Page 47 of 51 FirstFirst ... 37464748 ... LastLast
Results 1,611 to 1,645 of 1767

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #1611
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    23,545

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Again I will have to give these articles more attention than I can afford right now - so I suppose I have reason to allow the points pro tem ......

    I will say though that , in the past, when I had time to diligently wade through all the to-ing and fro-ing of the issues like 'helium retention in zircon crystals', I did form the opinion that the issue tended to become lost to the layman - and that annoyed me because I understand the ultimate goal of the scientific process is to make the findings accessible to the layman!
    Regarding your last sentence the answer is no. The purpose of science is to understand. If the processes and answers had to be understood by all laymen maths wouldn’t get past 2+2.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  2. #1612
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,205

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    "First, once you allow miracles, even one miracle, we're done with science"

    - so the Big Bang theory isn't science?

    (First there was nothing - then a Singularity appeared ........)

    ???
    According to Krauss it was inevitable.


    A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and— which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  3. #1613
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    63,691

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    So true Keith !

    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  4. #1614
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Not necessarily. It is good if it can be explained to the layman. Prof Brian Cox, Dr Alice Roberts, Dawkins and Hawking are some of the excellent communicators writing and doing documentaries now, but you have to respect their scholarship and be willing to take their word for the hard bits. After all there is a cliché that if you think that you understand Quantum, then you don't.
    and another quote re Quantum "can only be understood by advanced mathematicians and small children"

    reminds me of Jesus' "unless you become as these small ones you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (somebody will correct me....)

    Regardless science is no use until its fruits can be accessed and understood by ppl!

    which is why science took root in the west - cos all the others did not live under a non-capricious god(s)

  5. #1615
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    According to Krauss it was inevitable.
    and I would wager that when it is all boiled down it will prove to be a mathematical exposition of 'God the Creator' - without him ever acknowledging that is what he proved.

  6. #1616
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,205

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Regardless science is no use until its fruits can be accessed
    As it is. We are conversing by science. Your health is maintained by science, your food is produced transported and cooked by science, and so on.
    Which is one reason that I have no time for science denialists or those that corrupt the process.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  7. #1617
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,205

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    and I would wager that when it is all boiled down it will prove to be a mathematical exposition of 'God the Creator' - without him ever acknowledging that is what he proved.
    Actually no. No gods were harmed in the process.
    Any thoughts on posts #1954 & 5.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  8. #1618
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,443

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    and I would wager that when it is all boiled down it will prove to be a mathematical exposition of 'God the Creator' - without him ever acknowledging that is what he proved.
    I would take that bet. You may agree or disagree, he may be right or wrong - he's operating at the limits of human knowledge and maybe a bit past - but it's nothing like the creator the Christian bible describes.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  9. #1619
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand
    Posts
    3,958

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Is there?

    Got any examples?
    Not really, but I've had that point put to me by a Presbyterian minister, she is one of the more pragmatic ones in that game. I thought it was a reasonable point that would accommodate much of what we know about our world and what surrounds it, allows the validity of scientific knowledge, but still leaves the possibility of there being a reason for our existence rather than being just a miserable accident of chemistry.
    So there are questions that exercise my thinking, along the lines of " am I just a single thread in the great tapestry that the combined lives of man create? and what is the purpose of that "tapestry"?. I watch people pass on and wonder if their experience and learning is more than their contribution to the greater society, or if it goes on to something else?
    I dont live in fear of a human created myth of punishment after death, and dont look at my every action in terms of "will this affect my chances of going to heaven when I die". But do wonder if and what might come next.
    There is only one way to find out, and that will come soon enough.

    John Welsford, in the meantime off to the shed to cut more wood.
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  10. #1620
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,205

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    ^The scientific consensus (possibly) is that we (you and I) exist in order to pass our genes to the next generation.
    As to everything else, scientists and mathematicians are leaning towards thinking it was inevitable that the universe and complex life would happen.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 11-14-2017 at 06:05 PM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  11. #1621
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Any thoughts on posts #1954 & 5.
    well ...... not yet!

    (seeing we are still in the 1600's ?)

