Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is creationism winning in Turkey & Korea?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 839 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 77 (306597)
04-25-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by simple
04-25-2006 9:43 PM


I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about.
Unless one is worried about increasing knowledge.
It is a system of belief and anti beliefs wrapped in science in some countries.
Can you tell me how "anti beliefs" are different from normal beliefs?
Welcome to the fray.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by simple, posted 04-25-2006 9:43 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 04-26-2006 3:06 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 839 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 77 (306893)
04-26-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by simple
04-26-2006 3:06 AM


Can you connect
msg 12 writes:
I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about.
and
Science increases certain knowledge, not all.
As it seems you have moved to a different {topic\question\issue} from where you started.
Normal beliefs come in many flavors. One of them is ...
Funny, I must have missed where you differentiated "anti beliefs" from normal beliefs. It seems you are changing the {topic\question\issue} again.
One of them is science. At least some parts of science.
Generalization type statements like this are meaningless without some {substantiation\exposition\explanation}. What parts of science are beliefs?
What is allowed and acceptable in some countries as "science" seems to be an anti God flavored concoction.
Can you tell me how science could be pro god flavored?
If Turkey or other places were less restrictive, all the better.
Be careful what you wish for.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 04-26-2006 3:06 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 04-27-2006 1:00 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 839 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 77 (306963)
04-27-2006 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
04-27-2006 1:00 AM


Well, science is a funny little thing.
Empty retoric that serves no purpose.
It does not apply to everything. Just our natural world.
Agreed. But the amount of knowledge that we can verify about "just our natural world" and the amount of knowledge we can verify from other sources would seem to make "just" and "little" a bit on the (defensive) dismissive side.
We have math, we have logic, and we have science. All these can be verified. What else?
If we were to think there was nothing else, why, we might find connecting the dots was difficult.
We are talking about knowledge, eh? Not science fiction, not fantasy, not "what if" stories right?
AS apparently you do.
Let's not start with the ad hominems yet, but save them for when you have no other argument left eh?
You still haven't answered the question about connecting those statements.
Science increases knowledge. How does agreeing to that expand or clarify your original thesis that "I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about."
If one had an anti belief, it would be a belief that was opposed to another belief.
So it would just be another belief? No different from any normal belief, and yet you seemed to make a clear distinction originally between a belief and an anti belief.
Are you recanting? (just connecting the dots here).
quote:
..What parts of science are beliefs?
What parts aren't?
The parts based on facts, observations and repeated experiments. The ones that have valid logical conclusions and that lead to productive predictions.
Your inability (for the second time) to list a single item rather than make another generalized statement gives me the impression that you don't really have an informed opinion here but a borrowed one. Care to flesh out your opinion with some substantiation of precisely what you consider a belief in science?
quote:
Can you tell me how science could be pro god flavored?
Well, it would need a complete change of criteria acceptance for one thing.
You mean change the criteria so it wouldn't be science but based on just any little old beliefs? Like alchemy or astrology for instance?
Acceptance in science is based on validated (repeated) results of predictions made by theory that is based on logical evaluation of the evidence. Acceptance is based on being the best-fit answers to the questions of how the natural world works.
Do you mean we should choose second best theories instead?
What is your criteria for determining what should be accepted?
It would have to deal with more than just our natural world, for another. So many changes would be needed.
Science is based on the testable. If it is testable then it is part of the natural world, so science in naturally stuck in the natural world.
If you are looking for knowledge outside the natural world then you are looking for philosophy, mysticism and the like, and not science.
Please be clear on what your distinctions are and what the terms really mean.
quote:
Be careful what you wish for.
I am.
You give no evidence of that. So far you have made a number of rather reckless statements and have provided no evidence to support any of your opinions, you have betrayed a lack of knowledge of what science really is and what it's natural limits are, all apparently based on some ill-defined wish you seem to have.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 04-27-2006 1:00 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by simple, posted 04-30-2006 12:22 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 839 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 77 (307224)
04-27-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
04-27-2006 1:00 AM


anti-beliefs make beliefs cry "uncle" ?
btw -- you missed it.
