Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 71 (9014 total)
36 online now:
jar, PurpleYouko, Tangle (3 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,087 Year: 13,835/23,288 Month: 27/326 Week: 47/92 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fountains of the deep, new evidence
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 61 of 106 (742707)
11-23-2014 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
11-22-2014 11:00 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:

Yes, the consensus might be wrong one day. Then the next day new evdence comes in and the consensus may still be wrong. But eventually, with enough new evidence, the concensus should move toward "truth".

What other method would you propose to improve it?

I agree with the method, and accept progression, but I use both reasoning and faith.

For example, I believe in adaptation in animals and plants, but not that all living organisms are an offspring to an accident in a swamp.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 11-22-2014 11:00 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 11-23-2014 8:00 AM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 11-23-2014 8:40 AM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 11-23-2014 1:58 PM Colbard has responded

  
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 62 of 106 (742708)
11-23-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Colbard
11-23-2014 7:48 AM


Re: Water in the earth
For example, I believe in adaptation in animals and plants, but not that all living organisms are an offspring to an accident in a swamp

That's good but not sure why you felt a need to post that bit of info. I don't think anyone believes that. It would be take a very ignorant person to think such a thing, or to think people think that.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:48 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19881
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 63 of 106 (742712)
11-23-2014 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Colbard
11-23-2014 7:44 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

I do have a lot to post, but you do not, and will not, acknowledge the truth in it by reasoning and working things out, neither will you give my sources any credit, so no, I will keep it for someone who is willing and able to understand.

I think that if instead of making excuses you directed your efforts at research and explication that you'd obtain a better outcome.

In this thread you've had a lot more to say about science and almost nothing about the fountains of the deep. Perhaps you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:44 AM Colbard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 7:19 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19881
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 64 of 106 (742713)
11-23-2014 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Colbard
11-23-2014 7:48 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

I agree with the method, and accept progression, but I use both reasoning and faith.

You only need facts and reasoning. Faith is required only to believe we live in a rational universe that makes sense and can be figured out, a faith which seems to be supported by the facts.

For example, I believe in adaptation in animals and plants, but not that all living organisms are an offspring to an accident in a swamp.

Again, not the topic, and not something anyone believes anyway.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:48 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18826
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 65 of 106 (742730)
11-23-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Colbard
11-23-2014 7:48 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

I agree with the method, and accept progression, but I use both reasoning and faith.


Since you accepted by faith that somebody had radio-carbon dated a penny, maybe you should be leaving faith out of the equation. Reasoning should have told you how ludicrous that idea was, but your faith seems to let the ludicrous in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:48 AM Colbard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 7:22 AM ringo has responded

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 66 of 106 (742754)
11-24-2014 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
11-23-2014 8:36 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Percy writes:

I think that if instead of making excuses you directed your efforts at research and explication that you'd obtain a better outcome.

In this thread you've had a lot more to say about science and almost nothing about the fountains of the deep. Perhaps you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.

Thanks, I'll give it a go, backing up what I say with evidence from science, I just don't find the usual sites have the info I need to prove a point, simply because there is more than one way that info can be interpreted, but the consensus falls in the direction I disagree with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 11-23-2014 8:36 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 11-24-2014 8:15 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 67 of 106 (742755)
11-24-2014 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ringo
11-23-2014 1:58 PM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:

Since you accepted by faith that somebody had radio-carbon dated a penny, maybe you should be leaving faith out of the equation. Reasoning should have told you how ludicrous that idea was, but your faith seems to let the ludicrous in.

Not really, as a kid I believed what I was told to pass exams. Fortunately there never was a Question about dating in the final.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 11-23-2014 1:58 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 11-25-2014 10:42 AM Colbard has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19881
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 68 of 106 (742756)
11-24-2014 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Colbard
11-24-2014 7:19 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

Thanks, I'll give it a go, backing up what I say with evidence from science,...

Seeking scientific support for what you're going to say before you say it will prevent you from making misstatements of fact, but it won't help you build a case for creationist views. Many creationists have spent lifetimes trying to do just that (Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Steven Austin, John Baumgardner, Andrew Snelling, et many al.). If you want a coherent foundation for flood science then I suggest you start with the foundational book on the subject, The Genesis Flood, written over a half century ago by Henry Morris, but it contains little of any scientific validity.

...I just don't find the usual sites have the info I need to prove a point, simply because there is more than one way that info can be interpreted, but the consensus falls in the direction I disagree with.

Claims of alternative interpretations is a frequent resort of creationists once they see that the facts are not in their favor, but consensuses form within science only after all interpretations but one are eliminated. Still, claiming alternative interpretations is the path most creationists choose, and so many discussions between science-minded folk and creationists become an exercise in trying to convince creationists that the interpretation they're backing is already excluded by the available evidence. My own opinion is that the creationist has no hope of success, but it is nonetheless an extremely valuable educational exercise. Usually people on both sides of the debate learn a great deal.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 7:19 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18826
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 69 of 106 (742870)
11-25-2014 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Colbard
11-24-2014 7:22 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

Not really, as a kid I believed what I was told to pass exams. Fortunately there never was a Question about dating in the final.


But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 7:22 AM Colbard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Colbard, posted 11-29-2014 8:16 AM ringo has responded

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 70 of 106 (743266)
11-29-2014 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by ringo
11-25-2014 10:42 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:

But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?

Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 11-25-2014 10:42 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 11-29-2014 8:34 AM Colbard has responded
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 11-29-2014 9:28 AM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 11-29-2014 10:56 AM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 11-29-2014 11:15 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33024
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 71 of 106 (743271)
11-29-2014 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Colbard
11-29-2014 8:16 AM


Re: Water in the earth
colbard writes:

Ringo writes:

But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?

Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary.

Yet you have never presented any of your alleged evidence.

What evidence do you have?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Colbard, posted 11-29-2014 8:16 AM Colbard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Colbard, posted 11-30-2014 6:01 AM jar has responded

  
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 72 of 106 (743278)
11-29-2014 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Colbard
11-29-2014 8:16 AM


Re: Water in the earth
If you had it you would present it. You are no different than the carny barker trying to get people to buy tickets to see whatever wonder of the world they have. Over sell under deliver.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Colbard, posted 11-29-2014 8:16 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 805 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 73 of 106 (743293)
11-29-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Colbard
11-29-2014 8:16 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:

But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?

Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary.

Have you even read the dating thread RAZD has referred you to?

Or are you just rejecting any and all evidence, sight unseen, because it might disagree with your pre-conceived notions?

I suspect the latter, and I suspect the nature of your pre-conceived notions is all on a par with C14 dating an Australian penny.

In other words, you have no evidence against scientific dating methods. All you have is belief.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Colbard, posted 11-29-2014 8:16 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18826
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 74 of 106 (743298)
11-29-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Colbard
11-29-2014 8:16 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:

ringo writes:

But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?


Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary.

Is all of your "evidence" as idiotic as carbon-dating a penny? Surely you ought to be embarrassed to even mention any other "evidence" you've seen.

What you ought to be doing, instead of sticking to your story, is re-evaluating all of that so-called "evidence" before you make any more pronouncements about dating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Colbard, posted 11-29-2014 8:16 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2090 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 75 of 106 (743354)
11-30-2014 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
11-29-2014 8:34 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Jar writes:

Yet you have never presented any of your alleged evidence.

What evidence do you have?

Where did we leave off? What were we talking about last that did not fit?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 11-29-2014 8:34 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 11-30-2014 8:42 AM Colbard has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020