Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 5:27 AM
44 online now:
Tangle, vimesey (2 members, 42 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Points Of View
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 3730 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 31 of 45 (484384)
09-28-2008 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
09-27-2008 9:58 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
I might infer from the dismissive nature of your reply that you perceive me as closed minded and or ignorant of the "facts". That might have hurt my feeling if I had one. As for talking points, your side uses them too you just paid more for yours ours are better. Much easier to say what a crappy argument than to refute it with facts. I won't be dismissive at this point. I want to see just how these "talking points" were "refuted". I read your stuff. Did you ever read the bible? Just asking.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 9:58 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 32 of 45 (484389)
09-28-2008 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by b0ilingfrog
09-28-2008 2:37 AM


Philip II of Spain is Not a Good Role Model
bOllingfrog writes:

Keeping this short. You wanna flesh it out do your own research

Oh my, look what I found in Google, second hit using the search term "Guy Berthault." Perhaps you should do your own research using the term "critical thinking" or even "right wing authoritarianism."

Berthault looking into work done by a guy named Walter inspired by results from research on the Glomar Explorer (or was it Challenger?) never mind. He wanted to see what kind of experiments had been done on sedimntology and stratigraphy before doing his own. Guess what? No prior art. It would seem these principles were so intuitively correct that no one ever challenged or confirmed them with any kind of repeatable experiment. We have a name for that….it’ll come to me later.
I, like every one else, pretty much agreed with all these principles of stratigraphy. I never saw them in order or even on a single page. Again being so simple and reasonable who would question them?
Once the experiments were done the first three of these along with one associated with fossils were proven to not be principles as defined (a general law exemplified in numerous cases). In fact they applied only in rare instances if at all.
This is what was used to establish the geologic column and it is all wrong. Sediments many many layers higher can be much older. The foundation of the fossil record is mud. This "proof" of evolution was based on three major assumptions which led to a fourth. Like fossils found on opposite sides of oceans identify layers they are found in as the same age.
Oh I remember now, we call repeatable experiments science. I dropped out too.

Now for the conclusion from that second hit on Google, namely Critique of Guy Berthault's "Stratigraphy"

quote:
Most of Berthault's "discoveries" are not new. Although Berthault's hard work is very interesting, he and his YEC colleagues are often unaware that geologists knew about these "discoveries" in sedimentology and field geology decades or even more than a century ago. In other cases, Berthault's ideas (such as his comprehension of Steno's Principles and uniformitarianism) are grossly outdated. Because YECs Berthault and Austin's views of the geological properties of the Tonto Group lack sufficient detail, their "Flood model" utterly fails to explain the origin of the Group.

References to clowns like Berthault and the endless recycling of PRATTs are nothing new here. You are not the first person to recite medieval, or indeed even bronze age, 'science' as absolute and unquestionable simply because you discover Steno somewhere between how to spot a witch and determine guilt by water in your 'dark ages' bag of 'irrefutable' 15th century 'truth.'

Some use their brain for thinking as well as only regulating body temperature as Aristotle would have it. Please consider using current science instead of medieval 'science' before claiming to know more about all mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and biology than all the thousands of people who have devoted their lives to acquiring the actual truth about the natural world in the most recent 500 years.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 2:37 AM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 33 of 45 (484390)
09-28-2008 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Granny Magda
09-27-2008 9:48 PM


Let me rephrase then.

Evolution theory is generally false, creationism is generally true. Given that, was the approach of evolution still better. Or so to say, do we have to wait for a scientific theory that establishes free will, or can we just posit free will by direct evidence and common sense.

I think the last, we do not have to wait, direct evidence and common sense is sufficient grounding for a scientific theory, we do not have to know everything about creation prior to accepting any creation.

Natural selection, differential reproductive success, could be just as true as differential rolling down the hill success when I let go a sack of oddly shaped rocks, and the rocks roll down further and less far according to their variation. Or otherwise, when you have a bag of M&M's and you group them according to color, and then cause a war between the different color M&M's, eating the victims, then actually that is just happening in the imagination. And yes it is fact that the one color gets eaten while the other still doesn't, and it's a fact that a variant organism in a population reproduces while the other variant doesn't, and it's a fact that the one rock rolled down further than another because of it's shape, but nature itself does not use any of these processes. Nature is not in the habit of comparing things, be they variant rocks, variant organisms, or variant M&M's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Granny Magda, posted 09-27-2008 9:48 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 09-28-2008 6:29 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 34 of 45 (484393)
09-28-2008 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by b0ilingfrog
09-28-2008 2:37 AM


Re: This Point of View
Eliminate double post.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 2:37 AM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 35 of 45 (484394)
09-28-2008 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Syamsu
09-28-2008 6:03 AM


Syamsu writes:

I think the last, we do not have to wait, direct evidence and common sense is sufficient grounding for a scientific theory, we do not have to know everything about creation prior to accepting any creation.