If one had an anti belief, it would be a belief that was opposed to another belief.
There is another category for something that qualifies as an anti-belief that is not a belief at all: evidence.
Example:
belief the sun orbits the flat earth.
anti-belief the observed evidence that the earth orbits the sun.
Result: the belief in a flat earth has diminished significantly due to the anti-belief (evidence), and those that still maintain such archaic beliefs are generally regarded as cranks and nutcases.
Can you think of some others?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 04-27-2006 1:00 AM simple has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 839 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 77 (307892)
04-30-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by simple
04-30-2006 12:22 AM


You have yet to make a single point.
Perhaps you should stop dancing around the issues and actually make a point. Or two. Perhaps actually answer the questions?
Sometimes these things are confused.
You are not making it any clearer. Are we talking about knowledge, yes or no? It's a simple question.
quote:
We have math, we have logic, and we have science. All these can be verified. What else?
Was there a point somewhere?
The question is what other forms of knowledge can be verified (another rather simple question, imh(ysa)o, as someone who "has trouble connecting the dots"): it's in plain english isn't it?
What other forms of knowledge (other than that derived from math, logic and science) can be verified?
quote:
Let's not start with the ad hominems yet, but save them for when you have no other argument left eh?
It was not that. It was an observation.
Then clearly state the dots and then connect them and show me the errors of my ways. Answer the questions. Clarify and elucidate rather than make more vague unsubstantiated and generalized statements.
quote:
Science increases knowledge. How does agreeing to that expand or clarify your original thesis that "I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about."
Some knowledge is better not increased.
Another vague unsubstantiated generalized statement. What knowledge is better not increased? How do you know? What are the standards that you would set? How are those standards determined?
Are you now saying that it is the knowledge gained from science that "these people have to worry about" or are you avoiding the question again?
quote:
So it would just be another belief? No different from any normal belief, and yet you seemed to make a clear distinction originally between a belief and an anti belief.
Depends on the context.
Another vague unsubstantiated generalized statement. That still does not answer the question: you made the original distinction and you have failed to support the need for it in any way. Without a clear distinction there is no need for it, and it is just verbal masturbation. Please define your term and the conditions where it applies or withdraw it.
I also gave you a possible use of "anti-belief" ...
RAZD, msg 19 writes:
There is another category for something that qualifies as an anti-belief that is not a belief at all: evidence.
Example:
belief the sun orbits the flat earth.
anti-belief the observed evidence that the earth orbits the sun.
Result: the belief in a flat earth has diminished significantly due to the anti-belief (evidence), and those that still maintain such archaic beliefs are generally regarded as cranks and nutcases.
Can you think of some others?
Such as:
belief the earth is ~10 thousand years old
anti-belief the observed evidence that the earth is 4.5+ billions of years old.
Result: the belief that the earth is young is invalid and headed the way of the flat earth concept.
See The Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III thread for more information and to discuss this one further (it would be off topic here).
Would you agree that this usage would be useful? It certainly bears on the issue of increasing knowledge of "life, the universe, and everything" eh?
quote:
The parts based on facts, observations and repeated experiments. The ones that have valid logical conclusions and that lead to productive predictions.
Oh. I thought the teachings in question in Korea and places had something to do with orgins.
Stop equivocating. The question was what part of science are beliefs? You still have not answered that question with any valid specifics. If you want me to connect your dots you have to put some out there.
quote:
Care to flesh out your opinion with some substantiation of precisely what you consider a belief in science?
OK. That evolution did not start from creatures that were created.
The theory of evolution does not address how life started. This is not a "belief" in science.
Evolution is concerned with the change in species over time, and it doesn't matter to the science of evolution how the first life came to be on this (or any other) planet.
What the evidence shows is that as far back as we can determine there is a clear general progression of life from one form to another, and that the earliest life forms known were bacteria like. This is not a belief but an observation based on the evidence. This still starts with life evolving into life.
