Comments by seeker_of_truth

51. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174362 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 9:48 am

I was thinking before my morning break how incredibly bored I would be participating in ridicule on any extended basis. It's not that I don't do it, just that I would find no meaning in it for long and usually regret the majority of it after the fact. WOT kind of thing. I even found a site that seems to serve this purpose alone that I would have never guessed existed until my search.

http://publicridicule.com/

When on my break, I asked my wife [a psychologist] exactly what purpose ridicule serves in the individual who perpetuates it and society as a whole. She told me that each of us deals with internal conflict in varies ways, which tend to depend on two factors; the level of conflict and our ability to cope with it in a productive manner. Ridicule is a form of humor which is usually reserved for internal conflicts on the mid-to-high end of the scale, which also lack healthy and productive coping mechanisms.

In society, ridicule helps brings uniformity to the whole, by defining what is acceptable and what is not. A healthier society will use the less personal forms of humorous persuasion, satire and sarcasm, over direct ridicule of individuals or groups.

Both on an individual and societal basis, extreme forms of ridicule, especially habitual and/or 'mean-spirited attacks,' are a form of abuse that is an attempt at non-consenting control over the targeted party/parties.

All that and I'm still contemplating why I find it boring instead of some other adjective.

52. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174050 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Comment #174045 by Elli

That's a lot of advice for a Jonny-come-lately who hasn't even read through the entire discussion. Best wishes when if/when you do. Off to enjoy the family now.

628. Comment #173756 by seeker_of_truth

53. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174028 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Time for me to catch up on some work then head for home. I hope you all enjoyed this exchange as much as I did.

Perhaps we'll do it again tomorrow.

54. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174027 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:47 pm

WTF is age-related science?

That's your best? Oh, well.

55. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174024 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:44 pm

I'm just trying to minimize their damage to those whose logical faculties haven't been completely overtaken by the mind virus yet.

Well doesn't this make you the hero of the day?

56. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174023 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Seeker-

alright. Why does your statement that "it doesn't qualify as evidence" contradict with your first statement where you said that SNR was your "main dilemma" with the age of the Universe?

They are unrelated. The lack of evidence [tit for tat] was in reference to the post I quoted from you when I introduced the tit for tat concept.

My introduction on this topic was evidence laden. All clear now?

57. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174021 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:38 pm

It's important to note that the evidence is actually a convergence of evidence using dozens of different methods from pretty much every major field of science...all of which point to the same thing: the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old.

I understand this principle and respect it greatly. However, to be fair to each area of age-related science, I feel a thorough treatment of each one is due - without the potential distraction of another to muddy the water.

58. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174019 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Seeker-

748 still.

748 didn't present a clear question.

Can you rephrase your question please?

59. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174015 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Here's a short list that covers a historical string from 2700 BCE to 250 BCE. If really need more verification, there's something to go off of but I refuse to do any more homework on this silly issue.

Sumerian Early Dynastic Royal Inscriptions
Old Akkadian Period Texts
Late Third Millenium Sumerian Texts
Old Babylonian Period Inscriptions
Miscellaneous Old Babylonian Period Documents
Late Bronze Age Inscriptions From Babylon, Assyria, And Syro-Palestine
Correspondance From El-Amarna In Egypt
Hittite Historical Texts
Neo-Assyrian And Syro-Palestinian Texts
Neo-Babylonian Period Texts From Babylonia And Syro-Palestine
Achaemenid Period Historical Texts Concerning Mesopotamia Indices

60. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174005 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Last time I checked the founding of America did not include the dead rising, jewish zombies, the parting of the waters (there was a crossing mind you, but they used a boat), talking burning bushes, global floods, etc.

Duh, I finally get it. You think I'm making reference to the Old Testament.

1. You're dead wrong
2. You blinding bias is showing

61. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174002 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:22 pm

You don't seem to understand that scientists have actually already done this.

So everything science has 'done' is a closed case now? Do you think it a good thing that we didn't take that position a hundred years ago?

62. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173997 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Lets see....who was there at the begining of the universe?

I love it when at attempt as smart-ass proves my point.

The reason I know the earth is at least 4500 years old is because not only were there people on earth at this time, they were writing accounts of their history.

Now can we move on from this tom-foolery?

63. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173995 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm

So we have moved on from refuting the age of the universe, to refuting the age of the United States. This just keeps getting more and more fascinating.

You must be new around here?

64. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173994 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:13 pm

And you explain away every other method of dating the universe how exactly?

How about one dating method per day?

Yesterday was radiometric, today is SNR's, tomorrow... I even let you chose.

65. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173982 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm

What does your young lower limit to the age of the universe depend on again? Oh yeah, ancient writings. Good one!