Let me rephrase then.

We do not have to know everything about what is in the kool-aid prior to drinking any kool-aid.

- Reverend Jim Jones, Guyana, Nov. 1978

Edited by anglagard, : While my allies would immediately get the reference, I think my detractors likely need help


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 09-28-2008 6:03 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 36 of 45 (484397)
09-28-2008 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 7:32 PM


The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.

Agreed. But when it comes to interpreting evidence - some methods are better than others, yes?

So which is better?

On the one hand, we can look at the evidence, compare it to what we already believed about the world and try and interpret the evidence to somehow fit that whilst ignoring inconvenient evidence that might generally lead to a different conclusion.

Or we can try and develop an interpretation that is consistent with all of the evidence, and requires the fewest extraneous entities. We can't perfectly avoid the human tendency towards confirmation bias as above - but we can try and work out ways to limit it to the bare minimum.

You can understand why those that prefer the latter methodology might take issue with those that choose the former.

For example:

quote:
"He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."

Now some see that, and combine it with the idea that when freshwater and saltwater meet in nature (rivers and seas for example) there is a barrier of sorts: they do not mix as one might expect. This, they argue, is evidence that God was behind the words since how would a person know that before modern science confirmed it?

This requires ignoring that the barrier is not unbreakable as suggested in the text (otherwise river water would back up and never become seawater), and ignoring the ancient middle eastern creation myths which begin with two watery entities (one salty and the other sweet) and a barrier, or firmament, made by the creator god to hold back the waters and before going to work on the world.

When you start putting it in full context, it is evidence that this kind of belief was still around in the Middle East in the 6th/7th Century, and had been coopted into a new religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 7:32 PM b0ilingfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by b0ilingfrog, posted 10-04-2008 3:35 AM Modulous has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 45 (484406)
09-28-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 11:37 PM


Re: Discovery
What successful predictions has uniformity made?

Uh.....do you drive a car or ride public transportation? Do you use plastics in any way, like to house the computer you're typing on? Do you heat your house with natural gas? Fuel oil? Electricity made from one of those?

What principles do you think oil companies have used for the last century to find the raw materials for all that stuff?


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 11:37 PM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

    
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 3730 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 38 of 45 (484990)
10-03-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
09-27-2008 7:54 PM


Re: Discovery
While I can not isolate specifics as to predictions made by Creationism aside from the entropic theory. I can say that big bang theory failed to predict the accelerating expansion of the universe. We now call the cause of that "dark energy" undefined much as the strong atomic force. The strong atomic force being whatever the *^%#@! keeps the protons in the nucleus of an atom from flying apart (as if "we" knew). Personally I believe it to be gravity as if we ever actually knew what that is either. Gravity likely as not being the force responsible for both "dark energy" and the "strong atomic force" in my uneducated estimations. In as much as no one has adequately defined either, my guess really is as good as yours.
More directly much of the speculation you call science is the result of the assumptions I assert have been accepted as science. Cosmic entropy is consistent with scripture and physics. To that degree I find physics acceptable to my world view. The big bang would be consistent with big crunch if the velocity of expansion was insufficient for heat-death. Heat-death would be consistent with current understanding of physics be it Newtonian or under Einstein but for expansion to be accelerating there is no prediction. My world view is consistent with current observation. Creation wears thin like a garment. Certainly not inferior to any put forth by what you seem to be calling "science".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 09-27-2008 7:54 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 3730 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 39 of 45 (484998)
10-04-2008 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
09-27-2008 9:19 PM


Re: This Point of View
Been real sick and not sure I replied to this.
This guy did the research and repeatable experiments.
Just got blown off by by people unwilling to repeat said research.
I never claimed to be any kind of expurt I just pay attention.
If I am not mistaken the facts outweigh the theory.
This guys facts are not refuted in the lab..
Am I wrong?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2008 9:19 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 3730 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 40 of 45 (485001)
10-04-2008 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
09-27-2008 9:41 PM


Re: It must be the new school year eh?
Razd,

Let me cop this quick plea. Not that I am denying my ineptitude on many fronts but when I logged in here I was on my third or fourth day without sleep, and for that matter am in a similar state as I type. See there is no longer decongestants that "may cause drowsiness". As a result I can be wide awake with a debilitating headache or wide awake without one. I am just guessing here but when I managed to figure out how to log in, it was along the lines of as long as I am miserable I might as well go for broke.

In science the first basic common interpretation is that there is a single objective reality.

In science the final common interpretation is that any invalidated theories are false and no longer relevant to understanding reality.

