Why is deduction based on experimental knowledge impossible without a God?

You have never told anyone why this is not possible.

My answer for Stalin is nine posts up - you missed it.

Fuck Jesus - his innovations are that you don't need to take personal responsibility for this life, this life is a transient thing to suffer through, and there is hell is a consequence. It's all pathetic fearmongering.

Also, notice that I did not tag this as science. Even though doing this is the most scientific and experimental possibility a person could never have imagined. This is quantum physics come to life with your eyes closed. It simply is not studied in depth and it should be, why are more people not studying it? Because it scares them, if all people had this experience it would change the world as we know it for the better.

The only people who are nay sayers are those who do not know, at all. Whom should not be speaking about it.

no, it's the opposite of instagram. it's using very old, esoteric, and volatile materials and experimenting to discover results. instagram deals with known methods and known and [only] repeatable results that imitate cheap film cameras from the 60s and 70s. this is an expensive camera, probably hard to find and expensive film, which may or may not work, giving completely unknown results. saying this is just like instagram is like saying that a PT cruiser is just like chrysler airflow or that a van gogh poster is just like the original painting: you're confusing the cheap imitation for the original. it's exactly like confusing a low res, digital instagram shot with an extremely high res, large format, film photo done with 100 year old camera.

saying this is "making a picture look bad misses the point entire" in fact, misses the point entirely. it misses the point of art, it misses the point of experimentation, and it's an extremely narrow and purely utilitarian understanding of a rarely utilitarian process.

also, maybe you should check out the whole story before dismissing this as being part of a cheap "fad".

http://www.expired-instants.com/stories/1978-10-polacolor2-808.html

So if a single photon from a distant star passes through the slit-like pupils of the frog's eye the question is: which slit does it pass through? And what retina does it impinge on?

This is actually a trick question, easily answered by the experimental results of the famous double-slit experiment.

Also, I'm disappointed. I was hoping to learn about the optical/visual system of frogs.

They were a middle of the road English band trying to sound west coast. The 1960s had MANY MANY experimental/progressive rock bands. Beatles of course were the most popular. This does not make them pioneers at all.
The ENGINEERS at London's Abbey Road Studios helped perfect the 4 track recording process. THAT'S IT.

Implying music and other artists wouldn't exist today is plainly beatle fever.

The 1960s was a "revolution" for everything. Lots were changing. The beatles were just on the pop charts / teenage magazines.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy their work, and grew up with lots of their 45s and 33s playing in my house.

Hell even the kid at the beginning of the clip said it right.
"you can't really hate the beatles, or like you'll ..... get killed"

a hippy english pop group from the 1960s =/= revolution pioneers

Tremendously underrated band...I don't think I've ever seen another that so successfully combined the genres of pop and experimental.

as·cer·tain (sr-tn)
tr.v. as·cer·tained, as·cer·tain·ing, as·cer·tains
1. To discover with certainty, as through examination or experimentation. See Synonyms at discover.
2. Archaic To make certain, definite, and precise.

Your video, WW2 experimental cargo plane: Fairchild XC-120 Packplane, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's the same evidence. There isn't creationist evidence and secular scientist evidence. They're both looking at the same evidence and interpreting it different. And there is plenty of geologic evidence of the flood. Recently, scientists have started to embrace catastrophism over uniformitarian because the evidence of a worldwide disaster is undeniable.

The evidence that was initially advanced for long ages by Charles Lyell was based on either misinterpretation or outright fraud. He claimed that Niagra Falls was eroding at the rate of one foot per year. He then made the leap that since the gorge was 35,000 feet long it was 35,000 years old. Very scientific. It has been confirmed however that the gorge erodes at 4 to 5 feet per year which means it is most likely under 7 thousand years old.

The "evidence" is obtained by making assumptions about the past that can't be proven, and you can't date the rocks without these assumptions. If you change the assumptions then you come up with much different dates.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

Everyone who studies it does not come to that conclusion. The hard evidence you have for quantum physics does not exist for deep time. You can test quantum physics; you can't test deep time. All there is a pile of circumstantial evidence all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Every time they measure the age of the rocks they get a range of dates, and then they discard the ones that don't agree with their assumptions as "anomalous". I think I've said this before..bif the evidence were there I would believe it. I used to believe it, but when I found out the extremely flimsy and weaknature of the evidence and realized I would have to put more faith in the scientists than I would the bible, so I decided to believe the bible instead. The whole thing stinks to high heaven but this is a religious proposition to many people. To them, they are satisfied with its explanation of reality and use it as an excuse to deny God. Take note of the awe and reverence and love people pay to the Cosmos and "mother Earth" because it is a religious experience you are witnessing They are seeing Gods glory in creation but they make naturalism their religion instead of acknowledging Him, and worship the creature rather than the Creator.

Psalm 19:1-2


The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

I am actually glad that shinyblurry appears to be interested in explaining his view scientifically. If he is earnest in his research, he will soon discover beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe is much, much older than he thinks.

I get the feeling religious folk think that scientists are "out to get them", that scientists have a preconceived notion of what it is they want to find, then bias their research towards that goal. No. Science is about discovering the truth of reality no matter whether we find it comforting or not. Pasting "alternate theories" that have not passed peer review as if they are equally as valid as experimentally tested, peer reviewed theories, is, well, unscientific. Many scientists present many theories all the time that are quickly proven wrong through peer review and experimentation. That's how we arrive at truth, by discarding all the stuff that doesn't fit and keeping the stuff that does. There's nothing "preconceived" about that.

