Bible predictions about Noahs Ark...are true.

[Newbirth]

What keeps everything but helium and hot air from floating off into space?

Certainly not gravity.

Don't keep telling me what doesn't - tell me what does,

Their density in relation to the composition of the medium around them.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Their density in relation to the composition of the medium around them.

What is it that causes denser substances to sink in less dense ones?

 

[Newbirth]

What is it that causes denser substances to sink in less dense ones?

Their density in relation to the composition of the medium around them.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Their density in relation to the composition of the medium around them.

Do you deny that bodies with mass experience a force that attracts them to each other, even in a vacuum?

 

[Gus Bovona]

I am not missing anything...inference(conclusions) are based on evidence and reasoning . Your evidence is not based on observance therefore hearsay.

It is based on observations of things that are not the big bang from which scientists have inferred the big bang, and from which they make predictions which are the necessary consequence of the big bang, and then those predictions are observed.

It cannot start with inference (conclusions) based on hearsay, so it has ended before it could start.

You are saying the conclusions are then used to talk about what will happen in the future and what will happen in the future is a necessary result of the conclusions as a means of checking the conclusion.

I'm a little unsure what that means, but I'll try this as a response, hoping I've understood you: the observations made to check the predictions do not need to confirm the predictions, it could go either way. When the observations do confirm the predictions, the inferences that led to those predictions are confirmed.

That is foolishness, how does observing what you talked about happening in the future(prediction) being testable and repeatable have anything to do with something that you did not observe in the first place?

In the way I have described several times to you:

• initial observations are made
• inferences are drawn, like the big bang
• predictions are formulated that must be the case if the big bang happened
• other observations are made that either confirm the prediction or not
• when the other observations confirm the prediction, the inference is supported, because the prediction - which has been observed - is a necessary result of the inference.

 

[Newbirth]

Do you deny that bodies with mass experience a force that attracts them to each other, even in a vacuum?

You haven't proved it for me to deny it. My car remains parked in the same position next to another car in the car park. It does not leave with the other car when the owner drives away.

 

[Newbirth]

It is based on observations of things that are not the big bang from which scientists have inferred the big bang,

What things? The person who came up with the big bang observed nothing to conclude a big bang... It was an assumption.

and from which they make predictions which are the necessary consequence of the big bang,

You are not making any sense...a prediction is talking about things that will happen in the future.

and then those predictions are observed.

We are not discussing predictions...(Things that will happen in the future)

I'm a little unsure what that means, but I'll try this as a response, hoping I've understood you: the observations made to check the predictions do not need to confirm the predictions, it could go either way. When the observations do confirm the predictions, the inferences that led to those predictions are confirmed.

Sir, we are discussing the big bang which no one observed when they came up with the idea. So there was no observation, to begin with. Now you are talking about the observation of other things that obviously cannot be related to the big bang that was not observed in the first place. And to top it off you keep mentioning predictions, are you aware that predictions refer to things that will happen in the future?

In the way I have described several times to you:

• initial observations are made

No initial observation of the big bang

• inferences are drawn, like the big bang

Therefore conclusions/ inferences are assumptions/speculation

• predictions are formulated that must be the case if the big bang happened

Predictions = talking about what will happen in the future. How are you formulating it must be the case that the big bang happened that you never observed by talking about what will happen in the future?

• other observations are made that either confirm the prediction or not

What are the observations made to confirm what will happen in the future and what does that have to do with the big bang which is assumed to be in the past and no one observed it?

• when the other observations confirm the prediction,

What observations confirmed that which was to happen in the future?

• the inference is supported, because the prediction - which has been observed - is a necessary result of the inference.

You are saying the conclusion/ inference is supported because the prediction/ what will happen in the future- which has been observed. is a necessary result of the conclusion/inference.

Do you see how your word salad makes no sense? You have no idea that an inference is a conclusion or that a prediction is talking about something that will happen in the future.

 

[Gus Bovona]

What things?

The things we now observe for which the big bang would have had to have happened. One example of this is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

The person who came up with the big bang observed nothing to conclude a big bang... It was an assumption.

It wasn't an assumption, it was the result of observing that everything in the universe is getting further away from everything else.