The science that deals with the origin of life by natural means is Abiogenesis. As yet we do not have concrete evidence that this is what actually occurred -- the jury is out, if you will, on whether life started by natural means or by some other process. What we know is that 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on this planet, but somewhere between then and 3.87 billion years ago life appeared.
We do have some evidence of how it might have occurred by wholly natural means, but it is not a "belief" that this actually occurred, it is an untested theory.
What the evidence shows is that the first life 3.87 + billion years ago was bacteria like, and did not include fish, reptiles and mammals.
By contrast there is no evidence anywhere of any spontaneous creation of life at any point in time (before or after 3.87 billion years ago). For this to be considered a fact in science (rather than a belief) it would have to have some substantiating evidence. Without that evidence such a belief has no place in science and is properly excluded.
It appears that you are also confusing invalidation of {concept A} as evidence of {concept B}. Just because the lack of evidence for spontaneous (or "special") creation appears to be invalidated by the evidence does not mean that this is evidence for natural origins -- it could be some other form of creation, or it could be some form of panspermia spread throughout the universe, taking root where it finds fertile soil.
quote:
Do you mean we should choose second best theories instead?
Leave that up to the majority of the country. Your opinion of best, may be your own.
Are you saying we should vote on which scientific theories are valid? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?
This is the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity. Would the popular vote have chosen Gallileo over geocentrism? Einstein over Newton? Can ignorant people make informed decisions on what is valid in science? Or do we limit the vote to those people educated enough in the sciences in question to make informed decisions? Where do you draw the line? How does that help determine the rational validity of the theories involved? Shall we vote on whether there will be more hurricanes this summer than last?
What is best is what gives the best results, my opinion has nothing to do with it. Take flu vaccine: the new vaccines are tested and the best ones are selected based on their results -- would you choose one of the others (say last years vaccine) because it was popular?
How does popularity relate to truth?
quote:
If you are looking for knowledge outside the natural world then you are looking for philosophy, mysticism and the like, and not science.
I know.
Do you? Then why say that science should "deal with more than just our natural world" when that is outside the realms of science? Or are you recanting again?
quote:
you have betrayed a lack of knowledge of what science really is and what it's natural limits are,
Thats what you think.
No, it's an observation, based on what you have posted and what I have pointed out as the errors in your thinking of what science really is and what it's natural limits are.
Such as evolution being based on a belief that "evolution did not start from creatures that were created" -- it doesn't, you stated it does, you are in error. Such as science being subject to popular opinion for validity -- it isn't, you said it should be, you are in error. Such as saying that science "would have to deal with more than just our natural world" -- it can't, you stated that it should, you are in error.
Please notice the connected dots.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*30*2006 10:32 AM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by simple, posted 04-30-2006 12:22 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 2:18 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 839 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 77 (308341)
05-01-2006 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by simple
05-01-2006 2:18 AM


Let's try again to answer the questions ...
The stuff taught in foreign schools you don't like?
Please try to stick to the discussion. This is about your opinion not mine - I'm just trying to clarify your opinion here.
I would think it has some knowledge, like the stuff taught in your country.
I would think everything taught in schools has "some knowledge" so this doesn't really add information. You still didn't answer the question.
relative, msg 12 writes:
I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about.
RAZD, msg 14 writes:
Unless one is worried about increasing knowledge.
relative, msg 15 writes:
Science increases certain knowledge, not all.
RAZD, msg 18 writes:
We are talking about knowledge, eh? Not science fiction, not fantasy, not "what if" stories right?
relative, msg 20 writes:
Sometimes these things are confused.
RAZD, msg 22 writes:
Are we talking about knowledge, yes or no? It's a simple question.
But I'll take this as a "yes" (please correct me if this is an error), just so we can move on.
quote:
Are you now saying that it is the knowledge gained from science that "these people have to worry about" or are you avoiding the question again?
Knowledge we have covers the present. It does not cover God, or the future. I like knowledge of the present. I like knowledge of God.
