Site Notices
10/30/2014 3:55:04 PM
Page:  / 2
Next Page  
Author
Message
Strongbow
Member
Offline
Posts: 9929
Feedback: 100% (18)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/7/2012 8:09:24 AM
[Last Edit: 3/7/2012 8:11:02 AM by Strongbow]
Originally Posted By JoseyWales:
Originally Posted By wyager:
Originally Posted By JoseyWales:

Remember...the scientific method only disproves negatives. It never affirms a positive.


Care to explain? I'm pretty sure that's not the case.


I am pretty sure your wrong. Actually, I will be willing to wager my minor in mathematics. All science is based on statistical observations (at least any modern valid science). Statistics are based on observational data. All statistics are performed on the basis of rejecting a null-hypothesis. Look it up. Wiki probably has an amateur explanation that leaves out overly technical info.


Sceince can most certainly prove positives. I can prove that a particular object has mass. I can prove that a specific electron has a negative charge, etc, ad infinitum.

Also, a "Scientific Law" isn't what you think it is.
Strongbow
Member
Offline
Posts: 9930
Feedback: 100% (18)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/7/2012 8:12:46 AM
Originally Posted By rvbrewer625:
I think you have missed my point... so I will copy and paste

"Yes, they can determine its age to a high degree of confidence."

Which sounds pretty close to: the educated guesstimate is close enough that I feel comfortable with it.
The assumption we speak of isn't the rate of uranium decay to lead, its how much uranium and how much lead. Which is where you get the age range and not a hard date. I didn't say these values were anywhere close, only that an assumption is in play. As a general rule a young earth creationist questions many assumptions over the range of sciences. A small ones being carbon dated diamonds, macro vs. micro evolution, irreducible complexity. These prove nothing only raises questions. For a creationist that's a large question, for an atheist probably a fairly small one. This was the point I was trying to make. The different sides put there "high degree of confidence" on opposite things. This canyon can't be jumped and since we are dealing with assumptions I would say people should simply agree to disagree. That's all I'm driving at.


Irreducible complaxity isn't a "question," It's an argument from ignornace. It's the assertion that if you do not know how something happened, then it cannot have happened.
fatalerror113
if only in my mind
Offline
Posts: 14331
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/7/2012 9:50:42 AM

Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By JoseyWales:
Originally Posted By wyager:
Originally Posted By JoseyWales:

Remember...the scientific method only disproves negatives. It never affirms a positive.


Care to explain? I'm pretty sure that's not the case.


I am pretty sure your wrong. Actually, I will be willing to wager my minor in mathematics. All science is based on statistical observations (at least any modern valid science). Statistics are based on observational data. All statistics are performed on the basis of rejecting a null-hypothesis. Look it up. Wiki probably has an amateur explanation that leaves out overly technical info.


Sceince can most certainly prove positives. I can prove that a particular object has mass. I can prove that a specific electron has a negative charge, etc, ad infinitum.

Also, a "Scientific Law" isn't what you think it is.

Yep. The practical difference to between showing something is likely true to a high confidence level (aka, many standard deviations away from the null hypothesis) and proving it is what?

Oh that's right, noting.

I think the problem is Mr. Wales is a math major, and he is used to "proofs" that are absolute. In reality things aren't so closed ended. In science, the court of law and colloquial english, something is "proven" when the preponderance of the evidence suggests its true.
"Well, I was lost but now I live here."
CasualObserver
It was long ago, and it was far away...
Offline
Posts: 5705
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/7/2012 10:19:16 AM
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By phlat:

Originally Posted By ceverett:
I don't use science. I use the bible.

Some people are open to having their minds changed. Some aren't.

Many people just haven't really thought about it, and were taken by their parents to Sunday school where it was taught.

I'm reminded of the West Wing bible quote scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALd6xCvZgpc




That scene was an exercise in mental masturbation by the writers of that show - akin to some of the creationist drivel, but from the left. It was theologically weak and showed horrible ignorance of most schools of Christian theology.



Yeah, but it was still funny if you don't care.
I'm not one of you, Skippy. Nor am I one of them. I'm just a casual observer, the effete snob upon the hill with the fine wine and the opera glasses, gazing down upon your little battlefield and looking alternately aghast and bemused.
fatalerror113
if only in my mind
Offline
Posts: 14332
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/7/2012 12:03:51 PM

Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By phlat:

Originally Posted By ceverett:
I don't use science. I use the bible.

Some people are open to having their minds changed. Some aren't.

Many people just haven't really thought about it, and were taken by their parents to Sunday school where it was taught.