Absolute truth, no argument.

The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class?

I think I rejected that already but we should at least teach that there is one belief that inspired guys like Newton that there is a creator God. That his belief did not diminish his capacity to interpret the physical world around all of us nor express it's parameters in whole rational numbers.
In science second basic common interpretation is that the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly represents that reality.

In that regard none of us has a monopoly on the distant past.

Where I rely on dogmatic scripture you rely on dogmatic theory.

I submit that uniformatarianism is dogma and that any deviation from it is academic heresy, you would say my scriptural perspective is dogmatic as well. Where "Historians" rely on text written at best centuries or even millenia after the fact, scripture, in particular new testament documents have been authenticated to the decade of the authors. While I am relying on the writings of men in some cases these were men that would preferred to dye before renouncing them and again have been proven to have been written to within a decade or so of the times in which they lived. Also again they would have lived longer had they only stated they were in error. All of that withstanding, I admit that I am dogmatic. Do you? Ancient history goes back so far and is then considered "myth". How far back do we go before history is myth? Do we go back until we encounter things the expurts did not experience for themselves? Well, since the victors write the history... or better yet what about a culture that carefully documents their total failure for posterity? Not only did God predict they would totally blow it, and not only did they proceed to blow it and stone the prophet that predicted it, but went ahead and preserved the prediction and actuality of the incidents. That is off topic though. The point here would be that I equate what you might call myth a cut above say Paul Bunion or Pecos Bill. Did the Trojan war take place? hmmmm...

In science the final common interpretation is that any invalidated theories are false and no longer relevant to understanding reality.

As long as there is an equal playing field to "invalidate" theories I am in total agreement. Majority rule is not invalidation when it comes to truth. Ask any lynch mob.

Perhaps what you have trouble with is understanding how things can be acknowledged as valid information without a belief system, with tentativity and the open-minded skepticism that allows for concepts to, not only be falsified, but to actively seek such falsification, and to discard all falsified information as invalid.

Um.... what? Um.. yeah maybe I do. I like to think I am open minded but I have a bias. Define falsified? Look I am not about to start bragging about how "educated" I am but I am not going to sit here and let you call me closed minded. You have accepted things as fact that I am willing to question. Who is wearing the blinders here? Truth is I am not really clear on what you are saying here. Maybe you can rephrase?

On definitions, well gee what can I say? Uniformity continues to redefine itself somehow. Look it up for yourself. I was stating it it terms consistent with the those that established the principle of uniformity in terms of geological theory at the time of it's inception. By the way you might want to look at the latest one yourself. Can you say "punctuate equilibrium"? (Thank God for spell checker.)

You will get this crap a lot from me but here goes. I read more than the bible. Toss out uniformity and I might call it science. I don't disavow what I read in science rags as quickly as you might what you see on AiG and you probably been there more than me. So much of what you believe was heavily influenced on the early definition of uniformity (look it up if you can't believe me) and it is just an assumption. A leap of faith far greater than mine. Wait.... lemme guess.... another AiG talking point, right?

All that being said you went outta your way to help me post and I am grateful to you for that. I also think you went out of your way to not be condescending and at considerable effort on your part. I wish I was better at that.

I meant to get back to you sooner but I tried to explain that earlier on. You oughtta be more than a member here.

JD

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add all the blank lines between paragraphs again. Someone has a "get your attention" suspension coming.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 9:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2008 3:15 PM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 3730 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 41 of 45 (485002)
10-04-2008 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by lyx2no
09-27-2008 11:04 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
Thanx
JD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by lyx2no, posted 09-27-2008 11:04 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 3730 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 42 of 45 (485003)
10-04-2008 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Modulous
09-28-2008 7:28 AM


Agreed. But when it comes to interpreting evidence - some methods are better than others, yes?

Agreed as you stated. I submit we all interpret with some bias. Mine is pretty much figuring God gave us a clue. What I do not see is this evidence I must be ignoring.
For example:

quote:"He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."


You must be a superior theologian than I. I am not familiar with that quote or it's context. Coptic ?
I do see your point though and I am forever worrying that I may be bending my understanding to fit my preconceived notion. In all candor I would not have gone that far with that one.
Two seas? I mean even the Med at the time of the writing of any of scripture was divided into more than two, let alone the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian, Atlantic... Something there alright. Which two? So much to learn so little time.
JD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2008 7:28 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 10-04-2008 10:05 AM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 43 of 45 (485018)
10-04-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by b0ilingfrog
10-04-2008 3:35 AM


Agreed as you stated. I submit we all interpret with some bias. Mine is pretty much figuring God gave us a clue. What I do not see is this evidence I must be ignoring.

Well, if you saw it - you would not be ignoring it would you?

