception of many believers, and evidence indicates they are not wrong.

It’s horses for courses. I can’t control the point at which people chose to take offence.
But you can make an attempt at not being offensive. Insults being one of the things to avoid, words like "inane" and "lazy" being two that come to mind.

For some the mere mention of evolution is enough to get them foaming at the mouth and wishing an eternity of pain and torment on you and your loved ones.

I genuinely believe that, if you look back over all my posts, you will see that while the debate is ‘honest’ I try to be as polite, helpful and forgiving as possible.
Were you able to write that and keep a straight face? That seems hard to believe.

But I have no patience for dishonesty, I consider it a waste of my time and effort… and very offendsive. Boo hoo!

In this thread for example, Kirill Vorobyov claimed, in defence of a Creator, that “… physical matter can not develop itself from simple forms into more organized forms. So no illusions about "evolution…" and similar along those lines. Both Lotje1000 and I politely challenged him on this. He actively chose to completely ignore those challenges and re-state the same thing in response to you. That is dishonest, and a waste of mine and Lotje1000’s time. It’s not that he should have admitted he was wrong or that we were right; he should have either provided a counter argument, or explained his argument, or simply not repeated the same until he had taken time to better understand the issue.

I wrote:
… as I’ve said before, we collectively use logic and reason to reject the supernatural opinions of extremists, so why not apply the same standard to supernatural opinions while they are still relatively benign?

FounDit wrote:
Precisely because they are benign. How can one hope to ever persuade if offense is the first act out of the gate?

If you can show me a clear line between benign supernatural beliefs and the non-benign effects that supernatural beliefs have on humanity as a whole, then I will treat each accordingly. And how can we hope to ever persuade if we don’t use logic and reason?

I don’t believe I’ve ever used offence as the ‘first act out of the gate’.
There have been times in the past when supernatural beliefs were not benign, but with the exception of radical extremists like ISIS, most of the major religions today are quite benign.

But logic and reason can never persuade a true believer, that is the essence of faith, to believe apart from those. As said before, only someone open-minded in their faith will even listen. That being the case, challenging them in their faith isn't going to work. I'm simply advocating live and let live, but there seems to be an aversion to doing that today. The Masterpiece Cake Shop assault being just one example. He refuses to create things that he believes insult people, whether they be Christians or LGBT folks.

FounDit wrote:
So then, "every point [isn't] moving apart proportionally to every other". This seems to be contradictory. I'm having some difficulty envisioning every point moving away from every other point proportionally, while at the same time colliding with other points. Is there a model for that?

I’ve explained this already. And yes, there is a model, as well as numerous hypotheses, theories and laws that apply.

FounDit wrote:
Oh, wait, we don't do models, do we?...

Cheeky! Not talking
So now you do believe in models, eh?...Brick wall

.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, August 18, 2018 1:02:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: But you can make an attempt at not being offensive. Insults being one of the things to avoid, words like "inane" and "lazy" being two that come to mind.

Ah, so you DO/DID know exactly (what Lotje and I have complained about) what you are/were doing when you are/were using those types of words in your and my discussions and other discussions in Politics and other topics! I had begun to think you really didn't know the difference. You just outed yourself!
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 19, 2018 9:56:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:...scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

It is not that scientists don't use models - of course they do.

The fault is in the emboldened part of the statement because it is an impossibility. Plus you are willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

It is the same incorrect argument about how science works that you use to justify non action on climate change when the evidence is happening all around the world.

Many models are for explanatory purposes. Some models are used to give the best prediction possible. Scientists take the many successes of models and build on them. Many long term models have been validated - the earth is not flat etc. Many short term recent ones have been validated as well. It is only the long term recent ones that need to be validated.

But since scientists don't usually have a hundred or a thousand years to validate every theory, Whistle they do hindcasting to see if their models are working or if they need to be adjusted with new information. They run previous information forward, feeding it confirmed observational data to directly compare modelled behaviour with the actual, observed course of events.

The very nature of science makes it a work in progress as I believe Will's links were meant to show, not to prove or disprove the usage of models! Correct me, Will, if I misunderstood.

FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 19, 2018 12:03:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote: But you can make an attempt at not being offensive. Insults being one of the things to avoid, words like "inane" and "lazy" being two that come to mind.

Ah, so you DO/DID know exactly (what Lotje and I have complained about) what you are/were doing when you are/were using those types of words in your and my discussions and other discussions in Politics and other topics! I had begun to think you really didn't know the difference. You just outed yourself!

Exactly so. Just as when I repeatedly asked you not to twist my words to say things I didn't intend, but you did it anyway; or when you and Lotje mischaracterize what I say or accuse me of motivations I do not hold. When you, or anyone else, stray from the topic and insult me personally, or imply I am wrong simply for holding a different opinion, I am not motivated to respond favorably.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 19, 2018 12:19:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote:...scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

It is not that scientists don't use models - of course they do.

The fault is in the emboldened part of the statement because it is an impossibility. Plus you are willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water".
And here is a perfect example of what I wrote in response to your other post. It's all or nothing, eh? There can be no divergence? It's either accept the baby and the dirty bath water, or both get thrown out; I must agree totally, or I'm wrong.

But in this case, it is you who is wrong, and you just admitted to it in your opening statement. Scientists do use models. And those models are changed when new information is obtained. That is how science works. But you accept the current model and admit to no new information, or even the possibility of error as in your climate change argument.

It is the same incorrect argument about how science works that you use to justify non action on climate change when the evidence is happening all around the world.
Here is where your argument falls apart, because a change in the climate is always happening, but you can provide no proof that it is humans that cause that change, and you are unwilling to accept the idea of a counter-argument by scientists themselves who disagree with the concept.

Many models are for explanatory purposes. Some models are used to give the best prediction possible. Scientists take the many successes of models and build on them. Many long term models have been validated - the earth is not flat etc. Many short term recent ones have been validated as well. It is only the long term recent ones that need to be validated.
And we already have evidence that some long term predictions have been, and are, wrong. For example: all the predictions — ALL OF THEM — that were made fifty years ago have proven not to have happened. Since the climate cannot even be predicted for any place on earth even a month from now, it is not possible to predict the climate for fifty or a hundred years from now, either. That is simply a fact.

But since scientists don't usually have a hundred or a thousand years to validate every theory, Whistle they do hindcasting to see if their models are working or if they need to be adjusted with new information. They run previous information forward, feeding it confirmed observational data to directly compare modelled behaviour with the actual, observed course of events.
And this is where they go wrong. The past is not a predictor of the future, and the models didn't acurately predict anything that has happened. We also have evidence that the data has been manipulated, but you refuse to hear that. Ultimately, neither you nor I are climate experts. The difference is you are willing to accept without question what you are told, while I remain skeptical, and my skepticism is characterized as somehow evil. Not so; I simply remain open to further evidence, but I want evidence that is not disputed or driven by politics.

The very nature of science makes it a work in progress as I believe Will's links were meant to show, not to prove or disprove the usage of models! Correct me, Will, if I misunderstood.

Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 19, 2018 1:30:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Facts That Prove Climate Change is Real and Anthropogenic:

1. Air contains carbon atoms with different numbers of neutrons depending upon the age of the carbon being released, so the ratio of carbon atoms can determine if the source is ancient or not.

Coal and oil form from plants and algae that have been underground for millions of years and thus the substances are ancient. And they are mostly carbon. When burned, the carbon and oxygen unite forming CO2.

