Starlight and Time

[dad1]

Does science know what time, specifically time in the distant universe is? If you claim it does, then be prepared to support that claim.

If science does not know that time exists out there in a way we know it here, then one implication is that no distances are knowable to distant stars.

Why? Because distances depend on the uniform existence of time. If time (in this example 4 billion light years from earth) did not exist the same as time near earth, then what might take a billion years (of time as we know it here) for light to travel a certain distance in space might, for all we know, take minutes weeks or seconds of time as it exists out THERE!

So what methods does science have to measure time there? I am not aware of any. Movements observed at a great distance and observed from OUR time and space would not qualify. Such observations would only tell us how much time as seen here it would take if time were the same there.

How this relates to religion is that a six day creation thousands of years ago cannot be questioned using cosmology if it really did not take light that reaches us on earth and area a lot of time to get here.

[Inquirer]

Jose it is not contradictory, that's exactly what I did and why I argued that the fossil record is not evidence solely of gradualism, my interpretation of the scientific evidence leads me to this conclusion.

Again, that's entirely circular and contradictory.

You interpret the data one way, others interpret it differently. According to what you posted, we determine the relative accuracy of the interpretations via scientific testing. But above you say your conclusion is based on your interpretation (not on scientific testing).

IOW, you seem to be saying "My interpretation is accurate, and that conclusion is my interpretation."

Yes, we each interpret the evidence, we each test competing explanations against observational data.

You do? What scientific tests of the fossil record have you conducted?

I'm not here in this thread discussing my specific interpretation of the fossil evidence, so lets stay on topic shall we?

The problem I think is in the way you implicitly assume that there is only one valid interpretation (which is usually your interpretation too oddly enough!).

Earlier you agreed that not all interpretations are equally valid/accurate, and that the way we tell which is more valid/accurate is via scientific testing. Now you seem to be saying something very different (different interpretations are equally valid/accurate).

The problem you have is that you pace far too much trust in science, you are repeatedly confusing it with absolute reality, absolute truth, this is where you err and is the basis for many of the disagreements between us.

That's really weird, given how you stated that the means to determine the relative accuracy of interpretations is via scientific testing. Are you now going back on that?

There is no contradiction.

Your posts clearly show otherwise.

Jose we each interpret our sensory experiences, this is a fact that you cannot disagree with I think.

If you disagreed you' stand up and say so, since you have not I interpret that only one way.

I rely on science and rationalism to interpret all claims made by others about nature. I interpret the fossil record as being more consistent with a sudden appearance of complex life than a gradual emergence.

I've told you a hundred times - it is the paleontologists who named the "Cambrian explosion" not me, I did not make up that term, why do you think paleontologists use this term? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer though...

[Jose Fly]

I'm not here in this thread discussing my specific interpretation of the fossil evidence, so lets stay on topic shall we?

It's entirely on topic; it's an example of the application of what you said was the means to determine the relative accuracy of different interpretations, namely scientific testing.

So let's try again. According to what you posted, when faced with different interpretations we determine which is valid/accurate by conducting scientific testing. But just a bit ago, you also said "my interpretation of the scientific evidence leads me to this conclusion", which indicates that your conclusion isn't based on scientific testing, but is instead based on your interpretation.

That seems very circular and contradictory. Can you explain how it isn't?

Also, you said "we each test competing explanations against observational data". Have you conducted scientific tests of the fossil record?

Jose we each interpret our sensory experiences, this is a fact that you cannot disagree with I think.

Agreed.

I rely on science and rationalism to interpret all claims made by others about nature. I interpret the fossil record as being more consistent with a sudden appearance of complex life than a gradual emergence.

Is that based on scientific tests of the fossil record you've conducted?

I've told you a hundred times - it is the paleontologists who named the "Cambrian explosion" not me, I did not make up that term, why do you think paleontologists use this term? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer though...

Do you usually defer to the conclusions of paleontologists?

To answer your question, they coined that phrase because the fossil record shows diversification occurring geologically quickly.

[Clownboat]

Yes, in the case of the fossil record, to claim that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery.

