|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Assumptions involved in scientific dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
DOCJ writes: I disagree. Truth is the shedding of light, and I don't specifically mean in a theological sense. I think I disagree with both you and Stile. If we're talking science (and I hope we are, since this is a science thread), then science doesn't deal in truth, not in a theological sense or any other sense, not unless you define truth as in some way tentative. Typically truth is regarded as more sturdy and timeless than something tentative.
If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias. There's a grammar problem somewhere in that poorly structured and contradictory sentence, but you seem to be saying that A and B are biased, and they're debating C (who in addition to debating A and B "is just spectating") and detects the bias.
I'm merely attempting to point out that bias. Can I guess that you're designating yourself the objective bias detector?
I've said my point of view. No you haven't. You've said so little about your point of view that the term "electric universe" doesn't even appear in any of your messages, though you do use the phrase "electric model of the universe" in Message 75. The closest you've come to describing your views is your brief FYI that was also in Message 75. Mostly all you've done is provided links.
I've also asked for your opinions. Which some have provided, despite that you've only provided links
And soon I'll respond to Percy who has made a mess of things. Dare I hope you'll respond in your own words instead of in links?
I'm sure he is purposefully deceitful since it's clear he is conventional in his views, and would like to hate apparently... I've known Percy for a long time, and I think you're mostly correct. He is a bit conventional in that he demands evidence and follows the rules. He also is a bit of a hater of eschewing evidence and flouting the rules.
...vs being unbiased and debating as I have done. If you do say so yourself. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
DOCJ writes: If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias. To all the "C" people reading this forum... you will be seen as person "A" for as long as you remain just posting links and not discussing them in your own words. The tactic you're using ("I'm pointing out bias! Prove yourselves to me!!!") is one that any onlooker recognizes as someone who is merely protecting something and trying to deflect the conversation away from themselves. As a parent pleads to their children: "Use your words." If you have something to discuss that actually goes against the current scientific idea... by all means discuss it.Or if you think you've discovered something that eats away at a current scientific assumption... by all means discuss it. But posting links, claiming to be unbiased, and pointing fingers around without being able to discuss why or explain a better option is not searching for truth. It just seems like you don't actually have any confidence in what you're doing. People with confidence don't have a problem discussing their position. There are always reasons not to think something is true.That's why science never claims that anything is "true." They only claim that things are "as true as we can tell from this information." That way, as new information is discussed they can adopt or change as required to get closer to the truth. Your lack of discussion on your reasons-why-you-think-something-isn't-true is exactly what gives you away.If you wanted to get to the truth... you would discuss the issues. Understand the current scientific ideas. Understand your own dissention. Understand why it's already been adopted and dealt with. Understanding and discussion leads to uncovering more truth. Just sitting around "being unbiased" does exactly that... nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
DOCJ writes: Saying it's not scientific does not quantify to it not being scientific. I hope that's just a typo and that you meant "qualify".
Be more specific as to how per each point they make. Once again, we don't debate via link here. If you have points to make then you'll have to make them yourself.
FYI looking at the link. Anything you want me to look at? When you describe your points, using your links only as references, then JonF can respond to your points, using his link only as a reference. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Percy writes: I think I disagree with both you and Stile. If we're talking science (and I hope we are, since this is a science thread), then science doesn't deal in truth, not in a theological sense or any other sense, not unless you define truth as in some way tentative. I was getting there. I just had a bush to beat around for a bit first Don't mind that horse, either. He's only mostly dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not the horse you are looking for anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DOCJ writes: I disagree. Truth is the shedding of light, and I don't specifically mean in a theological sense. If person A is biased, and B, and they debate person C who is just spectating is seeing the bias. I'm merely attempting to point out that bias. I've said my point of view. I've also asked for your opinions. And soon I'll respond to Percy who has made a mess of things. I'm sure he is purposefully deceitful since it's clear he is conventional in his views, and would like to hate apparently vs being unbiased and debating as I have done. A deceitful person would say that electrical currents change radioactive decay rates, and then have no intention of backing up this claim with scientific evidence. A person not looking for truth would post a bunch of hour long videos, and have no intention of ever discussing them or have the familiarity with the science necessary to discuss them. A person not looking for truth would adopt a post-modernist stance where all ideas are supposedly equal, even when there is 100 years of science demonstrating that one of the ideas is wrong. Time will tell if you are not being deceitful and are actually looking for the truth. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Where is the contradiction? You quoted my belief system. I guess I can't have a belief and seek truth.
Edited by DOCJ, : 😁
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DOCJ writes: Where is the contradiction? You claim to be seeking truth, yet you link to pages full of lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Most amusing. You tell us that just saying something is scientific doesn't make it true, and two messages later you say no more than your delusions are scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Right... Theories are mere falsehoods in science. And to some a theory will never refute theology. Roflol.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Please point out where I was incorrect. If you can't see the difference between my posts, it does shed some light on things.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
Lies? Be more specific. Who lied about what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
DOCJ writes: Please point out where I was incorrect. If you can't see the difference it does shed some light on things. Someone seeking truth would not shift the burden of proof when someone questions their claims. You need to show that your claims are correct using evidence. If no such evidence is presented, then there is nothing that needs to be disproved. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOCJ Inactive Member |
I made a claim and provided a link to a source... Lol.
Edited by DOCJ, : Clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DOCJ writes: Lies? Be more specific. Who lied about what? You linked to a Thunderbolts page where they lied about the assumptions of the 14C dating method. They claimed that it is assumed that 14C production was the same in the past. This is a lie. The 14C dating method is calibrated to known historic fluctuations in 14C production as determined by objects of known age such as tree rings, lake varves, ice layers, and speleothems. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in that link. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024