This carbon dioxide leaves a distinct chemical imprint or fingerprint and those measurements show ratios that it is indeed ancient CO2 mostly in the greenhouse gases.

WE ARE responsible as WE burn those fossil fuels. This is observational - and is NOT THEORY.

Furthermore:

2. Scientists have taken more factors than you've even heard of such as volcanoes and other natural forces into consideration in their fact finding about climate change. This cycle of climate change is not normal when compared to the past. It is definitely anthropogenic. (caused by humans.)

3. The overall pattern of levels of CO2 has been gradually increasing over the years until the CO2 level is higher now than it has been in 800,000 years. And the level is rising FAST.

4. The earth's orbit NOW is NOT in the right phase to trigger excess CO2 and thus temperature raises from the sun as a reason are eliminated.
will
Posted: Sunday, August 19, 2018 2:55:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
It looks like the word ‘climate’ has the same effect on FounDit as ‘evolution’ has on creationists... Shhh

FounDit. As you’ve skipped over all the ‘nature of the universe’ stuff, shall I assume that I’ve cleared that up to your satisfaction?

As for the rest of your post...
For clarity, I’m going to lay out what was said, in the order it was said, rather than respond to your argument against something based solely on your misperceptions – and irrational knee jerk response to any mention of climate science.

FounDit wrote:
Besides that point, scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

I wrote:
This is an utterly inane and inaccurate description of how science works; so utterly inane and inaccurate that it seems pointless to attempt to correct you. Suffice to say, every single aspect of your daily life is made possible by a scientific method that bears no resemblance to that paragraph.

FounDit wrote:
So scientists don't create models to explain phenomena being studied and hypotheses about how things might be? Have you told them about this? I ask because I read constantly about scientists creating models to explain things. So I have to wonder what part of that is inane.


Here you build the strawman: by defining my argument as being ‘scientists don't create models to explain...’. This is purely your perception of what I said, nowhere have I said as much.

I attempted to head off this strawman by unambiguously stating “I know what scientific models are, how they are used within the scientific method and what their limitations are”.

But from this you again, inaccurately and inanely, define my position as claiming science doesn’t use models.

FounDit wrote:
You then provide me with links that are apparently supposed to reveal to me that science doesn't use models,

Here you just added a big red straw nose, oversized straw shoes and wheeled your strawman out in a crazy straw car – you know, the type where the wheels and doors fall off, much to the the amusement of onlookers. Applause

The link I provided on this point explains that “in the scientific community… words have very specific definitions; however, once you get outside the scientific community, these definitions can be unclear, as the same terms are used differently in a colloquial context”. It is simply inaccurate to say “scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding”.

The link explains (at a primary school level) how ‘current understanding’ is acquired and the terminology used to describe the level of confidence in current understanding. A scientific model is a tool; it might be a simple diagram of a cell or a complex equation for quantum fluctuations. The link doesn’t mention models in the same way as it doesn’t mention Petri dishes or supercomputers.

But because you had already constructed and fully bought into your own strawman, you went looking for a link that was ‘supposed to reveal to that science doesn't use models’. The apparent smoking gun that you were so pleased to find, was actually just you shooting yourself in the foot.

The second link explains (again, at a primary school level) how theories change with new information. As an example it explains how Newtonian physics was superseded by a more accurate theory, Special relativity, and how this was improved upon with General Relativity. It is simply inaccurate to say “but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

Although Einstein was able to give us a more accurate description of reality, it does not mean Newtonian physics isn’t proof of anything. The science -- models, formulae and theories -- that describe Newtonian physics remain the same, and are as valid and successful, as they always were. New knowledge builds on to and improves upon ‘old’ knowledge. The idea that we have no real proof of anything until we know everything is inaccurate and inane and, as Hope123 points out, impossible in practice.

The third link explains this silly misconception further, as well as various other misconceptions. If you had just read this link, rather than lashing out at your own ludicrously constructed strawman, you could have saved yourself a great deal of embarrassment. d'oh!

FounDit wrote:
I'm not sure what to think of this. It appears one of us doesn't know what he is talking about, or is totally confused, but since I can find evidence of scientific modelling all day long, the scale seems to be tilted in my favor, indicating I'm not quite as inane as asserted.

So because you can find evidence against a strawman argument that you made up, one that no scientist on the planet would recognise, this suggests that you know more than the people who use science every day, making just about every aspect of your life possible? And that doesn’t make you look completely foolish? Think

FounDit wrote:
So now you do believe in models, eh?…

Always have. I use them frequently in my work. If you recall you are the one that dreamt up the ‘science doesn’t use models’ thing. As if you didn’t have enough faulty logic to defend.

.




will
Posted: Sunday, August 19, 2018 3:06:27 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Hope123 wrote:
The very nature of science makes it a work in progress as I believe Will's links were meant to show, not to prove or disprove the usage of models! Correct me, Will, if I misunderstood.

You are correct, that is exactly what they were meant to show. And it might have worked had I not mentioned the 'c' word and tipped him over the edge. I predict from here on out that this is a lost cause. FounDit’s position on this is an ideology and a belief in the absence of evidence. I can’t remember who is was, but some wise soul once advised me “logic and reason can never persuade a true believer, that is the essence of faith, to believe apart from those. As said before, only someone open-minded in their faith will even listen. That being the case, challenging them in their faith isn't going to work.Whistle

.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 19, 2018 11:41:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote: But you can make an attempt at not being offensive. Insults being one of the things to avoid, words like "inane" and "lazy" being two that come to mind.

Ah, so you DO/DID know exactly (what Lotje and I have complained about) what you are/were doing when you are/were using those types of words in your and my discussions and other discussions in Politics and other topics! I had begun to think you really didn't know the difference. You just outed yourself!

Exactly so. Just as when I repeatedly asked you not to twist my words to say things I didn't intend, but you did it anyway; or when you and Lotje mischaracterize what I say or accuse me of motivations I do not hold. When you, or anyone else, stray from the topic and insult me personally, or imply I am wrong simply for holding a different opinion, I am not motivated to respond favorably.



So let's get this sorted once and for all, FD. If quite a while ago I misinterpreted what you said it was never done maliciously. I genuinely believed it was what you were saying. However, I resolved back then, after your complaints, that before answering I must reread a couple of times to make sure I didn't miss a word here or there that changed the meaning of what you have written, and have even asked you if I understood. In fact I now reread no matter to whom I am responding. So that was a good lesson. I have also learned to not take anything written here personally, but if it is meant as a personal diss to challenge it.

Since then I have also been adhering to the academic points being discussed. I may have disagreed with your POV but have not said anything about your person. I have asked you many times to do the same, with no results.

For example: FounDit wrote: But you accept the current model and admit to no new information, or even the possibility of error as in your climate change argument.

You have no idea what I would accept - if they told me they had scientific peer evaluated evidence by scientists out there in the climate field 70 hours a week observing and calculating that they had discovered that the current calculations are wrong, I'd be jumping for joy.

Foundit wrote within two posts: ...imply I am wrong simply for holding a different opinion, I am not motivated to respond favorably. This complaint has been registered many times. Do you not think we are wrong simply for holding a different opinion? In fact you do more than imply:

FounDit wrote To Hope: But in this case, it is you who is wrong,...Here is where your argument falls apart,...And this is where they go wrong

Do you see any dichotomy, FD?