That's contradictory to what you posted in this thread, where after I asked how we tell which interpretation is closer to reality, you said "by scientifically testing theoretical expectations against observations".

Jose it is not contradictory, that's exactly what I did and why I argued that the fossil record is not evidence solely of gradualism, my interpretation of the scientific evidence leads me to this conclusion.

In the case you're referring to there is insufficient evidence to argue that the fossil record is evidence solely of gradualism, that is my view, based on my interpretation.

The data can be used to support either claim - one of gradualism and one of suddenness. Why else would paleontologists even describe certain fossil finds as an "explosion" if the evidence were not commensurate with an "explosion"?

I'm aware of your beliefs about the fossil record, but the topic at hand is the apparent contradiction in your posts.

On one hand you say we determine the relative accuracy between different interpretations via scientific testing, but then you also say doing so is "false, misleading, and trickery". Those are in direct conflict. Do you have an explanation for that?

Yes, we each interpret the evidence, we each test competing explanations against observational data. The problem I think is in the way you implicitly assume that there is only one valid interpretation (which is usually your interpretation too oddly enough!).

The problem you have is that you place far too much trust in science as knowledge, as truth, you are repeatedly confusing it with absolute reality, absolute truth, this is where you err and is the basis for many of the disagreements between us.

There is no contradiction.

You're not alone. All religious people of all religions must interpret based off of the beliefs they are saddled with having. Those not saddled with pre-existing beliefs are able to interpret beliefs without nearly as much bias as those with a need/desire to justify their preferred god concept.

I interpret your interpretations with this knowledge I have about what guides your beliefs.
I can say, "aint my pig, aint my farm" when I interpret.
The religious own the pig and need to believe there is a farm for it. This unfortunately affects the ability to interpret honestly.

This just sounds like your own personal belief system to me, you might be more religious than you think!

It's not a personal belief of mine. It ain't my pig and it ain't my farm is a reality for me and not for anyone trying to maintain a religion. Show any of the gods to be true, I'm ok with that, but I ain't going to pick a god and then have that decision dictate how I interpret data.

I don't have a dog in the fight, you do (trying to leave room for your god in your interpretations).
You cannot say the same and therefore it affects how you interpret things.
It just is what it is...

[Clownboat]

it is the paleontologists who named the "Cambrian explosion" not me,

Readers, here is a clear example of someone with a dog in the fight. It is their pig and it is their farm.

The Cambrian Explosion was a period that lasted 13 to 25 million years. Anyone honestly looking at this will notice that 13 - 25 million years is not some quick explosive event. It is sad that the term explosion was added (Mitochondrial Eve in another example) as it gave all the pig farmers a way to interpret it to mean what it does not.

I see 13 - 25 million years and see no interpretation about 'explosion' as needed as I don't have a dog in the fight. A religious person with a dog in the fight may interpret it to see animals exploding on to the scene and will then interpret 13 - 25 million years as some explosive event.

Inquirer, can I borrow 1 million dollars? I pay you back 2 million in a flash over the course of 10 million years. I did say in a flash after all!

[Inquirer]

I'm not here in this thread discussing my specific interpretation of the fossil evidence, so lets stay on topic shall we?

It's entirely on topic; it's an example of the application of what you said was the means to determine the relative accuracy of different interpretations, namely scientific testing.

So let's try again. According to what you posted, when faced with different interpretations we determine which is valid/accurate by conducting scientific testing. But just a bit ago, you also said "my interpretation of the scientific evidence leads me to this conclusion", which indicates that your conclusion isn't based on scientific testing, but is instead based on your interpretation.

That seems very circular and contradictory. Can you explain how it isn't?

No it isn't on topic - the precise process I went through to evaluate the fossil record and the claim by some that it is "overwhelming evidence for evolution" is not what's being discussed at all.

What we were discussing is my position that all evidence is personally interpreted and your apparent discomfort with that general position, furthermore you continue to refuse to tell me whether you even agree or disagree with me on this point and until you state your own position here we cannot proceed.

[Inquirer]

Yes, in the case of the fossil record, to claim that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery.

That's contradictory to what you posted in this thread, where after I asked how we tell which interpretation is closer to reality, you said "by scientifically testing theoretical expectations against observations".

