|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The King James version is four hundred years old. They had the same sunlight and moonlight and lamplight then as the ancient Hebrew authors had. They did not know about "light" beyond the visible spectrum.
Every language that has been translated into English has had our modern English imposed upon them. ICANT writes:
No, I did not write that.
ringo writes:
quote: ICANT writes:
It is the residual radiation from the Big Bang. It is NOT what the ancient Hebrews would have called "light".
This light is the residual heat of creation.Which verifies there was a light period in which the universe began to exist. ICANT writes:
Science concludes this supports the Big Bang. Your dissenting opinion has no value. You might as well disagree with a pilot about aerodynamics.
Science assumes this supports the BBT.I say it supports the Hebrew text of the Torah that was written 3800 years ago. ICANT writes:
It's unlikely that all of science will be thrown away in favour of your uninformed opinion.
ringo writes:
Then when it is understood my version may be the correct one. I said that the event of its "beginning" is not fully understood ICANT writes:
There is no logic in that. "Existence" is not a thing; it's a property.
Logically speaking if there is non existence no thing could begin to exist. ICANT writes:
So you were being dishonest. You did know that the Big Bang has been called a theory and/or a hypothesis.
I did google for it being called a hypothesis. There are a couple of hundred scientist and engineers that don't even believe it is a decent hypothesis. But most scientist believe and accept it as a theory. ICANT writes:
I haven't said what I accept.
Now if you only accept it as a hypothesis.... ICANT writes:
You are not remotely near qualified to talk about holes in the Big Bang theory/hypothesis.
Any other theory that had as many holes in it as the BBT... ICANT writes:
Nonsense. Science doesn't just discard explantions that are incomplete. It modifies them and/or replaces them when better explanations are found. ... would have been discarded a long time ago.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Son of man writes:
You contradict yourself. If scientists want to be the first to discover something, they're quick to criticize what other scientists discover. They're more likely to look for the flaws in the other guy's work than to jump on the band wagon and give him undue credit. ... scientist observe and mainly see what they are looking for biased on a theory they have, wanting to be the first to see it.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
"Search for the truth" is too broad.
If science is not a search for the truth then what is it?1. A "search" can use any means, such as prayer, meditation, etc. Science uses a specific method. 2. A "search" often implies a process that ends when the destination is reached. Science is an ongoing process with no ultimate destination. 3. "The truth" can be seen as an absolute. What science finds can always be improved/amended.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If the amendment is based on fact, the belief is no longer a belief. If it is not based on fact, it's just another belief; one is as good as another. One could argue that our personal belief could also be improved/amended.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I explained it. Read my post.
Why is a search for the truth too broad? ICANT writes:
In science, truth is not the goal. If something is "true" - i.e. if it is supported by evidence - it can be used for further study. For example, it is true that radioactive decay rates do not change; that truth can be used as an "assumption" to accurately measure ages.
I thought truth was all that really mattered. ICANT writes:
No. That is not how science looks at truth at all. You can have a few untruths here and there without the whole edifice falling down - just like you can take a couple of studs out of a wall to put in a door without the whole house coming down.
But if it is not the truth it is false regardless of how much truth is scattered in it. ICANT writes:
No it isn't. Truth is an absolute.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
There is no such thing as "the truth". Religion thinks there is - and thousands of different sects all think that they have found it, so they stop looking. That's the opposite of science. So are you saying that the goal is simply further study? How is that different than attempting to find the truth?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
No. Anything found through prayer and meditation is unreliable unless it can be verified objectively. We know that because "truths" found through prayer and meditation vary widely among different groups of believers.
You believe that truth can not be found in prayer and meditation so anything found would be untrue. ICANT writes:
How can you know when "the truth" has been reached?
#2 A search for the truth ends when the truth is reached. ICANT writes:
Our understanding of facts can change. At one time, Newtonian physics was considered to be "the truth" but now we know it isn't the whole truth. It would be foolish to pretend that what we know about physics today is the whole truth.
Is something is true it is a fact, and facts don't change. ICANT writes:
As I have said, an "assumption" in science is a fact that has been verified in another context. The example I gave was radioactive decay. We do not have to verify it as fact every single time we measure the age of a rock or a bone because it has been verified as fact multiple dimes in different contexts.
That truth is a fact that can not be changed it is not an assumption. Facts in science can not change only the assumptions that scientist make can be changed. ICANT writes:
It doesn't matter how many parts are "wrong". As long as it's the best explanation, it's the best explanation.
How many parts of the Big Bang Theory has to be wrong before scientist will agree it is not the best explanation for the observations? ICANT writes:
You're misrepresenting what I said. Here's the whole quote:
From Message 1367 3. "The truth" can be seen as an absolute. Either truth is absolute or it is not it can not be both.quote:Science doesn't search for absolute truth because it isn't possible to know when we've found it. And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Objective evidence. Apologists have all kinds of excuses for why it doesn't work.
How do you know whether anything can or can not happen because of prayer? ICANT writes:
But you claimed that there is such a thing as absolute truth. To reach absolute truth, you'd need to have ALL of the facts, not just some facts. How can you know when you have all of the facts?
ringo writes:
When you have facts that supports the theory. How can you know when "the truth" has been reached? ICANT writes:
For all intents and purposes, facts ARE what is believed to be true at any given time. We can not be sure that a "fact" will never change.
