Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 297 (325743)
06-24-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rob
06-24-2006 4:57 PM


Re: what debate?
Rob writes
quote:
Logic cannot get you there, but it is critical to test for coherence.
Rob, you seem to use the word "logic" a little too liberally. Are you referring to formal logic, informal logic, or just common sense? I am assuming you know what I am referring to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 4:57 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 5:07 PM rgb has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 152 of 297 (325744)
06-24-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by CK
06-24-2006 4:52 PM


Re: what debate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to point out that it is highly unreasonable to say that creationist are biased.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not at all, creation science is bias in the sense that starts with an answer and then tries to find the science to fit - by it's very nature it does not and will consider any evidence* that does not fit the answer they require. Most of the creation "journals" require you to agree to an statement of faith before they will even consider looking at your research!
I said in the next sentance that I was not denying that they are, and in the following sentance I in fact said that we are all biased.
You took one sentance of a whole message and took it out of context. Please don't do that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by CK, posted 06-24-2006 4:52 PM CK has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 153 of 297 (325745)
06-24-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by rgb
06-24-2006 5:04 PM


Re: what debate?
just common sense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by rgb, posted 06-24-2006 5:04 PM rgb has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 154 of 297 (325748)
06-24-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Rob
06-24-2006 4:44 PM


Re: what debate?
quote:
Sounds to me like an atmosphere that strictly oppresses with fear!
If this is what you consider true about science then I guess you would also consider the judical system in the US as one that opresses with fear as well since it also has penalties for perjury and falsifing evidence.
Edited by anglagard, : Make nicer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 4:44 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 5:23 PM anglagard has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 155 of 297 (325749)
06-24-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by rgb
06-24-2006 5:03 PM


Re: what debate?
Wow, you are really knowledgeable. May I bow at your alter?
And you have so much faith in a system devised by men, for men, to find out what they say 'can't be known', but insist on testing and denying everything up to, yet excluding, their own skepticism.
Feel free to believe what you want. All your looking for is the respect and pat on the back of your peers. I'll face hells fury and the spit and laughing of all of you, until you can convince me of what you say cannot be known.
Yeah! I'll take the a priori, you take what ever you want. As long as your alive, it's your perogative.
I'm going to be booted. It's only a matter of time! But that is what will prove my point!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by rgb, posted 06-24-2006 5:03 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 5:27 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 159 by rgb, posted 06-24-2006 5:55 PM Rob has replied
 Message 160 by AdminJar, posted 06-24-2006 6:29 PM Rob has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 156 of 297 (325751)
06-24-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rob
06-24-2006 4:57 PM


Re: what debate?
Stupid IE crashed before I could submit my post.
a priori has no connotations with a "moral voice".
It simply means that we know things without, or before, experiencing them.
There are many possiblities, such as knowing God, grammer, and whatnot.
A good example would be this.
Person A: "I know the color blue"
person B: "Have you ever experienced blue?
person A: "no".
Personally, I find empericism to have the better argument. Experience is required to know that thing. How do I know God w/o experiencing Him? How do I know colors? The person above looks a little foolish, but . . .

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 4:57 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 157 of 297 (325753)
06-24-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by anglagard
06-24-2006 5:15 PM


Re: what debate?
I guess you consider the judical system in the US as one that opresses with fear as well since it also has penalties for perjury and falsifing evidence.
Well, of course! Justice should be feared, because it is right. but that is not the context I meant at all. I was implying that there is more to the 'convention' than that... the implication is based on my 'a priori' little voice. Sometimes you can't prove a thing, even though the wolf has a full belly.
I see why the topic must be limited, and why Percy speaks with such clarity. You guys are free to dismiss this argument against 'age of light'. I will concede an inferior ability to offer 'scientific' evidence, as well as have such profound faith in it. I appriciate Hawkins article, I referred to above in message 144.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by anglagard, posted 06-24-2006 5:15 PM anglagard has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 158 of 297 (325754)
06-24-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rob
06-24-2006 5:15 PM