  12. #1622
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,188

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    But .. how do you explain all those identical white fiberglass things at marinas?

    Not only reproduction, but severe inbreeding.
    Good heavens, I never thought of that!

    What are you doing about it?




  13. #1623
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    15,188

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    "First, once you allow miracles, even one miracle, we're done with science"

    - so the Big Bang theory isn't science?

    (First there was nothing - then a Singularity appeared ........)

    ???
    We don't know "first there was nothing". All we know is that the universe appears to have originated through rapid inflation from a singularity. That's not a miracle, it's a description.

    What are you doing about it?




  14. #1624
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,443

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    We don't know "first there was nothing". All we know is that the universe appears to have originated through rapid inflation from a singularity. That's not a miracle, it's a description.
    Exactly. And anyone who claims to know how it happened, or what caused it, is speculating at this point. Nothing wrong with speculation, of course, as long as one is clear about it. Someday we may know more, but we don't yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by john welsford View Post
    but still leaves the possibility of there being a reason for our existence rather than being just a miserable accident of chemistry.
    Why 'miserable'? Why not 'a glorious and wonderful accident of chemistry'?
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  15. #1625
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    646

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    One of the objectives of science is to understand the various processes going on about us, in order to make reasonably accurate projections of future events. The fundamental problem of creation science is that with God mucking about with things, it's just not possible to predict when He will pull off another of his miracles, much less what it will be. So all they can do is look backward and say "see? Our version of the story fits all the data points...."
    "... the door was ajar, and the game was afoot." Lawrence Block

  16. #1626
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    646

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    The Chairman of the Computer Science Department at the last Uni I attended declared in a lecture that "Any discipline that calls itself a science isn't."
    "... the door was ajar, and the game was afoot." Lawrence Block

  17. #1627
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    23,545

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    and another quote re Quantum "can only be understood by advanced mathematicians and small children"

    reminds me of Jesus' "unless you become as these small ones you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (somebody will correct me....)

    Regardless science is no use until its fruits can be accessed and understood by ppl!

    which is why science took root in the west - cos all the others did not live under a non-capricious god(s)
    Actually Western scientists started with Arabic translations of the Greek philosophers when the Moors were evicted from Spain. Of course the Arabs contributed a lot of the mathematics that made modern science possible. All this was what got the Europeans thinking...something the church was seriously unhappy about.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  18. #1628
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand
    Posts
    3,958

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Exactly. And anyone who claims to know how it happened, or what caused it, is speculating at this point. Nothing wrong with speculation, of course, as long as one is clear about it. Someday we may know more, but we don't yet.

    Why 'miserable'? Why not 'a glorious and wonderful accident of chemistry'?
    I tend to think about some people one way, and some the other.
    Mostly good, but today I'd had a run in with a particularly miserable character and that somewhat affected my outlook. I shouldnt apply that to everyone. Thanks for calling me out on that.

    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  19. #1629
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,205

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Actually Western scientists started with Arabic translations of the Greek philosophers when the Moors were evicted from Spain. Of course the Arabs contributed a lot of the mathematics that made modern science possible. All this was what got the Europeans thinking...something the church was seriously unhappy about.
    India also contributed loads, which the Muslim scholars preserved, for example.
    "Zero and its operation are first defined by [Hindu astronomer and mathematician] Brahmagupta in 628," said Gobets. He developed a symbol for zero: a dot underneath numbers. "But he, too, does not claim to have invented zero, which presumably must have been around for some time," Gobets added.
    <snip>
    Zero found its way to Europe through the Moorish conquest of Spain and was further developed by Italian mathematician Fibonacci, who used it to do equations without an abacus, then the most prevalent tool for doing arithmetic. This development was highly popular among merchants, who used Fibonacci's equations involving zero to balance their books.
    Medieval religious leaders in Europe did not support the use of zero, van der Hoek said. They saw it as satanic. "God was in everything that was. Everything that was not was of the devil,"
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  20. #1630
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Posted by Keith:
    "I would take that bet."

    Great Keith! I am happy to seal the wager.

    Not sure how we settle bets in an antipodean situation - but i like the pressure of accountability. ....

