Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2017 6:27 PM
328 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 325 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,762 Year: 25,368/21,208 Month: 995/2,338 Week: 116/450 Day: 40/34 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution?
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1887 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 31 of 55 (662477)
05-16-2012 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Coyote
05-16-2012 1:28 AM


Re: Wrong again
That is absolute nonsense.
IT IS THE TRUTH. AND ALSO IS OBJECTIVE AS SCIENCE SHOULD BE.

RAZD has been trying to get you to take a look at his correlations threads, but you haven't gone there, have you? Afraid?
I'VE LOOKED. I WILL AGAIN. I MITE HAVE MISSED SOMETHING.

If you had checked those threads you'd know better than to regurgitate fundamentalist nonsense that has long since been shown to be wrong.
BUT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN RIGHT BY BEING LABELED AS A FACT AND THERE FOR TRUTH.

Your belief is getting in the way of you actually learning something.
NO WHAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY FAITH AND GOD AND HIS WORD HAS GIVEN ALL THE KNOWLEDGE I REALLY NEED. I NEED TO LEARN WHAT YOU KNOW TO KNOW WHAT?REALITY.I HAVE MY OWN.YOUR THEORIES?I DO NOT NEED THEM.HOW YOU FIND YOUR THEORIES?BY GUESSING BY WHAT YOU KNOW.I CAN DO THAT TOO.

But to relate this directly to the topic: the dating methods we are using are directly tied to empirical evidence, and have been tested against known phenomena as well as against each other, as opposed to the scripture, dogma, revelation and other squishy "evidence" you are relying on.
I RELY ON GOD AND YES HIS WORD.MY COMMON SENSE. AND NOT A EDUCATED MANS BELIEVING WHAT I SHOULD BELIEVE. AND YOUR EVIDENCE IS NOT AS EMPERICAL AS YOU THINK IT RELIES YOU TO HAVE A WITNESS AT THE PERIODS YOU DATE.YOU KNOW A 4.5 BILLION YEAR OLD? NOT TO MENTION ONE FEW HUNDRED, EMPERICAL MY SKINS.

Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 1:28 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(3)
Message 32 of 55 (662479)
05-16-2012 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 1:45 AM


Sorry
Sorry to have to tell you this, but...

Your posts show a complete lack of understanding of science and how it works, as well as an unhealthy tendency to substitute ancient tribal mythology for reality.

IVE READ HOW THEY CALCULATE DATES. THE END RESULT IS, IT IS GUESSES BY THEORY AND MODERN EVIDENCE.

"Theory and modern evidence" -- I fail to see what's wrong with that. Sure beats bronze age tribal mythology when you want to get real answers, as opposed to superstition and fairy tales.

I've done over 600 radiocarbon dates, lectured on the subject, written a monograph on the subject, and have another monograph in progress. You have no clue. You don't know how the calculate these dates, you don't know the assumptions involved and whether they are justified or not, and you don't know the corrections and calibrations that are done to make sure the dates are as accurate as possible. And it was scientists who came up with all of those corrections and calibrations in order to get better reliability and accuracy--not creationists.

You have claimed several times now that dating is "guesses" and "speculation." I'm challenging you on that one.

Go over to one of the threads that RAZD has recommended to you and support your claims, or admit that you can't do so.

It is time to put up or shut up.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 1:45 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 2:21 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1887 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 33 of 55 (662480)
05-16-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
05-15-2012 2:45 AM


Re: science approximates reality
it is only how you perceive. Perception is not limited to physical.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 2:45 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1887 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 34 of 55 (662482)
05-16-2012 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
05-16-2012 2:07 AM


Re: Sorry
Sorry to have to tell you this, but...
Your posts show a complete lack of understanding of science and how it works, as well as an unhealthy tendency to substitute ancient tribal mythology for reality.
MYTH TO YOU! LETS MAKE THAT CLEAR! UNPROVABLE! I UNDERSTAND SCIENCE VERY WELL ACTUALLY.

