Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2018 11:39 PM
252 online now:
DrJones*, edge, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (4 members, 248 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,395 Year: 10,218/29,783 Month: 882/1,583 Week: 351/291 Day: 59/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Creation science II
Dman
Member (Idle past 2850 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 256 of 312 (502631)
03-12-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:22 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
quote:
The Creationist says somebody engineered the marbles to be round to .01 thousands of an inch and placed the color accent stripe in the middle. The "Realist" says it all happened by chance.

The creationist does not actually give an answer then. So it was created, big f'n deal. HOW?

The "realist" tries to figure that out.

Edited by Dman, : Punctuation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:22 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3193
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 257 of 312 (502632)
03-12-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by ICANT
03-12-2009 2:38 PM


The on-topic stuff
I understand this is the Free for All forum, so you don't have to remain on topic. But that still doesn't mean I have to reply to any of the off-topic stuff.

ICANT writes:

But when 2 scientist, one believing in evolution and one creation look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, who is to say which one is correct, or if either is correct?

Reality.

But you want to exempt today's scientist of the possibility of being wrong.

No, I don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 2:38 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:18 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1493 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 258 of 312 (502633)
03-12-2009 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Taq
03-12-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Taq writes:

Just as God made two marbles disappear so that 2 marbles plus 2 marbles is actually six.

Exactly, there is no need to show evidence. Once the supernatural is involved, there is no argument that can overcome it, since it operates above a level that us mere humans can comprehend. You can present any argument you like and all I have to do is say no god did it.


'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:36 PM Taq has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7465
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 259 of 312 (502634)
03-12-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
How exactly like a geologist might feel....especially if there is reduced financial gain unless "the boss/your peers/the media" likes your pet theories.

Then why don't creationists go to the same rock formations and measure the isotope ratios of the same samples? If geologists are truly fudging their data then it would seem to be pretty easy to discover. For example, use K/Ar dating to measure the K/T tektites. Use Ar/Ar dating to measure the same historically dated lava flows that Dalrymple dated*.

I think we all know why this doesn't happen. Creationists know that no one is fudging the data, so they have to cast doubt on the methodology. The sad thing is that they do so by misusing the methodology.

* Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1969. 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6: 47-55.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:14 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 4:03 PM Taq has responded
 Message 264 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2009 4:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 2984 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 260 of 312 (502638)
03-12-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Dman
03-12-2009 2:10 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"This is very strange. Are you accusing all scientists of tinkering with test results?"

First, we are mostly talking about historical speculation. We could cal it "Scientific Historical Speculation" if you like.

If we are talking about...actual, current, live test results, then choose your topic
drug safety
global temperatures
diets that work
drug effectiveness
I dunno....you choose a current scientific topic, I'll show you massive tinkering, bias, and discovered fraud.

How do we find Oil? Just what IS oil, by the way? How did so much organic matter build up in one place anyway? Millions of tiny thin layers of leaves over millions of years? When we dig in the bottom of lakes or oceans we don't find much buildup. It gets eaten and digested.

I don't have "unquestionable authority in scientific research". I have 2 decades of firsthand experience in scientific research. Seen with eyes, felt with hands, burn marks, watched people die kind of experience. I know what goes on in R&D. Whatever the boss wants or/and the customer is paying for.

So you still trust anything that claims to be "Science". But I've seen behind the curtain.


- Sky-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Dman, posted 03-12-2009 2:10 PM Dman has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 261 of 312 (502639)
03-12-2009 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Taq
03-12-2009 3:07 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

The evidence says.

But the evidence is not known for a thousand years after their experiment is completed.

As some of those scientist of 2000 years ago and even a 1000 years ago have been proven to be wrong in the last 200 years.

I have been told on this forum there is no such thing as a scientific fact.

Everything is tenative and can be proven wrong.

Today we have 3 pretty smart men that can not agree on how the universe began if it did.

One of those may be correct or they all may be wrong.

None of them are creation scientist.

Taq writes:

Going back to your marble experiment . . .

But I did not have a marble experiment.

I made a statement I would not argue with.

Then I laid out the statement.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:07 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:19 PM ICANT has responded

  
Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 2984 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 262 of 312 (502642)
03-12-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Taq
03-12-2009 3:41 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
"Then why don't creationists go to the same rock formations and measure the isotope ratios of the same samples?"

Let's not argue based on your lack-of-knowledge about said activities.


- Sky-
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:42 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 2984 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 263 of 312 (502643)
03-12-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Taq
03-12-2009 2:10 PM


Re: Accomplished What?
The real argument here should be "Why aren't 99.5 percent of all fossils clearly transitional?"

Being that "Evolution" is supposed to be the nature of everything that we see around us...the question should be why did Darwin have to search for 20 years to find enough to back his wacky idea?

The answer is that ANY theory so foundational to the development of life should have BILLIONS of trees and fossil series. Horse Series, Fish series, whale series, shark series, turtle series,,,etc, etc.