    Some initial flags:
    - "he's operating at the limits of human knowledge and maybe a bit past*"

    So maybe Krauss is stepping over some boundaries that he should not cross - if he wants to maintain his purity as a materialistic atheist. Remember he must not allow a divine foot in the door as he tries to extract something from nothing ......

    Frank
    Last edited by Frank!; 11-15-2017 at 11:41 PM.

  21. #1631
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    Actually Western scientists started with Arabic translations of the Greek philosophers when the Moors were evicted from Spain. Of course the Arabs contributed a lot of the mathematics that made modern science possible. All this was what got the Europeans thinking...something the church was seriously unhappy about.
    We would all remember back to the time when we thought ourselves as citizens of a 'Christian country'.
    My, how times have changed - not only have we officially been surveyed to find we don't believe in normal marriage anymore - but are in the process of letting Doctors , in defiance of their Hippocratic mandate, kill us .....

    Of course, as part of this process the history we knew has been rewritten to remove the positives of our christian heritage. Nor do we recognise the foundational role that Judeo - Christian thought has played in shaping and developing our civilisation and culture.

    There - ive had my non-PC rant! - your opinion may vary ....

    the relevance for this thread IMO is that whilst scientific knowledge may have arisen in various different cultures (humans are an innovative lot) .... unless the prevailing culture and society provided fertile ground for further development, science and progress were stillborn. the J - C god is essentially dependable, true, righteous (yomv!) - and not superstitious or maverically unpredictable - so Truth matters, Integrity, Accountability etc all work together to evaluate scientific endeavor and preserve it for posterity so others can stand on the shoulders of giants .....

    Sadly as our culture falls apart, standards are dropping and levels of scientific fraud are increasing (g@@gle 80% of significant Medical Papers are fraudulent).

    looks like I'm still ranting - but I wanted to say that I have had a look at those anti-Humphreys links.

    some I found hard to follow - but I think for a summary point I would find they frequently misunderstood or confused the dating systems (if they were building a boat for me I would not hand them a tape marked with both Imperial and Metric scales!)
    one noted that since the flood must have covered from the Archeo-something Period to the Cenozoic Period then it couldn't have happened for all those billions of years. (the creationists would point out that all those billions of tons of formations were formed in a catastrophic re-arrangement of the oceans and continents that went on for about a year or so with an ice age following ....)

    enough for now

  22. #1632
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    10,593

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    We would all remember back to the time when we thought ourselves as citizens of a 'Christian country'.
    My, how times have changed - not only have we officially been surveyed to find we don't believe in normal marriage anymore - but are in the process of letting Doctors , in defiance of their Hippocratic mandate, kill us .....

    Of course, as part of this process the history we knew has been rewritten to remove the positives of our christian heritage. Nor do we recognise the foundational role that Judeo - Christian thought has played in shaping and developing our civilisation and culture.

    There - ive had my non-PC rant! - your opinion may vary ....

    the relevance for this thread IMO is that whilst scientific knowledge may have arisen in various different cultures (humans are an innovative lot) .... unless the prevailing culture and society provided fertile ground for further development, science and progress were stillborn. the J - C god is essentially dependable, true, righteous (yomv!) - and not superstitious or maverically unpredictable - so Truth matters, Integrity, Accountability etc all work together to evaluate scientific endeavor and preserve it for posterity so others can stand on the shoulders of giants .....

    Sadly as our culture falls apart, standards are dropping and levels of scientific fraud are increasing (g@@gle 80% of significant Medical Papers are fraudulent).

    looks like I'm still ranting - but I wanted to say that I have had a look at those anti-Humphreys links.

    some I found hard to follow - but I think for a summary point I would find they frequently misunderstood or confused the dating systems (if they were building a boat for me I would not hand them a tape marked with both Imperial and Metric scales!)
    one noted that since the flood must have covered from the Archeo-something Period to the Cenozoic Period then it couldn't have happened for all those billions of years. (the creationists would point out that all those billions of tons of formations were formed in a catastrophic re-arrangement of the oceans and continents that went on for about a year or so with an ice age following ....)

    enough for now
    Well Abram left Ur and eventually became the father of Israel, and Jesus was a Roman citizen, so, I’d say that part of the world was doing fine without Judaism or Christianity, What with the Gardens and Pyramids and all the aquadeucts and roads and all.