Re: what debate?
sorry, this makes absolutely no sense. Can you expain?
you have so much faith in a system devised by men, for men, to find out what they say 'can't be known', but insist on testing and denying everything up to, yet excluding, their own skepticism
I read his post. Didn't have anything about what you are writing here. So please, expain.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 5:15 PM Rob has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 297 (325760)
06-24-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rob
06-24-2006 5:15 PM


Re: what debate?
Rob writes
quote:
Wow, you are really knowledgeable.
Actually, I often consider myself quite ignorant. Everytime I finished reading a book, I become slightly more ignorant.
quote:
May I bow at your alter?
You may!
I've been meaning to start my own religion for some time now.
quote:
And you have so much faith in a system devised by men, for men, to find out what they say 'can't be known', but insist on testing and denying everything up to, yet excluding, their own skepticism.
Ok, take a deep breath, pause for a moment, take another deep breath, then try to articulate a little more.
quote:
Feel free to believe what you want.
That's just it, Rob. I'm a skeptic. I doubt all things, including everything concluded by science thus far.
quote:
All your looking for is the respect and pat on the back of your peers.
People in california must be changing the homophones around. I believe the word you were looking for was "you're"
But yes, I often try to seek attention and a pat on the back. As a matter of fact, everytime I attend a scientific conference I always stomp my feet on the ground and cry like a baby. Hasn't worked yet, but who knows.
quote:
I'll face hells fury and the spit and laughing of all of you, until you can convince me of what you say cannot be known.
Ok, you come up with a mathematical and engineering model for a boat that could hold 10,000,000+ pairs of animal, enough fresh water and food to keep them alive and productive for a year, all terrestrial plant life on Earth, and a light source that gives the full spectrum to keep the plants green for a year using nothing but Bronze Age technology and perhaps I'll try to convince the others to keep their eyes open.
quote:
Yeah! I'll take the a priori, you take what ever you want. As long as your alive, it's your perogative.
Ok, I guess.
quote:
I'm going to be booted. It's only a matter of time! But that is what will prove my point!
I'm curious to how this will prove your point? Please elaborate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 5:15 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rob, posted 06-25-2006 1:23 AM rgb has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 297 (325771)
06-24-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rob
06-24-2006 5:15 PM


How to get booted.
Rob writes:
I'm going to be booted. It's only a matter of time! But that is what will prove my point!
People don't get booted for their beliefs here. They will get booted for their behavior.
An example of behavior that will certainly be examined is the post I am replying to. You said:
Wow, you are really knowledgeable. May I bow at your alter?
And you have so much faith in a system devised by men, for men, to find out what they say 'can't be known', but insist on testing and denying everything up to, yet excluding, their own skepticism.
Feel free to believe what you want. All your looking for is the respect and pat on the back of your peers. I'll face hells fury and the spit and laughing of all of you, until you can convince me of what you say cannot be known.
Yeah! I'll take the a priori, you take what ever you want. As long as your alive, it's your perogative.
Now absolutely nothing in there was really worth taking up space or bandwidth, it has nothing to do with the subject and is pretty much what we would call an inanity.
A member will not generally get booted for posting inanities, they do get ignored, only when a large number of their posts are inane would they get sanctioned. Even then, usually it would be a series of sanctions of increasing length to try to help teach the member proper behavior.
Stop posting inane comments such as the message I am replying to.
Take any comments about this to the proper thread, do NOT discuss it here.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 155 by Rob, posted 06-24-2006 5:15 PM Rob has not replied

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 161 of 297 (325987)
    06-25-2006 1:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 159 by rgb
    06-24-2006 5:55 PM