I'm reminded of the West Wing bible quote scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALd6xCvZgpc




That scene was an exercise in mental masturbation by the writers of that show - akin to some of the creationist drivel, but from the left. It was theologically weak and showed horrible ignorance of most schools of Christian theology.



Yeah, but it was still funny if you don't care.

Its funny that people love to quote the Koran saying "This is what it says, its in black and white, you can't dispute it."

But then when someone quotes the bible they say "you must understand the theology behind it" Apparently the black and white isn't good enough...no, then context is important.
"Well, I was lost but now I live here."
Bohr_Adam
Caliphate Sleeper Agent
NRAMilitary
Online
Posts: 49166
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 3/7/2012 12:13:08 PM
Originally Posted By fatalerror113:

Originally Posted By CasualObserver:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By phlat:

Originally Posted By ceverett:
I don't use science. I use the bible.

Some people are open to having their minds changed. Some aren't.

Many people just haven't really thought about it, and were taken by their parents to Sunday school where it was taught.

I'm reminded of the West Wing bible quote scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALd6xCvZgpc




That scene was an exercise in mental masturbation by the writers of that show - akin to some of the creationist drivel, but from the left. It was theologically weak and showed horrible ignorance of most schools of Christian theology.



Yeah, but it was still funny if you don't care.

Its funny that people love to quote the Koran saying "This is what it says, its in black and white, you can't dispute it."

But then when someone quotes the bible they say "you must understand the theology behind it" Apparently the black and white isn't good enough...no, then context is important.


Indeed. We see that all the time here - that is a massive double standard here. However, they are both bullshit, and both need to be called out for the distortions they are.

That little piece of script was intended to show how inconsistent "Christians" in general are. Strawman arguments are even easier when you can literally write the argument of the strawman into a script.
"idiots like jesus are why we have so many stupid gun laws"
- 1911greg

"I slather them with Ambrosia custard and RELEASE THE HOMOGAY upon their well fed rumps."
- Cromlech
WyoGal
Member
Offline
Posts: 7
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2012 8:00:21 PM
Go pick up the book "Evolution Cruncher"

After reading it, you may find that you have lost the argument before it starts ;) There are thousands of scientific discovers that point to a young earth, that book is and encyclodpia which lists them all. In order to debate with someone, you have to first understand their views and the evidence behind it. Many young earth believers simply believe what they do because the bible says so, others believe it because of the scientific evidence supports it. As I said... before you write me off as a religious nut, atleast be willing to look at the text and examine the evidence in support of it.

Orrr if you'd like to have a debate sometime on one of these threads I'd be happy to have one with you. However, if we do do something of the sort, Arfcommers have to realize I am only ONE person and I cant address 1,000's of posts a day by myself... So it would have to be contained within some reason :)
"The slack hand impoverishes, but the hand of the diligent enriches."
- Proverbs 10:1
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Offline
Posts: 10724
Feedback: 100% (18)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/19/2012 8:38:59 PM
Originally Posted By WyoGal:
Go pick up the book "Evolution Cruncher"

After reading it, you may find that you have lost the argument before it starts ;) There are thousands of scientific discovers that point to a young earth, that book is and encyclodpia which lists them all. In order to debate with someone, you have to first understand their views and the evidence behind it. Many young earth believers simply believe what they do because the bible says so, others believe it because of the scientific evidence supports it. As I said... before you write me off as a religious nut, atleast be willing to look at the text and examine the evidence in support of it.

Orrr if you'd like to have a debate sometime on one of these threads I'd be happy to have one with you. However, if we do do something of the sort, Arfcommers have to realize I am only ONE person and I cant address 1,000's of posts a day by myself... So it would have to be contained within some reason :)


How old do you think the Earth is?
brickeyee
Member
Offline
Posts: 9856
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/20/2012 12:41:51 PM
Originally Posted By WyoGal:
Go pick up the book "Evolution Cruncher"

After reading it, you may find that you have lost the argument before it starts

Orrr if you'd like to have a debate sometime on one of these threads I'd be happy to have one with you. However, if we do do something of the sort, Arfcommers have to realize I am only ONE person and I cant address 1,000's of posts a day by myself... So it would have to be contained within some reason :)


Or you can drop the BS pseudo science.



outofstep
Offline
Posts: 1171
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/22/2012 8:13:56 PM
I dont.

That's kinda like asking why I don't shove needles in my eyes.

