Age of the Earth 2

[Cerran]

Why type of string, what is it's modulus?

[nebula]

Hey SA!

May I ask you a few questions?

Is math an invention or a discovery? Where does it come from?

How is it that we can create formulas that match the pattern of the universe, so much so that if we account for all variables we can accurately predict what will be where when (i.e. the position of a planet so that we can get a probe to the planet, and the exact spot on the planet)?

How do you reconcile the existance of order?

And while I'm at it, for a non-philosophical question, I've heard the debates about what would happen if the universe were flat or curved or - isn't there a third option? What is meant by "flat" or "curved" and what would make it so, or what characteristics would either take?

Thanks!

[Rerun]

If say the rock had suffered a small amount of erosion would this effect the dating process? And also are fossils a special case, can they be dated at all using this method?

Also who say's leprechauns aren't a race of people who have lost their actual race in ages without historicly accurate accounts?

[mobile21]

Ok ok but because you declared yourself an atheist you must have already proven God doesn't exist right????.

Not so, I do not believe in leprechauns (I am an a-leprechaunist), but that doesn't mean that I can systematically disprove the possibility of their existence.

Why don't you prove to us God doesn't exist instead of the age of the Earth????.

I cannot prove that God doesn't exist - the burden of proof is in your court I'm afraid. Also, I am currently concentrating on science on this forum.

But you do believe in leprechauns.......... at least due to the mathematical probability of life in the universe, you must believe that there are at least a dozen planets inhabited by some of the leprechaun species (blame it on the JELL-O that causes life in our universe ).

[Cerran]

I think he's just pointing out, the fact that mathmatics says anything is possible mobile, but many events are extremely improbable. It's like observing that all bears in an area are brown and then concluding bears are always brown. If you suddenly find a white or black bear you must change your conclusion to meet the facts.

I think I'll join the A-Leprechaun league until I meet one.

[Guest faithless]

The Truth is he is trying to proove a lie. There are many many scientists who have proven that that dating system is the same as the evolution thing, it is only a theory made up by man to support a theory made up by man, and the same holds true of every fact the evolutionists claim. The true scientists have proven the 6 day creation.

Please, explain to me, how the "true" scientists have proven that bogus theory (I'm ashamed to even call it a theory because it has absolutely no proof to back it up).

[Bread_of_Life]

Nebula

May I ask you a few questions?

Of course you may.

Is math an invention or a discovery? Where does it come from?

That is a very good question. The answer is that it's more of an invention than a discovery - however it's invention does have some basis in what we observe (although very little).

Essentially, for mathematics to be invented, all one needs is a concept of nothingness, and a concept of unity, or wholeness. Nothingness is defined as zero, and the smallest whole unit before we reach nothingness is defined as 1. The next smallest whole unit is defined as 2 etc etc.

So in order for mathematics to proceed, we at least need sufficient empirical experience to understand the concepts of wholeness and nothingness. From then on, mathematics is purely deductive, it involves essentially no empirical content.

How is it that we can create formulas that match the pattern of the universe, so much so that if we account for all variables we can accurately predict what will be where when

Firstly you have to understand that we have created mathematics in order to describe the universe, therefore there ought to be no surprise that it does describe the universe.

Anything that has any pattern at all can be described by mathematics, and even effects that have no pattern, that are random, can be described by statistics. Given such a wide scope, it is likely that mathematics will be able to describe almost any kind of universe, with any set of physical laws.

How do you reconcile the existance of order?

I believe that a certain ammount of order can be generated from disorder, it is really as simple as that.

And while I'm at it, for a non-philosophical question, I've heard the debates about what would happen if the universe were flat or curved or - isn't there a third option? What is meant by "flat" or "curved" and what would make it so, or what characteristics would either take?

I am poorly qualified to answer such questions - astro-physics was never my area. However, the concept of a curved universe would imply that space is literally curved, and that if we move in a straight line in space-time, we will end up eventually back around the curve at the same point.

A topologically flat universe would imply a limited dimensionality of big bang explosion.

That's about all I know.

Rerun

If say the rock had suffered a small amount of erosion would this effect the dating process? And also are fossils a special case, can they be dated at all using this method?

To you first question, if either rubidium or strontium has been removed from the rock after it has set, say by erosion or by any other means, then the isochron that we find will not be straight. The points at which the rock has been affected will deviate significantly from a straight line, hence we will know it has been tampered with.

As for fossils, these are dated by the rocks that surround and incase them, they cannot be directly dated unless they are very young indeed.

Also who say's leprechauns aren't a race of people who have lost their actual race in ages without historicly accurate accounts?

I was refering to the myth itself, of little magic irish sounding blokes in green suits who hide their pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. I don't believe in them.

As you point out, the myth may have some actual real life genesis or starting point - but the myth itself is nonetheless false.

Mobile21

But you do believe in leprechauns.......... at least due to the mathematical probability of life in the universe, you must believe that there are at least a dozen planets inhabited by some of the leprechaun species

Firstly, this isn't true - the chances of life on other planets being humanoid, far less leprechaun like, is extremely unlikely.

