slightly OT, but still connected

"Pierre Vandevenne" wrote in message
...
"Clayton Doyles" wrote in
nk.net:

Ok, but only if you accept the fact that there is no possibility of
error in half life calculations or even the half life concept itself.
I can't agree that there isn't a chance that half life can't vary
beyond the norm.

Do you agree that stars are "far away"?

Depends on what you mean by "far away". That Proxima Centauri is 4 l.y.
away or M31 2.2 million, I don't know. Red shift, blue shifts, variables
are supposed to confirm these distances, but what about gravitational
bending of light like seen with "distant" galaxies?


Do you agree that, at least some of them, produce light?

Yes, light is being produced.

Do you agree that their light travels at roughly 300.000 km/sec?

Yes.

If you don't agree with that, we don't live in the same universe

If you agree with that, you are unknowingly agreeing with the "half life
concept". Unless, again, you live in a different universe.

How does this have anything to do with half-lives, unless you're trying to
say that we are the result of long decaying supernova like material.

And if you do actually live in a different one, the "right" one, please
provide a couple of experimental proofs. Just a few ones.

I don't say I live in a different Universe, but I am saying that the
so-called evidence of today just doesn't convince me that the universe is in
fact 20 billion years old, and it could just as easily be 6,000.

Clay


--
Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com
The IDA Pro Disassembler & Debugger - world leader in hostile code
analysis
PhotoRescue - advanced data recovery for digital photographic media
latest review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1590497,00.asp

"Roland Roberts" wrote in message
...

snip------------------------------

If you're trying to say we (humans) need to be a bit more humble about
what we think we know, I'll buy that.

We as humans should be a LOT more humble, yes.

But if you're trying to say we
don't truly know anything, you've lost me.

We know a few things, but to God, although we were created in His own image,
our intelligence when compared to Him is like that of an amoeba.

Clay


regards,

roland
--
PGP Key ID: 66 BC 3B CD
Roland B. Roberts, PhD RL Enterprises
6818 Madeline Court
Brooklyn, NY 11220

I don't say I live in a different Universe, but I am saying that the
so-called evidence of today just doesn't convince me that the universe =
is in
fact 20 billion years old, and it could just as easily be 6,000.


You're not convinced because you're stupid.

-Florian (sorry)

We know a few things, but to God, although we were created in His own =
image,
our intelligence when compared to Him is like that of an amoeba.

Offer evidence a god exists.

-Florian

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:40:36 -0400, Michael McCulloch
wrote:

There is a recent idea supported by evidence that the Noah's flood
myth may be based in real flood event in the area currently covered by
the Black Sea. The theory proposes that a natural dam failed and
allowed the Mediterranean Sea to flood a large area of inhabited land.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.e.../story9_1.html

This event may be the source of the flood myths common to several
ancient traditions.

I'm not arguing that this supports YEC, but it does perhaps suggest
that the stories in the Bible (and of other ancient traditions) may
echo some real events in human history that may be worthy of research.

I think it is very likely that many Old Testament stories have their
roots in actual events. Finding correlates between events in ancient
literature (which often retell stories from even more ancient,
pre-literate cultures) and physical evidence is a fruitful area of
research for many archaeologists.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Florian" wrote in message
...
I don't say I live in a different Universe, but I am saying that the
so-called evidence of today just doesn't convince me that the universe is
in
fact 20 billion years old, and it could just as easily be 6,000.


You're not convinced because you're stupid.

Well, if I'm stupid, what does that make you? Why couldn't the universe be
only 6,000 years old? NOTHING I've seen posted here so far can convince me
that it's not.

Clay


-Florian (sorry)

"Florian" wrote in message
...
We know a few things, but to God, although we were created in His own
image,
our intelligence when compared to Him is like that of an amoeba.

Offer evidence a god exists.


If you have to ask that question, then you will never know the answer.
That's the "catch" for all those who don't believe, yet your so-called
"evidence" is right under the tip of your nose but you're too blind to see
it. Try believing first, THEN ask the question after you've done the
research.

Clay

-Florian

"Pierre Vandevennne" wrote in message
...
"Clayton Doyles" wrote in
nk.net:

---------------------snip-----------------------------------------


What are your views? What do you consider as a plausible model?
Why "so called" evidence? What specifically fails to convince you?

Unfortunately, it's difficult to answer these questions in a single,
condensed post. However, let me start off by saying that I have full
knowledge of the scientific method and did use it on a regular basis as part
of my job up until three years ago. As a physicist myself (no, not on the
level of the PHD here) having reasonable knowledge of the basic laws of the
universe, I have found definite discrepancies in the way man in general has
carried out research and experiments using the scientific method. I have
seen experiments and methods performed over quite long time periods with the
assumption that results obtained were without error, only to be disproven
later. Perhaps these methods were used for years and everyone accepted them
as truth before they were determined inaccurate.

Under these circumstances, and especially at our current technological
level, I think its very difficult to devise a plausible model, especially
when there's always the chance for error, no matter what the evidence or
proof. Therefore, based on the evidence, stating that the universe is xx
billion years old may be just as faulty as saying that the age is 6,000.
There's absolutely no way we can know with absolute certainty that it's
either age or some other age, no matter if radiocarbon or radiometric dating
is used, or any other method because error exists.

I firmly believe that "faith" is definitely part of both scientific and
non-scientific thinking. Just as some choose to base their thinking and
beliefs on a universe based on facts, I do also. The only difference is
that my facts may be different from your facts. I have chosen to believe
what The Bible states because it contains the "facts" I have "faith" to
believe in. Just as you must choose to believe the "facts" that your
universe is xx billion years old, again based on "faith" in man's collection
of data.

