Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
750 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 746 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,320 Year: 6,432/6,534 Month: 625/650 Week: 163/232 Day: 9/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foreveryoung Discussions
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 31 of 103 (677505)
10-30-2012 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by foreveryoung
10-29-2012 11:54 PM


What they fail to recognize is that I have taken all of those 101 courses. Just because I pass a course doesn't mean that I agree with all the conclusions drawn by them.

I remember when I took a biology course on human evolution and the professor started the course explaining that they knew some people might be uncomfortable believing that humans evolved from apes. She said that she didn't expect you to believe it, but she expected you to be able to explain the scientific position on it.

You have posts here where you're not just disbelieving some thing, but you're exemplifying that you are not able to explain, and do not understand, the scientific position on it. And that's fine, and you're right that people shouldn't assume that you haven't studied it at all.

What rubs people the wrong way, is the sense of arrogance that comes off from a person who proclaims knowledge on a subject while displaying a lack of understanding of the subject.

If someone said they knew your religion was wrong because of the story of Jesus parting the Red Sea, wouldn't you be a little peeved?

We're not here to convert you. Or to be against you (apart from positions in a debate). We're here to discuss.

The way you approach the discussion is what determines how you'll receive from it. Ask, don't tell. Question, don't answer. Be open, not closed. That's the way to a fruitfull discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by foreveryoung, posted 10-29-2012 11:54 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 32 of 103 (677506)
10-30-2012 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by foreveryoung
10-29-2012 11:54 PM


Their are so myopic in their thinking because they only talk to people who generally agree with them on these issues. They haven't been exposed to cogent, coherent arguments to the contrary. Because of this, they are unaware that there are other valid positions to be taken on many of the issues brought up here...

I don't think you're right on this. In fact, I think its almost the opposite.

I've been here for almost 8 years. We've pretty much seen it all and done it all. There's really nothing new coming in.

Some of the old timers are getting worn out arguing the same stuff over and over and that causes them to loose patience with the new kids who haven't been talking about this stuff for years already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by foreveryoung, posted 10-29-2012 11:54 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 33 of 103 (677507)
10-30-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by foreveryoung
10-29-2012 11:54 PM


You guys don't even realize that you have been indoctrinated. That is how severe it is. I don't buy stuff intellectually hook line and sinker because it comes from a prof. I certainly don't buy it from you "educated" guys. It takes me a long time before I eventually come around to believing some things. It took me a very long time to eventually come around to believing the earth is indeed very, very old.

Hold on, think about what you're saying.

We're you indocrinated into believing in an old Earth? Are you unaware of it? Or is it that the Earth really is old?

I'm one of these "educated" people you're complaining about. Its not that we've jumped at a scientific explanation, its that we have studied it and it does turn out to be true. But I do understand how we could appear to be indoctrinated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by foreveryoung, posted 10-29-2012 11:54 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 789 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 34 of 103 (677522)
10-30-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by foreveryoung
10-29-2012 11:54 PM


I'm not here to attack you for coming to alternate conclusions from your textbooks and your professors. I've done it on many an occasion and even if you're wrong, it takes courage and perspicacity. It's to be commended even when it's misguided.

But the way you do that in an effective way is, you talk about the evidence. Evidence is what trumps your professor and your textbook. Evidence trumps intuition. That's why your textbooks have copious bibliographies; that's why you have to justify your conclusions in your science classes with your experimental results and not just with your say-so.

It took me a very long time to eventually come around to believing the earth is indeed very, very old.