You are not making any sense...a prediction is talking about things that will happen in the future.

Yes, in the future. If the big bang happened, scientists then figured out what we would have to see, they go looking to see if it is there, like the CMBR above, if it it's there, it helps confirm the big bang, and it was there, so it did help confirm it.

We are not discussing predictions...(Things that will happen in the future)

Yes we are, because that's how science works; if things in the past are inferred, we might be able to then predict what we would have to see, and then we go looking to see if we do, in fact, see that, and that looking is in the future.

Sir, we are discussing the big bang which no one observed when they came up with the idea. So there was no observation, to begin with. Now you are talking about the observation of other things that obviously cannot be related to the big bang that was not observed in the first place.

Just because something wasn't observed doesn't mean that you can't observe something else that points to the thing that wasn't observed. Remember the homicide detective who didn't observe the murder but could still find out who the murderer was? Same principle.

And to top it off you keep mentioning predictions, are you aware that predictions refer to things that will happen in the future?

See above.

No initial observation of the big bang

See above.

Therefore conclusions/ inferences are assumptions/speculation

Initially, but they are then put to the test by the necessary predictions that must follow.

Predictions = talking about what will happen in the future. How are you formulating it must be the case that the big bang happened that you never observed by talking about what will happen in the future?

See above.

What are the observations made to confirm what will happen in the future and what does that have to do with the big bang which is assumed to be in the past and no one observed it?

See above.

What observations confirmed that which was to happen in the future?

Wha? Can you re-phrase that?

You are saying the conclusion/ inference is supported because the prediction/ what will happen in the future- which has been observed. is a necessary result of the conclusion/inference.

Yes!

Do you see how your word salad makes no sense?

Exactly which part didn't make sense? You have to be able to point specifically to what part didn't make sense, you just can't slap a label like "word salad" on it and think you've made a logical point.

You have no idea that an inference is a conclusion

or that a prediction is talking about something that will happen in the future.

An inference IS one type of conclusion. I see the pavement and ground wet when I wake up and I infer that it rained overnight. That it rained overnight is a conclusion I've reached. Yet I also inferred it. So an inference CAN be a conclusion.

That a prediction is something that will happened in the future is the very definition of a prediction. What definition of prediction do you think applies such that it isn't something that happens in the future?

 

[Newbirth]

The things we now observe for which the big bang would have had to have happened. One example of this is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Don't be silly. You first have to observe a Big bang and its CMBR in order to verify that big bangs produce the same exact CMBR.

It wasn't an assumption, it was the result of observing that everything in the universe is getting further away from everything else.

Don't be silly. How far has the moon moved away from the earth?

Yes, in the future. If the big bang happened, scientists then figured out what we would have to see, they go looking to see if it is there, like the CMBR above, if it it's there, it helps confirm the big bang, and it was there, so it did help confirm it.

Don't be silly. The person who came up with the big bang never mentioned a CMBR...actually what you call CMBR was an accidental discovery.

Yes we are, because that's how science works; if things in the past are inferred, we might be able to then predict what we would have to see, and then we go looking to see if we do, in fact, see that, and that looking is in the future.

That is not how science works...your word salad makes no sense. Natural science is based on observation and experiment to explain cause and effect.

Just because something wasn't observed doesn't mean that you can't observe something else that points to the thing that wasn't observed.

Observing something else has nothing to do with what you did not observe when it comes to observation. You cannot go to a court of law with hearsay evidence.

Remember the homicide detective who didn't observe the murder but could still find out who the murderer was? Same principle.

Usually, they find a witness who observed the murder. In your case, you have to find a witness of the big bang to prove the CMBR is a result of the big bang.

See above.


See above.

Nothing to see... You have no witness of the big bang therefore you cannot say the big bang is the cause of anything... Neither can you predict what happens after a big bang because no one has seen a big bang and what happens after a bigbang.

Initially, but they are then put to the test by the necessary predictions that must follow.

since they are assumptions initially, a prediction ( talking about what will happen in the future) cannot change them into anything else.

See above.

Nothing to see since you don't seem to know what a prediction is.

See above.

nothing to see. You have to observe a big bang and know they produce a CMBR in the future, in order to predict a CMBR in the future is the result of a big bang..