Sometimes you just walk away.
ARinKCMO
"The truth is...."
Offline
Posts: 10174
Feedback: 100% (3)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/22/2012 8:29:00 PM
what's odd, is I have a couple friends that are Young Earthers. Yet, they are some of the smartest, logical people I know.

Now, I'm an atheist, and one of the types that doesn't give a shit at all about religion, and therefor, I never bring it up. But one day way back, we were all sitting around talking about something, and that eventually led to a talk about one of the angels or something. And that's when it came out that they were YE people. Total mind job. I had them pegged as fellow atheists, or at least agnostics. But no! One of the wackiest christian based religions.....never woulda thought.
Member: NRA, USPSA
BF3 on PC: Kamicosmos
Strongbow
A Boxer-Henry .45 caliber miracle
Offline
Posts: 10843
Feedback: 100% (18)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/23/2012 12:46:34 PM
Originally Posted By ARinKCMO:
what's odd, is I have a couple friends that are Young Earthers. Yet, they are some of the smartest, logical people I know.

Now, I'm an atheist, and one of the types that doesn't give a shit at all about religion, and therefor, I never bring it up. But one day way back, we were all sitting around talking about something, and that eventually led to a talk about one of the angels or something. And that's when it came out that they were YE people. Total mind job. I had them pegged as fellow atheists, or at least agnostics. But no! One of the wackiest christian based religions.....never woulda thought.


Most of the most vocal young earthers I have known have been fairly bright, and that's part of the problem. They are bright enough to construct an argument that seems reasonable to them. They know just enough to convince themselves. They have this view backed up by psuedoscientists like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. In my experience, they get almost all their geology and biology from the apologetics group of their choice (ICR or AiG, typically), and their conclusions are never challenged. They are also trusting. They believe that good "christian" men like Hovind and Ham wouldn't deceive them by cherry picking data or distorting facts. They are wrong. Men like Hovind and Ham are professional liars.
Arnold1776
Offline
Posts: 6
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/27/2012 4:49:40 PM
You cannot reason with brainwashed, misled people. They will have to achieve enlightenment on their own.
Protolith
Offline
Posts: 320
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/28/2012 9:01:48 PM
I like to use isotopic age dating.

The very reproducible physical constants associated with radioactive decay can be scaled depending on the isotope and its half life.

So if carbon dating is accepted for young ages, then others like K/Ar or Ar/Ar must also be valid.

Those later ones are used to demonstrate ages in minerals formed on the earth up to 4.5 billion years ago.
MauserMark
Campaign Series addict
Offline
Posts: 10569
Feedback: 100% (27)
Link To This Post
Posted: 5/5/2012 12:38:36 AM
[Last Edit: 5/5/2012 12:39:30 AM by MauserMark]
Originally Posted By Strongbow:
Originally Posted By ARinKCMO:
what's odd, is I have a couple friends that are Young Earthers. Yet, they are some of the smartest, logical people I know.

Now, I'm an atheist, and one of the types that doesn't give a shit at all about religion, and therefor, I never bring it up. But one day way back, we were all sitting around talking about something, and that eventually led to a talk about one of the angels or something. And that's when it came out that they were YE people. Total mind job. I had them pegged as fellow atheists, or at least agnostics. But no! One of the wackiest christian based religions.....never woulda thought.


Most of the most vocal young earthers I have known have been fairly bright, and that's part of the problem. They are bright enough to construct an argument that seems reasonable to them. They know just enough to convince themselves. They have this view backed up by psuedoscientists like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. In my experience, they get almost all their geology and biology from the apologetics group of their choice (ICR or AiG, typically), and their conclusions are never challenged. They are also trusting. They believe that good "christian" men like Hovind and Ham wouldn't deceive them by cherry picking data or distorting facts. They are wrong. Men like Hovind and Ham are professional liars.


I've always felt it's more about an emotion driving them to a conclusion they want, not in looking at evidence available with an open mind. There's a lot of 9/11 truthers who are professors, physicists, etc. I wouldn't doubt they'd destroy me in a math or science bowl. But they're already biased to a contorted view of the world so trutherism fits how they see the world. Young earthers are no different. Holocaust deniers are the same as well. I have no doubt David Irving is an intelligent person. He's just a bigot, plain and simple, all Holocaust Deniers I've ever known (maybe a few in my lifetime) are deep down bigots whether they want to admit it or not. Holocaust Denial fits their disturbed world view so they cherry pick like Young Earthers do with evidence, they supposedly find "holes" and so forth. Again they're not doing this because they've approached the subject with a non-biased attitude, their minds are set already.
Are you a gamer? Check out our Wargaming forum and community.
Page:  / 2
Next Page