On a forum people disagree which means they think they are right and therefore the person they disagree with is wrong. If one wants to be on a forum, one has to accept without complaint that that's the way the ball bounces.

My only motivation to not respond unfavourably any more is to keep the Forum from becoming like other online sites where the basest of human traits are displayed, and to also like myself for not responding in kind. (I say anymore as I know I let my temper get the best of me a couple of times in response to cracks about me and your continual and unrelenting negative comments about Liberals in general.)

As for Lotje, I am 99% sure that her only comments were to point out to you - and nicely - where you are using ad hominem.

However, I must admit it was kind of nice to see Will giving you some of yours back. If you dish it out, you need to take it. And if I dish it out again, I will expect to get it back.

You get what you give. Generic you in the saying.

Good luck with finding anything not politicized in the US. There is proof the skepticism fostered in you was actually done so by the monied, just as the tobacco companies lobbied for many years that tobacco smoking did not cause cancer.

BTW - I pointed out it was only one part of a sentence I disagreed with, and you defensively respond that I must think you are totally wrong? Am I not allowed to disagree with part of your statement? Also, when have I ever characterized your skepticism as evil? I don't even like that Biblical word. All I do with my posts on the Forum is to research to the best of my ability and respond with facts.

Anyhow - So my challenge to you is that we bury the hatchet and no personal comments will be made. Policies can be challenged without analyzing the other's views or character.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 20, 2018 12:06:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
From Jesus to climate change - lol. Good job the original poster is long gone...

Just a link to prove a statement in my last post. It discusses both poliical angles,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-money-changes-climate-debate/

Sounding more like a tree hugger than a representative of the world's leading oil company, Exxon's Silvestri said in a statement that "the risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect."
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, August 20, 2018 6:28:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Thank you all for the very interesting discussion.

I am back to clarify a few points that I made previously, and some of which I either didn't make quite clear, or they were misunderstood.

1. Will, I never endorsed or supported all those negative aspects of religeous thinking that you mention. I agree people must seek new knowledge, not just "believe" in things. And adjust their views in line with new knowledge obtained. I've never been a religeous man, and I agree with you in that science is the way forward, not sticking to blind beliefs while disregarding the new information that flows in.

However, just as we shouldn't allow religeous doctrines to put an artificial frame on our thinking, nor should we allow the scientific doctrines to do the same. And while you stick to the view that physical reality is the only one that exists, for me it is quite obvious that this presumption is simply wrong. And this is not my "belief", this view is based on what I know.

And most importantly, this is of course not to say that we should not continue to invest efforts in exploring the laws that the physical world is governed by. Certainly we should! Knowledge of laws of physics allows us to develop this world "from within" using the human creativeness. But at the same time we should not close our eyes on the other part of reality, the one that consists of ideal things, information. And this leads us to conclude that one cannot actually discard the possibility that the whole physical universe may be a creation, too. Because the nature of it is no different from that of a virtual model. So it can be a creation. But whether it is - we don't know, at least I am not aware of any proof to that effect.

2. I never mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You did, and then deflated at length the argument that had not been made by anyone except youself.Angel

Technically, you are right. In the physical space locally the matter can change form, e.g. the molecules of gas in a chamber, if the chamber is cooled, i.e. there's an outflow of energy from the chamber, will condensate and then may form crystals, which represent a more "organized" form of matter compared to gas.

However, there is an enormous gap between these simple transformations and spontaneous creation of even a most primitive biological being. Because it is not only that a new physical structure (more stable under current conditions) should form by chance, but that structure should also somehow obtain the ability to encode the information about itself, and a mechanism that would allow to read that code and use it to build a new generation of that structure. So it should become able to reproduce itself, and that requires complex transfer of information from one generation of physical bodies to another.

And all that should somehow develop itself by chance at a strike of a lightning bolt. I admit I do not have a strict proof to offer. So technically you can discard these considerations. That's why I said life was probably a creation. I expect somebody at some point should be able to prove it numerically that the probability of such a thing happenning over the time of existance of suitable conditions on a planet (say, a few hundred million years) is such that it wouldn't happen, especially given that you'd need a chain of such unlikely events, not a one-off shot. But at this point, as far as I am concerned at least, I admit it's more about common sense than a proved fact.

Another input to my thinking on this issue in the experience with human creativity. All our experience shows that a plan must always precede its implementation into physical matter. First you have an idea, the information/image of what you want to achieve, and only after that you deliberately put that idea in practice. Things of matter don't "make themselves".





Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 20, 2018 12:10:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Hi Kirill.

I'm not sure I understand the "ideal things information" but it seems to come from the human brain?

Am I correct in thinking that it is not the creation of the universe but the creation of life or the inability of life to form spontaneously that is where you think there is evidence for a Creator? We had another poster on the forum a while ago who had the same objection that life could not form spontaneously and a plan is needed.

Are you able to get or have you seen any of the Nova TV programs on PBS in Canada and the US? They are doing an excellent series right now with an hour long program about rocks on the earth, another about gemstones on earth (gorgeous), another about how life formed on the earth, and others.

These are a couple of YouTube videos you may be able to get. Each is an hour long and may be the same TV programs - I have not seen all of the TV programs yet.

Apparently one explains how basic chemistry is used to make the essential building blocks of proteins and cells - called amino acids. (I don't absorb protein so take those amino acids as supplements.) Another is about how rocks may have some answers about the beginning of life.

Neither science nor religion has the answer as to how the universe was formed, but, although they do not have all the answers, the info so far of the scientific version makes more sense to me than making an extra step - of something creating a creator who then creates the universe.

I hope you can get the videos - sometimes copyright does not allow videos across borders.

https://youtu.be/xyhZcEY5PCQ

For some reason it now won't let me play the video about the formation of aminos etc. If interested you might try just how life began by Nova on a search engine.



will
Posted: Monday, August 20, 2018 3:22:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Thank you all for the very interesting discussion.

I am back to clarify a few points that I made previously, and some of which I either didn't make quite clear, or they were misunderstood.

Hi Kirill Vorobyov. Glad to see you back and not too 'offended'. Angel

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
1. Will, I never endorsed or supported all those negative aspects of religeous thinking that you mention. I agree people must seek new knowledge, not just "believe" in things. And adjust their views in line with new knowledge obtained. I've never been a religeous man, and I agree with you in that science is the way forward, not sticking to blind beliefs while disregarding the new information that flows in.

My bad, then. I’ve only ever really witnessed the purely theoretical possibility of a deist god being used as an argument for the existence of very specific Gods. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the creator you were claiming must logically exist was specifically the Abrahamic god. Is this not correct?

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
And while you stick to the view that physical reality is the only one that exists, for me it is quite obvious that this presumption is simply wrong.

To be clear, I’ve never said that our physical reality is the only one that exists. No one could possibly know such a thing and as such I would never presume to know. Conversely, my objection was to your assertion that “There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it. It is before our eyes.
I’ve already explained at length why your assertion is completely unreasonable and, in fact, self-contradictory anyway.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
And this is not my "belief", this view is based on what I know.