"Theory and modern evidence" -- I fail to see what's wrong with that. Sure beats bronze age tribal mythology when you want to get real answers, as opposed to superstition and fairy tales.
AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT SEE IT OR EXPERIENCE IT IT IS FALSE?NOTHING IS WRONG WITH IT, IF IT APPLIES IN MODERN TIMES. DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHIN GTHAT HAS HAPPENED? IF THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED YOU DO NOT KNOW CAN EFFECT EVIDENCE? IF THINGS JUST DO NOT AGE AS YOU OR ANYBODY CAN PREDICT? THESE ARE UNKOWABLE THINGS AND CAN NOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR I UNDERSTAND. BUT THIS MUST BE A FACT IN HINDSIGHT AND THAT LEADS TO ANY AND ALL PREDICTIONS TO BE LABELED UNKNOWABLE.AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have claimed several times now that dating is "guesses" and "speculation." I'm challenging you on that one.

Go over to one of the threads that RAZD has recommended to you and support your claims, or admit that you can't do so.

It is time to put up or shut up.
OK I ACCPET AND WILL SHOW!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2012 2:07 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Panda, posted 05-16-2012 5:50 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 35 of 55 (662483)
05-16-2012 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 1:45 AM


quote:

IVE READ ALOT OF REASONS WHY THEY ARE AND WHY THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE. IVE READ HOW THEY CALCULATE DATES. THE END RESULT IS, IT IS GUESSES BY THEORY AND MODERN EVIDENCE. SOME HOW YOU THINK THIS IS KNOW ALL BE ALL.

By which you mean you've read a lot of attacks on dating from highly prejudiced sources.

quote:

IT IS SPECULATION.WHAT DO I SUPPOSE TO PRODUCE?SCIENCE,EVOLUTION, AND PALENTOLOGY ALL KNOW IT IS SPECULATION.YOU MAT CONDUCT ENORMOUS EVIDENCE AND SOUND THEORIES, IT IS STILL NOT CONSIDERED AS THE TRUTH AND AT BEST JUST A PART OF TRUTH. IT IS A THEORY WITH WELL DOCUMENTED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT IS SUSPECTS TRUTH. IT IS STILL SPECULATIVE.

Then pretty much all knowledge about our physical universe is "speculative". And of course, you have no better alternative to offer. So I guess you are left with the choice of complete agnosticism or accepting science.

quote:

WHY WOULD DEITIES NEED TO DECIEVE? AND CLEARLY THE BIBLE SAID EVIL WOULD DECIEVE. I THINK MEN HAVE DECIEVED MAYBE INFLUENCED BY DEITIES BY DEITIES THEMSELVES IDK.

You were the one who invoked the supernatural. I am telling you that if the evidence our dating is based on is too great and too coherent for any supernatural explanation that does not involve intentional deception to be plausible.

quote:

THIS MOST POSSIBLY IS THE CASE. DATING IS THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE. DARWINISM'S EVOLUTION AND ITS CONTINUAL PERFECTING THEORY ITSELF IS ANOTHER. SUPERNATURAL.
THE MADNESS OF THE DEAD MAKING LIFE. EVOLVED SPECIES OR MEN AND ANIMAL HYBRIDS? I CAN GO ON AND I WILL ANOTHER TIME.

Dating is the primary evidence for WHAT ? For the age of the Earth, of course it is. That is almost redundant. The rest makes even less sense. Yes, you can go on and on, ranting about matters that you don't understand. That doesn't show any concern for finding he truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 1:45 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 3:17 AM PaulK has responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1887 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 36 of 55 (662485)
05-16-2012 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
05-16-2012 2:29 AM


NO YOU ARE THE SCIENTIST AND HAVE NO PURPOSE FOR TRUTH JUST EVIDENCE THAT CANT OR CAN DISPROVE YOUR THEORY. HARDLY MAKES IT THE ULTIMATE TRUTH!

Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 2:29 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2012 3:25 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 05-16-2012 3:28 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-16-2012 11:38 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 37 of 55 (662486)
05-16-2012 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 3:17 AM


I am not a scientist. I am interested in the truth. And that is why I am concerned with evidence. Your ranting and raving only convinces me that you are interested more in bullying people into worshipping you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 3:17 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5098
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 38 of 55 (662487)
05-16-2012 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 3:17 AM


ScottyDouglas writes:

NO YOU ARE THE SCIENTIST AND HAVE NO PURPOSE FOR TRUTH JUST EVIDENCE THAT CANT OR CAN DISPROVE YOUR THEORY. HARDLY MAKES IT THE ULTIMATE TRUTH!

From reading your posts, I think you are using the word 'truth' to mean God - the one that showed himself to you and you have an 'emotional and mental' relationship with - is this the case?

If so, then we're all talking at cross purposes as all science is seeking to do is to learn how the natural world works.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 3:17 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1269 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 39 of 55 (662493)
05-16-2012 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 2:21 AM


Re: Sorry
ScottyDouglas writes:

I UNDERSTAND SCIENCE VERY WELL ACTUALLY.


...says the person that can't even work out how to do quotes.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 2:21 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 40 of 55 (662501)
05-16-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 12:27 AM


open minded skepticism vs dogmatic approach
Hi again ScottyDouglas

To know truth you must apply all theories and evidence. ... Dating is suspect and no way around it. ...

These statements are contradictory. You have failed to apply all theories and evidence because you are bound by a false belief.

What you need is open-minded skepticism - the open mind to consider all possibilities, and the skepticism to withhold acceptance without reason.

I have pointed you at several threads that show how accurate dating methods are, and yet you continue to post your belief as valid. This shows your failure to apply all theories and evidence to your position.

... To people who do experience such phenomena feel as it is emperical. ...

Agreed, the person who feels they have encountered Bigfoot will very likely consider the experience empirical, but until that encounter is validated it is a subjective experience.

An experience isn't empirical until it is tested or repeated, it isn't objective until it is verified or validated by others.

We can base a hypothesis on the experience, and those who are interested in the existence of Sasquatch are free to make predictions and pursue further evidence, while others can remain skeptical of their existence and wait for further information, and people without an open mind can dismiss them as non-existent fantasy.

... The actual term emperical can be different for many. ...

Oh dear, now we are making up new definitions of empirical to suit fantasy beliefs?

quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical
Science Dictionary
empirical (ěm-pīr'ĭ-kəl)
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.

When we are talking about science we use the terminology as used in science in order to communicate the same meaning as intended.

If super natural exist it supercedes any science or physics that we know.

Physics is part of science.

If god/s exist then they would be responsible for what we know by science. If they do not exist then science cannot be superseded by them.

To know truth you must apply all theories and evidence. ...

Now you need to do this with an open minded skepticism, rather than your dogmatic approach.

Dating is suspect ...

Then go to the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread and demonstrate this. IF you truly want to apply all theories and evidence to your search for truth.

Interestingly, I find any search for truth that ignores theories and evidence that contradict dogmatic belief to be delusional fantasy.

Message 26: Razd, I do not deny scientific measures applied to physics. Though there is more to life than physics and anything science can offer. If you have not experienced any as the such I can not show that to you. You must choose which God you wish to reveal himself and actually try to do such.

Curiously, I have done that. I am a deist. What you seem to fail to understand is that in the search for truth you must discard all preconceptions and dogmatic beliefs: you need to treat your beliefs the same way you do science, and you need to be open to the possibility of being wrong. You need an open mind in balance with skepticism.

Message 28: WHAT IF ...

I see you have started yelling now. Anger is part of cognitive dissonance, and in this case shows that you are having trouble with the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

I ignore yelling, as it is emotion rather than debate.

Message 31: RAZD has been trying to get you to take a look at his correlations threads, but you haven't gone there, have you? Afraid?
I'VE LOOKED. I WILL AGAIN. I MITE HAVE MISSED SOMETHING.