    Re: what debate?
    May I bow at your alter?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You may!
    I've been meaning to start my own religion for some time now.
    I deserved that 'rgb'!
    And I deserved much of the rest of your post. Even so, I steadfastly maintain everything I said but concede that there was no need to say it, and to explain would be a complete waste of time as 'nwr' so diligently prophesied.
    Yes, I lose my head too... Tell NosyNed he is not alone... I asked him, 'what is the matter with you?' in an earlier message, but I did so in vain. We are all corrupted humans. Perhaps I am more corrupted than most.
    Now back to relevant issues that lead right back to the topic:
    Are you really skeptical of everything? Both that stars are old; and that stars are young?
    Both that Noah had an Ark; and that the story is impossible?
    What is impossible I ask? That there is a God? That He could fool so many intelligent thinkers? Is it possible they fool themselves?
    What do you want to be true? Does it matter what you or I want at all in terms of an objective reality? Is such a reality so foreign to us that we might not recognize it when it is right there all the time? Is that possible? Does our inner being know better? Are we waiting to have just a little more fun first?
    Is morality a real thing, or a construct of convention? Is justice a real thing, or a construct of convention? Is mercy a real thing, or should we take an eye for an ear-ring? Are all men equal, or are all ideas equal? Is anyhting equal?
    Can we know the answer to these questions? And if not, how can we know the answer to that question?
    You see? I don't know if light is slowing down or not, but it is possible. The reason it is possible, is that we cannot deny that it is, unless we are God.
    I know that light inasfar as truth is slowing down, since more and more question if it is even real. But they then assume that it's non-existance is true. So, because of that, truth must exist and we are simply dead to it.
    I have to think the Hawking quote did it's job, as no-one has yet to comment:
    'Thus the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of physics, and it's present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.'
    The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
    As Paul Davies said, 'science is absolutely theo'. And Hawking understands that well. He is honestly seeking to uncover God's handiwork. He just as yet has not endeavored to define what God is. But without the assuption that there is a purpose as per a creator, then as Bertrand Russel said, '... the question of life's purpose is meaningless!'
    If I may digress and use a Biblical argument and quote both God and the Devil...
    that is why we were commanded to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 'For on the day you eat of it, you shall become as God!' And for man to decide what is good for man, and what is true( playing God), is to make certain that man surely dies. At that point, man dies not just physically, but to the truth spiritually. That spirit is the key to making known, clarifying, or understanding the intelligence behind the unity in diversity that we all seek. But it can only reside in one place, for we can not all be right. I believe that inarguable exclusivity point sright to the person of Christ.
    Funny we are talking about stars, because '...the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.'
    Peace to you sir, Rob
    OFF TOPIC portions have been rendered invisible - Please Do Not Respond to these portions or continue in this vein. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond.
    AdminPD
    Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 159 by rgb, posted 06-24-2006 5:55 PM rgb has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 162 by rgb, posted 06-25-2006 2:05 AM Rob has replied
     Message 163 by AdminPD, posted 06-25-2006 7:56 AM Rob has not replied
     Message 165 by cavediver, posted 06-25-2006 10:43 AM Rob has not replied

    rgb
    Inactive Member


    Message 162 of 297 (326007)
    06-25-2006 2:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 161 by Rob
    06-25-2006 1:23 AM


    Re: what debate?
    Rob writes
    quote:
    Are you really skeptical of everything? Both that stars are old; and that stars are young?
    Both that Noah had an Ark; and that the story is impossible?