    Also, there was an entire planet full of civilized people the Catholics set out to kill. Er, convert. The Church called them savages.

    The Earth has been here for a long time. A long, long, time. A catastrophic rearrangement that occurred over a few years... Now who’s inventing crazy theories to fit the poor notion of what SHOULD be? Look at what is, and marvel at the amazing works your God does. Nothing about your belief need be diminished by examining the glorious system God devised to do His work. Mysterious ways, and all, eh?

    There are cultures older than the religion you’re touting as the Be All End All, man. Really.

    Do try to be more open. Most of us are very familiar with the Christian ideology, and reject it in favor of others. That doesn’t mean respectful, intelligent, two way discourse is impossible. But it does take good faith on both sides.

    Now, what about those 4500 year old trees? 4500 year old, living trees.

    Peace,
    Robert

  23. #1633
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Well Abram left Ur and eventually became the father of Israel, and Jesus was a Roman citizen, so, I’d say that part of the world was doing fine without Judaism or Christianity, What with the Gardens and Pyramids and all the aquadeucts and roads and all.

    Also, there was an entire planet full of civilized people the Catholics set out to kill. Er, convert. The Church called them savages. (3)

    The Earth has been here for a long time. A long, long, time. A catastrophic rearrangement (2) that occurred over a few years... Now who’s inventing crazy theories to fit the poor notion of what SHOULD be? Look at what is, and marvel at the amazing works your God does. Nothing about your belief need be diminished by examining the glorious system God devised to do His work. Mysterious ways, and all, eh?

    There are cultures older than the religion you’re touting as the Be All End All, man. Really.

    Do try to be more open. Most of us are very familiar with the Christian ideology, and reject it in favor of others. That doesn’t mean respectful, intelligent, two way discourse is impossible. But it does take good faith on both sides.

    Now, what about those 4500 year old trees? 4500 year old, living trees. (1)

    Peace,
    Robert
    (1)
    4500y.o.trees --- I would have thought that more supporting of a young earth than old - unless you quibble that the bible puts the end of the flood @ say 4300 (or even up to say 4499 yrs) ..... given possible error bars those trees are within a couple of centuries of the flood date.

    I would be more concerned about the 10,000 or 100,000 year old claims - but such claims are not based upon counting actual rings ....

    In one of the other articles cited, some other "natural dating" methods were mentioned that purportedly went way past the biblical time line - coral banding for one. I would like to find out more about that.

    (2)
    considering you are living on catastrophically laid sediments miles thick - you still feel comfortable with your 'non-crazy' theory? (intending no disrespect you understand ....)

    (3)
    give the christians their dues - they have been recognised from the beginning as the only mob who seemed to exist for the benefit of their non-members .... "They went about doing good ...."

    when institutionalised they fell prey to the corruptions of powerful institutions

    peace,

    frank

  24. #1634
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    18,441

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    This has been an exhibition of ignorance, the failure in science education is perhaps understandable, but the deficiency and n comparative religion much harder to forgive.

    Perhaps in someone under fourteen an entirely home educated.....
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

  25. #1635
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    23,545

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    We would all remember back to the time when we thought ourselves as citizens of a 'Christian country'.
    My, how times have changed - not only have we officially been surveyed to find we don't believe in normal marriage anymore - but are in the process of letting Doctors , in defiance of their Hippocratic mandate, kill us .....

    Of course, as part of this process the history we knew has been rewritten to remove the positives of our christian heritage. Nor do we recognise the foundational role that Judeo - Christian thought has played in shaping and developing our civilisation and culture.

    There - ive had my non-PC rant! - your opinion may vary ....

    the relevance for this thread IMO is that whilst scientific knowledge may have arisen in various different cultures (humans are an innovative lot) .... unless the prevailing culture and society provided fertile ground for further development, science and progress were stillborn. the J - C god is essentially dependable, true, righteous (yomv!) - and not superstitious or maverically unpredictable - so Truth matters, Integrity, Accountability etc all work together to evaluate scientific endeavor and preserve it for posterity so others can stand on the shoulders of giants .....