Then all you need to do is present your evidence for peer review; if you are correct your ‘reality’ will become part of humanity’s collective physical reality. And you’d almost certainly receive a Nobel for your efforts. Otherwise, what you are describing is Faith which, I'm afraid to say, is incredibly widespread and tediously common. Whistle

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
And most importantly, this is of course not to say that we should not continue to invest efforts in exploring the laws that the physical world is governed by. Certainly we should! Knowledge of laws of physics allows us to develop this world "from within" using the human creativeness. But at the same time we should not close our eyes on the other part of reality, the one that consists of ideal things, information. And this leads us to conclude that one cannot actually discard the possibility that the whole physical universe may be a creation, too.

Of course, the laws of physics exist quite independently of humanity and are fundamentally beyond our control; the laws of physics actually makes the entire universe, and the majority of Earth, completely incompatible to human existence. Even the small bits of Earth that appear most suitably ‘created’ for humanity are subject to being buried under mudslides, wiped out by tsunamis or bombarded by potentially lethal doses of radiation from the Sun.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Because the nature of it is no different from that of a virtual model.

As far as human existence goes, it’s a very poorly designed model indeed.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
So it can be a creation. But whether it is - we don't know, at least I am not aware of any proof to that effect.

I guess. It also can be the dream of a rainbow coloured unicorn; this we also have no proof of either. Eh?

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
2. I never mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You did, and then deflated at length the argument that had not been made by anyone except youself.

You described entropy in pretty much the exact same way as creationists have done for decades, when trying to disprove evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What you were describing – and still are it seems – has filtered through Watchtower magazine, to creationist websites parading as scientific information, and then the same rebranded as intelligent design, to discussion forums all over. I apologise if I assumed wrongly; the fact that you now appear to have done some research on the subject (which is very pleasing to see) suggests to me that perhaps you were repeating pseudo-science but genuinely didn’t know it was the 2nd law being misrepresented.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Technically, you are right. In the physical space locally the matter can change form, e.g. the molecules of gas in a chamber, if the chamber is cooled, i.e. there's an outflow of energy from the chamber, will condensate and then may form crystals, which represent a more "organized" form of matter compared to gas.

This isn’t really relevant to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but never mind.

This link explains the error in your reasoning on this. Btw, I’ve deliberately picked an explanation from a theist source. Even though I don’t agree with their ultimate conclusion – i.e. God did it – the whole site is a decent scientific source and would be a good place to understand science without the fear of having to give up one's supernatural beliefs.

Kirill Vorobyov[ wrote:
However, there is an enormous gap between these simple transformations and spontaneous creation of even a most primitive biological being. Because it is not only that a new physical structure (more stable under current conditions) should form by chance, but that structure should also somehow obtain the ability to encode the information about itself, and a mechanism that would allow to read that code and use it to build a new generation of that structure. So it should become able to reproduce itself, and that requires complex transfer of information from one generation of physical bodies to another.

This isn't how any physicist, chemist or biologist would understand it. You are entitled to you opinion, but not all opinions are equal.
As far as (apparently) defying the laws of thermodynamics goes, there is no difference between the formation of the smallest salt crystal from dilute water and the formation of a star system from a cloud of hydrogen. When energy from our Sun fuels any chemical process there is no difference in the laws of chemistry, whether it forms a salt crystal or multicellular life.

If you are referring to some other process or some other chemical, biological or physical law that does arbitrarily distinguish, then as far as I’m aware, it is not something currently known to science.

Kirill Vorobyov[ wrote:
And all that should somehow develop itself by chance at a strike of a lightning bolt. I admit I do not have a strict proof to offer. So technically you can discard these considerations. That's why I said life was probably a creation. I expect somebody at some point should be able to prove it numerically that the probability of such a thing happenning over the time of existance of suitable conditions on a planet (say, a few hundred million years) is such that it wouldn't happen, especially given that you'd need a chain of such unlikely events, not a one-off shot. But at this point, as far as I am concerned at least, I admit it's more about common sense than a proved fact.

Evolution does not posit the ‘spontaneous creation of even a most primitive biological being’. This is something you have simply made up. The underlying mechanism of evolution is natural selection – selection is not chance – and phrases like ‘form by chance’ and ‘chain of such unlikely events’ bear no resemblance of any process that evolutionary theory describes. This is a strawman argument. And you’ll have to forgive me for saying, it’s exactly the same rhetoric peddled by those I mentioned above.

I’m a biologist, physics is just an interest. If you think I’m a pedantic bore on physics, you really don’t want to start spouting pseudo-science about biology. Speak to the hand

FounDit did make one valid point (maybe two) when he said there is no point using logic and reason against Faith -- belief without reason (on an individual basis, he is most certainly right; in a wider setting, such a public discussion forum, it’s slightly different, as one never knows who is watching on). This point also raises the question of why Faith never seems to be suffice for the Faithful.

Perhaps you, Kirill Vorobyov, can help me out on this: If it’s at all valid to simply assert, as fact, the existence of other realities, or to claim one can subjectively ‘know’ the existence of God and no objective proof is needed… then why do people so often feel the need to give their supernatural beliefs a scientific or logical basis, or worse still, try to disprove and denigrate science and logic as a alternative explanation?


.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, August 20, 2018 4:47:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Will, I don't know if your location allows you to know about the "Nova" series, but am wondering if you have seen any what your assessment is of the veracity of biological facts. They seem well done to me and an added bonus is all the gorgeous photography. They must take a lot of time and patience to capture some of the shots.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 6:07:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:

To be clear, I’ve never said that our physical reality is the only one that exists. No one could possibly know such a thing and as such I would never presume to know. Conversely, my objection was to your assertion that “There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it. It is before our eyes.


Brick wall

But we do know, Will. See my post about ideal mathematical objects, which are real, and yet not part of the physical universe. Can't you see them, operate with them?

This is absolutely the key point. And this is where we seem to remain on quite different pages.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 8:06:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 11:52:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,342
Neurons: 167,374
Hmmm, I haven't followed this argument closely, but I have been watching it to a degree and hadn't seen a place where I could drop in with a relevant question until now. I did go back to find these assertions,
Kirill wrote:
(i) There is a reality beyond the physical universe and time, and that's a known fact, people only have to realize it. It is before our eyes. With my background I can best demonstrate it with the example of mathematical abstractions.

How is this a known fact if by definition it is unobservable, unmeasurable, and indeed undetectable within the confines of this universe?

How does a mathematical abstraction evidence a reality beyond this universe? A mathematical abstraction is a concept, not a physical object. There are many concepts that require no physical object in order to exist, love, color, sweet, even concepts like hard, or soft have no direct physical object which they describe.

Kirill wrote:
And this understanding opens up a whole range of possibilities regarding what might be there in that "bigger world", including what people call God or gods, if you like, but this remains a pure speculation. The very existence of that bigger reality - that is the crucial point that has to be realized before anything else can be contemplated and discussed.

I would assert otherwise, I would say that first you must demonstrate that such a reality must exist in the manner you suggest, and that there is any possibility it could in any way, have any sort of interaction with this one.

Kirill wrote:
(ii) In the beginning was the word...
A word is not a physical object, it's a piece of information, an ideal object. In my explanations I use the term "ideal image" instead of "word", but I mean the same thing - in the process of creation the ideal image (the "word" in Biblical terms) comes before the physical incarnation of that idea.

I wonder what the case is that all information must represent an ideal. I also do not understand the argument that ideal objects actually exist as physical objects rather than merely conceptual formations.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:

But we do know, Will. See my post about ideal mathematical objects, which are real, and yet not part of the physical universe. Can't you see them, operate with them?

