parados wrote:baddog1 wrote:parados wrote: You offered provable, testable evidence? Where? Genesis is not testable.
parados:
Definition for 'testable': "to require a doctrinal oath of"
Do you consider the Bible to be a doctrinal oath? Genesis?
That is a definition of "test".
It isn't the definition of "testable" nor could it possibly be the definition of "testable" which is an adjective.
Here:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/testable
Take it up with Merriam Webster.
testable is used in science in a fashion similar to" able to be tested by experiment".
BD,Now youre just being obtuse boss. (cf Shawshank Redemption)
baddog1 wrote:parados wrote:baddog1 wrote:parados wrote: You offered provable, testable evidence? Where? Genesis is not testable.
parados:
Definition for 'testable': "to require a doctrinal oath of"
Do you consider the Bible to be a doctrinal oath? Genesis?
That is a definition of "test".
It isn't the definition of "testable" nor could it possibly be the definition of "testable" which is an adjective.
Here:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/testable
Take it up with Merriam Webster.
Maybe you should READ the listing you linked to..
Quote:test
One entry found.
test[3,verb]
Main Entry: test
Function: verb
Date: 1748
transitive verb to require a doctrinal oath of
parados wrote:baddog1 wrote:parados wrote:baddog1 wrote:parados wrote: You offered provable, testable evidence? Where? Genesis is not testable.
parados:
Definition for 'testable': "to require a doctrinal oath of"
Do you consider the Bible to be a doctrinal oath? Genesis?
That is a definition of "test".
It isn't the definition of "testable" nor could it possibly be the definition of "testable" which is an adjective.
Here:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/testable
Take it up with Merriam Webster.
Maybe you should READ the listing you linked to..
Quote:test
One entry found.
test[3,verb]
Main Entry: test
Function: verb
Date: 1748
transitive verb to require a doctrinal oath of
False logic. Although you cannot account for the natural law of logic, it does exist. MW logically includes 'testable' with the root word as it does many other connected words. 'Findable' comes to mind, 'searchable', etc.
BTW: 'Testable' was presented on here as a form of evidence.
FM - I agree with you. Testable in a scientific sense is much different than the way we use "test" in common speak.
"This will test your faith in the Judicial system" is a statement that certainly describes a situation where someone's beliefs can be either validated or comprimised, but it's not actually a test.
Good Theories are made on good science where the assumptions are well qualified. This is exactly why creationism ID is a flawed theory: Its assumptions are not qualified and are either arbitrary or counter inuitive.
T
K
O
The two of these jokers are just going to continue to dance. The member "real life" says that historical events are not testable. That is, of course false. In the first place, it begs the question because we are asking for evidence that "creation" took place, and it does not deserve the honor of being described as an historical event unless and until some evidence is provided for it. In the second place, historical events are subject to rules of evidence, whether or not "real life" trots out one of his favorite feeble dodges, to the effect that they cannot be replicated--i know of no one here who has alleged that any historical event is "testable." For example, history records that Constantinople was once the home of the Roman Empire, but that it was conquered by the Turks. The evidence lies in the many, many artifacts of the Roman Empire to found in Istanbul, which is the name which the Turks who are now resident there gave to Constantinople. Finally, of course, no one here with any sense has alleged that history is a science, that it is testable, falsifiable and empirically derived.
Baddog, who is much worse at this than "real life" (and that's saying a lot) either mimics the techniques which "real life" uses, or quibbles about definitions. But no matter how either of them dance, both continue to signally fail to provide any evidence for creationism.
baddog1 wrote:
False logic. Although you cannot account for the natural law of logic, it does exist. MW logically includes 'testable' with the root word as it does many other connected words. 'Findable' comes to mind, 'searchable', etc.
BTW: 'Testable' was presented on here as a form of evidence.
Yes, you are full of false logic..
Findable. - CAPABLE of being FOUND
searchable CAPABLE of being SEARCHED
Testable - Capable of being tested.
Only someone completely unversed in the English language would claim testable evidence would mean the evidence must be "capable of giving an oath."
Setanta wrote:..... both continue to signally fail to provide any evidence for creationism.
The evidence for the existence of matter/energy is all around you.
Scientific law states that matter/energy cannot be created (by natural processes).
If you want to propose a way around this, I'm listening.
An eternal universe runs you smack into the problem with entropy.
'Eternal' matter isn't evidenced by what we see.
Instead we see a universe that shows every sign of a beginning point, and a state of order/disorder that is on a definite path from higher order to lower (i.e. greater disorder). Both of which imply the existence of limited time, not an eternal universe.
That, however, does not constitute evidence for your imaginary friend, or for a creation by your imaginary friend. You are just peddling the same clap trap you attempt when you raise you silly and uniformed objections to any other aspect of science. You seem to think that if one cannot adduce a scientific explanation for a circumstance or phenomenon, then, ipso fatso, sozyeroldman, you can claim your imaginary friend poofed it into existence.