Secondly, this is avoiding my point, which was that I don't need to disprove the idea of leprechauns existing not to believe in them. There could be an invisible leprechaun living on my ceiling for all I know, I can hardly disprove this - but it is sufficiently unlikely that, without very good evidence, I will believe it false.

Cerran

I think he's just pointing out, the fact that mathmatics says anything is possible mobile, but many events are extremely improbable.

No, I was pointing out that the burden of proof is on the believer, especially for unlikely claims - rather than there being a burden of disproof on the disbeliever. There are plenty of outlandish and strange claims that I cannot disproof, many are not even open to disproof (there is no experiment of observation that can be made to disprove them) - this doesn't mean we should believe in them just because we lack a disproof.

[traveller]

SA, I know we've never talked, you and I, and I don't have anything to add to this particular conversation, but I would like to say something to you. Now, I realize that this is totally off topic and I do apologize to who started this thread for taking this moment, but I will be brief.

I find it extraordinary that a very well spoken, highly educated man such as yourself, would go to a Christian forum board to discuss science. And let me say that I am not at all being sarcastic. I have read all your posts and I admire your kind attitude. But, there is this little voice in the back of my head that keeps asking, why is he here? I would be remiss if I walked away from you and did not say something directly to you. SA, I do hope that one day you will be in the Kingdom with God's children. For some reason I have a desire to pray for you daily, so I do. Are you here because there is a doubt in your resolve that there is no God? Even a small one? Are you here because the Lord drew you to this place? See, that's what I believe. And if that is the case, then I do hope you will listen. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. "

The Lord is gracious, and will not enter unless He is invited. But, the day does come when He will turn away. He does not call forever. SA, have you always believed in man only? I cannot imagine the universe without God, though I once lived my life like I did.

I will continue to pray that you will be drawn to God. Some non-believers take that to be condescending, but honestly, it is an honor for me to go before my Lord and I do it out of love. I certainly do not mean it as anything but a desire to share the Good News.

OK, I had my say. I will only read this conversation because I have nothing to offer.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you all,

I don't know why I swallowed the fly? I guess I may die?

I Love Nursery ryhmes.

So in order for mathematics to proceed, we at least need sufficient empirical experience to understand the concepts of wholeness and nothingness. From then on, mathematics is purely deductive, it involves essentially no empirical content.

So it is built upon empirical evidence , mathematics that is. By the way that was my worst subject. It's foundation is based upon experiment and observation? So under observation it had better bear out that 1 plus 1 equals 2. Otherwise the whole foundation is a sham?

So is it true that the house of mathematics has no empirical content? It is plainly deductive? Well it is deductive to begin with isn't it? Since it is based upon experience and observation. This is only logical.

My question is where did the power to deduce come from? To observe? The laws of the physical universe?

No, I was pointing out that the burden of proof is on the believer, especially for unlikely claims - rather than there being a burden of disproof on the disbeliever. There are plenty of outlandish and strange claims that I cannot disproof, many are not even open to disproof (there is no experiment of observation that can be made to disprove them) - this doesn't mean we should believe in them just because we lack a disproof.

Are you and I conversing via a Computer generated Bulletin Board?

[nebula]

Is math an invention or a discovery? Where does it come from?

That is a very good question. The answer is that it's more of an invention than a discovery - however it's invention does have some basis in what we observe (although very little).

Essentially, for mathematics to be invented, all one needs is a concept of nothingness, and a concept of unity, or wholeness. Nothingness is defined as zero, and the smallest whole unit before we reach nothingness is defined as 1. The next smallest whole unit is defined as 2 etc etc.

So in order for mathematics to proceed, we at least need sufficient empirical experience to understand the concepts of wholeness and nothingness. From then on, mathematics is purely deductive, it involves essentially no empirical content.

OK, I'm not sure you are following my train of thought here.

Yes, the translation of numbers and symbols is our invention, but the principles behind them? Yes, 1 + 1 = 2 is the language we invented. But, did we invent the principle or did we discover it?

When I took calculus, I was amazed at how one simple formula could take me to a solution that under algebra and trig took me many pain-staking formulas and processes to get through. When men devoloped these methods, were they creating something new, or realizing and defining something that already existed?

How is it that we can create formulas that match the pattern of the universe, so much so that if we account for all variables we can accurately predict what will be where when

Firstly you have to understand that we have created mathematics in order to describe the universe, therefore there ought to be no surprise that it does describe the universe.

Do you not find it amazing that the universe can be described at all?

How do you reconcile the existance of order?

I believe that a certain ammount of order can be generated from disorder, it is really as simple as that.

How so? What basis or evidence do you believe that on?

I ask because that doesn't sound so simple to me, and I have not encountered in my life order being genrated out of disorder without someone intervening to create the order. :glasses:

And while I'm at it, for a non-philosophical question, I've heard the debates about what would happen if the universe were flat or curved or - isn't there a third option? What is meant by "flat" or "curved" and what would make it so, or what characteristics would either take?

I am poorly qualified to answer such questions - astro-physics was never my area. However, the concept of a curved universe would imply that space is literally curved, and that if we move in a straight line in space-time, we will end up eventually back around the curve at the same point.

A topologically flat universe would imply a limited dimensionality of big bang explosion.

That's about all I know.

OK, thought I'd try. You explained everything else so well!