Ideals objects are not real in the same sense that a rock is real, they are real concepts, and as those concepts are reliant on physical properties of this universe they are indeed part of it. Reliant in the sense that they are either held in the mentality of a sentient organism, or stored in, or on, some media.
will
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 5:35:32 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Hope123. I haven’t seen the series you mention. From what you describe, it sounds like they are talking about abiogenesis. There are a number of well supported candidates for how life started on Earth, but currently it would be wrong for anyone to say they ‘know’; there isn’t really enough evidence to place one hypothesis over another. The chemical processes involved are actually not at all mystical, which is one of the problems in pinning it down… an embarrassment of riches, so to speak.

There’s even a compelling argument that self-replicating organisms are statistically inevitable; the theory is that ‘successful’ monomers and polymers, exposed to an external source of energy – the Sun or hydrothermal vents etc – would need to form systems that are efficient at dissipating heat, and those that are most efficient and successful in a given environment will proliferate. This is of course essentially natural selection. And ironically, considering the misuse by creationists, the physics that predicts this process is largely down to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My guess is that such a process wouldn't need to be restricted to Earth, but would need water (I don't know enough about chemistry to include other liquids).

That said, it is important to note that how life evolved once it had started is very well understood and fantastically well evidenced. There may be a gap in abiogenesis for my rainbow coloured unicorns, but to squeeze one into evolutionary theory would take some serious epistemological gymnastics. Speak to the hand

Angel



.
will
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 5:36:23 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
But we do know, Will.

Simply repeating something over and over does not make it any more true. You need to address the points made against your assertion, adjust your reasoning, or offer something new.


.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 6:01:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Will, I have only seen a bit of the first one on YouTube where they did briefly touch on the abiogenesis but it is a whole series of one hour shows so there will be lots more theories, I assume. In any of the Nova shows I have watched on other topics they were always very careful not to assert theories as fact or place one hypothesis over another unless there is evidence. We have this series recorded on the PVR so maybe this weekend I'll watch a couple and find out how they approach it.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:25:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Epiphileon wrote:

I wonder what the case is that all information must represent an ideal. I also do not understand the argument that ideal objects actually exist as physical objects rather than merely conceptual formations.


Ideal objects do not exist as physical objects. They exist as "non-physical" objects. This is the whole point.

If you like you can call them "conceptual formations". Then I would call physical objects "physical formations", for the sake of symmetry and clarity.


Epiphileon wrote:

Ideals objects are not real in the same sense that a rock is real,

Why?
Suppose you're sitting by a rock with a friend of yours discussing with him/her some mathematical problem. At times you switch the subject and discuss how the rock is beautiful. You and your friend know about the rock because your brains receive information about it from your senses. Also you both know about the mathematical objects you're discussing, you "see" them and discuss them just as well as you both see and discuss the rock.

The difference is that information about physical objects comes from physical senses, while information about ideal objects comes from some other modules of the psyche. Another (and very key) difference is that physical objects like rock are subject to evolving over time, while the mathematical objects are truly eternel, they are not affected by time at all.

So which of these two parts of reality is "more existant" than the other is difficult to tell, I'd rather say it's the latter, actually.


Epiphileon wrote:

they are real concepts, and as those concepts are reliant on physical properties of this universe they are indeed part of it. Reliant in the sense that they are either held in the mentality of a sentient organism, or stored in, or on, some media.


Wait a minute... Let's go back to that math example.

Some of the properties of the Euclidian space have been discovered by humans, so they are encoded and stored in books and on other physical carriers of information, and are held in at least some people's mentality.

But what about those properties that humans have not yet discovered? Do you mean to say they do not exist until they are discovered? If so, then what if they had been discovered at some point but were forgotten afterwards, do those exist or not?

The truth is of course that they all exist, independently of how and whether they are stored in any physical body, human or not.









Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:31:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,077
Neurons: 5,309
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
will wrote:
or offer something new.




No, Will, I don't recommend skipping the basics.
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:36:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,213
Neurons: 740,989
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
But what about those properties that humans have not yet discovered? Do you mean to say they do not exist until they are discovered? If so, then what if they had been discovered at some point but were forgotten afterwards, do those exist or not?


That is not the point though. The point is that you say they exist (even if they haven't been witnessed or proven) and that that, according to you, is a known fact, when it isn't. Because it's not been proven. Whether hypothetical abstract concepts truly exist is one thing I'm happy to debate about, but you can't call it a fact until it's proven.
will
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:24:17 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
No, Will, I don't recommend skipping the basics.

Really? Liar
Basics that you have skipped so far include:

1] The fact that your assertion that “The dominant scientific theory is that [the universe] somehow originated itself from nothing (Big Bang)” is factually incorrect.

2] The issue of infinite regression.

3] The fact that matter frequently and quite demonstrably develops from simple forms into more organized forms, contrary to your repeated assertions.

4] The frequent random occurrences where matter takes ‘ideal form’ before the ‘ideal image’ – such as the examples Lotje1000 provided – contrary to your underlying premise.

5] Your general misunderstanding of Thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd Law, repeatedly.

6] The fact that Euclidean geometry cannot even prove things we do know exist, such as spheres; thus it certainly doesn’t prove, as fact, the existence of realities beyond the physical universe.

7] The fact that even our most accurate mathematical descriptions of reality, Special and General Relativity, break down at the quantum level; thus it certainly doesn’t prove, as fact, the existence of realities beyond the physical universe.

8] The fact that the models in theoretical mathematics that come closest to a Grand Unified Theory predict the existence of many things never physically observed. And your failure to understand that such things, by definition, are NOT considered ‘fact’ by any mathematician or any physical or theoretical scientist.

9] The contradiction of ‘facts’ – according to all definitions – somehow existing ‘beyond the physical universe’ – according to all definitions, repeatedly.

10] The definition of infinite (and / or indefinite)

11] The existence of rainbow coloured unicorns, that ‘logically’ follows from the same argument you are using for the existence of a ‘creator’.

12] Whether your supposed creator is of the purely hypothetical, ultimately unprovable, deist variety. Or whether your supposed creator is something more specific.

13] How poorly ‘created’ humanity is for existence in the vast majority of the universe, contrary to your assertion that ‘a creative process’ is required to create an ‘ideal image’ as ‘unbelievably complex as a human body’.

14] The fact that your assertion that evolutionary theory posits the ‘spontaneous creation of even a most primitive biological being’ is factually incorrect.

15] The fact that phrases such as ‘form by chance’ and ‘chain of such unlikely events’ have nothing to do with evolutionary theory, contrary to your repeated assertions.

16] You general misunderstanding of Evolutionary Theory

etc. etc.

These are all issues you raised in your argument, that were challenged, that you chose to skip. None of the above aspects of your argument stand in their own right – your premise, even if it were not faulty, is completely irrelevant. So to rephrase: if you want to be taken seriously, you need to address the points made against your assertion, adjust your reasoning, or offer something new.

No doubt Epiphileon, being a far more patient person than me, will point out again, as others have already, why your premise is flawed.




.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 3:10:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
Hope123 wrote:
Facts That Prove Climate Change is Real and Anthropogenic:

If these so-called “facts” are from some other source than yourself, then you reveal the truth of what I said about accepting whatever you are told. If they come from your own thinking, then they reveal that, in both cases, you apply no critical thinking to what you believe.