Wha? Can you re-phrase that?

what did the person who came up with the big bang see to confirm what they predicted?

Yes!

You are saying the conclusion/ inference is supported because the prediction/ what will happen in the future- which has been observed. is a necessary result of the conclusion/inference.

but that is a word salad that makes no sense...You are saying something that will be observed in the future has been observed and is a result of a foregone conclusion.

Exactly which part didn't make sense? You have to be able to point specifically to what part didn't make sense, you just can't slap a label like "word salad" on it and think you've made a logical point.

nothing makes sense...

An inference IS one type of conclusion. I see the pavement and ground wet when I wake up and I infer that it rained overnight. That it rained overnight is a conclusion I've reached. Yet I also inferred it. So an inference CAN be a conclusion.

But the wet pavement could have been from the street washers or a busted water main. As a matter of fact, it could have been early morning rain. So what predictions can you make based on wet pavement and ground to confirm your conclusion of overnight rain?

That a prediction is something that will happened in the future is the very definition of a prediction.

Which is what you are claiming scientists do, predict the future.

What definition of prediction do you think applies such that it isn't something that happens in the future?

no other definition, all predictions refer to the future...

 

[mikeT]

Don't be silly. You first have to observe a Big bang and its CMBR in order to verify that big bangs produce the same exact CMBR.

You must enjoy being wrong, because no one in their right mind believes the thing being theorized about must be observed before the theory can exist.

 

[Newbirth]

You must enjoy being wrong, because no one in their right mind believes the thing being theorized about must be observed before the theory can exist.

Theories are made up to explain why things happen in the natural world. If no one observed the thing happen how can you tell me why it happened? The fact is you are assuming it happened and you are assuming why it happened.

Scientists try to "map" the natural world. This map tries to describe, predict and explain different essential aspects of the natural world. To produce knowledge about the natural world, scientists currently use a particular method: the scientific method. This method is based on observation and hypothesis, which is tested (through experimentation). Scientists may formulate a law and/or a theory, both of which explain things about the natural world. A scientific law "predicts the results of certain initial conditions" (Matt Anticole at TEDed). In short, it predicts and explains what will happen. A scientific theory, on the other hand, "provides the most logical explanation as to why things happen as they do". In short, it explains why things happen. Sometimes scientific laws stand the test of time, whereas theories don't. Kepler's laws of planetary motions, for example, are still used today, whereas his theory of musical harmony has now been replaced with the theory of gravity to explain why the planets move the way they do (see TED ed, theory versus law).
Taken from Here

 

[Tiburon]

Then your arguments are without merit.

What arguments specifically? And why are they without merit? "Science" adheres to a method of enquiry. You don't have to be a "scientist" to make use of that methodology.

You are acting as if it does.

Again, "Science" adheres to a method of enquiry. You don't have to be a "scientist" to make use of that methodology.
If we act as if science does have a monopoly on observation inferences and conclusions, it is only because that is an arena where checks and balances are more rigorously applied.

 

[Newbirth]

What arguments specifically?

The argument that you are defending...
Gus Bovona said:
Science doesn't need to observe everything it makes a conclusion about, because science also makes inferences based on observations of other things.

And why are they without merit? "Science" adheres to a method of enquiry. You don't have to be a "scientist" to make use of that methodology.

and one of the methods is observation...

Again, "Science" adheres to a method of enquiry. You don't have to be a "scientist" to make use of that methodology.
If we act as if science does have a monopoly on observation inferences and conclusions, it is only because that is an arena where checks and balances are more rigorously applied.

so why are you defending this argument?
Gus Bovona said:
Science doesn't need to observe everything it makes a conclusion about, because science also makes inferences based on observations of other things.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Don't be silly. You first have to observe a Big bang and its CMBR in order to verify that big bangs produce the same exact CMBR.


Don't be silly. How far has the moon moved away from the earth?

Don't be silly. The person who came up with the big bang never mentioned a CMBR...actually what you call CMBR was an accidental discovery.

That is not how science works...your word salad makes no sense. Natural science is based on observation and experiment to explain cause and effect.

Observing something else has nothing to do with what you did not observe when it comes to observation. You cannot go to a court of law with hearsay evidence.