Facts do not change ever. What you believe to be true is what changes not the facts. ICANT writes:
Nothing is indisputable.
A fact is a thing that is indisputably true. ICANT writes:
The best explanation IS the best explanation. It may well turn out to not be "true" - Newtonian physics, for example.
If it is not true it is not the best explanation. ICANT writes:
Again, you should read what I write instead of just making it up in your head. I said, "Science doesn't search for absolute truth because it isn't possible to know when we've found it." How can you determine when "absolute truth" has been found? Are you telling me that it is not a fact that the universe exists?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
ICANT does. He says he has reached absolute truth. How can he possibly know a destination exists if he hasn't been there?
And who says we have to "reach" absolute truth? Phat writes:
Are moving destinations anything like moving goalposts?
Perhaps absolute truth reaches us. Phat writes:
What about ANY facts?
You won't make a move until all of the facts are in. Phat writes:
I'm satisfied to wait until a bridge exists before I try to cross it. A "leap of faith" my be inspiring in some situations but in most situations it's just plain stupid. Are you satisfied to simply wait?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
The reason there is no objective evidence is because it would be impossible to establish a clear cause-effect link between the prayer and the event.
Please give me what you would consider objective evidence of an answered prayer. ICANT writes:
Unless you can be 100% sure that you're not hallucinating this entire conversation, you have no "absolute truth".
I believe we have all the facts we need to prove the universe exists. What other facts would we need for it to be an absolute truth? ICANT writes:
On two separate occasions I have seen two moons in the sky at the same time, so I don't trust eyewitness testimony - even if it's my own.
It is an absolute truth that building exists as I have seen it. ICANT writes:
Of course I do, just like I disagree that two moons are an absolute truth.
Do you disagree that the White House's existence is an absolute truth? ICANT writes:
Existence is not a thing. It's property of things.
Existence is a fact. Non existence is not a fact because there is existence. ICANT writes:
You could be hallucinating this entire conversation.
The universe exists. Dispute that. ICANT writes:
Of course it was. It was the best explanation at the time. Walking was the best form of transportation that we had until we discovered better ones.
And since it turned out to be false it was not the best explanation. ICANT writes:
Nonsense. Newton was neither misinformed nor deluded.
Misinformed, and deluded people just believed it and had faith it was the best explanation. ICANT writes:
There's a difference between scientific fact and absolute truth. Scientific fact is the best information that we have at any given time. Absolute truth is unattainable because time keeps moving forward and we keep adding new information. Are you telling me that the universe existing is not a scientific fact?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Or you might be hallucinating. Everyone of these things absolutely exist making it an absolute truth they exist I can see them, touch them, and feel them.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
If one of us could be hallucinating, it could be you.
If anyone is hallucinating it is ringo. ICANT writes:
I'm deliberately not swallowing your nonsense without questioning it. Do you have an honest response? Are you that stupid or are you deliberately being that obtuse.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
When there is no evidence, the default position is false - i.e unless there is evidence pointing to a cause-effect relationship between prayer and _______, we can not conclude that prayer is effective.
So you have no parameters that would make it true or false so you have nothing to base an opinion on. ICANT writes:
Mental illness is another possibility. The person who is hallucinating is the last one to be qualified to determine whether he is hallucinating or not.
I am not drinking nor am I using any hallucinating drugs so I am not hallucinating. ICANT writes:
So what? Only one is visible to the naked eye. I said I SAW two at once.
There are 181 moons in our solar system so what? ICANT writes:
You're being illiterate. Read what I wrote.
So the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 does not exist and the 181 moons in our solar system does not exist because you disagree that two moons are an absolute truth. You are deliberately being obtuse. ICANT writes:
Existence is a property of things that exist.
Existence is a state of being in which the universe and everything in it exists. ICANT writes:
That's what I'm telling you. You don't seem to be fooling anybody on this forum except Phat.
Just because you are in a chaotic stupor does not mean that every body else is hallucinating. ICANT writes:
Of course it does. It's the best explanation until if and when a better one comes along. The Empire State Building was the tallest building until a taller one was built.
Just because something is the best explanation at the time presented does not mean it is the best explanation. ICANT writes:
He wasn't "wrong" per se. His understanding was incomplete because he didn't have the information that was found later.
ringo writes:
Then why was he wrong? Newton was neither misinformed nor deluded. ICANT writes:
Dictionary definitions are for schoolboys.
1. Fact" a thing that is indisputably the case. Google search fact definition. ICANT writes:
Correct. There's nothing there about it being "indisputable" or absolute.
Scientific definition.6. Fact: A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence. ICANT writes:
Correct. So why do you keep disputing that?
7. Scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final ICANT writes:
Who said it was "better" than a hypothesis? Why should it be? So a scientific fact has no certain or fixed; provisional making it no better than a hypothesis.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Your story doesn't address Tanypteryx's point at all.
And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That can't be right. He has used examples that have nothing to do with God. I think it's plain that he just doesn't understand what absolute means. My analogy was meant to show what I believe the motive is for ICANT even arguing. His aim is not to reinvent science. His aim is to convince you that God is the one exception to the rule that there is no absolute truth.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024