But not very far, it seems. I like yellow knowledge and raspberry knowledge. Again, are you now saying that it is the knowledge gained from science that "these people have to worry about" or are we back to "I don't think it is science that these people have to worry about."
The pretended knowledge of the future men have is not science. Regardless of what you believe.
I fully agree that the pretend knowledge of the future that people have is not science. This would of course include all the pretend prophesy and things people believe that have no foundation in the real world. People who base their vision of what the future holds on beliefs and ignorance rather than observations and the testing of theories is most certainly not science and most likely rather pointless if not counterproductive, or even dangerous.
quote:
What other forms of knowledge (other than that derived from math, logic and science) can be verified?
Belief in God is verified by many, they feel. Simply doubting it doesn't make it go away.
(1) I don't doubt that every single person that believes in god feels that it is verified, for every religion, sect, what have you. Otherwise they wouldn't believe eh?
The problem that I have with this being verified knowledge is that different religions contradict other religions - even ones from very close forms of belief. Feelings aren't enough to verify knowledge, or we would still feel that the sun orbits a flat young earth.
(2) Please demonstrate that your personal feeling regarding your belief in god is exactly matched by someone else's personal feeling regarding their belief in god. Perhaps you would care to participate in a double blind experiment to evaluate this aspect of religious belief?
If this feeling of verification was sufficient to validate a religion then there should only be one religion, yes? (or no?).
(3) It is possible to have a "religious experience" induced by purely electro-chemical stimulation of various parts of the brain (see The God Helmet"), so having such an experience does not necessarily mean that the experience was a reflection of reality.
(4) How is it verified? Can you verify that two religious experiences by the same person would involve the same god?
It is more certain than some other areas of knowledge.
{sigh} ... then there should only be one religion, yes? (or no?). Then there should be no need for religion in school, yes? (or no?). Or are we talking about "other areas of knowledge" that are inconsequential.
Also please notice the contradiction of this statement with
Knowledge we have covers the present. It does not cover God,
Knowledge does not cover god, but knowledge {of\about\involving} god is more certain than other areas of knowledge.
Godless knowledge is better not increased.
What is "godless knowledge" as opposed to general knowledge? Is 2+2=4 "godless" because it doesn't include god in the equation? Is {the sky appears blue to the human eye because (a) long wavelengths of light are absorbed in the atmosphere and re-radiated in random directions, and (b) the eye only sees three basic colors (why we think there are three "primary" colors), one of which receives blue light wavelengths better than others} "godless knowledge" because it does not include god in the explanation?
WOMD knowledge is better not increased.
Has knowledge of WOMD killed anyone? Has knowledge of how to make WOMD killed anyone?
I'll assume you are also for strict absolute gun control on the same grounds, just for logical consistency.
Can you differentiate between the knowledge of how to make a pathogenic virus and how to stop a pathogenic virus? Should we give up all the vaccines and medications because the knowledge of how to make them also involves the knowledge of how to make more deadly viruses and bacteria, etc.?
Can you differentiate between the knowledge of how to make a nuclear reactor from how to make a nuclear bomb? The knowledge of how to make a dirty bomb and how to prevent another Chernobyl disaster?.
Standards? I am with those who allow Jesus and prayer in schools, and to hell with those that don't like it.
So we should drop a nuclear bomb on anyone who doesn't like it? (Of course those "standards" would also involve condemning or chastising those who use profanity gratuitously eh?)
Now, I'm also "with" those who allow anyone to have their children go to religious schools if that is what they want. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell parents which religious school to send their kids to, as that is their decision.
quote:
belief - the earth is ~10 thousand years old
anti-belief - the observed evidence that the earth is 4.5+ billions of years old.
The past, as some are now starting to understand was nothing like the present, and no present laws apply there.
Denial of evidence does not make the evidence go away. There is no evidence of any significant changes in the operation of the natural behavior of planets, time, life, etc. There is evidence of continuity of behavior in correlations between different areas of science.
