|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
If I answer will you say it is an assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
No. When you believe nature on earth was the same in the past you use a preset belief. When you assume time in the far universe is the same as here, you use a belief. Be honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
dad writes: If I answer will you say it is an assertion? NoJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
I see. A default belief. OK. Do you claim beliefs default or otherwise are science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Your evidence is that you have no evidence then. OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Funny thing is that if creation started the ball rolling, we would have seen a certain percentage of ratios from the getgo. I guess that is a matter of belief, not knowing. Then, if some processes in a different nature also worked on that original ratio that would have affected it also. Then, we know our nature affected things also. Your belief is that only our nature and nothing else is the cause of all ratios we see. I hope you can see why some people view that as belief based and not really science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Well, OK then you want us to state a belief. My belief is that the dates science uses are belief based and must be rejected out of hand and whole of cloth for all dates involving billions or millions or hundreds of thousands of years. I would side with the belief that all the universe and the world is only several thousand years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
dad writes:
Why do you think that the earth and the universe it sits in then looks like it's many billions of years old? There are multiple different ways that we can show you that it's a lot older than 7,000 years; they are all different, relying on different mechanisms but all agree. I would side with the belief that all the universe and the world is only several thousand years old. There is no reasonable argument that can be used to dismiss all those observations. So if you are right and all those different sciences are wrong, the only explanation is that your god has made it appear very old even though it's very young. Why would he do that?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 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!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Your evidence is that you have no evidence then. That's right, bunkie. Puts your little mind into a tail spin doesn't it. In science, what isn't there can be just as significant as what is. Don't think too hard on that. Wouldn't want you to strain something. You still have no evidence to suggest nature changed in any way at any time. Your only reason for insisting it did, other than to make yourself look silly, is because it fits your evil religious narrative.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
So you again admit that your evidence is that you have absolutely no evidence. Interesting religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
When a question is asked about the unknown the real default is 'I don't know'. You can call your beliefs a conclusion all you like. The conclusion based on beliefs is not knowledge, fact or real science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1367 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Why? Easy. I think that the so called sates are bogus. The reasons for the dates and the basis for them is totally belief based.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Yeah, I didn't think you would comprehend my answer.
Fortunately my lack of evidence for a change in nature outweighs your lack of evidence that it did change. The only conclusion possible is that nature did not change. Have fun thinking that one through. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024