gfm7175 (09-24-2020), Into the Night (09-24-2020)
Science is not scientists. Scientists can and do lie. Science does not. Scientists come in all religious flavors. Science is purely atheistic (it is devoid of any theism).
The earth might very well be ~6,000 years old. Nobody can verify its true age without a time machine. Regardless, science does not speculate about the past; only humans do. Science predicts nature, i.e. future tense.
Personally, I am a huge fan of Darwin's theory. I think the age of the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years +/- 400 million years. I think earth is a negligible speck in a massive expanding universe and that there are lots and lots of other life forms elsewhere in the universe, none having any real chance of running into any of us. All of these are my beliefs and thus my speculations. None of this is science.
Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.
gfm7175 (09-24-2020), Into the Night (09-24-2020)
Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.
Into the Night (09-24-2020)
Nope. That's the rub.
Belief in radiometric dating requires faith. I happen to believe in radiometric dating, i.e. I am a huge fan. There is one huge problem that very few people wish to discuss which is that when radiometric dating is performed, the resulting figure really is the upper limit as to how old something can possibly be ... whereas we humans, simply out of our psychological "need to know" or to feel like we "know," simply declare that value as the actual age. The reality is that any object so measured could, in reality, be much younger. To us humans, that is a very unsatisfying thought ... so we choose instead to believe that we are reading the actual, true age and we feel so much more satisfied and we boast about the amazing truths that we "learned." Unfortunately it's merely what we are choosing to believe.
You may already be aware of this but let give you a rundown on how radiometric dating works. Many different unstable isotopes are created all the time. They decay into "decay material" at an extremely stable rate called the "half-life" and this rate amazingly is unaffected by temperature, pressure and any other environmental factors. So far so good. If a rock R1 is created in the earth on a particular day with a quantity Q of isotope I with a half-life of 100,000 years ... and that rock is radiometrically "dated" 100,000 years later, what will happen is that the amount of I will be measured and the decay material D will be measured and will be discovered to be of equal quantities and will be declared to be 100,000 years old.
But the day before rock R1 was "dated" a brand new rock R2 was created that day in an equivalent manner as R1 and was shot out of a volcano. Due to a bizarre set of circumstances, in the region where R2 was created there also happened to be high levels of D. In fact, R2 began its life yesterday with three times as much of the decay material as it contains of I. So the day after it comes out of the earth and is one day old, it is "dated" and declared to be 200,000 years old, twice as old as R1. It's one day old but it appears to be 200,000 years old. What do we do?
Well, instead of disrupting society and declaring that we really don't know any of the stuff we have claimed vehemently "to know" ... we quietly decide that if there are any instances like that of R2, we just include that in our "margin of error" for our overarching "model" of speculation about the past. We go on believing the "official" timeline of events and we give ourselves order and satisfaction in our lives. We even get to go to online forums and bash people who don't accept the "official" timeline of events as being "anti-science." Isn't that great?
Actually, it's not that great. Trust me. I used to do it and I'm not proud of it.
I didn't make any claims about inability to reach us. I stated a negligible probability of ever reaching us. We humans will only exist for a finite amount of time. We will likely run out of resources and die out long before we achieve the means to get ourselves to some other sustainably habitable place. Other life forms are restricted to the same laws of physics that govern our lives ... and distance is distance. I'll change my tune when someone starts installing powering stations between galaxies.
Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.
gfm7175 (09-24-2020), Into the Night (09-24-2020)
... nor is there anything compelling us to believe in the Climate goddess who centrally plans the earth's weather and who miraculously causes the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
What is your unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics?
Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.
Into the Night (09-24-2020)
We can further speculate that no matter how advanced they become, they cannot violate physics, e.g. accelerate beyond the speed of light, magically teleport, etc... despite our vivid sci-fi imaginations. Further, we can speculate that such life forms are bound to the laws of thermodynamics, including the 2nd law, which means they are probably not immortal and have finite lifespans.
We can speculate that the conditions for life to generate and to exist are relatively uncommon but because the universe is simply so vast that we can speculate that the closest other such life forms are probably at least billions of times millions of light years away, that they aren't necessarily aware of us and thus unaware of our vector/direction. We have been emitting radio signals and other electronic signals for two centuries that travel at the speed of light so we can speculate that our signals have a few billion times millions of years to go to reach other life forms ... and that's assuming they are advanced enough to receive them and understand them.
Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.
Into the Night (09-24-2020)
Absolutely. If you have a theism that specifies with certainty that no "The Force" exists then that is an affirmative belief, just as if you affirmatively believe that Global Warming is real. Your religious beliefs are not limited to those things that do exist; you are entitled to believe things do not exist as well. Jews will affirmatively state that no Son of God Messiah ever existed.
Everything changes when you phrase it in a non-affirmative statement of a lack of a belief, i.e. from "There is no Force" to "I don't have any belief in the Force." In the former, your affirmative belief precludes you from accepting the possibility the Force exists whereas the atheism of the latter case allows for discovery that it does.
Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.
Into the Night (09-24-2020)
Creationists, people such as myself who accept (on a faith basis) the Theory of Creation as a True, believe that life appeared on Earth as a result of an act of some kind of intelligence.
A Christian, such as myself, will additionally claim that the Christian God is this "intelligence", but a Creationist need not be a Christian.
How, by any of that, is a Creationist (or even a Christian) "anti-science"?
Into the Night (09-24-2020)
A Creationist need not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. At this point, you are speaking of an entirely different religious belief, this one about the age of Earth rather than about how life came to be on Earth.
No, he is just expressing his religious belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This is not denying science in any way, which does not speculate about the past.
Personally, there is no particular theory about the age of the Earth that I accept as a True. I simply do not care about how old the Earth is and thus do not subscribe to any particular view about it. I do, however, find various views to be reasonable and/or interesting for one reason or another...
Into the Night (09-24-2020)
Into the Night (09-24-2020)
Bookmarks