Perhaps you could show some evidence for where precisely in the geographic record things changed from {life as we know it} to {something completely different} (and NOT Monty Phython).
For your dating to work, those laws would have to apply. You have no clue if the past was totally different,
Actually you are wrong again. For the past to be substantially different there would be significant problems in a number of systems, such as the decay of radioactive elements, that would make the world uninhabitable (think of 4.5 billion years of decay happening in 10,000 years, and remember that decay is an expotential decay curve - every half life you compress doubles the radiation you have to "dispose" of) ... talk about WOMD.
...as the bible indicates, or not. All you might offer is belief to suggest otherwise.
And yet all you offer is belief and denial of evidence, rather than any kind of substantiation for your assertions. Don't you think it is a very weak argument to say "this is my belief so all you have against it is your belief" (while going "la la la" with your eyes and ears covered whenever evidence is presented)?
Please read Radiometric Dating -
A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
quote:
See The Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III thread for more information and to discuss this one further (it would be off topic here).
No thanks. The forum there is a science forum, and the deck on this forum is stacked. Maybe if it was in the coffee house.
Oh please. After all the bold assertion of knowledge and how the past was "different" etc -- as soon as you are asked to actually substantiate it you go running away crying "mommy they don't play fair on that forum, they ask for evidence instead of just belief" ...?
Tell you what: try this -- {Age Correlations, step by step} -- a new thread in 'coffeehouse' just for you.
quote:
Stop equivocating. The question was what part of science are beliefs? You still have not answered that question with any valid specifics. If you want me to connect your dots you have to put some out there.
All parts of science that you try to apply to the future are beliefs.
Still equivocating. Now you are only talking about science that applies to the future? Sorry, that doesn't cut it either, and here's why: Science involves several elements, observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, revisions = new cycle of observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing ... it is a never ending cycle, and part of that cycle is predictions about what future results will involve.
This is not belief, it is logic -- IF {A} is true THEN {B} will happen and {C} will NOT happen.
Science is willing and able to wait for the results to see if theory {A} is invalidated by future observations, but until then it operates on the observation and accumulated evidence that such invalidation has not occurred yet so {A} is tentatively accepted as valid as long as {B} keeps happening and {C} does not happen -- because the evidence points that way.
I suppose that the science that develops vaccines for various flus based on predictions of which strains will become more virulent this year are only beliefs and will have absolutely no effect on the flu when it does spread.
quote:
What the evidence shows is that as far back as we can determine there is a clear general progression of life from one form to another, and that the earliest life forms known were bacteria like. This is not a belief but an observation based on the evidence. This still starts with life evolving into life.
Not true. All we have is a record of what died and fossilized. Not any indication all creatures evolved from 'lower' life forms. That is your interpretaion I in no way share, as do not millions of others.
Another appeal to popularity logical fallacy (or are you saying that millions of others do not share your interpretation?). How many people believe the sun orbits around the earth has no bearing on the actual physical orbits of the solar system.
We have a record of "what died and fossilized" and also of when and where it fossilized. Assembling the record of "what died and fossilized" in the chronology and geography of when and where shows a general progression of life from one form to another, and that the earliest life forms known were bacteria like.
Denial does not make the evidence go away.
quote:
What we know is that 4.5 billion years ago there was no life on this planet, but somewhere between then and 3.87 billion years ago life appeared.
We know nothing of the sort. The past was different, and all your assumptions are wrong on dates, sorry to break the news.
What news? All you have presented is the assertion that there was some magical difference that makes your mythology all better, but not one iota of evidence, not one hypothesis of how or when this magical transformation occurred.
If you are going to make this assertion with any kind of validity you will have to tackle the age dating correlations.
quote:
What the evidence shows is that the first life 3.87 + billion years ago was bacteria like, and did not include fish, reptiles and mammals.
The life was here at that time. It just was in Eden. That's why it isn't found worldwide. Just certain creatures and plants were made for the earth at large.
