AstroAg17 said:

---

What specifically is the assumption there? That fundamental physics happened back then? That's testable.

---

Yes, more specifically that fundamental physics as we understand them today have always behaved in the same way. Sort of, but not in the same way that you can test that "gravity functions this specific way right now" is. At the end of the day, any conclusion about something in the past will have some underlying assumptions, even if those assumptions are correct.

Quote:

---

we could derive the expected proportions of elements in the universe given the proposed age of the earth. If this was found to be accurate, this would be evidence that physical laws are constant.

---

How do you propose we test the actual proportions of elements in the universe to validate the model? No extrapolating from a sample size, because that's another assumption.

Quote:

---

if we have some model which makes predictions, confirmation of some of the predictions lends credibility to the model, and to the model's other predictions, even if the other predictions are not directly testable.

---

I agree, which is why i think the current scientific consensus is the most likely scenario of how things went down. I'm not arguing the science, just pointing out the cognitive dissonance present in the arguments made by some of the more "aggressive" proponents of science's superiority and undeniability. In this case specifically Dr. Watson's statement, but i have heard similar claims many times.

Quote:

---

YECism isn't a model and doesn't make testable predictions. It's simply a contrivance.

---

Agreed.

AstroAg17 said:

---

The homogeneity of the universe is observed; it's not an assumption

---

We have observed and measured the entirety of the universe to know definitively that the elements are distributed in a homogeneous manner? My mistake then because I was under the impression that we had only observed a fraction of it, found it homogeneous, and made the assumption that the rest of the universe would continue on in this predictable manner.

yes

"evidence for" does not equal "proof of"

also a question to your example. Are the laws that govern the model created to predict the current distribution of elements in our solar system based in part on the observation of the current distribution of elements in our solar system? I ask because i legitimately don't know but it would seem that they are at least in part. in which case now you run into the danger of circular reasoning.

It's not proof in a pure ontological sense, but basically very little meets that standard if you're a human being. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its as firmly proven as most anything we consider proved in our daily use of the word. We use these same standards of evidence as more than enough proof to take away a mans freedom and put him in a cage. To build our buildings bridges and vehicles to treat the sick and the dying.

To put it simply. The objection that the laws of the universe are not provable isn't at all strong. No more so than the objection that we might be in a simulation. And this shouldn't be used as a foundation from which to form a criticism of a firm believe in the uniformity of the laws of the universe.

i often get frustrated when people talk about things they did the day before. i mean, just because they have memories and evidence of events that happened in the past, doesn't mean it's proof that yesterday existed. it's really just faith. a kind of religion, even. i wish these yesterdayists would stop saying definitely that they know a day before today existed. they really don't. they're assuming on faith that there is value in their memories of past days. pretty weak if you ask me.

Aggrad08 said:

---

We use these same standards of evidence as more than enough proof to take away a mans freedom and put him in a cage.

---

Minor quibble: we use a much lower standard of evidence as enough proof to put a man in a cage.

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's not proof in a pure ontological sense, but basically very little meets that standard if you're a human being. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its as firmly proven as most anything we consider proved in our daily use of the word. We use these same standards of evidence as more than enough proof to take away a mans freedom and put him in a cage. To build our buildings bridges and vehicles to treat the sick and the dying.

To put it simply. The objection that the laws of the universe are not provable isn't at all strong. No more so than the objection that we might be in a simulation. And this shouldn't be used as a foundation from which to form a criticism of a firm believe in the uniformity of the laws of the universe.

---

I agree with basically everything you said except the bolded piece. The point being that nothing can truly be known with 100% degree of certainty in the realm of science and so all scientific conclusions actually lie somewhere on a realm of probability, and at the end of the day when there are competing theories, we choose the one that is most probable based on the available evidence. And with most things that we consider "proved" that level of confidence is very high, but as stated, never 100%.

I slightly disagree with the bolded part on a theoretical basis. Because I don't agree that some of these concepts can be considered to be proved to the same degree as others, even if they maintain a high degree of confidence. For instance, or models that show how gravity effects the rate of fall of an object in a vacuum can be demonstrated and directly measured in a controlled experiment. With historical sciences, for instance the element distribution example, I can create models based on observations, apply it to observed and extrapolated past and see if it fits and use that as evidence to validate the model, but i cannot make a model that predicts elemental distribution in a universe based on age, and then set up a new universe, "big bang" it and measure the change in elemental distribution, as it's age changes. I still give it a great degree of confidence, but to say it has the same degree of confidence as something that can be experimentally tested i feel is slightly disingenuous.

And i agree it isn't all that strong, i'm simply pointing out that the belief in the uniformity of the laws of the universe is an assumption. a really good one, but still an assumption.

Edit: and to build those buildings and bridges we trust our assumptions so much that we build in large safety factors to account for pieces of the puzzle we missed in our assumptions

schmendeler said:

---

i often get frustrated when people talk about things they did the day before. i mean, just because they have memories and evidence of events that happened in the past, doesn't mean it's proof that yesterday existed. it's really just faith. a kind of religion, even. i wish these yesterdayists would stop saying definitely that they know a day before today existed. they really don't. they're assuming on faith that there is value in their memories of past days. pretty weak if you ask me.

---

completely, i mean for that matter, how do we really even know today exists, or that i'm really typing this right now. i really can't prove this all isn't an elaborate figment of my imagination.