Hopefully it was the evidence that brought you around. I, for one, would be pretty interested to hear you talk more about the process that brought you around. It doesn't even have to be an argument - I just want to hear what you have to say about that. It's something that I'm interested in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by foreveryoung, posted 10-29-2012 11:54 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 103 (677525)
10-30-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
10-30-2012 7:40 AM


Re: 101
Actually, after re-reading the statement for the third or fourth time, I have reached the conclusion that FEY's statement only applies to the specific bosons mentioned. I'd like to retract the final example. FEY did not imply that all particles must have charge. He instead attempted to make a distinction between being charged and carrying charge.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 10-30-2012 7:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(22)
Message 36 of 103 (677544)
10-30-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
10-30-2012 11:12 AM


crashfrog writes:

Hopefully it was the evidence that brought you around. I, for one, would be pretty interested to hear you talk more about the process that brought you around. It doesn't even have to be an argument - I just want to hear what you have to say about that. It's something that I'm interested in.

The main evidence that has always been presented to me are the radiometric dates given for meteorites and various rocks. I got around that by the possibility of accelerated radioactive decay. People would bring up the heat problem but I had answers for them as well. It was the mechanism for accelerated decay that was the biggest problem for me. By looking for answers to this problem on the web, I found out that an accelerated speed of light could provide the mechanism for accelerated radioactive decay. I was told that an accelerated speed of light would pose many problems because the speed of light was part of certain physical equations and would manifest itself in obvious ways. I got around that by saying that all the physical constants changed in tandem in such a way that no physical manifestation would show. Unless there was an underlying mechanism that could be responsible for such a change in all the constants in tandem, it was very much a case of hand waving. The only mechanism possible was a change in the very fabric of space that is measure by the zero point energy. Setterfield has not shown how a change in the zero point energy could change all the constants in tandem to where there would be no noticeable change in reality. That is the starting tension that I had.

What changed it for me was how radiometric dates matched exactly with isotope ratios for climate related extinction events. I am doing a term paper on the "sixth great extinction" in a class called paleobiology. In going over the various opinions of scientists on the causes of the past 5 great extinctions, measurements of particular radioisotopes that are related to climate and are a proxy for conditions that are thought to be causes of extinction, I came to the conclusion that things fit like a hand in glove with the radiometric dates. You cannot accelerate things like climate proxies in isotope ratios. Two separate phenomena that could not possibly influence one another were in such PRECISE agreement, I could not possibly maintain my position any further without a total denial of reality.

What finally pushed me over the edge happened on another theology website that I have frequented over the years. Someone finally took the time to explain to me what it meant for an ancient writing to be in mythological form. I always fought against this notion because the atheists always said genesis was mythological, but they meant it as in a complete fabrication or fairy tale. When it was explained to me that mythological writing can be about completely real historical phenomena, but written in such a way as to be understandable to mythologically thinking cultures, I was finally convinced. Genesis was telling me a true story. It was just written in a way that was not meant for people of my era who have a culture immersed in thought that has been with us since the age of enlightenment. Genesis is not going to give us a history of the earth or the universe that is scientific terms of the twenty first century. I did not have to abandon belief in the bible being completely true and accurate to also believe the earth was 4.56 billion years old. There was nothing else left now to stop me from believing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2012 11:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 10-30-2012 3:41 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 10-30-2012 3:41 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 10-30-2012 4:22 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2012 6:19 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 58 by dwise1, posted 10-30-2012 8:58 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 37 of 103 (677546)
10-30-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
10-30-2012 10:08 AM


Hold on, think about what you're saying.

We're you indocrinated into believing in an old Earth? Are you unaware of it? Or is it that the Earth really is old?

I was not indoctrinated into believing in an old earth. It took me from the time I first heard of the notion of an old earth to just recently to come to that conclusion. I came to that conclusion by long and hard thinking and trying my absolute best to come up with ways that it wasn't true. After all those efforts had failed, I had no choice but to believe it. That is not indoctrination; that is critical thinking. For you guys who believed it right off the bat without thinking of ways for it possibly to be not true, are guilty of being indoctrinated. You accepted what was told to you without thinking critically about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Larni, posted 10-30-2012 3:29 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 10-30-2012 3:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 5:05 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 54 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 10-30-2012 6:11 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 10-31-2012 10:16 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 38 of 103 (677547)
10-30-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
10-30-2012 9:55 AM


You have posts here where you're not just disbelieving some thing, but you're exemplifying that you are not able to explain, and do not understand, the scientific position on it. And that's fine, and you're right that people shouldn't assume that you haven't studied it at all.

