Were the laws of physics the same in the far past on earth?

[dad]

That's totally convincing, he lied.

 

No substance to your so-called rebuttal

 

Need a link to show the sites were claimed to have been submerged miles under? You lie.

[swansont]

 

Need a link to show the sites were claimed to have been submerged miles under? You lie.

As I have never seen this claim before, yes.

[dad]

As I have never seen this claim before, yes.

 

OK I'll look it up and post it if I am not banned by then.

As I have never seen this claim before, yes.

 

 

"He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."

 

http://www.livescience.com/75-natural-nuclear-reaction-powered-ancient-geyser.html

[Strange]

Let's see one where you do that for the far past on earth.

 

Again, displaying your ignorance of what science is. We have a lot of evidence from, geology and other sciences for the nature of the ancient Earth. When were children we all played that silly game of "what if the earth was created 15 minutes ago and just made to look really old". Some of us grew out of it (or maybe you are still 14).

 

But even if that silly position were true, you know maybe a cruel and dishonest God decided to fool us like that, it doesn't matter. Because science deals with the evidence we can observe and what models we can build based on those models. The "Truth" might be completely different. But as we can never know, it doesn't matter.

 

And the nice thing is that science works, in other words it allows us to develop useful technology such as the computer you are using to post on this forum.

 

Your bizarre brand of immature nihilism is totally unproductive and a complete waste of time. But if that is what makes you happy. <shrug>

OK I'll look it up and post it if I am not banned by then.

 

You are so desperate to be banned, it is sad. Do you think it will validate you? Do you want to be able to go to your friends and say, "Oh, yes, they banned me because they couldn't cope with my incredibly deep arguments." I'm sure they will be very impressed.

 

I don't think anyone has been banned for immature posturing, so you have a long way to go.

"He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."

 

OK. So let's see. You are using evidence from the deep past to argue that we can't know anything about the past?

 

Or is this just an argument from incredulity? "I can't believe this happened so they must have made it up"?

 

Neither is very convincing.

[swansont]

OK I'll look it up and post it if I am not banned by then.

 

 

 

"He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."[/size]

 

http://www.livescience.com/75-natural-nuclear-reaction-powered-ancient-geyser.html

Why is this a problem? The isotopic abundance indicates fission has taken place, and that requires that the fundamental constants governing it have been...constant.

 

That it was preserved by a quirk of geological activity is irrelevant.

[Strange]

 

I don't find any evidence for god(s) or unicorns either, so the default is they don't exist.

Great so we can add that to the set of things you have no evidence for. I do.

 

 

I missed this before (perhaps because of your inability to master the complexities of posting on the forum).

 

I find it fascinating that you reject geology but claim to have evidence for unicorns.

 

The problem with your threads is that you raise some potentially interesting questions such as what we can know, what counts as evidence, the role of science, etc. These have been debated in great depth by philosophers and they have changed our understanding of the nature of science. (It used to be thought of as a search for "truth" but very few, if any, people still think that.)

 

But your understanding is so limited and your level of discussion so simplistic, it just reduces the discussion to a facile, "nah, nah, you don't know anything." It is rather sad that you think you are being terribly clever but, in fact, you are not mature enough to have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

[MigL]

This thread is progressing exactly the same as the others Dad's started about time.

 

If you listen closely, you can hear Swansont coming with a lock.

[Phi for All]

This thread is progressing exactly the same as the others Dad's started about time.

 

If you listen closely, you can hear Swansont coming with a lock.

 

It's a shame some folks have to come into a discussion with such a chip on their shoulder. They pretend their ideas are what is offensive instead of their behavior. All we want to talk about are the ideas, but their attitude makes everything personal.

 

I hate seeing minds go to waste like this. Perhaps this is the perspective he learned from his "dad'? I don't think it's working.

[Greg H.]

We have no reason to suspect that the laws of physics or chemistry have changed since the days of the early earth. We also have no evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, that dogs play poker (that one painting not withstanding) or that rats escape from test labs and form secret underground societies.

 

In the absence of evidence, the proper position to take as a scientist is that of the skeptic. This is not a position based on faith, but rather a position based on a lack of evidence.

[Strange]

In the absence of evidence, the proper position to take as a scientist is that of the skeptic. This is not a position based on faith, but rather a position based on a lack of evidence.

 

Nicely put. Too many people think that being sceptical means not believing anything, even if there is evidence.

[cladking]

 

Nicely put. Too many people think that being sceptical means not believing anything, even if there is evidence.

 

The problem with most so called skeptics isn't that they believe in evidence but that they believe in all the extrapolations and interpolations of that evidence. Reality exists within experimental results not in our models.

 

Most "skeptics" seem to believe what they're told even when the science behind it is "soup of the day".

[dad]

Fine with me, too.

 

link removed

.

 

Your bizarre brand of immature nihilism is totally unproductive and a complete waste of time. But if that is what makes you happy. <shrug>

 

Your belief in a same state past is a bizarre brand of immature nihilism is totally unproductive and a complete waste of time. Religion.

..

.. bizarre brand of immature nihilism is totally unproductive and a complete waste of time.

 

It's a shame some folks have to come into a discussion with such a chip on their shoulder. They pretend their ideas are what is offensive instead of their behavior. All we want to talk about are the ideas, but their attitude makes everything personal.

 

I hate seeing minds go to waste like this. Perhaps this is the perspective he learned from his "dad'? I don't think it's working.

Try proving the same state past or stop claiming one. No attitude needed. It is a belief with zero proof.

 

The problem with most so called skeptics isn't that they believe in evidence but that they believe in all the extrapolations and interpolations of that evidence. Reality exists within experimental results not in our models.

 

Most "skeptics" seem to believe what they're told even when the science behind it is "soup of the day".

If we want pagan philosophy we'll cal you I guess. I was hoping someone would try to evidence prove or support the same state past used by science and believed by science.

We have no reason to suspect that the laws of physics or chemistry have changed since the days of the early earth. We also have no evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, that dogs play poker (that one painting not withstanding) or that rats escape from test labs and form secret underground societies.

 

 

Or the same. Go figure. Why even talk if you can't take a position and defend it?

This is not a position based on faith, but rather a position based on a lack of evidence.

 

 

In the absence of evidence, the proper position to take as a scientist is that of the skeptic.

 

The absence of evidence is for the same state past.

 

link removed

Because of biased unfair lying mods I am closing my profile account now. You are fired.

Edited April 15, 2016 by hypervalent_iodine

[hypervalent_iodine]

Oh no, whatever will we do without your insightful contributions to this forum.

 

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed, also.