1. Air contains carbon atoms with different numbers of neutrons depending upon the age of the carbon being released, so the ratio of carbon atoms can determine if the source is ancient or not.

Coal and oil form from plants and algae that have been underground for millions of years and thus the substances are ancient. And they are mostly carbon. When burned, the carbon and oxygen unite forming CO2.

This carbon dioxide leaves a distinct chemical imprint or fingerprint and those measurements show ratios that it is indeed ancient CO2 mostly in the greenhouse gases.

WE ARE responsible as WE burn those fossil fuels. This is observational - and is NOT THEORY.
Congratulations. You have discovered we burn fossil fuels. So what? Nothing you have written here proves anything relative to the responsibility of humans in affecting changes to the climate. All you have shown is that we burn fossil fuels.


Furthermore:

2. Scientists have taken more factors than you've even heard of such as volcanoes and other natural forces into consideration in their fact finding about climate change. This cycle of climate change is not normal when compared to the past. It is definitely anthropogenic. (caused by humans.)
What cycle is not normal? The fact is climate change is completely normal. It goes on all the time and has from the beginning of the planet’s formation. You offer no evidence whatsoever that humans are responsible for any of it. The facts are that some scientist believe that we affect the climate, but there are also other scientists who, looking at the very same data, do not believe it is even possible for us to affect the climate.

In support of the idea that we cannot affect the climate is the fact that none of the predictions of climate change made fifty years ago have come true. Part of that is because technology is always changing, and improvements are always being made. Where the climate is concerned, nothing runs in a straight line.

At one time, all humans burned organics such as wood for cooking and heat. It would have been foolish to create policies for industry based on the idea that wood pollutes and would always be the only source of power.

The same is true for coal and petroleum, or even atomic power. None of these are likely to always be the source of power for societies, so it makes little sense to craft policies at government level for industries today that curtail those industries, especially industries that lead to innovation, and will in all likelihood not be the sources for power in the future; for these industries are the very ones that will provide the power to innovate new sources.

Added to that is the fact that the U.S. has already done a great amount of work to improve air and water quality while some other countries pollute copiously, but only ours is singled out for disapproval and an effort to either shut down or curtail industry energy sources.


3. The overall pattern of levels of CO2 has been gradually increasing over the years until the CO2 level is higher now than it has been in 800,000 years. And the level is rising FAST.
By how much? And how much is too much? And how fast is FAST? You provide no evidence for any of that to show that it is dangerous, or that we, in fact, are responsible for it.

You said yourself, above, that many sources are responsible for this, but cannot, or do not, show how much is on us, or that whatever amount may be on us is causing the climate to change. But, I waste my time with this. You don’t want to hear anything that you don’t already believe, or contradicts what you already have accepted.


4. The earth's orbit NOW is NOT in the right phase to trigger excess CO2 and thus temperature raises from the sun as a reason are eliminated.
You believe what you’ve been told. I am skeptical. Leave it at that.


FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 3:28:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
will wrote:


It looks like the word ‘climate’ has the same effect on FounDit as ‘evolution’ has on creationists...
Umm, no. It’s unsubstantiated “anthropogenic climate change” that had that effect. The word, “climate” has no effect on me at all. Even the words “climate change” have no effect on me, since I see it as a natural cycle.

FounDit. As you’ve skipped over all the ‘nature of the universe’ stuff, shall I assume that I’ve cleared that up to your satisfaction?
With the exception of that “expansion into empty space” idea. While I can accept that we cannot see beyond our universe and all it contains, it is perfectly clear that what universe we do inhabit has expanded into something, and it looks like that “something” is empty space, else we would have come up against some kind of barrier already. Beyond that, I’m not willing to speculate.

As for the rest of your post...
For clarity, I’m going to lay out what was said, in the order it was said, rather than respond to your argument against something based solely on your misperceptions – and irrational knee jerk response to any mention of climate science.

FounDit wrote:
Besides that point, scientists are forever creating models to explain current understanding, but when new information is gained, the models have to be changed, so a current model isn't really proof of anything until we have all the necessary information.

I wrote:
This is an utterly inane and inaccurate description of how science works; so utterly inane and inaccurate that it seems pointless to attempt to correct you. Suffice to say, every single aspect of your daily life is made possible by a scientific method that bears no resemblance to that paragraph.


FounDit wrote:
So scientists don't create models to explain phenomena being studied and hypotheses about how things might be? Have you told them about this? I ask because I read constantly about scientists creating models to explain things. So I have to wonder what part of that is inane.


Here you build the strawman: by defining my argument as being ‘scientists don't create models to explain...’. This is purely your perception of what I said, nowhere have I said as much.
Well, I would appreciate it if you actually read what I wrote and responded to what was actually written, rather than characterizing it as a “strawman” argument. You may notice, if you look carefully, that there is actually a question mark on the end of my inquiry. That’s because I was questioning you on your beliefs about models.

As far as my perception is concerned, it seems to me to be perfectly accurate, since I made the point that scientists create models, improve models when new information is learned, and cannot be proof of anything until all necessary information is gained.

You responded that this is an utterly inane and inaccurate description of how science works, and that the scientific method bears no resemblance to what I wrote. I merely asked if you didn’t believe models were a part of that process, and in response, you have completely mischaracterized what I said. So in what way did I have a misperception?


Since the remainder of your post is a continuation of your erroneous ideas and mischaracterization of my question, I’ll not bother to comment on it.



will
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 5:14:57 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FounDit wrote:
Well, I would appreciate it if you actually read what I wrote and responded to what was actually written, rather than characterizing it as a “strawman” argument. You may notice, if you look carefully, that there is actually a question mark on the end of my inquiry. That’s because I was questioning you on your beliefs about models.

Bullshit.

If you actually read what you wrote you’d also notice that after your first inquiry, "So scientists don't create models to explain phenomena being studied and hypotheses about how things might be?", you immediately asked a second question: "Have you told them about this?"

Told them what? given that I hadn’t yet had a chance to answer the first question myself. Even if you were honestly inquiring about my belief in models, it’s clear you had already presupposed my answer.

And, in fact, when I was able to answer your question myself, regardless of whether it was an honest inquiry or sarcasm, I did so by clearly stating:“I know what scientific models are, how they are used within the scientific method and what their limitations are”.

That was the answer to your ‘innocent’ inquiry, plain and simple.

So why did you go on to claim I provided links that were ‘apparently supposed to reveal science doesn’t use models’?

FounDit wrote:
You then provide me with links that are apparently supposed to reveal to me that science doesn't use models,

If your question was an honest inquiry, why did you not believe my answer? Why would I provide links that were supposed to reveal science doesn't use models when I had just stated the contrary? Think



Is your pride so important to you that you feel the need to lie? Once your strawman was revealed, you could have simply said nothing more and I would have left it at that. d'oh!

You recall before, when I said that I aim not to cause offence as long as debate is honest?.. This pitiful attempt to disown your strawman is dishonest, pathetic and plain for everyone to see.

FounDit wrote:
As far as my perception is concerned, it seems to me to be perfectly accurate, since I made the point that scientists create models, improve models when new information is learned, and cannot be proof of anything until all necessary information is gained.

This is still an utterly inane and inaccurate description of how science works; so utterly inane and inaccurate that it seems pointless to attempt to correct you. Especially in regard to your ideological objections to the overwhelming scientific evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change.