In my haste and ernestness, I may not have stated all the principles of evolution absolutely correctly, but I have also realized that many of you are not aware of the latest changes to evolutionary theory that are not quite accepted by all biological scientists. For one thing, not all biological scientists believe in panselectionism. When you allow for other possiblities for evolutionary change besides random mutation and natural selection, you open yourself to many other possibilities that some biological scientists are now pursuing. I found out about this in my paleobiology text written by Donald Prothero.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 10-30-2012 3:31 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 39 of 103 (677552)
10-30-2012 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
10-30-2012 5:12 AM


Re: 101
I am fully aware of what the physics textbooks say on everything that I have discussed with you. All I am doing is challenging what they say. I thought that the nature of science but perhaps that is not longer what science is about anymore.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2012 5:12 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 10-30-2012 3:33 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 48 by Phat, posted 10-30-2012 4:09 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2012 8:23 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 40 of 103 (677555)
10-30-2012 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by foreveryoung
10-30-2012 2:43 PM


I came to that conclusion by long and hard thinking and trying my absolute best to come up with ways that it wasn't true.

Just like everyone else.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:43 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17181
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 41 of 103 (677556)
10-30-2012 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by foreveryoung
10-30-2012 2:48 PM


quote:

In my haste and ernestness, I may not have stated all the principles of evolution absolutely correctly, but I have also realized that many of you are not aware of the latest changes to evolutionary theory that are not quite accepted by all biological scientists. For one thing, not all biological scientists believe in panselectionism.

Recent changes ? You mean like Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrels" paper from 1979 ? That's recent to you ? The Neutral Theory, which was established in the '60s and '70s is recent ? It may be new to you, but it isn't new.

I really think you could do with a little less arrogance. You can be sure that your attitude is a major contributor to the negative marks your posts have gotten.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:48 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 42 of 103 (677557)
10-30-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by foreveryoung
10-30-2012 3:20 PM


Re: 101
Making up ideas to challenge science or any other subject including the god you worship is great, but then you need to take the next step and ask, "If my idea is true then what evidence must I see?"

It's that next step you need to take.

Where is the evidence?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 3:20 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 10-30-2012 4:25 PM jar has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 43 of 103 (677559)
10-30-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by foreveryoung
10-30-2012 2:38 PM


People would bring up the heat problem but I had answers for them as well.

You haven't posted any answers to the heat and radiation problems 'round here. This thread isn't the place for it, but you should definitely start a thread on radiometric dating. Maybe I will.

I got around that by saying that all the physical constants changed in tandem in such a way that no physical manifestation would show.

Just sayin' it doesn't do. As I've pointed out many times, the trick is to show a set of changes to various physical constants that do show a physical manifestation (accelerated decay) and are not refuted by existing observations. Setterfield's been trying to do it for decades and hasn't succeeded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:38 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 10-30-2012 3:50 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 44 of 103 (677560)
10-30-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by foreveryoung
10-30-2012 2:38 PM


.

Edited by JonF, : Damn! Duplicate again!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 10-30-2012 2:38 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Kairyu
Member (Idle past 976 days)
Posts: 162
From: netherlands
Joined: 06-23-2010


(1)
Message 45 of 103 (677561)
10-30-2012 3:42 PM


I've not been keeping up with the forum that well since summer, but this topic caught my attention.

If my understanding is correct, FEY moved to a old earth worldview? That's a major shift, and I wish him good luck with not being distressed by the strain that comes with such things.

From the PMs I had a few months ago, you're not really a bad guy. If you're still around debating and engaging in this sort of shifts,I respect that, even though it looks the forum contacts have been rough.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022