@GeeSussFreeK

I tried to stay way from issues specific to the use of nuclear technology for a reason. There's very little in your reply that I can respond to, simply for a lack of expertise. So bear with me if I once again attempt to generalize and abstract some points. And I'll try to keep it shorter this time.

You mentioned how construction times and costs are pushed up by the constant evolution of compliance codes. A problem not exclusive to the construction of power plants, but maybe more pronounced in these cases. No matter.

What buggers me, however, is what you can currently observe in real time at the EPR construction sites in Olkiluoto and Flamanville.
For instance, the former is reported to have more than 4000 workers from over 60 nations, involving more than 1500 sub-contractors. It's basically the Tower of Babylon, and the quality of work might be similar as well. Workers say, they were ordered to just pour concrete over inadequate weld seams to get things done in time, just to name an example. They are three years over plan as of now, and it'll be at least 2-3 more before completion.
And Flamanville... here's some of what the French Nuclear Safety Authority had to say about the construction site: "concrete supports look like Swiss cheese", "walls with gaping holes", "brittle spots without a trace of cement".

Again, this is not exclusive to the construction of NPPs. Almost every large scale construction site in Europe these days looks like this, except for whatever the Swiss are doing: kudos to them, wonderful work indeed. But if they mess up the construction of a train station, they don't run a risk of ruining the ground water and irradiating what little living space we have in Europe as it is.

Then you explain the advantages of small scale, modular reactors. Again, no argument from my side on the feasability of this, I have to take your word on it. But looking at how the Russians dispose of their old nuclear reactors (bottom of the Barents Sea) and how Germany disposes of its nuclear waste (dropped down a hole), I don't fancy the idea of having even more reactors around.

As for prices, I have to raise my hands in surrender once again. Not my area of expertise, my knowledge is limited to whatever analysis hits the mainstream press every now and then. Here's my take on it, regarding just the German market: the development, construction, tax exemption, insurance exemption, fuel transport and waste disposal of the nuclear industry was paid for primarly by taxes. Conservative government estimates were in the neighbourhood of €300B since the sixties, in addition to the costs of waste disposal and plant deconstruction that the companies can't pay for. And that's if nothing happens to any of the plants, no flood, no fire, nothing.

That's not cheap. E.ON and RWE dropped out of the bid on construction permits for new NPPs in GB, simply because it's not profitable. RWE CEO Terium mentioned ~100€/MWh as the minimum base price to make new NPPs profitable, 75.80€/MWh for gas-powered plants. Right now, the base (peak) price is at 46€/MWh (54€/MWh) in Germany. France generates ~75% of its power through NPPs, while Germany is getting plastered with highly subsidized wind turbines and solar panels, yet the market price for energy is lower in Germany.

Yes, the conditions are vastly different in the US, and yes, the next generation of NPPs might be significantly cheaper and safer to construct and run. I'm all for research in these areas. But on the field of commercial energy generation, nuclear energy just doesn't seem to cut it right now.

So let's hop over to safety/dangers. Again, priorities might differ significantly and I can only argue from a central European perspective. As cold-hearted as it may sound, the number of direct casualties is not the issue. Toxicity and radiation is, as far as I'm concerned. All our NPPs are built on rivers and the entire country is rather densely populated. A crashing plane might kill 500 people, but there will be no long term damage, particularly not to the water table. The picture of an experimental waste storage site is disturbing enough as it is, and it wasn't even "by accident" that some of these chambers are now flooded by ground water.

Apologies if I ripped anything out of context. I tried to avoid the technicalities as best as I could in a desperate attempt not to make a fool of myself. Again.

And sorry for not linking any sources in many cases. Most of it was taken from German/Swiss/Austrian/French articles.

I love King Crimson but out of all the prog rock bands my favorite was Henry Cow. They were an experimental prog band from the mid seventies, highly anti capitalist and took me a long time to get into. Like most awesome shit, My favorite prog song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=374qf7xCFkY , Beautiful as the Moon - Terrible as an Army with Banners . A couple of members were in Slapp Happy that Faust played in, in the early seventies. Fred Frith in the late seventies left Henry Cow and put out a really amazing experimental prog album called Gravity.

>> ^bmacs27:

I knew somebody that jumped out a window on LSD. Drugs are fun and all, but the story here is that there is a treatment for PTSD, not that recreational use of MDMA or anything else is suddenly a good idea.
The doctors and academics aren't "assholes." There are just more important things to do than rationalize your psychedelic experimentation. We don't know how the brain works in a stable state, let alone after you fuck with it royally.
Also, just so you are aware of how bad your information is, a quick google scholar search for dimethyltryptamine 2012 yielded over 2000 results. Man, these assholes need to get crackin'!


http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_death.shtml

I knew somebody that jumped out a window on LSD. Drugs are fun and all, but the story here is that there is a treatment for PTSD, not that recreational use of MDMA or anything else is suddenly a good idea.

The doctors and academics aren't "assholes." There are just more important things to do than rationalize your psychedelic experimentation. We don't know how the brain works in a stable state, let alone after you fuck with it royally.

Also, just so you are aware of how bad your information is, a quick google scholar search for dimethyltryptamine 2012 yielded over 2000 results. Man, these assholes need to get crackin'!