Jose it is not contradictory, that's exactly what I did and why I argued that the fossil record is not evidence solely of gradualism, my interpretation of the scientific evidence leads me to this conclusion.

In the case you're referring to there is insufficient evidence to argue that the fossil record is evidence solely of gradualism, that is my view, based on my interpretation.

The data can be used to support either claim - one of gradualism and one of suddenness. Why else would paleontologists even describe certain fossil finds as an "explosion" if the evidence were not commensurate with an "explosion"?

I'm aware of your beliefs about the fossil record, but the topic at hand is the apparent contradiction in your posts.

On one hand you say we determine the relative accuracy between different interpretations via scientific testing, but then you also say doing so is "false, misleading, and trickery". Those are in direct conflict. Do you have an explanation for that?

Yes, we each interpret the evidence, we each test competing explanations against observational data. The problem I think is in the way you implicitly assume that there is only one valid interpretation (which is usually your interpretation too oddly enough!).

The problem you have is that you place far too much trust in science as knowledge, as truth, you are repeatedly confusing it with absolute reality, absolute truth, this is where you err and is the basis for many of the disagreements between us.

There is no contradiction.

You're not alone. All religious people of all religions must interpret based off of the beliefs they are saddled with having. Those not saddled with pre-existing beliefs are able to interpret beliefs without nearly as much bias as those with a need/desire to justify their preferred god concept.

I interpret your interpretations with this knowledge I have about what guides your beliefs.
I can say, "aint my pig, aint my farm" when I interpret.
The religious own the pig and need to believe there is a farm for it. This unfortunately affects the ability to interpret honestly.

This just sounds like your own personal belief system to me, you might be more religious than you think!

It's not a personal belief of mine.

So where did you get it then?

It ain't my pig and it ain't my farm is a reality for me and not for anyone trying to maintain a religion. Show any of the gods to be true, I'm ok with that, but I ain't going to pick a god and then have that decision dictate how I interpret data.

Ha you say "Show any of the gods to be true" ! to whom? to you? to others? I can't show God to be "true" only God can do that, you're asking the wrong person.

I don't have a dog in the fight, you do (trying to leave room for your god in your interpretations).
You cannot say the same and therefore it affects how you interpret things.
It just is what it is...

God affects how I interpret things.

[Inquirer]

it is the paleontologists who named the "Cambrian explosion" not me,

Readers, here is a clear example of someone with a dog in the fight. It is their pig and it is their farm.

The Cambrian Explosion was a period that lasted 13 to 25 million years. Anyone honestly looking at this will notice that 13 - 25 million years is not some quick explosive event. It is sad that the term explosion was added (Mitochondrial Eve in another example) as it gave all the pig farmers a way to interpret it to mean what it does not.

I see 13 - 25 million years and see no interpretation about 'explosion' as needed as I don't have a dog in the fight. A religious person with a dog in the fight may interpret it to see animals exploding on to the scene and will then interpret 13 - 25 million years as some explosive event.

Inquirer, can I borrow 1 million dollars? I pay you back 2 million in a flash over the course of 10 million years. I did say in a flash after all!

One again, take this up with the paleontologists not me, I asked and neither you nor Jose dares to answer - why did they name this event the "Cambrian explosion" - it is their terminology not mine, why ask me to justify the use of the term, its all over the scientific literature, you must have noticed?

[Jose Fly]

No it isn't on topic - the precise process I went through to evaluate the fossil record and the claim by some that it is "overwhelming evidence for evolution" is not what's being discussed at all.

It's looking to me like you've been caught contradicting yourself and engaging in circular reasoning, and are using cries of "off topic" to try and escape.

Remember, you asked me to find an example of you saying something like "that's their interpretation".

I did and posted an example of you doing so in the context of the fossil record. And now you're saying the way you reached your conclusion/interpretation of the fossil record is off topic? Looks like a classic dodge.

What we were discussing is my position that all evidence is personally interpreted and your apparent discomfort with that general position

Then you've lost track of the discussion. So perhaps you're not dodging, and instead you just forgot.