Additionally, and this may be going offtopic from the question a bit, don't
you find it odd that our probes haven't found ANY evidence of life, not even
a trace, on any planet in our solar system other than earth? I keep reading
about what looks like areas that could support life on Mars, but absolutely
nothing. One would have thought that during the time of the early solar
system, Mars would have been warmer and something, even simple organisms,
would have survived, but oddly not. Strange that our planet is just full of
life, overflowing in fact, but not a trace anywhere else in the solar
system. Divine influence? Or is it that everything else is outside the
"life belt" or whatever it's being called these days?

Clay

I have read both the Old and New Testaments, cover to cover (the Old
Testament in three different versions). I don't know how you can make
the claim you do. Semantically, so much of the writing is ambiguous or
even generally empty that it can only be said to have meaning via
interpretation, and there are as many different interpretations as
there
are readers. I'm glad that you have found _your_ interpretation not to
be at odds with science and rational thought. It is quite clear that
this is often not the case, however.

Have you read it in the Hebrew ? I particularly like the bit about the
plural "Elohim", only one of which is known as Jaweh or Jehova.
While working on York Minster windows after the fire I took the
opportunity of collaring the archbishop on one of his tours of the
glass shop to ask him when and why the church stopped worshipping
Jaweh's wife as they had done for centuries. His Grace replied "That
is one of the great mysteries of theology". :-)
jc


--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/

"Pierre Vandevennne" wrote in message
...
"Clayton Doyles" wrote in
news
the scientific method. I have seen experiments and methods performed
over quite long time periods with the assumption that results obtained
were without error, only to be disproven later. Perhaps these methods
were used for years and everyone accepted them as truth before they
were determined inaccurate.

Yes, but on the other hand, there are many things that become
undisputable hard facts after a while (that the earth is a sphere, that
it revolves around the sun, gravitation etc...) Radio-active decay is one
of such hard truth and even if, at a later time, our understanding of the
underlying sub-atomic mechanisms improve, that won't change the fact that
oxygen 15 half life is 2.25 minutes...

the evidence or proof. Therefore, based on the evidence, stating that
the universe is xx billion years old may be just as faulty as saying
that the age is 6,000. There's absolutely no way we can know with
absolute certainty that it's either age or some other age, no matter

Well, 6000 years can be disproved in many many ways, linked to some of
the hard science described above. The exact amount of billions is
somewhat speculative and is a best guess given the information we have
now. However, here again, the hard facts put a lower limit and that limit
is well around the 10 billions of years range.

I firmly believe that "faith" is definitely part of both scientific
and non-scientific thinking. Just as some choose to base their
thinking and beliefs on a universe based on facts, I do also. The
only difference is that my facts may be different from your facts.

No, the only difference is that religious "facts" can't be disproved
while scientific ones eventually can.

If I choose to believe the world was created twenty two minutes ago, with
all the memories in our minds and the traces of the past it is equivalent
to saying it was created 10000 or 6000 years ago.

If I choose to say Oxygen 15 has a 2 million years half life, thousands
of people will shoot holes in my "facts"

Science can be contradicted, Religion can not.

Scientific "hard facts" become "truths" when the possibility of
contradicting them has been exhausted.

have chosen to believe what The Bible states because it contains the
"facts" I have "faith" to believe in. Just as you must choose to
believe the "facts" that your universe is xx billion years old, again
based on "faith" in man's collection of data.

No, I don't base this on faith: there are many things I can check for
myself if I so wish, and many things I (and millions of science students
all over the world) did check (fundamental experiments I/we/they
reproduced for example)

Additionally, and this may be going offtopic from the question a bit,
don't you find it odd that our probes haven't found ANY evidence of
life, not even a trace, on any planet in our solar system other than
earth?

Why would I find it strange? If Mars was swarming with homosexual giant
pink worms having their own "Holy Book", I fail to see how this would
prove or disprove the existence of God. If a "faith center" was isolated
in our brains by functional MR imaging, I also fail to see how this would
prove or disprove anything (God could have put it there, right?)

So that is the key point "facts based on faith" can't be proved or
disproved and that is why, in our understanding since about 400 years
ago, no rational person attempts to call them "facts" anymore.

In a purely scientific way of thinking basing everything on so-called
concrete facts and proof, I suppose anyone who doesn't share the mainstream
ideas is irrational? I wonder how Creationist physicists and others have
managed to still work side-by-side for many years without disruption.
Boggles the mind, yet it is done every day.

Before I exit this post, I leave you with these parting thoughts:

Imagine man as amoebas in a test tube. The surrounding water is our
universe. Sitting close by in a chair is a young man (of course not a man
in this discussion) just staring at the water and sometimes observing the
organisms with a webcam camera placed in such a way as to monitor the small
"pool". The amoebas, as men, continue their survival patterns and don't
appear disturbed in any way when observed. Now I ask the following
questions:

Are the amoebas aware of the individual observing them?

Wouldn't their "universe" be totally different than the observer's?

Would they even be aware of the "universe" existing outside of their small
"pool"?

Based on their intelligence levels, how could the amoebas even begin to
understand the concept of anything outside their universe, let alone the
fact that their observer is practically staring them in the face?

The aforementioned is one way to think of man's relation to God. We study
our "pool" and think we have learned a lot about it, yet are we so sure that
there isn't anything outside of that pool or that we don't have the
knowledge to "see" the Creator staring right at us all the time? As in the
amoebas case, will we ever attain such knowledge to enable "visibility" of
the Creator? How would an amoeba be able to exit its universe? It couldn't
unless it were to do what? And what must man ultimately do in order to
"exit" his universe?

Clay