The most important unresolved scientific questions, in my opinion.

IBDaMann said:
How do you sugest it comes about?

First, there are two people, a mother and a father, i.e. two consciousnesses. They create a child. At some point, a third consciousness emerges. Oooops, oh wait, they don't emerge, I forgot.

How does that third consciousness emerge without emerging?
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve? Are you serious?!
 
IBDaMann said:
Despite being mathematically incompetent, you return once again to assigning bogus positions of probability to others (in this case, to Into the Night).

Into the Night's accurate statement, i.e. that no one knows the age of the universe, is not a statement of any probabilitites. If you weren't mathematically incompetent, you'd be aware of this, and you wouldn't be frequently using bad math to justify your belief in physics violations.
Click to expand...
On one hand, you have people who are trained in a variety of scientific areas having to do with determining the age of really old things. The age of the Earth, the age of glaciers, the age of rocks, the age of the universe, etc. On the other hand, you have iron age men who were burying dead animals under buildings, to appease their gods, for good luck and were unable to explain where the Sun went at night. You are honestly going to say that you give equal value to both of their opinions?
 
Hume said:
Consciousness does not emerge.
Click to expand...
IBDaMann said:
How do you sugest it comes about? First, there are two people, a mother and a father, i.e. two consciousnesses. They create a child. How does that third consciousness emerge without emerging?
Click to expand...
Hume said:
Adam and Eve? Are you serious?!
Click to expand...
Let's try again.

How do you sugest consciousness emerges without ever emerging? For example, when there are a man and a woman, there are two consciousnesses. When they create a child, a third consciousness emerges. You say that consciousness does not emerge. How does that third consciousness emerge without emerging?
 
IBDaMann said:
Let's try again.

How do you sugest consciousness emerges without ever emerging? For example, when there are a man and a woman, there are two consciousnesses. When they create a child, a third consciousness emerges. You say that consciousness does not emerge. How does that third consciousness emerge without emerging?
Click to expand...
Consciousness does not emerge anymore than the heart or feet emerge.

It is just part of the evolution of the universe.
 
ZenMode said:
On one hand, you have people who [speculate about] the age of really old things [allowing fame and financial interests guide the speculation].
Click to expand...
FTFY. Have you found any time machines in good working order on E-bay?

ZenMode said:
On the other hand, you have iron age men who were burying dead animals under buildings, to appease their gods, for good luck and were unable to explain where the Sun went at night. You are honestly going to say that you give equal value to both of their opinions?
Click to expand...
This is where you get to tell me how you established the probabilities of earth ages by the value that other people give to certain opinions.

There is no science that can establish or confirm the age of anything from the distant, unobserved past
 
IBDaMann said:
FTFY. Have you found any time machines in good working order on E-bay?


This is where you get to tell me how you established the probabilities of earth ages by the value that other people give to certain opinions.

There is no science that can establish or confirm the age of anything from the distant, unobserved past
Click to expand...
Yes. Most physicists think the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
 
Hume said:
Consciousness does not emerge anymore than the heart or feet emerge.
Click to expand...
You are avoiding the question. Before a man and a woman have a child, there is no consciousness of the child that doesn't exist yet. At some point there is no child but then at some future point there is a child with a consciousness. The word for this in English is "emerge," i.e. the consciousness emerged at some point.

I'm trying to understand your response of "nu-uh, the child's consciousness never emerges."

Hume said:
It is just part of the evolution of the universe.
Click to expand...
Is the universe evolving? I'll agree that it is changing, but I'm not buying that it is somehow evolving.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are avoiding the question. Before a man and a woman have a child, there is no consciousness of the child that doesn't exist yet. At some point there is no child but then at some future point there is a child with a consciousness. The word for this in English is "emerge," i.e. the consciousness emerged at some point.
Click to expand...
No, you are simply talking about procreation.
 
Hume said:
Yes. Most physicists think the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Click to expand...
1. You do not speak for "most physicists." You speak for only you.
2. No human has ever travel back through time and space to verify either the age of the universe or the age of the earth.
3. Speculations on ages are always determined more by values that one requires to support one's work in a particular field, to build one's standing/prestige within a particular academic/scholar community, to secure/maintain future employment, and/or to justify funding/grants for future research.
4. You wouldn't be able to support any speculation that you have on the matter, i.e. your beliefs are all religious, faith-based, doctrines that you were told to believe by others and that you never questioned.
5. You fell for all of the above because you were told "this is what all the thmart people thay!"

Let me know when you get your hands on a time machine.
 
Hume said:
No, you are simply talking about procreation.
Click to expand...
You are a moron. There, I said it.

I'll spell it out for you. When a man and a woman (i.e. only two consciousnesses) have a child, a third consciousness emerges.

We don't even need to proceed any further. Your comment that "consciousness does not emerge" was stupid.
 
Hume said:
Your naive understanding of science is astounding.
Click to expand...
Let's take a look at this. You are a scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept and grammatically challenged moron who apparently never learned anything in school. Hmmmmm. What exactly are you claiming I do not somehow understand that you somehow do?
 
IBDaMann said:
Let's take a look at this. You are a scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept and grammatically challenged moron who apparently never learned anything in school. Hmmmmm. What exactly are you claiming I do not somehow understand that you somehow do?
Click to expand...
boring
 
Hume said:
At time of big bang our galaxy did not exist. Then the earth came to be. Then life on the planet. That is evolution.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. For it to be evolution and not simply experiencing normal changes, the universe would have to be mutating into something other than a universe. When a chemical reaction occurs somewhere in the universe, the universe is not "evolving."
 
IBDaMann said:
No, it is not. For it to be evolution and not simply experiencing normal changes, the universe would have to be mutating into something other than a universe. When a chemical reaction occurs somewhere in the universe, the universe is not "evolving."
Click to expand...
No. The universe itself is evolutionary. It is only its stages.
 
ZenMode said:
Out of curiosity, what aspect of the scientific dating of the earth do you find so unacceptable
Click to expand...
This is not my characterization.

Out of curiosity, why did you use the term "scientific dating" when there is no such thing by that name? Were you going to suddenly pull-a-180 and start defining your terms?
 
IBDaMann said:
This is not my characterization.

Out of curiosity, why did you use the term "scientific dating" when there is no such thing by that name? Were you going to suddenly pull-a-180 and start defining your terms?
Click to expand...
So, you deny that science has a presumed way to date the Earth?

In other words, radiometric dating doesn't exist?
 
ZenMode said:
So, you deny that science has a presumed way to date the Earth?
Click to expand...
I absolutely do. Science cannot speak to the unobserved past. You'd understand this if you weren't scientifically illiterate.

ZenMode said:
In other words, radiometric dating doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
Radiomentric dating exists. It's just that scientifically illiterate morons don't know what information it provides and what it does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top