To recap, we both agreed that data is interpreted and that different people can interpret the same data differently. We also agreed that not all interpretations are equally valid or accurate. You then stated that the way we tell which interpretation is valid/accurate is via scientific testing.

Since then, I've pointed out an example of you saying something that contradicts with the above ("The fossil record is a much evidence for supernatural acts of creation as it is for natural gradualistic evolution. Claiming that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery...").

You've not resolved that contradiction.

I've also asked you how you determined your interpretation of the fossil record to be valid/accurate (did you conduct scientific testing) and you answered that you did so by your interpretation ("my interpretation of the scientific evidence leads me to this conclusion"), which too is contradictory to your claim about using scientific testing.

So as I suspected when you first stated that we employ scientific testing to determine the validity/accuracy of interpretations, it seems your actions are in direct conflict with your rhetoric. You say we should use scientific testing, but when it comes time to do so (e.g., with the fossil record) you do no such testing and instead rely on your own circular process (your interpretation leads you to conclude that your interpretation is correct).

furthermore you continue to refuse to tell me whether you even agree or disagree with me on this point and until you state your own position here we cannot proceed.

See above.

[Inquirer]

No it isn't on topic - the precise process I went through to evaluate the fossil record and the claim by some that it is "overwhelming evidence for evolution" is not what's being discussed at all.

It's looking to me like you've been caught contradicting yourself and engaging in circular reasoning, and are using cries of "off topic" to try and escape.

Remember, you asked me to find an example of you saying something like "that's their interpretation".

I did and posted an example of you doing so in the context of the fossil record. And now you're saying the way you reached your conclusion/interpretation of the fossil record is off topic? Looks like a classic dodge.

What we were discussing is my position that all evidence is personally interpreted and your apparent discomfort with that general position

Then you've lost track of the discussion. So perhaps you're not dodging, and instead you just forgot.

To recap, we both agreed that data is interpreted and that different people can interpret the same data differently. We also agreed that not all interpretations are equally valid or accurate. You then stated that the way we tell which interpretation is valid/accurate is via scientific testing.

Since then, I've pointed out an example of you saying something that contradicts with the above ("The fossil record is a much evidence for supernatural acts of creation as it is for natural gradualistic evolution. Claiming that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery...").

You've not resolved that contradiction.

I've also asked you how you determined your interpretation of the fossil record to be valid/accurate (did you conduct scientific testing) and you answered that you did so by your interpretation ("my interpretation of the scientific evidence leads me to this conclusion"), which too is contradictory to your claim about using scientific testing.

So as I suspected when you first stated that we employ scientific testing to determine the validity/accuracy of interpretations, it seems your actions are in direct conflict with your rhetoric. You say we should use scientific testing, but when it comes time to do so (e.g., with the fossil record) you do no such testing and instead rely on your own circular process (your interpretation leads you to conclude that your interpretation is correct).

furthermore you continue to refuse to tell me whether you even agree or disagree with me on this point and until you state your own position here we cannot proceed.

See above.

This is procrastination Jose, read what I said to you earlier, here it is again.

What we were discussing is my position that all evidence is personally interpreted and your apparent discomfort with that general position, furthermore you continue to refuse to tell me whether you even agree or disagree with me on this point and until you state your own position here we cannot proceed.

It is you who is confused, this is the crux of the disagreement between us, if you truly want to move forwards then do so, you know what you must do.

Why is it so often that those purporting to know so much are often the first to be stumped by the most elementary of questions...

[Jose Fly]

This is procrastination

?????? Thanks makes no sense at all.

What we were discussing is my position that all evidence is personally interpreted

We agreed to that a while ago. We also agreed that not all interpretations are equally valid or accurate.

and your apparent discomfort with that general position

Nope, I've no problem with the above. Try and not forget this time.

furthermore you continue to refuse to tell me whether you even agree or disagree with me on this point and until you state your own position here we cannot proceed.[/i]

See above. Try and keep track of the conversation please.

It is you who is confused, this is the crux of the disagreement between us, if you truly want to move forwards then do so, you know what you must do.

This isn't difficult. I've identified several contradictions in your position and statements. If you cannot resolve them, then my points stand and you have conceded them.