Jump to content


Photo

A Universe From Nothing


  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#181 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:35 PM

I believe I replied to that in my first paragraph.

View Post


Yes, but that negates the rest of your post.

#182 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:38 PM

No - once again, when you run an experiment, you have the chance to prove your theory, but only within the context of that single run of that single experiment. You have not proven that your theory will work for the next time you run that experiment.

#183 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:40 PM

No - once again, when you run an experiment, you have the chance to prove your theory, but only within the context of that single run of that single experiment.  You have not proven that your theory will work for the next time you run that experiment.

View Post


But you proved the theory worked the first time. Which in context, proves the point that I was making.

I even intentionally claimed that the results may vary the next time.

#184 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:44 PM

Once again, you are simply and utterly wrong about this.  Science doesn't offer proof.  No matter how many times you push people off of a tall building you can't prove that they'll die every time.  You can only build up an impressive amount of evidence to support the theory that they'll die every time.  But you just can't prove it.

View Post


You do know that time wasting and equivocation are against the forum rules don't you?

#185 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:47 PM

No - once again, when you run an experiment, you have the chance to prove your theory, but only within the context of that single run of that single experiment.  You have not proven that your theory will work for the next time you run that experiment.

View Post


In the experiment I described, if the parameters are the same every time, the result will be the same every time. You haven't dis-proven it. Nor can you...

#186 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:49 PM

You do know that time wasting and equivocation are against the forum rules don't you?

View Post

And yet you have nothing to offer in return, except for remarks about how I just don't get it.

If you think you have utter proof of your claim that people will die every time they fall from a tall building, then show me the proof. All you've done so far is to assert "It will definitely happen," but that's not anything even close to a proof.

#187 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:50 PM

In the experiment I described, if the parameters are the same every time, the result will be the same every time.

View Post

Prove it. You can't.

#188 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:54 PM

And yet you have nothing to offer in return, except for remarks about how I just don't get it.

If you think you have utter proof of your claim that people will die every time they fall from a tall building, then show me the proof.  All you've done so far is to assert "It will definitely happen," but that's not anything even close to a proof.

View Post


He also said using the same parameters for each person everytime. How could the same thing not happen?

This would be a good example of making a theory, to disprove his. Now it's your turn to prove that using Ron's parameters, in the experiment... that his theory is incorrect.

If your subjects keep dying, then you will just have to keep doing the experiment, until you verify, that not everyone will die using Ron's parameters.

#189 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:57 PM

He also said using the same parameters for each person everytime.  How could the same thing not happen?

This would be a good example of making a theory, to disprove his.  Now it's your turn to prove that using Ron's parameters, in the experiment... that his theory is incorrect.

If your subjects keep dying, then you will just have to keep doing the experiment, until you verify, that not everyone will die using Ron's parameters.

View Post

But can all parameters be accounted for? (no.)

#190 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 December 2009 - 07:59 PM

But can all parameters be accounted for?  (no.)

View Post


What do you consider the parameters? What if it's a controlled experiment? All of Ron's parameters are staked out... so how could they not be accounted for?

#191 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 08:03 PM

What do you consider the parameters?  What if it's a controlled experiment? All of Ron's parameters are staked out... so how could they not be accounted for?

View Post

The precise distribution of air density and air flow that the person would be falling through (which would be extraordinarily hard to determine), the person's precise mass and corresponding mass distribution (i.e. the way (s)he's shaped), the drag force that the person would experience, etc. Those would all be extremely tricky things to control for exactly.

#192 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 December 2009 - 08:29 PM

The precise distribution of air density and air flow that the person would be falling through (which would be extraordinarily hard to determine), the person's precise mass and corresponding mass distribution (i.e. the way (s)he's shaped), the drag force that the person would experience, etc.  Those would all be extremely tricky things to control for exactly.

View Post


Yes, but can you prove that not everyone will die using Ron's parameters?

We can hypothesize all day about how some lucky person might not die using Ron's parameters, but until then can we show it a true fact that not everyone will die using Ron's parameters?

This is the part, where Ron would ask for you to show him the man who lived past Ron's parameters. Especially when no one has survived. Sure you don't have show Ron the man who lived, and you can still hold on to the odds that someone might live, but until then Ron's parameters remain... absolutely deadly.