The links above whould explain (at a primary school level) how the scientific consensus on climate change was formed, if you have the integrity to read them.


.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 7:47:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
FD, Did you skip the part emboldened here on purpose, or just not understand it? It is one or the other. Brick wall That one fact is all the proof needed that the majority of CO2 increase (CO2was proven years ago to cause warming) is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. If you want me to supply the rest of the facts complete with charts to explain to you how climate researchers have linked the CO2 increases with the vast increases in world temperature, (vast because of the heat needed to increase the temps of the land and oceans) you'd have to find the ancient thread where I did exactly that. Congratulations accepted. Whistle

Proof needed for assertion "none of the predictions from 50 years ago came true.

Air contains carbon atoms with different numbers of neutrons depending upon the age of the carbon being released, so the ratio of carbon atoms can determine if the source is ancient or not.

Coal and oil form from plants and algae that have been underground for millions of years and thus the substances are ancient. And they are mostly carbon. When burned, the carbon and oxygen unite forming CO2.

This carbon dioxide leaves a distinct chemical imprint or fingerprint and those measurements show ratios that it is indeed ancient CO2 mostly in the greenhouse gases.


Since we can't all be experts on everything, contrary to your opinion trying to make it sound bad, it is good to believe charts and facts that climate change researchers have provided. And not the opinion of some weatherman from Fox Noise aka "Faux" News or "State" News you once quoted. Source is the most important factor!

You have said many times we can't predict the weather so how could we predict climate. Climate is NOT weather and humans are very good at finding patterns. And that is exactly what climate is - patterns.

I could not care less if you are a skeptic. I am only presenting facts so others will not drink the Fool Aid.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:15:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
For any skeptic (not FD) interested in climate change you can pick an argument and then have it refuted on this website.

https://grist.org/series/skeptics/

This is FD's main one:

https://grist.org/climate-energy/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/

Conclusion: So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we’re now witnessing.

In short: No.
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, August 23, 2018 2:45:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,213
Neurons: 740,989
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Honestly, FounDit, you are a study in logical fallacies. You use strawman arguments, as already pointed out by Will. When that's not working (when people disprove your "climate change wasn't caused by humans") you also start moving the goalposts (to "yeah, but it's a cycle anyway") despite the fact that your new goalposts have also been disproved in other threads. When all of that fails, you tend to resort to ad hominem attacks. And throughout your posts, you always try to get out from under the burden of proof. Hope and Will have continuously provided evidence to support their statements, but you haven't. Or if you do, it's proven to be biased, not peer reviewed, not according to scientific method, etc...
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 23, 2018 12:14:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 15,647
Neurons: 74,672
You guys are hilarious. There's nothing like a good laugh to start the day. Thanks.

will wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Well, I would appreciate it if you actually read what I wrote and responded to what was actually written, rather than characterizing it as a “strawman” argument. You may notice, if you look carefully, that there is actually a question mark on the end of my inquiry. That’s because I was questioning you on your beliefs about models.

Bullshit.
Bullshit? Really? So is there no question mark at the end of my query? Why, yes, there is! Was I questioning you on your ideas about models? Why, yes, I was!

If you actually read what you wrote you’d also notice that after your first inquiry, "So scientists don't create models to explain phenomena being studied and hypotheses about how things might be?", you immediately asked a second question: "Have you told them about this?"

Told them what? given that I hadn’t yet had a chance to answer the first question myself. Even if you were honestly inquiring about my belief in models, it’s clear you had already presupposed my answer.
Yes, you're right. I didn't give you a chance to answer my jest. I failed to take into consideration the dearth of a sense of humor in you guys. My bad.

And, in fact, when I was able to answer your question myself, regardless of whether it was an honest inquiry or sarcasm, I did so by clearly stating:“I know what scientific models are, how they are used within the scientific method and what their limitations are”.

That was the answer to your ‘innocent’ inquiry, plain and simple.

So why did you go on to claim I provided links that were ‘apparently supposed to reveal science doesn’t use models’?
Um, because you said, "I’ve attached links to each specifically inane or inaccurate section to get you going." , yet none of your links actually dealt with models at all. Your first link was on Hypotheses, theories and laws. Your second link was on the changing of theories. Your third was on the fact that facts change hypotheses, theories and laws. All you did was prove what I said, that new information changes what has been proposed, but you omitted any links to models at all. I did.

8 Climate Models and Their Evaluation

Models are the Building Blocks of Science


FounDit wrote:
You then provide me with links that are apparently supposed to reveal to me that science doesn't use models,

If your question was an honest inquiry, why did you not believe my answer? Why would I provide links that were supposed to reveal science doesn't use models when I had just stated the contrary? Think
Good question. Why would you provide links to show you believe science uses models, when none of those links provided mention models at all? I can only surmise...Think


Is your pride so important to you that you feel the need to lie? Once your strawman was revealed, you could have simply said nothing more and I would have left it at that. d'oh!
Lie? What lie? What strawman? You still have not said what that supposed "strawman" is supposed to be.

You recall before, when I said that I aim not to cause offence as long as debate is honest?.. This pitiful attempt to disown your strawman is dishonest, pathetic and plain for everyone to see.
ROTFLMAO. Too funny.

FounDit wrote:
As far as my perception is concerned, it seems to me to be perfectly accurate, since I made the point that scientists create models, improve models when new information is learned, and cannot be proof of anything until all necessary information is gained.

This is still an utterly inane and inaccurate description of how science works; so utterly inane and inaccurate that it seems pointless to attempt to correct you. Especially in regard to your ideological objections to the overwhelming scientific evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Well, here is your opportunity. Please provide one undisputed FACT that humans are causing the climate to change. It would also be helpful if you could explain exactly how we are capable of doing that, and if we are, why we can't change it in any way we desire.

The links above whould explain (at a primary school level) how the scientific consensus on climate change was formed, if you have the integrity to read them.
How scientific consensus is formed is proof of nothing relating to the climate changing. That is a ... no, I was going to assign an attribute to that statement, but I won't. Suffice it to say that is a very lame attempt to try to prove a scientific fact, and disappointing.

As you have pointed out, people once believed the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it true. Consensus of one group of scientists doesn't make Anthropogenic Climate Change true either, especially when there are other climate scientists who disagree.

But if you will provide the undisputed proof I ask for above concerning how we have, and are able to change the climate on the planet at will, the whole world can finally put the argument to rest, and you'll be a hero.


.
will
Posted: Thursday, August 23, 2018 5:44:03 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FounDit wrote:
You guys are hilarious. There's nothing like a good laugh to start the day. Thanks.

Oh dear, this banal hubris already? Eh?

FounDit wrote:
Bullshit? Really? So is there no question mark at the end of my query? Why, yes, there is!

Another strawman. In my last post, to which this is your response, I acknowledge the fact that you asked a question no less than seven times. This new strawman attempts to characterise me as saying “Bullshit. There is no question mark at the end of your query”. You attempt this, as you did before, in the form of a rhetorical question, which you immediately answer on my behalf.

FounDit wrote:
Was I questioning you on your ideas about models? Why, yes, I was!

This is what I called bullshit on. If your question, “So scientists don't create models to explain phenomena being studied and hypotheses about how things might be?" was an honest question, rather than rhetorical, what was the purpose of the second question "Have you told them about this?", that immediately follows it?

Have I told them what? You can lie, or you can claim it was said in jest, but it's clear you had already presupposed my answer and created a strawman off the back of it.

