Real Science Radio: Brought To You by the Number Three

[Lordkalvan]

Evolutionists. :chuckle:

I just finished saying exactly that in my previous posts in very clear terms.

Just like to be certain I am not misrepresenting you. Would that be a bad thing to do in creationist circles?

I have no hypothesis. Just a simple concept that you should very easily agree with: The success of a mathematical model is no evidence that it's components represent physical elements of reality.

No hypothesis, huh? Then how do you explain the correspondence of what you describe as 'a mathematical model' with observed, measured phenomena and the ability of that 'mathematical model' to make successful predictions about those phenomena? Given that you regard the success of the model to be no evidence that it represents 'physical elements of reality' and as you have no alternative hypothesis or explanation to account for the 'model's' successful application in 'reality', why do you imagine your comments should be regarded as being of any relevance at all?

 

[Stripe]

Just like to be certain I am not misrepresenting you. Would that be a bad thing to do in creationist circles?

:AMR:

why do you imagine your comments should be regarded as being of any relevance at all?

Because they are correct. :up:

 

[Lordkalvan]

:AMR:

Because they are correct. :up:

Sure they are. That's why you are so ready and willing to explain them. You have no hypothesis, you have no evidence, you have no explanation and yet you parade your claimed correctness as if that is all that is required. Maybe you should write up your claims for the relevant scientific journals and see how they stand up to peer review?

 

[Lighthouse]

What 'other forces' are you referring to?

Just give what you think is proof and we'll see.

The "facts" are in error and should be corrected. I'll wait while you prove your version of deity has three "natures".

A triune nature does not mean "three natures."

Can I expect for you to move the goalposts often during this discussion?

You're the one that said time was tangible in that we could measure it. I'm waiting for you to do that.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Evolutionists. :chuckle:

I just finished saying exactly that in my previous posts in very clear terms.

I have no hypothesis. Just a simple concept that you should very easily agree with: The success of a mathematical model is no evidence that it's components represent physical elements of reality.

I don't agree with that at all. If mathematical models did not accurately represent real physical elements such as time and position and velocity and acceleration and the like, they would be utterly useless.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Just give what you think is proof and we'll see...

If you're unable to answer questions arising from your various claims and assertions, you should just say so rather than attempting to redirect.

 

[Stripe]

I don't agree with that at all. If mathematical models did not accurately represent real physical elements such as time and position and velocity and acceleration and the like, they would be utterly useless.

Straw man fallacy.

Is adding nonsense to a conversation your sole purpose in life?

 

[Lordkalvan]

Straw man fallacy.

Is adding nonsense to a conversation your sole purpose in life?

That seems to be your forté, Professor.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Straw man fallacy.

Is adding nonsense to a conversation your sole purpose in life?

You obviously have no idea waft a strawman fallacy is. I did not set up my own point to argue against, I simply said your statement regarding mathematical models not representing real physical quantities is wrong. You are wrong. Engineering is all about using math to model the rel world. The math predicts something, like the amount of current flowing in a circuit, and I can then measure that current using a current meter.

 

[Silent Hunter]

A triune nature does not mean "three natures."

I don't think theists know what it means . . .

You're the one that said time was tangible in that we could measure it. I'm waiting for you to do that.

Do you own a clock? Done . . . now what?

 

[Stripe]

Your statement regarding mathematical models not representing real physical quantities is wrong.

Straw man fallacy.

Is your sole purpose in life to add confusion to every conversation you join?

 

[Lordkalvan]

Straw man fallacy.

Is your sole purpose in life to add confusion to every conversation you join?

Nope, again that seems to be your bag.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you're unable to answer questions arising from your various claims and assertions, you should just say so rather than attempting to redirect.

I asked you for a proof first; the onus is on you. If you provide evidence that I can show to be the possible result of other factors then I will do so. If I cannot then I will concede.

I don't think theists know what it means . . .

Let's try this again. "A triune nature." Let's take out the word "triune." Now what do we have? "A nature." Do you see that? It is a single nature; one. That one nature is triune.

Do you own a clock? Done . . . now what?

A clock ticks away as time progresses, and its "measurements are completely arbitrary as one cannot move around within time. We cannot reach one arm into the past and the other into the future. How does it feel to fail?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Let's try this again. "A triune nature." Let's take out the word "triune." Now what do we have? "A nature." Do you see that? It is a single nature; one. That one nature is triune.

You're confused . . . as are all trinitarians.

A clock ticks away as time progresses, and its "measurements are completely arbitrary as one cannot move around within time.

We ALL move around within time . . . all the time.

We cannot reach one arm into the past and the other into the future.

You are describing a linear dimension . . . time doesn't work that way.

How does it feel to fail?

You're the one with all the experience . . . you tell me.

 

[Lighthouse]

You're confused . . . as are all trinitarians.

Idiot.

We ALL move around within time . . . all the time.

We move back and forth through the past, present and future?

See above.

You are describing a linear dimension . . . time doesn't work that way.

No kidding, nitwit. That was my point.

You're the one with all the experience . . . you tell me.

Moron.

 

[Lordkalvan]

I asked you for a proof first; the onus is on you. If you provide evidence that I can show to be the possible result of other factors then I will do so. If I cannot then I will concede.

Actually, you didn't ask me for anything. I was curious as to what 'other forces' you were referring to and so asked, but you seem unable or unwilling to explain what you meant. But that's okay, I've come not to expect anything more from you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Idiot.

When you are unable to explain something you respond with an ad hominem, how . . . typical.

We move back and forth through the past, present and future?

You don't seem to understand TIME at all. See also . . . this and . . . this.

A great many christians believe that their deity can move back and forth through time. How odd that you question that belief.

See above.

No kidding, nitwit. That was my point.

You NEVER have a point to make . . . just . . . insults.

Moron.

See above.

 

[Stripe]

You don't seem to understand time at all

Time is the distance between events.

Pretending we are obligated to accept as reality your concept of time is just avoiding the discussion.

A great many Christians believe that their deity can move back and forth through time. How odd that you question that belief.

Lots of Christians think fish turned into people as well. Were you hoping to gain something by saying this?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Time is the distance between events.

. . . and m-e-a-s-u-r-a-b-l-e.

Pretending we are obligated to accept as reality your concept of time is just avoiding the discussion.

Does time exist or not?

Lots of Christians think fish turned into people as well. Were you hoping to gain something by saying this?

Straw man.

 

[Stripe]

. . . and m-e-a-s-u-r-a-b-l-e.

:AMR:

Does time exist or not?

:AMR:

Straw man.

Nope. It is a fact. Plenty of Christians believe people evolved from fish. Now, perhaps you can explain the significance of such a thing. Or was your comment a complete non sequitur aimed only at distracting people from the paucity of your contributions?