Skip those last two. Even Science admits that sharks and turtles east Darwin theories for breakfast.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 2:10 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2009 4:37 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 276 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-12-2009 4:38 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded
 Message 282 by Stagamancer, posted 03-12-2009 5:17 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 264 of 312 (502644)
03-12-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Taq
03-12-2009 3:41 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
Then why don't creationists go to the same rock formations and measure the isotope ratios of the same samples?

A group of scientists, also creationists, did just that. With over a million dollars in creationist money they set out to show the decay constant was a variable, and that radiometric dates are all wrong.

Their results confirmed what scientists have claimed all along.

The creationists refused to believe their own results.

Two references:

Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/Rating_Article.shtml


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 3:41 PM Taq has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 265 of 312 (502646)
03-12-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Stile
03-12-2009 3:40 PM


Re: The on-topic stuff
Hi Stile,

Stile writes:

I understand this is the Free for All forum, so you don't have to remain on topic. But that still doesn't mean I have to reply to any of the off-topic stuff.

I thought we were talking about how conclusions from evidence was reached by creation scientist and non creationist scientist.

Well if your 2 + 2 = 4 was on topic then my 4 quarts of water poured into a gallon jug was just as on topic.

Care to speculate how much water you would have in the gallon jug that will hold 4 quarts of water.

You can even put the 4 quarts into two half gallon jug's making sure there is exactly 2 quarts in each.

Then pour them into the gallon jug.

You will not have 4 quarts of water in the gallon jug.

The same thing happens when two scientist examine the same evidence of an experiment and come to different conclusions.

It makes no difference whether the scientist is creationist, theist, atheist, or agnostic.

Their world view has an effect on how they interpet the evidence.

Stile writes:

Reality.

But what if reality is not known for another thousand years?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 3:40 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:25 PM ICANT has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7465
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 266 of 312 (502647)
03-12-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by ICANT
03-12-2009 3:56 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
But the evidence is not known for a thousand years after their experiment is completed.

The evidence is here, right now. All evidence is created in the past, be it seconds or millenia.

As some of those scientist of 2000 years ago and even a 1000 years ago have been proven to be wrong in the last 200 years.

How were they proven wrong?

But I did not have a marble experiment.

Ok, that's fine.

But I am still curious as to how you would pick between the four marble and the six marble conclusions. What criteria would you use to determine which is correct? Both are consistent with the evidence, are they not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 3:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:25 PM Taq has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7465
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 267 of 312 (502648)
03-12-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
03-12-2009 4:18 PM


Re: The on-topic stuff
Well if your 2 + 2 = 4 was on topic then my 4 quarts of water poured into a gallon jug was just as on topic.

Care to speculate how much water you would have in the gallon jug that will hold 4 quarts of water.

You can even put the 4 quarts into two half gallon jug's making sure there is exactly 2 quarts in each.

Then pour them into the gallon jug.

You will not have 4 quarts of water in the gallon jug.

Of course you won't have 4 quarts. You will have 6 quarts, and God makes the other two disappear to make it seem like there are 4 quarts of volume in the gallon jug. This is a proper conclusion, is it not?

The same thing happens when two scientist examine the same evidence of an experiment and come to different conclusions.

It makes no difference whether the scientist is creationist, theist, atheist, or agnostic.

Their world view has an effect on how they interpet the evidence.

So you are arguing for a post-modernistic, everything goes mentality? So you agree that the 6 quart conclusion above is just as legitimate as the 4 quart conclusion above? You would also agree that it is just as legitimate to claim that the universe was created Last Tuesday by an omnipotent deity who included false memories and a false history into the universe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:18 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 4:33 PM Taq has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 268 of 312 (502649)
03-12-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Taq
03-12-2009 4:19 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

The evidence is here, right now. All evidence is created in the past, be it seconds or millenia.

And some may not be known for a thousand years or more.

Or are you saying everything that is put forth as theory is fact?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:19 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 4:34 PM ICANT has responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 337
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 269 of 312 (502650)
03-12-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:14 PM


Re: This is so exhausting
How exactly like a geologist might feel....especially if there is reduced financial gain unless "the boss/your peers/the media" likes your pet theories.

But since geology (and biology) as we know it arose during an era when creationism/young earth was the boss, that would seem to be a particularly inept analogy for this subject.

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:14 PM Sky-Writing has not yet responded

Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 337
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 270 of 312 (502651)
03-12-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 3:22 PM


Re: Show it, don't say it.
The Creationist says somebody engineered the marbles to be round to .01 thousands of an inch and placed the color accent stripe in the middle. The "Realist" says it all happened by chance.

No, the realist suggests marbles are imperfect replicators and that there is a selective advantage to rounder marbles. You're not really very good at this analogy thing, are you?

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 3:22 PM Sky-Writing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 5:18 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018