Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 3/7/2012 4:09:24 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2012 4:12:46 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2012 5:50:42 AM EDT
[#3]



Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:



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.



 
Link Posted: 3/7/2012 6:19:16 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
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.
Link Posted: 3/7/2012 8:03:51 AM EDT
[#5]



Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:




Quoted:

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.



 
Link Posted: 3/7/2012 8:13:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
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.
Link Posted: 4/3/2012 4:00:21 PM EDT
[#7]
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 :)
Link Posted: 4/19/2012 4:38:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
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?
Link Posted: 4/20/2012 8:41:51 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
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.



Link Posted: 4/22/2012 4:13:56 PM EDT
[#10]
I dont.

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

Sometimes you just walk away.
Link Posted: 4/22/2012 4:29:00 PM EDT
[#11]
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.
Link Posted: 4/23/2012 8:46:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
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.
Link Posted: 4/27/2012 12:49:40 PM EDT
[#13]
You cannot reason with brainwashed, misled people. They will have to achieve enlightenment on their own.
Link Posted: 4/28/2012 5:01:48 PM EDT
[#14]
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.
Link Posted: 5/4/2012 8:38:36 PM EDT
[#15]
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top