|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
The only "preset belief" here is yours. I explained why using a preset belief (a same nature in the far past on earth) inevitably would yield similar wrong results across the board. And you didn't come anywhere near "explaining" how completely independent methods could come up with exactly the same results.
dad writes:
You're the one who is trying to deal with hundreds of years of science done by thousands of scientists. Maybe you can fool yourself but you're not fooling anybody else. Deal with it."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
You don't get to define science. So remember never ever ever to call it science."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
I get to use whatever definition the scientists use - and they do not use one that has anything to do with belief. Nor do you get to use beliefs as a definition for science."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
It's a default. When we observe that horses in the present have four legs, we can reasonably conclude (not "assume" or "believe") that Napoleon's horse had four legs. If you claim that Marengo was a spider-horse, the onus is on you to provide evidence. When you believe nature on earth was the same in the past you use a preset belief."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
No. A default conclusion. Wherever there's a question there's a default answer. If I ask, "Do you want some ice cream?" the default answer is, "No." If you don't say so, you're not getting any.
I see. A default belief. dad writes:
It has nothing to do with what I claim. You could find out what science is by just looking it up. Do you claim beliefs default or otherwise are science?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Yes, that's what I've been telling you. If YOU claim that something happened in the past - e.g. that nature somehow changed - then YOU need to provide evidence that nature changed. Unless YOU can show evidence that nature changed, WE go with the conclusion that nature didn't change.
If you claim anything as science you need real evidence and support. dad writes:
You can claim that YOU don't know. You can not claim that WE don't know. If I claim we do not know, I am off the hook."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
As I have pointed out, people with different beliefs can accept the same science. Even though the Bible portrays a young earth, most Christians accept the fact that the earth is old. They put the science before their beliefs. And even though Hinduism portrays an earth much older than it really is, most Hindus put the science ahead of their beliefs. You would need to show that any claims of science you make consist of more than beliefs splattered onto evidences. YOU need to show how people with very different religious beliefs can coincidentally have the same "beliefs" about science."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
You're just repeating yourself. Unless you can show HOW people with different beliefs can come from so many different directions and coincidentally happen on the same conclusions about science, you have no leg to stand on. People can put their beliefs aside and give the beliefs of so called science priority. That does not mean the fables of origins science preaches are anything else but the belief based baloney they are. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
That same logic would apply to leprechauns or orcs. Science cannot date a spirit, or correlate their ages. They cannot say they exist or do not exist!"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024