Let me edit that:

Message 31:
Coyote writes:

RAZD has been trying to get you to take a look at his correlations threads, but you haven't gone there, have you? Afraid?


I've looked. I will again. I might have missed something.

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

The ability to learn is also necessary in the search for truth.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added replies to other posts


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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 12:27 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29429
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 41 of 55 (662508)
05-16-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 12:50 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
How did you test to make sure it was God not just a bad burrito?

And No One knows if they are saved until after they are dead and judged.

Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm.

So you have no evidence to offer. Okay.

Do you know what the term "empirical" means?

Where's the evidence?

We are in a sub-forum where it is expected that you will actually provide at a minimum a reasoned argument for your position. Hopefully you might even come up with a convincing one, but "I experienced God when I was 8 years old" is not gonna cut it.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 12:50 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-17-2012 6:29 PM jar has responded
 Message 47 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-17-2012 6:47 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 42 of 55 (662520)
05-16-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 3:17 AM



I'd bet the T-Shirt applies too...

Comics are originally from http://theoatmeal.com/


NO YOU ARE THE SCIENTIST AND HAVE NO PURPOSE FOR TRUTH JUST EVIDENCE THAT CANT OR CAN DISPROVE YOUR THEORY. HARDLY MAKES IT THE ULTIMATE TRUTH!

I don't care if its the ultimate truth or not, if it works then its all good.

Here we are, typing to each other on computers because of the scientific advances. If they're actually all wrong and computers really run on magic then I don't care. The science works and that's good enough for me.

If you want to talk about magic, then we just have to take our scientist hats off. And that's cool too.

But there's nothing wrong with science disregarding magic, it doesn't do anything to hurt the science as long as its still working.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 3:17 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.3


(2)
Message 43 of 55 (662584)
05-17-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Theodoric
05-15-2012 8:36 AM


Bump for Scotty boy
Care to address my questions?
Message 19
Please tell us what you mean by 'truth", without using word salad and woo. It should be quite easy for you to define it since you are so confident in its existence. If you are unable to define so others can understand it then it probably is just some subjective crap.

Define "validated evidence". You tried to say this was your definition of 'truth", but unless you further define this then your definition is meaningless.

How did this "God" reveal this truth to you? Did anyone else see it?

Patiently waiting.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2012 8:36 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1887 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 44 of 55 (662663)
05-17-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
05-16-2012 10:09 AM


Re: where's the evidence?
First off I do not need evidence. I do not have to prove anything. I do not have to show God exists. I do not have to explain how I exsperienced him. I did. You havent. That is not my fault nor my problem. That seems to be peoples problem. The read the Bible and say this is hocus pocus and not reality because it does not happen today. Not true. You can not discredit something that is not provable in the first place. The Bible says many times over and over that you must have faith. How can someone attempt to read and understand a book that requires faith when you have none?

The topic is: truth or evidence which is more important in science and evolution? Answer - evidence. Hints no faith and therefore not capable of understanding truth and furthermore God.

Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-16-2012 10:09 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 6:45 PM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2012 10:55 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Sigmund, posted 05-23-2012 1:23 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1887 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 45 of 55 (662666)
05-17-2012 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Theodoric
05-15-2012 8:36 AM


Truth is what actually happened. No dogma. No theories. The truth is what happened and what will happen. It can be proven by evidence. It can be proven by it accuring. Truth can be visual and invisable. Evidence does not make truth but it supports it. Physical means does not make it truth but it reflects truth.

Im not refusing science and thier methods. I know science seeks physical reality. I applaud that. Going beyond our physical reality to make calculations and predictions is not truth. God reveals himself to someone they can not prove it and most cases are though as fantasing. That does not mean they are in fantasy though and what they experienced is real. It is not physical. Science only can determine physical means and anything outside that is beyond what science can offer.

If something is beyond science then how can science achieve it? They can not they would need other sources and experts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2012 8:36 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Theodoric, posted 05-17-2012 10:19 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017