    Rob, I really feel that you don't really know what the word "skeptical" means. You seem to be under the impression that "skeptical" means having some kind of negative attitude towards a given idea.
    I encourage you to read more on skepticism before you continue to show your blatent misunderstanding of the concept.
    quote:
    What is impossible I ask? That there is a God? That He could fool so many intelligent thinkers? Is it possible they fool themselves?
    I really don't blame you for confusing me with other people here, since you are suffering from what many people here at EvC call a "pile on".
    But to make things clear, I have yet to make any definitive assertion other than the general scientific approach to natural phenomena.
    quote:
    What do you want to be true? Does it matter what you or I want at all in terms of an objective reality? Is such a reality so foreign to us that we might not recognize it when it is right there all the time? Is that possible? Does our inner being know better? Are we waiting to have just a little more fun first?
    Perhaps you'd like to consult a local psychic?
    quote:
    blah blah blah...
    Having a stroke of random thoughts?
    quote:
    You see? I don't know if light is slowing down or not, but it is possible. The reason it is possible, is that we cannot deny that it is, unless we are God.
    Your statement here is neither scientific nor logical.
    We cannot deny that there are immaterial pink unicorns running around (idea thanks to jar and asgara). According to your reasoning, we have to accept that there are indeed such creatures roaming our plain of existence.
    quote:
    I know that light inasfar as truth is slowing down, since more and more question if it is even real. But they then assume that it's non-existance is true. So, because of that, truth must exist and we are simply dead to it.
    The scientific, and decent, approach to this would be for you to present us with some kind of mathematical equations and experimental results showing us some kind of evidence that light does indeed slow down. If you wish, you could submit your results to be peer reviewed and get it published in scientific journals for those of us who actually know a thing or two about physics can start repeating these experiments ourselves.
    quote:
    blah blah blah... and some more blah blah blah...
    Rob, there are a few people on this forum that talks like fortune cookies. Perhaps you'd like to submit your resume to the fortune cookie industry?
    OFF TOPIC portions have been rendered invisible - Please Do Not Respond to these portions or continue in this vein. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond.
    AdminPD
    Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by Rob, posted 06-25-2006 1:23 AM Rob has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 164 by Rob, posted 06-25-2006 10:28 AM rgb has not replied

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 163 of 297 (326039)
    06-25-2006 7:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 161 by Rob
    06-25-2006 1:23 AM


    Warning - Off Topic
    Rob and rgb,
    Per the forum guidelines:
    Rule #2
    Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
    Rule #4
    Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
    Please respect the rules of the forum and stop the off topic bantering. This is a science forum. Get back to the science of the topic.
    Your off topic remarks and answers to off topic remarks have been rendered invisible.
    If this off topic banter continues, a 2 Day Timeout will be given to the offender.
    Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
    Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
    Thank you Purple

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by Rob, posted 06-25-2006 1:23 AM Rob has not replied

    Rob 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
    Posts: 2297
    Joined: 06-01-2006


    Message 164 of 297 (326069)
    06-25-2006 10:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 162 by rgb
    06-25-2006 2:05 AM


    Re: what debate?
    I said:
    quote:
    You see? I don't know if light is slowing down or not, but it is possible. The reason it is possible, is that we cannot deny that it is, unless we are God.
    And David Hume said:
    Your statement here is neither scientific nor logical... ...so commit it to the flames for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
    I assume you know your argument is 'Humean'?
    Anyway, the problem with that criticism is that it is also not mathtematical or experimental.
    How can you make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell you that metaphysics is meaningless?
    Isn't it interesting that it takes a spirit, to deny a spirit?
    I can understand your thinking, but when dealing with the age of stars, we must be willing to admit that we do not know.
    However, I concede that this does not mean that we must accept the possibility that the Puff Marshmallow Man lives inside each star, just because we can't prove it.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 162 by rgb, posted 06-25-2006 2:05 AM rgb has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 166 by Percy, posted 06-25-2006 1:00 PM Rob has replied

    cavediver
    Member (Idle past 3644 days)
    Posts: 4129
    From: UK
    Joined: 06-16-2005


    Message 165 of 297 (326076)
    06-25-2006 10:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 161 by Rob
    06-25-2006 1:23 AM


    Re: what debate?
    I have to think the Hawking quote did it's job, as no-one has yet to comment:
    quote:
    'Thus the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of physics, and it's present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.'
    Sadly this quote is depends upon a certain feature that Hawking believed black holes possessed. He has since conceded that he was probably mistaken. The universe still appears deterministic.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by Rob, posted 06-25-2006 1:23 AM Rob has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024