The pattern of life evolving in gradual steps is world wide. From The Evolution of Mammals as just one example:
The first mammal may never be known, but the Genus Morganucodon and in particular Morganucodon watsoni, a 2-3 cm (1 inch) long weasel-like animal whose fossils were first found in caves in Wales and around Bristol (UK), but later unearthed in China, India , North America, South Africa and Western Europe is a possible contender. It is believed to be between 200 MYA and 210 MYA. However Gondwanadon tapani reported from India on the basis of a single tooth in 1994 may be an earlier contender for the title, with a claimed date of 225 MYA.
This is, of course, long after the first animal crawled out of the sea on stumpy jointed fins.
Man is only 3-5 million years old, if you include the early hominidae. If you only accept modern man (Homo sapiens) then you are stuck with only 200,000 years old.
quote:
Are you saying we should vote on which scientific theories are valid? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?
Yes. The majority should have sway in matters of belief.
Why? Not that I care what you vote on in your church about your beliefs -- of course you do vote on what your beliefs should be in church right? -- but on what do you base this assertion? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?
You believe the past was the same as now, but you can't call it science.
No, the evidence shows the same kinds of {physical\geological\chemical} behaviors, biological and chronological trends, in the past as we see today. There is no evidence that it was different rates, behaviors or trends at any time in the past.
The evidence works both ways.
Then demonstrate how the evidence points to what you say instead of just repeating your unsubstantiated assertions as if they had validity rather than just being puffed air. You can claim that the evidence shows that the sun orbits around the earth, but unless you demonstrate how the evidence shows that, your claim is nothing but (transparent) hot air.
Beyond the present, lies just belief.
So yesterday is a belief?
Let the majority belief be in the schools.
Let truth be in the schools. The best truth we can ascertain with all the abilities that we have at our disposal.
But once again you didn't answer the rest of the question -- "Are you saying we should vote on which scientific theories are valid? How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?" -- so:
"How does that increase their logical validity? How does that "add value" to the process?"
How does that ensure that it is the truth?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by simple, posted 05-01-2006 2:18 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by simple, posted 05-02-2006 12:14 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 839 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 77 (308504)
05-02-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by simple
05-02-2006 12:14 AM


Re: Let's try again to answer the questions ...
I noticed that you responded to the {Age Correlations, step by step}. If you agree we can move that to the {Great Debate} forum and waive the "rules" of the science forums.
This post is too long, I'll cut it off here.
It is long because you refuse to {answer\clarify\resolve} issues with your assertions in previous posts while continually adding new assertions.
If we can {answer\clarify\resolve} those old issues then we can move on to new ones without more clutter.
Says who? This is about what it is about, not what you dictate.
It is about you supporting and defending your arguments rather than make reckless statement after reckless statement.
Of course, if you won't defend your arguments after they have been shown to be erroneous, or after serious problems with them have been pointed out, that is your choice - it leaves your arguments in a "refuted until new defense provided" status.
The only other logical conclusion is that you can't defend your assertions, rather than won't. Your choice.
Take it as chop suey if you want. I'll take it that the question if there ever was one was vague.
I'll take it that every single undefended (reckless) assertion your have made that has been {criticized\critiqued\refuted} is in a "refuted until new defense provided" status. Not because I am mean spirited or callous, but because you have abandoned the (reckless) assertions that you have not defended.
Great, so next time they say our galaxy will crash into another,
I know of no scientific prediction that our galaxy will "crash" into another - can you give me an instance of this? Which galaxy and at what future time would also be welcome. Otherwise this is just speculation that you are equating (falsely) with science.
... or the sun burn out one day ...
That is a scientific prediction based on the amount of Hydrogen in the sun, as are the stages that the sun would go through before then. Those predictions are based on observations of other stars similar in size and composition to the sun. It is also not anything we need to worry about for several millennia.
I like real prophesy, like in the bible. It is so much better than ignorance and beliefs. It is so right on, and 100 % true so far, that there isn't hardly any belief required. More like history.
