|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
dad writes: Why? Easy. I think that the so called sates are bogus. The reasons for the dates and the basis for them is totally belief based. I'm not asking you to accept the evidence, we know you dismiss it without reading or understanding it. I'm asking you a different question. The world's scientists in multiple disciples for 200 years have amassed an enormous quantity of evidence that has proven beyond doubt that the earth is old. That evidence exists. My question is why god would plant all this evidence that convinces all those scientists? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
That default wouldn't be very useful. Science has to have something to start from. Call it a hypothesis if you prefer. In any case, we can not start by proposing that conditions were somehow different in the past.
When a question is asked about the unknown the real default is 'I don't know'. dad writes:
It isn't based on belief. It's based on the facts as we know them today. It's your belief that conditions were somehow different in the past, though you have no facts to support that belief. Hence, it is your position that is not science. The conclusion based on beliefs is not knowledge, fact or real science."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
And I am not asking you to accept the evidence...only to stop pretending you have anything but beliefs. No one has amassed a shred of evidence for your claims of old ages etc. You have plastered beliefs over evidences. Big difference.
Edited by dad, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
No belief is useful when it comes to origin issues. There is no useful application for origin claims of science. If you claim that a same nature on the earth is fact based then go ahead and show us the facts. You have none. Instead we see a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
No matter how much weight you imagine your lack of evidence has, it remains a lack of evidence. From my unbiased and intellectually honest perspective your admitted lack of evidence is worthless and appalling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You still haven't figured out how something that isn't there could be as significant as something that is. That's ok. Intellect is not in everyone's skill set.
Still, a lack of evidence that "the nature" changed sometime in the past is significant in doubting that such a change happened. So, whether you care to recognize it or not, there is a BIG data point against your contention that "the nature" did change enough to effect tree ring growth thousands of years ago. You do remember this argument you put forward some time ago, right? Well, now it's your turn. Where is your evidence tree ring growth was in any way altered by this change in nature thousands of years ago?Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
dad writes: No one has amassed a shred of evidence for your claims of old ages etc. Look dad, denying that the evidence means what science says it means is different from denying that evidence exists at all. We can very easily present the evidence that has lead every branch of science to conclude that the universe is old, if you deny that that evidence exists you are denying easily provable reality. So, again, why would your god want to trick us like that?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
dad writes:
You have it backwards. If you think something has changed, you are the one who has to back up your idea with facts. If you think horses had eight legs in Napoleon's day, you are the one who has to back up that claim. As long as we have no evidence of a change, the rational conclusion is that horses have always had four legs.
If you claim that a same nature on the earth is fact based then go ahead and show us the facts. dad writes:
Yes indeed, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You're not fooling anybody.
Instead we see a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof. dad writes:
Tell that to a petroleum engineer. They get along pretty well working with the idea that those rocks are old. There is no useful application for origin claims of science."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote: Still, a lack of evidence that "the nature" never changed sometime in the past is significant in doubting that such a change never happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
And I can easily show that what you imagined to be evidences were actually beliefs. What we need here is fact and real knowledge and science, not political reinvent word games.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
You have it all wrong. If you claim anything as science you need real evidence and support. If I claim we do not know, I am off the hook.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
If you claim anything as science you need real evidence and support. And that real evidence is what this thread is about and it was presented in gargantuan, mountainous piles. You would know that if you read and understood this thread, but I don't expect that to happen. The evidence presented here stands un-refuted, by anyone, including you.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
dad writes: And I can easily show that what you imagined to be evidences were actually beliefs. What we need here is fact and real knowledge and science, not political reinvent word games. Ok, I'll try again. Let's say that hundreds of thousands of scientists for a couple of hundred years are all wrong and what they call evidence is what you call beliefs. All those evolutionary biologists, palaeontologists, radio physicists, astrophysicists, molecular biologists, geologists etc etc, all believe that what are looking at shows that the earth is old. And all that evidence is there - the fossils, the speed of light, the rocks, the rings, the varves, the ice cores, the radio carbon and so on. You can go and look at it yourself. But fine, let's say it's all belief. My question is, why has god made it so that all those people are fooled by the evidence that they see?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
I have seen only belief based claims here that have falsely been labelled evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1368 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
You would know that the piles are belief based piles if you comprehended the thread. From radiometric decay in nature in the past, to using nature of today in determine the time trees used to grow, and ad infinitum. When so called science looks to the universe we see a variation of the same thing, they imagine that space and time that we see here exists all over. In all ways and in every single facet of science that deals in origin issues we see the same thing, and nothing but the same thing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024