Now suppose I asked you for hard evidence on when the United States became an independent nation. Just what would you base your response on?

66. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173979 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:02 pm

How? How is it evidence for the age of the Universe?

Exactly my point, it wasn't. It was tit for tat.

Give me more than a tit and I'll give you more than a tat.

67. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173978 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Sigh.
Evidence of SNR's is gone after < 100,000 years, and they're hard to see along the galactic plane due to stars and dust.

If that's all you guys got to refute the parsimonious theory on SNR's as they relate to the age of the universe, then we are probably done?

68. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173968 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:56 am

Great.

Now about K-Ar dating and the age of the universe?

Grow-up.

The point still stands. Space dust is consistent enough when looking through even a single light year of space to not be a sabotaging factor to SNR observations.

69. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173962 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 am

Response to 702

You just don't seem to get it. SNRs are not evidence against a universe that is billions of years old. Nor are they evidence for it. The SNRs that we can see cannot be applied to the question of the age of the Universe, no more than the spawning patterns of Alaskan salmon can.

You seem to believe that I am not addressing your evidence. But your evidence is not something that can confirm or deny the age of the Universe as >15byrs. I am addressing your evidence, by telling you that it is not appropriate for the question that you are attempting to use it to answer.

You're addressing my evidence with what, exactly, in this post? Telling me it is not appropriate for the question of the age of the universe?

I'll simply answer in kind, with... yes it is. How do you like that evidence?

70. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173957 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:49 am

7,200 light years from earth; not anywhere near a billion.
Once again: educate yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_6397

We are not on the same page; we are not even in the same book - I am unsure what you are reading, but am pretty sure it is about a squirrel named nutty.

Now pay attention everybody as I admit my numbers for this cluster were wrong. See, it doesn't even have to be painful to admit fault. Now I fully expect one bad piece of information to be taken and blown out of proportion, even though my point of the law of averages regarding space dust still stands with the corrected distance. Nonetheless, carry on and have some fun.

I'll be around to laugh with you.

71. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173950 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:43 am

Comment 173889

Now, please, provide some honest to goodness scientific evidence to the contrary. Handwaving arguments and distractions about the effect of gravity on light speed are not relevant unless you can provide evidence, ideally backed by references, that this has a significant effect.

My comment # 173892

Enough already. If you are not prepared to provide a sound argument based on sound scientific evidence that is not contradicted by the overwhelming evidence that has already been presented, then either please concede the point or take a break and come back when you can put a worthwhile argument together.

My comment # 173756

72. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173942 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:38 am

In fairness to Seeker, I left for an hour to go home and have dinner. We shall see what happens when/if he returns.

In light of the majority approach today, I thank you for this instance of fairness, yet not expecting another such event. :- )

73. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173936 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:31 am

Re: NGC 6397

No it's not. It's a nearby globular cluster.

Just to be sure we are on the same page.

A golbular cluster or what, what distance from earth, and in what galaxy?

74. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173931 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 11:26 am

And there you are ladies and gentlemen, another incoherent non-sequitur spouting troll successfully wastes all of our time.

Strange.

From an adult perspective, I would think your time was more in your control than in my control. But maybe that's just my perspective and not your's though?

75. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173901 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:32 am

173889 got a response - last page, second from the bottom.

I'll try and make it back after lunch.

76. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173899 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:30 am

And with that... I'm going to lunch.

Special thanks to Geraint for an enjoyable and on-topic conversation.

77. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173896 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:27 am

Stop changing the topic.
seeker - answer mesomodel in #173889

Fuck dude, do you know the meaning of a little patience?

78. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173892 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:26 am

Handwaving arguments and distractions about the effect of gravity on light speed are not relevant unless you can provide evidence, ideally backed by references, that this has a significant effect.

Don't you people read in your spare time?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3232-first-speed-of-gravity-measurement-revealed.html

From that they worked out that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 0.95 times light speed, but with a large error margin of plus or minus 0.25.... But experts say the indirect evidence that gravity propagates at the speed of light was already overwhelming. "It would be revolutionary if gravity were measured not to propagate at the speed of light - we were virtually certain that it must," says Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

* edit quoted portion of link

79. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173890 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:20 am

Seeing them in galaxies other than our own would be even harder. We can see supernovae in distant galaxies, but only for a short time after the initial explosion, when they're at their brightest. Seeing old relics is a vastly different proposition. You seem to be trying to make an argument here without knowing even the most elementary things about the relevant astronomy.

NGC 6397 is over a billion light years away. I should not have used the word 'billions' [as it does imply two or more] in the sense of investigating SNR's within the Milky Way. My apologies.

80. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173881 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:13 am

Comment #173868 by epeeist

Your list of rules would be fine if I were only debating only one individual who was writing from a majority account of experience and intrinsic knowledge.

Change that to a dozen people expecting me to write doctorial papers and respond to link after link and your just plain nuts to try and enforce that list on me.

81. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173876 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:09 am

Seeker,

Rev. Dark provided you with a rebuttal that included many references. Please state how each of these are wrong, and provide evidence and ideally references to back up your claim.

Only so much time in a day, my friend. Please understand this.

82. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173872 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 10:07 am

The theories and evidence suggest the speed of light is a constant, unless you'd light to back up that assertion with evidence :- )

Do you find it interesting the speed of gravity measured here on earth matches the exact speed of light? It seems an almost impossible coincidence, or one apparently controls the other.

83. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173865 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:57 am

Sounds like your position is a little bit more than implied. Also, what is it like to go through life while contradicting yourself every other sentence?

I'm afraid you have given me nothing of substance to respond to. If this happens again and I do not respond, you will know why.

84. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173863 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:55 am

our view of most of the Galaxy is blocked by large amounts of dust and interstellar matter. Only some younger, radio emitting SNRs would be visible through this dust.

Son, how could you miss that catch?
The sun was in my eyes dad...
Son, it's a night-game.

We're talking billions of light years here, not accounting for unknown gravitational effects on the speed of light - though this does not affect the actual distance. Don't we think the law of averages would play out and create an even playing field no matter which direction we are looking?

85. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173856 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:45 am

Please support your claim with a credible, peer-reviewed paper showing that supernova suggest the age of the universe is anything less than a dozen or more billion years old.

No other requirements than this? That's too easy. Please include the full list of prerequisites when you ask again. Thanks.

86. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173852 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:43 am

Oh no...now they not only want transitional forms of fossils, but they want transitional forms of stars too! I give up.

*head in hands*

Both would be nice but I'll settle for SNR transitions since that's the topic at hand.

Or could the fossil reference been an implied position on my part that I have not represented in any way? No, that would be underhanded... never mind.

87. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173841 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:33 am

There is no sharp dividing line between different phases in the development of an SNR, as you seem to imply. Different physical processes dominate at different times. As the remnant evolves it gets harder to observe until it blends into the background.

Hurray, someone not afraid to address the issue head on! I thank you.

So if we can not see the line [clearly] between phase two and phase three, why can we not see transitional evidence between the two? There should be thousands of SNR's in this transition phase of every flavor if the universe is billions of years old, no?

88. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173830 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #173808 by irate_atheist

Four links in the initiation of a link-war? Don't you know I have the capability of returning your volley with double the firepower?

Haaa... top that you scallywag!

89. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173827 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:23 am

You're trying to redirect the argument again. Naughty naughty.

And I thought some would be thrilled that I responded to the deity issue so often thrown at me for ??? purposes... figures.

So, how many refutations of evidence for your lower bound of the age of the universe - 4500, will you have to be presented with before you reject it?

Enough of that. I said 'at least' 4500 years. How old do you think the universe is and does your view conflict with mine or do we just need a diversion?

90. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173823 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 9:19 am

So, as I said, SNRs are not a valid way of assessing the age of the Universe, both for the reasons mentioned in the quote AND the ones that I have said before. Your evidence is not appropriate for the purposes you are attempting to put it to.

I know where NASA stands on the age of the universe. I brought the article in on this discussion.

Here we have evidence against a billions of years universe so, for this reason alone, it becomes invalid? This might also be called a preconception of biblical proportion. If evidence is elevated to what it appears by most of us on this site, why not address it instead of topical diversions?

91. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173804 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:54 am

Where in your link is there even a reference to using SNR's to date the universe?

You're kidding, right? The name on the link is;
Refuting the claim that SNR's are only 10,000 years old

Is that related in any way to the date of the universe in your mind?

bb in 15 min - break time :)

92. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173798 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:50 am

seeker_of_truth, given the amount of evidence supporting an old universe, the only way you are going to get a young universe is to presume that your deity created it with the appearance of age.

My wife might say it's time to grow past this insecurity with your perception of a threatening deity. Especially 'seeing' it where it does not exist.

93. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173791 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:48 am

You presented details concerning the life cycle of a SNR's. You didn't show, in any way that I could see, that it's a valid method of estimating the age of the universe. I might have missed that part, or it might not have been present.

It was not missed by the people at NASA but we can't all be that smart either.

94. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173789 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:46 am

Huh? I disputed your assertion that counting SNRs is a valid way of assessing the age of the Universe. Did you miss my point about population III stars? There was also a long period of time between the Big Bang and the formation of the first PIII stars. SNR-counting would give you no insight into that.