AstroAg17 said:

---

It was just a hypothetical, I'm not aware of any such derivation (although I bet someone has done it). Our sun isn't a first generation star so it would be tough. But no, the rates of stellar synthesis can be predicted from the composition and size of a star.

---

I will have to take your word for that as i know nothing on the subject of stellar synthesis.

It is the same argument you're making, is it not? What evidence do we have of yesterday beyond one that says, well today exists so yesterday must have been something like it.

BlackGoldAg2011 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

i often get frustrated when people talk about things they did the day before. i mean, just because they have memories and evidence of events that happened in the past, doesn't mean it's proof that yesterday existed. it's really just faith. a kind of religion, even. i wish these yesterdayists would stop saying definitely that they know a day before today existed. they really don't. they're assuming on faith that there is value in their memories of past days. pretty weak if you ask me.

---

completely, i mean for that matter, how do we really even know today exists, or that i'm really typing this right now. i really can't prove this all isn't an elaborate figment of my imagination.

---

in that case, i guess i'll just go watch some reality tv.

schmendeler said:

---

in that case, i guess i'll just go watch some reality tv.

---

nobody deserves that. although sometimes seeing what people will watch i sincerely hope its all a figment of my imagination/nightmares

So, when someone is healed after being declared terminally ill and we have no scientific explanation, is it deceptive, absured, ridiculous, dishonest?

Do the non believers just claim it didn't happen and move on? When a person is burned badly and the doctors say he has no chance to survive but he does survive with the scars of the fire, is it untrue that he was burned and not expected to live (because science said so)?

drevans956 said:

---

So, when someone is healed after being declared terminally ill and we have no scientific explanation, is it deceptive, absured, ridiculous, dishonest?

Do the non believers just claim it didn't happen and move on? When a person is burned badly and the doctors say he has no chance to survive but he does survive with the scars of the fire, is it untrue that he was burned and not expected to live (because science said so)?

---

Get back to me when an amputated foot grows back over night.

That is what I thought, stick the head in deep and pretend these things have never happened.

It's funny cos always cure the same sorts of ailments but some are completely beyond his power. Why didn't God ever cure an amputee, rabies, high dose radiation, prion disease ect. The human body is poorly understood as are many diseases compared to some other areas of science. We have certian conditions which are to 100% incurable and others which are maybe 97%. The miracle claims are always in the latter group. Why?

drevans956 said:

---

That is what I thought, stick the head in deep and pretend these things have never happened.

---

From a purely mathematical perspective we should anticipate the occasional "miracle" in medicine. Of course, it would also be worth pointing out that when a Dr makes a projection for how much time a person has left, that's based purely on statistical norms, not some unique, in-depth analysis of the individual alone.

Do you mean, "Why doesn't God prove Himself in a way that would convince ME He exists?"

AstroAg17 said:

---

I think we can all agree that sometimes people get better when we don't think they will. I would attribute it more to our ignorance than miracles. If someone shows up who has predictive power about when this will occur, and can reproduce the phenomenon on demand, then we'll have something to talk about.

---

If the phenomenon can be produced on demand, it would become science. Cause and effect, even if not understood, would be established. If every prayer for healing was answered, this would also mean God was subject to the will of men, or it may appear that way. This is why asking for on demand miracles is misguided.

Just to go a little outside the box thinking for a moment. Have you ever considered many, maybe every recovery is a supernatural miracle, but because it happens with such regularity, it has enters the realm of predictable science? Maybe the evidence you ask for is right in front of you, but, due to its predictability, you discount it.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Do you mean, "Why doesn't God prove Himself in a way that would convince ME He exists?"

---

The two reasons are 1. God would then be subject to the will of men, 2. If a predicable method were established, by definition it would become science and not be considered supernatural.

bmks270 said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Do you mean, "Why doesn't God prove Himself in a way that would convince ME He exists?"

---

The two reasons are 1. God would then be subject to the will of men, 2. If a predicable method were established, by definition it would become science and not be considered supernatural.

---

1. Then why does God answer prayers?

2. I don't see that it would have to be a predictable or testable method.

Dr. Watson said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Do you mean, "Why doesn't God prove Himself in a way that would convince ME He exists?"

---

The two reasons are 1. God would then be subject to the will of men, 2. If a predicable method were established, by definition it would become science and not be considered supernatural.

---

1. Then why does God answer prayers?

2. I don't see that it would have to be a predictable or testable method.

---

1. Because he can choose to answer some but not others. It makes sense to me.

2. It seems to be what many atheists ask for. Do you discount the existing testimony of miracles?

No I mean why are gods supposed miracles no different than the ordinary processes of the universe? Why are they simply rare rather than clearly supernatural. Does God have something against amputees?

Further. Just because something is testable and predictable doesn't mean it's not supernatural. We've tested prayer in studies and found it has no power. But if we did those studies and had people who were unknowingly prayed for have statistically significant improvements wouldn't that be strong evidence of the supernatural?

bmks270 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Do you mean, "Why doesn't God prove Himself in a way that would convince ME He exists?"

---

The two reasons are 1. God would then be subject to the will of men, 2. If a predicable method were established, by definition it would become science and not be considered supernatural.

---

1. Then why does God answer prayers?

2. I don't see that it would have to be a predictable or testable method.

---

1. Because he can choose to answer some but not others. It makes sense to me.

2. It seems to be what many atheists ask for. Do you discount the existing testimony of miracles?

---

1. So God is subject to the will of some men? That's the implication.

2. I discount the existing testimony. But that doesn't mean a new action has to be predictable or testable. It's God. It could be global in nature.