Another reckless statement? Strangely I am unaware of a single significant prediction of any consequence. Perhaps someone of your expertise could provide an example of a prediction that {X} will happen at {Y} time and location, and then show me that this specific {X} indeed did happen in {Y} time and location?
Remember that you think I have trouble connecting the dots, so I will need direct correlations of {X} in one to {X} in the other and of {Y} in one to {Y} in the other.
Great, eh?
I don't know much about religion, so you'll have to work through your own problems.
Does this mean you are not an expert on prophesy and thus cannot provide the example requested above?
I also notice that you did not address the issue of conflicts between different faiths. Equivocating on the term "religion" doesn't answer the question on these conflicts.
My personal feelings have nothing to do with it. It is the word of God, and the huge limits of science that give me authority.
In other words you cannot demonstrate that two people - even of the same faith - are talking about the same god no matter how much they think they are.
So what? Are you insinuating most men are mad?
Nope. Delusional at best, and only those who are irrational, such as those that believe that the earth is flat and the sun orbits around it. Such as those that ignore and deny evidence that is available. If what you believe is contradicted by evidence it is irrational to continue to believe it. If you continue to believe it in spite of the evidence then you are being irrational.
Belief is religion. Projecting present science in the past or future is belief.
Nope. As already demonstrated before (are you ignoring the evidence? Or is this just where you stopped reading?) science involves predictions and testing:
RAZD, msg 25 writes:
Science involves several elements, observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, revisions = new cycle of observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing ... it is a never ending cycle, and part of that cycle is predictions about what future results will involve.
This is not belief, it is logic -- IF {A} is true THEN {B} will happen and {C} will NOT happen.
Science is willing and able to wait for the results to see if theory {A} is invalidated by future observations, but until then it operates on the observation and accumulated evidence that such invalidation has not occurred yet so {A} is tentatively accepted as valid as long as {B} keeps happening and {C} does not happen -- because the evidence points that way.
It doesn't matter whether that prediction is about what happened in the past or what may happen in the future, theory {A} is tentatively accepted as valid as long as {B} keeps happening and {C} does not happen -- because the evidence points that way.
Belief would mean believing a theory is still true after it has been invalidated. Science doesn't do that.
There was no radioactive decay in the past. There will be none in the fiuture. The daughter material you see you think decayed was already there, as the decay process began thousands of years ago. It never got there by decay, and of course we know it now does. But the process itself changed, it never used to be a decay process at all.
More reckless assertions. You really should have read Radiometric Dating -
A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
. Even just the intro and overview sections.
There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.
Ignoring the evidence, denial of the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.
There is no evidence of any change in the radioactive decay of elements. The ratio of parent to daughter elements and isotopes gives the same age for the earth for several different dating systems. Either we have radioactive decay operating in the past in the same way as today or we have God=Loki.
This post is too long, I'll cut it off here.
Conveniently so you don't have to defend any other reckless statements?
Just remember that I'll take it that every single undefended (reckless) assertion your have made that has been {criticized\critiqued\refuted} is in a "refuted until new defense provided" status.
This applies to the rest of the post that you skip here -- because you have abandoned the (reckless) assertions that you have not defended.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by simple, posted 05-02-2006 12:14 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by simple, posted 06-03-2006 9:50 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 34 by lfen, posted 06-03-2006 10:06 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 839 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 77 (318129)
06-05-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by lfen
06-03-2006 10:28 PM


Re: [uh oh is simple back?]
I never knew about that extremely handy feature. Thanks!
Yes it's a cutie. You call also click on the {PROFILE} button to see the whole list:
14gipper
arkathon
cosmo
cuddles
relative
sciguy
simple
sounder
You can also click on the name and you will get a list of the sites where the person has been posting. You can get an idea of their interests from the list, and also of their relative responsiveness by the number of "yes"es for responses unanswered.
banned for his reliance on last thursdayism?
Maybe every thursday he is reincarnated ...?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by lfen, posted 06-03-2006 10:28 PM lfen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022