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]

Except that's not a real conversation between us, again its paraphrased, something you love to do, I wonder why...

Well, since there have been at least four previous instances where you complained about me paraphrasing, followed by me linking to and quoting where you did/said what I depicted, after which you simply left the thread.....I have to ask....would you stick around this time if I dug up an example of you responding to scientific results by saying something like "that's their interpretation"?

Or perhaps I should just ask you straight up, are you disputing that you have responded to scientific results by saying something akin to "that's their interpretation"?

I'll tell you what, pick some assertion I made (quote me) along with some context and tell me if you agree or disagree with the assertion, that's how I expect a debate to proceed.

I've said before that all evidence involves interpretation, that is true, is it this that you dispute?

[Jose Fly]

I'll tell you what, pick some assertion I made (quote me) along with some context and tell me if you agree or disagree with the assertion, that's how I expect a debate to proceed.

This isn't about your assertions. It's about your use of "that's their interpretation".

I've said before that all evidence involves interpretation, that is true, is it this that you dispute?

We've already been over that in this thread. You've stated that when we have multiple interpretations, they way to tell which is more accurate is via scientific testing.

So my question remains, are you disputing that you've responded "that's their interpretation" after being shown the results of scientific testing?

[Inquirer]

I'll tell you what, pick some assertion I made (quote me) along with some context and tell me if you agree or disagree with the assertion, that's how I expect a debate to proceed.

This isn't about your assertions. It's about your use of "that's their interpretation".

I've said before that all evidence involves interpretation, that is true, is it this that you dispute?

We've already been over that in this thread. You've stated that when we have multiple interpretations, they way to tell which is more accurate is via scientific testing.

Hmm, so you agree that all evidence involves interpretation?

So my question remains, are you disputing that you've responded "that's their interpretation" after being shown the results of scientific testing?

I may have said that, I can't recall, best to check Jose and get the facts if this is important to you.

There are often multiple interpretations of data, different minds sometimes interpret things in different ways, speak plainly man - do you agree or disagree with this?

[Jose Fly]

I may have said that, I can't recall

Recall that you have said in this thread that when faced with multiple interpretations, the way we tell which is accurate is via scientific testing.

However, you also posted this: "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...".

So on one hand you say when faced with multiple interpretations of data, we rely on scientific testing to determine which is accurate. But you also say that when faced with multiple interpretations, it's "false, misleading, trickery" to say that the data favors one of them.

Like I said, you seem to be trying to have it both ways here.

There are often multiple interpretations of data, different minds sometimes interpret things in different ways, speak plainly man - do you agree or disagree with this?

We've already been over that.

[Inquirer]

I may have said that, I can't recall

Recall that you have said in this thread that when faced with multiple interpretations, the way we tell which is accurate is via scientific testing.

However, you also posted this: "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...".

So on one hand you say when faced with multiple interpretations of data, we rely on scientific testing to determine which is accurate. But you also say that when faced with multiple interpretations, it's "false, misleading, trickery" to say that the data favors one of them.

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.

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"?

Like I said, you seem to be trying to have it both ways here.

Well we could perhaps begin to make progress if you simply stated what exactly I have said that you disagree with. All I see is inuendo, vague hints, possible confusion even on your part. If by "both ways" you are claiming I've contradicted myself then just say that.

There are often multiple interpretations of data, different minds sometimes interpret things in different ways, speak plainly man - do you agree or disagree with this?

We've already been over that.

So a man of science claiming to represent soundness of thinking, clarity of reasoning and so on - continues to shy away from giving a yes/no answer!

[Jose Fly]

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".

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?

[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.

[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.

[Jose Fly]

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?

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.

[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!