Other than using 'stars' in your response, it was unrelated to my evidence. Yours is the birth and life of stars [PIII excluded], and mine is not just the death of stars, but specifically SNR's.

95. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173780 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:36 am

Have you shown that SNR's are a valid technique for dating the universe?

Unless you want to deny the existence of over a hundred words of coherently presented evidence... yes, I did.

96. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173775 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #173767 by Quetzalcoatl

You have responded, in length mind you, to none of the evidence that I presented.

97. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173768 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:27 am

How do you explain all of the other data which dates the universe at billions of years?

Before bouncing off topic so soon, how do you explain what SNR's show?

98. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173756 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:13 am

Now back to this age of the earth/universe question.

I will now present my main dilemma with buying into the idea that the universe is billions of years old. I also plan to address this deity issue that seems so pressing to many here in relation to the topics of science and history.

First off, feel free to half or double any numbers I present since it does not solve my dilemma and I would rather not quibble over numbers. I will also limit my evidence to the Milky Way system.

There are three stages given to an exploding star, or supernova/supernova remnant (SNR);

1. Free Expansion (only about 20% should be visible, this stage lasting about 300 years)
2. Sedov or Adiabatic (only about 50% should be visible, this stage lasting 100,000 - 120,000 years)
3. Snow-plow or Radiative. (this last phase is theoretical as there are no observable examples yet found, lasting 'at least one million years')

Pretty simple concept really - a thermonuclear explosion which eventually cools and fades away. We have observed approximately 5 SNR's in the first phase and about 200 in phase two. If SNR's occur every 25 years as estimated, the simple math puts the age of our universe under ten-thousand years. If we get creative with halving and doubling, we can extend that age into the millions of years. Nowhere though, can I stretch this in to the billions of years.

NASA has dropped its estimates of the duration of the Sedov phase over the years [in select writings but not in others], at present down to 10,000-20,000 years which would solve this dilemma.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/supernova_remnants.html

However, with SNR's occurring every 25 years, we should have witnessed the transition from the Sedov phase to the Radiative phase many times over by now - but we haven't.

Now for the deity issue. Let me first ask, why can't we have a relatively young universe without a Yahweh-type creator? Why is it all or nothing when talking to the majority of theist and atheist about this question? I asked my wife, an experiences psychologist, about this principle. She informed me that the all-or-nothing, black-or-white thinking was an early stage of human development. It reinforces the need for safety in an ever-expanding discovery of an otherwise scary world. It also serves to create a 'framework,' much like a jigsaw puzzle, in which we can begin to fill in the details of the center, thereby creating a cohesive reality among the many pieces of data. The frame is expanded as discovery demands and continues to fill in the gap between the old borders and the new into early adulthood. Once the dangers of the world are secured through a full and healthy process of mature development, we 'should' be able to accept the hues of gray with open-minded freedom. Namely, free from false bias and the misconceptions that follow. Anyway, back to SNR's.

Surprisingly, NASA has also added the deity issue to their site since I last visited this section of their website;

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970414a.html

The gist of the creationist's argument is right, observations of ongoing radioactive decay in supernova remnants can only date the very young ones.

My question - we can only 'date' very young ones or only observe very young ones?

Now if the goal of this is to find the age of the universe, supernova remnants are not the objects to look at. This is simply because they become mixed up with the interstellar medium after only about 100,000 years.

I presume this is in reference to the Sedov phase which is almost universally estimated elsewhere to last about 100,000 years, of which, NASA here is reducing to 10,000-20,000 years? Regardless, if SNR's do not become 'mixed up' [ambiguous?] with interfering observation factors until after 100,000 years, why is the SNR count still as low as it is?

To age the universe into the billions of years by view of SNR's, I see the need to observe transitions from phase two to three at an approximate rate of the inception of new SNR's, decrease the frequency of the occurrence of SNR's, and/or discovering some on the millions of SNR's theorized to be in the third phase.

99. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173753 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 8:10 am

Cause refusing to supply any evidence, blaming this on atheists, then running away

What some call running away others might call limited resources. There is only so much time in a day to address questions coming rapid fire from twenty different people. However, if this is a well-used tactic to claim 'running away' victory, don't let me stop anyone from using it.

100. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173692 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 6:03 am

Thanks for the softball story, seeker. I'll share it with my husband. He's a gifted runner and a big softie who has collected a number of similar stories over the years. It'll make him go all misty, which I find sexy.

You're welcome. I could not finish the article without a break and a tissue either as my vision was blurred from tears of appreciation for the concept of heroism found within. Enjoy your misty-man effect when the time comes :)

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next