Usually, they find a witness who observed the murder. In your case, you have to find a witness of the big bang to prove the CMBR is a result of the big bang.


Nothing to see... You have no witness of the big bang therefore you cannot say the big bang is the cause of anything... Neither can you predict what happens after a big bang because no one has seen a big bang and what happens after a bigbang.

since they are assumptions initially, a prediction ( talking about what will happen in the future) cannot change them into anything else.

Nothing to see since you don't seem to know what a prediction is.

nothing to see. You have to observe a big bang and know they produce a CMBR in the future, in order to predict a CMBR in the future is the result of a big bang..

what did the person who came up with the big bang see to confirm what they predicted?

You are saying the conclusion/ inference is supported because the prediction/ what will happen in the future- which has been observed. is a necessary result of the conclusion/inference.

but that is a word salad that makes no sense...You are saying something that will be observed in the future has been observed and is a result of a foregone conclusion.

nothing makes sense...

But the wet pavement could have been from the street washers or a busted water main. As a matter of fact, it could have been early morning rain. So what predictions can you make based on wet pavement and ground to confirm your conclusion of overnight rain?

Which is what you are claiming scientists do, predict the future.

no other definition, all predictions refer to the future...

New (may I call you New?), there's a lot going on so I'd like to boil it down to the essential thing:

Do you agree that it is possible to sometimes make a valid inference about something that one didn't observe? If not, why not?

 

[Newbirth]

New (may I call you New?), there's a lot going on so I'd like to boil it down to the essential thing:

of course you may.

Do you agree that it is possible to sometimes make a valid inference about something that one didn't observe?

Not in the case of natural science.
Scientists try to "map" the natural world. This map tries to describe, predict and explain different essential aspects of the natural world. To produce knowledge about the natural world, scientists currently use a particular method: the scientific method. This method is based on observation and hypothesis, which is tested (through experimentation) quoted Here

If not, why not?

It is the scientific rule...

 

[Gus Bovona]

of course you may.

Not in the case of natural science.
Scientists try to "map" the natural world. This map tries to describe, predict and explain different essential aspects of the natural world. To produce knowledge about the natural world, scientists currently use a particular method: the scientific method. This method is based on observation and hypothesis, which is tested (through experimentation) quoted Here

It is the scientific rule...

1. In that Sciencebuddies link, they themselves say

Do all scientists follow the scientific method exactly? No. Some areas of science can be more easily tested than others. For example, scientists studying how stars change as they age or how dinosaurs digested their food cannot fast-forward a star's life by a million years or run medical exams on feeding dinosaurs to test their hypotheses. When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method.

My emphasis

2. Sciencebuddies has no authority to rule out inference as part of the scientific method.

3. I'll see your links and raise you one link, all three about inference in science:

What is an inference in science definition? [Expert Guide!]

Inference may be defined as the process of drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. It lies at the heart of the scientific method, for it covers

physics-network.org

Three Types of Scientific Inference - Paul Spector

Three types of scientific inference are induction (extending results), abduction (explaining results) and deduction (testing predictions)

paulspector.com

https://www.readingrockets.org/pdfs/inference-science-strategy-guide.pdf

4. My question to you was not about science. Can you answer it without regard to science?

 

[Newbirth]

1. In that Sciencebuddies link, they themselves say

My emphasis

Not following the scientific rules is called pseudoscience.

2. Sciencebuddies has no authority to rule out inference as part of the scientific method.

This is not about science buddies, it is about the proper procedure for experimentation in natural science.

3. I'll see your links and raise you one link, all three about inference in science:

What is an inference in science definition? [Expert Guide!]

Inference may be defined as the process of drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. It lies at the heart of the scientific method, for it covers

physics-network.org

Three Types of Scientific Inference - Paul Spector

Three types of scientific inference are induction (extending results), abduction (explaining results) and deduction (testing predictions)

paulspector.com

https://www.readingrockets.org/pdfs/inference-science-strategy-guide.pdf

Inference is a conclusion before the experiment, noting more. it is a presumed outcome.

4. My question to you was not about science. Can you answer it without regard to science?

The discussion is about science and observing the big bang. I have no interest in questions outside of that.