#193 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 08:54 PM

How is Elvita Adams compatible with Ron's parameters?

#194 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 December 2009 - 09:17 PM

Then by all means, if Elvita Adams survived Ron's parameters then you will have proof positively shown that it is not an absolute fact that you will die each and everytime that you jump off the Empire State Building.

Then you do realize, that you have proven an absolute? You have proven that not everyone will die!

This is why proof is so important.

#195 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 09:24 PM

Then by all means, if Elvita Adams survived Ron's parameters then you will have proof positively shown that it is not an absolute fact that you will die each and everytime that you jump off the Empire State Building.

Then you do realize, that you have proven an absolute?  You have proven that not everyone will die!

This is why proof is so important.

View Post

I have no problem with certain weak statements -- if Ron had initially said "It's possible that you'll die if you jump from the ESB," then I would agree that that's a provable, and moreover, proven, statement. Just like I have no problem with the statement "If you jump, maybe you'll die...and maybe you won't."

But science doesn't deal with statements or tautologies like those.

#196 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 02 December 2009 - 09:44 PM

I have no problem with certain weak statements -- if Ron had initially said "It's possible that you'll die if you jump from the ESB," then I would agree that that's a provable, and moreover, proven, statement.  Just like I have no problem with the statement "If you jump, maybe you'll die...and maybe you won't."

But science doesn't deal with statements or tautologies like those.

View Post


You'll possibly die if you shoot yourself in the head or fall off a building. That isn't necessarily a weak statement, but one created to help you understand that you might actually die.

Science deals with trying to understand things. Especially in medicine, and what can or cannot kill you. Science would even deal with certain aspects of how a person might die if they fell off a building. It's by these daily actions that Science grows. Especially through testing.

#197 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 December 2009 - 09:59 PM

You'll possibly die if you shoot yourself in the head or fall off a building.  That isn't necessarily a weak statement, but one created to help you understand that you might actually die.

You can draw whatever personal meaning you want to out of such a statement, but it's not a scientifically strong statement. We could postulate that "it's possible that a robber will break into Bill Gates' house in five minutes." We could say that "In five minutes, a piano will crash through the roof of your house. Or not." These aren't strong scientific statements - they're vague maybes and tautologies, which scientific theories just don't deal with.

Science deals with trying to understand things. Especially in medicine, and what can or cannot kill you.  Science would even deal with certain aspects of how a person might die if they fell off a building.  It's by these daily actions that Science grows. Especially through testing.

View Post

You're going off on a tangent. We're talking about the presence of proofs in the scientific method.

#198 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:19 AM

But can all parameters be accounted for?  (no.)

View Post


Yes, they can. You really should re-think your tactics here.

The precise distribution of air density and air flow that the person would be falling through (which would be extraordinarily hard to determine), the person's precise mass and corresponding mass distribution (i.e. the way (s)he's shaped), the drag force that the person would experience, etc.  Those would all be extremely tricky things to control for exactly.

View Post


Of course you know the "air density", the "person's mass" and "mass distribution", and "drag force" are negligible due to the height of the building and gravity martimus. The outcome is inevitable and you know it.

You are doing nothing more than equivocating and time wasting. Which are against the forum rules.

#199 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:22 AM

Of course you know the "air density", the "person's mass" and "mass distribution", and "drag force" are negligible due to the height of the building and gravity martimus. The outcome is inevitable and you know it.

View Post

PROVE. IT.

#200 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 03 December 2009 - 03:29 AM

You'll possibly die if you shoot yourself in the head or fall off a building.  That isn't necessarily a weak statement, but one created to help you understand that you might actually die.

Science deals with trying to understand things. Especially in medicine, and what can or cannot kill you.  Science would even deal with certain aspects of how a person might die if they fell off a building.  It's by these daily actions that Science grows. Especially through testing.

View Post


Scott, you are wasting your breath. At this point martimus has proven over-and-over again that he is unwilling to admit he's wrong, and has forgone any attempt to learn anything. He knows he has no argument or real rebuttal, and has turned to equivocation and time wasting to cover for this deficiency.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users