FounDit wrote:
Yes, you're right. I didn't give you a chance to answer my jest. I failed to take into consideration the dearth of a sense of humor in you guys. My bad.

So, your whole argument was just a joke and not an attempt at logical discourse? Could you not have told us this sooner?

See what I did there? Think



I wrote:
And, in fact, when I was able to answer your question myself, regardless of whether it was an honest inquiry or sarcasm, I did so by clearly stating:“I know what scientific models are, how they are used within the scientific method and what their limitations are”.

That was the answer to your ‘innocent’ inquiry, plain and simple.

So why did you go on to claim I provided links that were ‘apparently supposed to reveal science doesn’t use models’?

FounDit wrote:
Um, because you said, "I’ve attached links to each specifically inane or inaccurate section to get you going." , yet none of your links actually dealt with models at all.

Remember, I had already made it clear that "I know what scientific models are, how they are used within the scientific method and what their limitations are"; after which you claimed I provided links that were ‘apparently supposed to reveal science doesn’t use models’ The issue about the use of models is your strawman argument, not any argument that I have made.

For clarity, here are the links I provided, attached to the statement of yours – exactly as you initially stated it, rather than what you’ve now subtly changed it to.


FounDit wrote:
Your first link was on Hypotheses, theories and laws.

Correct. It explains (at a primary school level) the basics of the scientific method, how 'current understanding’ is acquired and the very specific terminology used to describe the level of confidence in current understanding… as I already explained, and which you ignored, preferring to attack your strawman instead.

FounDit wrote:
Your second link was on the changing of theories.

Correct. It explains (again, at a primary school level) how theories change with new information. As an example it explains how Newtonian physics was superseded by more accurate theories. This example shows that ‘new information’ does not automatically mean that existing theories, hypotheses, laws (and the models used to illustrate them) ‘have to be changed’. Your house (compound, or wherever you live), airplanes, bridges etc are still designed and built using classical mechanics. Classical mechanics did not have to change. It is simply inaccurate to say that “when new information is gained, the models have to be changed… as I already explained, and which you ignored, preferring to attack your strawman instead.

FounDit wrote:
Your third was on the fact that facts change hypotheses, theories and laws.

Correct, but, to be honest, your conclusion that models (the hypotheses, theories and laws they illustrate) can’t be considered proof until we have ‘all necessary information’, was so utterly inane that I struggled to find any link that addressed it. A list of misconceptions was the next best thing. You are essentially saying that, for example, Newtonian Physics isn’t really proof of anything, because (as we now know) we didn’t have ‘all the necessary information’. This is clearly nonsense. And, as a number of people have pointed out, it is impossible to know if, or when, we have ‘all the necessary information
If this were true we would be still be sitting around in caves, waiting for a ‘Theory of Everything’ to just pop, complete and absolute, into our collective understanding.

FounDit wrote:
All you did was prove what I said, that new information changes what has been proposed, but you omitted any links to models at all. I did.

You are forgetting again, it was your strawman that claimed I provided links that were ‘apparently supposed to reveal science doesn’t use models’. The issue about the use of models is still your strawman argument, not any argument that I have made.

FounDit wrote:
Good question. Why would you provide links to show you believe science uses models, when none of those links provided mention models at all? I can only surmise…

Make your mind up. Did I provide links that were ‘apparently supposed to reveal science doesn’t use models’ as you claimed before, or did I provide links ‘ to show [I] believe science uses models’ as you are asking now? Or is this supposed to be a separate strawman altogether? One that you hope will give you more success. Speak to the hand

FounDit wrote:
Lie? What lie?

Pretending that your initial rhetorical question was an honest inquiry.

FounDit wrote:
Well, here is your opportunity. Please provide one undisputed FACT that humans are causing the climate to change.

Clear up your ignorance of how science works and I’ll happily discuss the science with you. Until then I’ll heed your advice about the pointlessness of arguing with creationists. Pray


.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:36:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
I searched for proof climate change is anthropogenic and then that it is not. Random sites that came up until I got bored - As I skimmed, I saw a few true statements in the "not anthropogenic" list but saw nothing to change my mind. Furthermore, none of these writers were climate scientists and two had economic jobs which makes their POV suspect to begin with. Note the proportion of 5 anti anthropogenic to 1 pro anthropogenic in my efforts - just to prove I was not biased in my choices.

1. Stefan Rahmstorf was portrayed as one of the world's 10 leading climate scientists by the Financial Times in 2009. He says he was a skeptic but the science changed his mind.

A professional paper - 54 footnotes. I did not see the date.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

:::::

Compare the above with these.

2. This is the only one I saw that looked half professional. The author, Ian McClintock is a farmer who is interested in weather. He works on economic committees. In his paper he categorically states that all science models are "not scientifically credible". With no proof. He says there is no evidence the earth is warming. This was in 2009. I wonder if he has changed his mind or continues with this conclusion.

- 2 footnotes.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf


3. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
https://www.redstate.com/diary/HeartlandInstitute/2017/01/04/climate-change-101-evidence-humans-aren’t-destroying-climate/

4. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/proof_that_the_manmade_global_warming_theory_is_false.html

5. https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423

6. http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

Number six wrtiten in 2015 says the polar bears are thriving, and 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

Hope123
Posted: Thursday, August 23, 2018 11:55:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 10,049
Neurons: 57,307
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Will wrote: If this were true we would be still be sitting around in caves, waiting for a ‘Theory of Everything’ to just pop, complete and absolute, into our collective understanding. Applause Applause Applause

It is not that the universe is too complicated for humans to understand, (hubris) but that humans are not smart enough to understand a complicated universe. (Some scientist said something similar.) But they are working on it, bit by bit, and each piece added gives a little more understanding to the previous knowledge.
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, August 24, 2018 3:18:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,213
Neurons: 740,989
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
You guys are hilarious. There's nothing like a good laugh to start the day. Thanks.

I failed to take into consideration the dearth of a sense of humor in you guys. My bad.

ROTFLMAO. Too funny.


True to expectations, we're getting our ad hominem and some personal incredulity.

FounDit wrote:
Well, here is your opportunity. Please provide one undisputed FACT that humans are causing the climate to change. It would also be helpful if you could explain exactly how we are capable of doing that, and if we are, why we can't change it in any way we desire.


Dodging the burden of proof. Note that at this point, FounDit still hasn't provided any facts, evidence or links to support his own statement.

FounDit wrote:
As you have pointed out, people once believed the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it true. Consensus of one group of scientists doesn't make Anthropogenic Climate Change true either, especially when there are other climate scientists who disagree.


A strawman for 'defeating' flat earthers and implying that means you've also defeated the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
Slippery slope for implying that because one theory was disproved that all theories are suddenly wrong.
Hasty generalization implying that undefined "people" (who once believed something wrong) somehow equates to scientists (and all their findings).
Appeal to authority for minimizing the scientists who oppose your view and maximizing the scientists who are in line with your view. Are they even scientists? You're not fulfilling your burden of proof, unlike Hope who made the effort to look it up and provided links.
General Misrepresentation of how the scientific method works.

FounDit wrote:
But if you will provide the undisputed proof I ask for above concerning how we have, and are able to change the climate on the planet at will, the whole world can finally put the argument to rest, and you'll be a hero.

More misplacement of the burden of proof combined with ad hominem.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.