But there is plenty of it. You mentioned that radiometric dating was unreliable. You are more than likely only seeing a small amount of evidence there, and you are likely ignoring its context. You are also ignoring the significant amount of times that radiometric dating agrees with other dating methods.

But the specifics are not something we need get into in this topic.

You must be a superior theologian than I. I am not familiar with that quote or it's context. Coptic ?

Arabic.

quote:

[55.14] He created man from dry clay like earthen vessels,
[55.15] And He created the jinn of a flame of fire.
[55.16] Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
[55.17] Lord of the East and Lord of the West.
[55.18] Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?
[55.19] He has made the two seas to flow freely (so that) they meet together:
[55.20] Between them is a barrier which they cannot pass.
[55.21] Which then of the bounties of your Lord will you deny?


Two seas? I mean even the Med at the time of the writing of any of scripture was divided into more than two, let alone the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian, Atlantic... Something there alright. Which two? So much to learn so little time.

The sweet sea, and the salty sea seem like likely candidates given the history of middle eastern pagan religions and the possible beliefs of those the Qur'an was written to impress. See: Enuma Elish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by b0ilingfrog, posted 10-04-2008 3:35 AM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 44 of 45 (485042)
10-04-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by b0ilingfrog
10-04-2008 3:05 AM


long live steady uniformity uniformitarianism
Thanks b0iingfrog,

Absolute truth, no argument.
As long as there is an equal playing field to "invalidate" theories I am in total agreement. Majority rule is not invalidation when it comes to truth. Ask any lynch mob.

Of course, to do otherwise would be special pleading, and yes the appeal to popularity is another fallacy.

In that regard none of us has a monopoly on the distant past.

Where I rely on dogmatic scripture you rely on dogmatic theory.

I submit that uniformatarianism is dogma and that any deviation from it is academic heresy, you would say my scriptural perspective is dogmatic as well. ...
... On definitions, well gee what can I say? Uniformity continues to redefine itself somehow. Look it up for yourself. I was stating it it terms consistent with the those that established the principle of uniformity in terms of geological theory at the time of it's inception.

Curiously science does change with new evidence and increased awareness of the truth. Along that lines are concepts that are invalidated: the concept that the universe behaves in a uniform and steady state way has been invalidated. The concept that the universe behaves in a manner consistent with the known laws of physics etc has not.

If uniformitarianism did start with both steady state uniformity and according to all known laws of the behavior of things, and has been revised to eliminate the invalidated steady state uniformity, then that is just science doing science.

It also still means that to discuss uniformitarianism TODAY that you use the definition used in science TODAY.

See

UniformitarianismA basic geologic principle. Processes that act upon the Earth today are the same processes that have acted upon it in the past. The present is the key to the past.

and


Uniformitarianism
Principle of: The concept that the processes that have shaped the Earth through geologic time are the same as those observable today.

Note: you can't have it both ways, dogmatic adherence to old concepts AND constantly redefining itself.

I read more than the bible. Toss out uniformity and I might call it science. I don't disavow what I read in science rags as quickly as you might what you see on AiG and you probably been there more than me. So much of what you believe was heavily influenced on the early definition of uniformity (look it up if you can't believe me) and it is just an assumption. A leap of faith far greater than mine. Wait.... lemme guess.... another AiG talking point, right?

Consider steady state uniformity tossed. Whether you think it was the original theory or I think the current theory doesn't include it, is really irrelevant when we look at the modern science of geology. A lot has been learned in the last 100 plus years.

Now can we agree that there is good reason to consider uniform behavior according to the laws of physics etc? We do have evidence for this, from radioactive decay on earth to radioactive decay in stars.

I think I rejected that already but we should at least teach that there is one belief that inspired guys like Newton that there is a creator God. That his belief did not diminish his capacity to interpret the physical world around all of us nor express it's parameters in whole rational numbers.

As a Deist I see science as a way of understanding the work of god/s, but not able to confirm/invalidate spiritual existence (outside the realm of objective evidence). As a Deist I see no problem in teaching kids to understand American history and the beliefs that inspired people like Thomas Jefferson to chart a new course in human events, and to apply that belief to the formation of a rational form of government based on the sound judgment of educated people (yes he was an elitist in that regard).

All that being said you went outta your way to help me post and I am grateful to you for that. I also think you went out of your way to not be condescending and at considerable effort on your part. I wish I was better at that.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Enjoy.


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 40 by b0ilingfrog, posted 10-04-2008 3:05 AM b0ilingfrog has not yet responded

  
jenniferchristy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 10-10-2008


Message 45 of 45 (488067)
11-07-2008 2:27 PM


spam
spam thread jenniferchristy banned

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


drug rehab
    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019