Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assumptions involved in scientific dating
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 106 of 222 (827377)
01-23-2018 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
I disagree. Truth is the shedding of light, and I don't specifically mean in a theological sense.
I think I disagree with both you and Stile. If we're talking science (and I hope we are, since this is a science thread), then science doesn't deal in truth, not in a theological sense or any other sense, not unless you define truth as in some way tentative. Typically truth is regarded as more sturdy and timeless than something tentative.
If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias.
There's a grammar problem somewhere in that poorly structured and contradictory sentence, but you seem to be saying that A and B are biased, and they're debating C (who in addition to debating A and B "is just spectating") and detects the bias.
I'm merely attempting to point out that bias.
Can I guess that you're designating yourself the objective bias detector?
I've said my point of view.
No you haven't. You've said so little about your point of view that the term "electric universe" doesn't even appear in any of your messages, though you do use the phrase "electric model of the universe" in Message 75. The closest you've come to describing your views is your brief FYI that was also in Message 75. Mostly all you've done is provided links.
I've also asked for your opinions.
Which some have provided, despite that you've only provided links
And soon I'll respond to Percy who has made a mess of things.
Dare I hope you'll respond in your own words instead of in links?
I'm sure he is purposefully deceitful since it's clear he is conventional in his views, and would like to hate apparently...
I've known Percy for a long time, and I think you're mostly correct. He is a bit conventional in that he demands evidence and follows the rules. He also is a bit of a hater of eschewing evidence and flouting the rules.
...vs being unbiased and debating as I have done.
If you do say so yourself.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:47 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 11:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 124 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 107 of 222 (827378)
01-23-2018 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias.
To all the "C" people reading this forum... you will be seen as person "A" for as long as you remain just posting links and not discussing them in your own words.
The tactic you're using ("I'm pointing out bias! Prove yourselves to me!!!") is one that any onlooker recognizes as someone who is merely protecting something and trying to deflect the conversation away from themselves.
As a parent pleads to their children: "Use your words."
If you have something to discuss that actually goes against the current scientific idea... by all means discuss it.
Or if you think you've discovered something that eats away at a current scientific assumption... by all means discuss it.
But posting links, claiming to be unbiased, and pointing fingers around without being able to discuss why or explain a better option is not searching for truth. It just seems like you don't actually have any confidence in what you're doing. People with confidence don't have a problem discussing their position.
There are always reasons not to think something is true.
That's why science never claims that anything is "true." They only claim that things are "as true as we can tell from this information."
That way, as new information is discussed they can adopt or change as required to get closer to the truth.
Your lack of discussion on your reasons-why-you-think-something-isn't-true is exactly what gives you away.
If you wanted to get to the truth... you would discuss the issues. Understand the current scientific ideas. Understand your own dissention. Understand why it's already been adopted and dealt with. Understanding and discussion leads to uncovering more truth.
Just sitting around "being unbiased" does exactly that... nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:47 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:30 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 108 of 222 (827379)
01-23-2018 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 10:52 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
Saying it's not scientific does not quantify to it not being scientific.
I hope that's just a typo and that you meant "qualify".
Be more specific as to how per each point they make.
Once again, we don't debate via link here. If you have points to make then you'll have to make them yourself.
FYI looking at the link. Anything you want me to look at?
When you describe your points, using your links only as references, then JonF can respond to your points, using his link only as a reference.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:52 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 109 of 222 (827380)
01-23-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
01-23-2018 11:34 AM


Re: Questions
Percy writes:
I think I disagree with both you and Stile. If we're talking science (and I hope we are, since this is a science thread), then science doesn't deal in truth, not in a theological sense or any other sense, not unless you define truth as in some way tentative.
I was getting there.
I just had a bush to beat around for a bit first
Don't mind that horse, either. He's only mostly dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 01-23-2018 11:34 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 01-23-2018 12:04 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 115 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:01 PM Stile has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 110 of 222 (827382)
01-23-2018 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Stile
01-23-2018 11:43 AM


Re: Questions
Not the horse you are looking for anyway.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 11:43 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 111 of 222 (827383)
01-23-2018 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
I disagree. Truth is the shedding of light, and I don't specifically mean in a theological sense. If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias. I'm merely attempting to point out that bias. I've said my point of view. I've also asked for your opinions. And soon I'll respond to Percy who has made a mess of things. I'm sure he is purposefully deceitful since it's clear he is conventional in his views, and would like to hate apparently vs being unbiased and debating as I have done.
A deceitful person would say that electrical currents change radioactive decay rates, and then have no intention of backing up this claim with scientific evidence.
A person not looking for truth would post a bunch of hour long videos, and have no intention of ever discussing them or have the familiarity with the science necessary to discuss them.
A person not looking for truth would adopt a post-modernist stance where all ideas are supposedly equal, even when there is 100 years of science demonstrating that one of the ideas is wrong.
Time will tell if you are not being deceitful and are actually looking for the truth.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:47 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:08 PM Taq has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 222 (827384)
01-23-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Taq
01-23-2018 11:09 AM


Re: Questions
Where is the contradiction? You quoted my belief system. I guess I can't have a belief and seek truth.
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 11:09 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 12:56 PM DOCJ has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 113 of 222 (827385)
01-23-2018 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 12:55 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
Where is the contradiction?
You claim to be seeking truth, yet you link to pages full of lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 12:55 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:05 PM Taq has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 114 of 222 (827386)
01-23-2018 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 10:52 AM


Re: Questions
Most amusing. You tell us that just saying something is scientific doesn't make it true, and two messages later you say no more than your delusions are scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 10:52 AM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:04 PM JonF has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 222 (827387)
01-23-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Stile
01-23-2018 11:43 AM


Re: Questions
Right... Theories are mere falsehoods in science. And to some a theory will never refute theology. Roflol.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 11:43 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2018 4:48 PM DOCJ has replied
 Message 149 by Stile, posted 01-24-2018 9:45 AM DOCJ has not replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 222 (827388)
01-23-2018 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by JonF
01-23-2018 12:58 PM


Re: Questions
Please point out where I was incorrect. If you can't see the difference between my posts, it does shed some light on things.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by JonF, posted 01-23-2018 12:58 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 1:06 PM DOCJ has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 222 (827389)
01-23-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Taq
01-23-2018 12:56 PM


Re: Questions
Lies? Be more specific. Who lied about what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 12:56 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 1:08 PM DOCJ has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 118 of 222 (827390)
01-23-2018 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 1:04 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
Please point out where I was incorrect. If you can't see the difference it does shed some light on things.
Someone seeking truth would not shift the burden of proof when someone questions their claims.
You need to show that your claims are correct using evidence. If no such evidence is presented, then there is nothing that needs to be disproved.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:04 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 3:39 PM Taq has replied

  
DOCJ
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 222 (827391)
01-23-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Taq
01-23-2018 12:43 PM


Re: Questions
I made a claim and provided a link to a source... Lol.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 12:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Taq, posted 01-23-2018 1:09 PM DOCJ has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 120 of 222 (827392)
01-23-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by DOCJ
01-23-2018 1:05 PM


Re: Questions
DOCJ writes:
Lies? Be more specific. Who lied about what?
You linked to a Thunderbolts page where they lied about the assumptions of the 14C dating method. They claimed that it is assumed that 14C production was the same in the past. This is a lie. The 14C dating method is calibrated to known historic fluctuations in 14C production as determined by objects of known age such as tree rings, lake varves, ice layers, and speleothems. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in that link.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by DOCJ, posted 01-23-2018 1:05 PM DOCJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by DOCJ, posted 01-28-2018 12:09 AM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024