Disproving someone else's contentions does not constitute evidence for your nonsense.
real life wrote:Setanta wrote:..... both continue to signally fail to provide any evidence for creationism.
The evidence for the existence of matter/energy is all around you.
Scientific law states that matter/energy cannot be created (by natural processes).
If you want to propose a way around this, I'm listening.
An eternal universe runs you smack into the problem with entropy.
Oh? You were asked for your math showing this to be true.. Where is it?
I see no reason to take you at your word since you have shown you don't understand the 2nd law. Provide the math to support your statement or else admit you can't support it.
By the way, your idiotic entropy argument is based upon a contention that matter was created--which is once again a case of begging the question. The "Big Bang" theory held that all matter which is now present in the cosmos was present at the time of the event, compressed into a single point. The search for "dark matter" was in large part inspired by the red shift observations which seemed to show a cosmos expanding in all directions from any point of observation. It was also, of course, inspired by observational anomolies which could only reasonably be ascribed to gravitational effects for which there was no known (i.e., visible) object to produce the effect. The issue in one aspect of "dark matter" observations is whether or not there is sufficient matter present in the cosmos so that the continual expansion will not be eternally continuous, but will one day result in an end to the expansion; and, perhaps, the collapse of all matter once again into a singularity. If that were so, then one has an "oscillating universe" model. I don't assert that this is the case, but am just pointing out that your imaginary friend is not the only explanation, and not an explanation at all unless one takes your word for the creation of matter. Just because you beg the question repeatedly does not authorize your claim that "logic" supports your position.
Setanta-
You forgot to stress that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a single point of infinitessimal size by the side of which a pinhead is astronomical.
It had a size asymptoting with zero and a mass asymptoting with infinite.
What do you think made it pop?
parados wrote: The 2nd law IS a mathematical equation. You only need to put in the correct numbers.
If I recall, the math example that you provided did not use 'eternity' as the 'correct number' for Time.
The 2nd law specifically addresses what occurs over a period of (finite) time.
Care to revise?
real life wrote:parados wrote: The 2nd law IS a mathematical equation. You only need to put in the correct numbers.
If I recall, the math example that you provided did not use 'eternity' as the 'correct number' for Time.
It isn't an "example". It is the mathematical equation OF the 2nd law. Without the equation you have no 2nd law.
Quote:
The 2nd law specifically addresses what occurs over a period of (finite) time.
Care to revise?
So you are saying you can't do the math. OK.. I'll accept that.
parados wrote:real life wrote:parados wrote: The 2nd law IS a mathematical equation. You only need to put in the correct numbers.
If I recall, the math example that you provided did not use 'eternity' as the 'correct number' for Time.
It isn't an "example". It is the mathematical equation OF the 2nd law. Without the equation you have no 2nd law.
Quote:
The 2nd law specifically addresses what occurs over a period of (finite) time.
Care to revise?
So you are saying you can't do the math. OK.. I'll accept that.
No, I'm saying your misapplication of the 2nd Law is improper.
The 2nd Law refers to events that take place within finite time, not 'eternity'.
real life wrote:parados wrote:real life wrote:parados wrote: The 2nd law IS a mathematical equation. You only need to put in the correct numbers.
If I recall, the math example that you provided did not use 'eternity' as the 'correct number' for Time.
It isn't an "example". It is the mathematical equation OF the 2nd law. Without the equation you have no 2nd law.
Quote:
The 2nd law specifically addresses what occurs over a period of (finite) time.
Care to revise?
So you are saying you can't do the math. OK.. I'll accept that.
No, I'm saying your misapplication of the 2nd Law is improper.
The 2nd Law refers to events that take place within finite time, not 'eternity'.
real life wrote:
An eternal universe runs you smack into the problem with entropy.
I was curious how you figured out there would be entropy problems in an eternal universe which is I why I asked for your math. I don't think I was the one misapplying the 2nd law since you can't show how it would cause problems.
Nice catch, Parados--he does love to contradict himself, doesn't he?
Have you noticed how Setanta's deliberate resolution to not address any of my posts on the grounds that I spout nothing but drivel nicely excuses him from providing an answer to-
Quote:Setanta-
You forgot to stress that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a single point of infinitessimal size by the side of which a pinhead is astronomical.
It had a size asymptoting with zero and a mass asymptoting with infinite.
What do you think made it pop?
What subjective self-indulgence eh?
Setanta-
You forgot to stress that all the matter in the universe was compressed into a single point of infinitessimal size by the side of which a pinhead is astronomical.
It had a size asymptoting with zero and a mass asymptoting with infinite.
What do you think made it pop?
That's easy to answer, the first known god CREATED by man.