    Sadly as our culture falls apart, standards are dropping and levels of scientific fraud are increasing (g@@gle 80% of significant Medical Papers are fraudulent).

    looks like I'm still ranting - but I wanted to say that I have had a look at those anti-Humphreys links.

    some I found hard to follow - but I think for a summary point I would find they frequently misunderstood or confused the dating systems (if they were building a boat for me I would not hand them a tape marked with both Imperial and Metric scales!)
    one noted that since the flood must have covered from the Archeo-something Period to the Cenozoic Period then it couldn't have happened for all those billions of years. (the creationists would point out that all those billions of tons of formations were formed in a catastrophic re-arrangement of the oceans and continents that went on for about a year or so with an ice age following ....)

    enough for now
    You are waffling. Tree rings, read this. http://theconversation.com/where-the...nt-trees-65893
    Now for geology, I live in the Mt Warning Caldera. All the evidence of it's volcanic origins are here to see and there is no way the whole process of formation and erosion took place in only 6,000 years. Your view of the world is at best simplistic. To think that layers of silt can be converted into layers of rock in only a year is quite frankly deluded.
    To top it off you still haven;t explained why we don't see evidence of magnetic water.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  26. #1636
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    the question was raised earlier , without satisfactory answer, as to how one could defend oneself against the charge of being brainwashed.

    I suggest it is a non-trivial question, and goes to the heart of this thread's import.

    imagine yourself an East German in the cold war, or a present day North Korean.

    (or even, a citizen of 'western civilisation')

    an enquiring mind would like to receive a thoughtful and considered response.

    thanks,

    frank

  27. #1637
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    23,545

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    the question was raised earlier , without satisfactory answer, as to how one could defend oneself against the charge of being brainwashed.

    I suggest it is a non-trivial question, and goes to the heart of this thread's import.

    imagine yourself an East German in the cold war, or a present day North Korean.

    (or even, a citizen of 'western civilisation')

    an enquiring mind would like to receive a thoughtful and considered response.

    thanks,

    frank
    Given your total denial of geological history and the fact that geological processes are fairly well understood I would suggest that you are the one who is brainwashed.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  28. #1638
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    suggest away - but, what we need, of course, is some method or process or standard, call it what you will, to determine which one is the one brainwashed. you can't be serious in your implication that scientific consensus is proof against being brainwashed

    you also need to remember, when casting these sorts of aspersions, the plight of Galileo, Pasteur, and so on - as well as the adherents of cults like Heaven's Gate

    for the record, I have never attended, nor been personally associated with, any church or institution or persons who espouse young earth creationism.

  29. #1639
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    795

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Actually no. No gods were harmed in the process.
    Any thoughts on posts #1954 & 5.
    Err! Are you unsure of the year you were born?

    Or do you see how this discussion is developing and have reached a conclusive reply and are waiting to end it at 1954/5 ?

    It took 3yrs for comments to reach that number on Jim's LTBC thread I'm approaching 84yrs have a heart and PM deduction time may run out for me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    well ...... not yet!

    (seeing we are still in the 1600's ?)
    No Frank, it's 2017.

  30. #1640
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    23,545

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    suggest away - but, what we need, of course, is some method or process or standard, call it what you will, to determine which one is the one brainwashed. you can't be serious in your implication that scientific consensus is proof against being brainwashed

    you also need to remember, when casting these sorts of aspersions, the plight of Galileo, Pasteur, and so on - as well as the adherents of cults like Heaven's Gate

    for the record, I have never attended, nor been personally associated with, any church or institution or persons who espouse young earth creationism.
    However you still stick to the belief that god created the earth and the universe 6,000 years ago, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Oh and you persistently post quotes from creationist websites.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  31. #1641
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    You are waffling. Tree rings, read this. http://theconversation.com/where-the...nt-trees-65893
    Now for geology, I live in the Mt Warning Caldera. All the evidence of it's volcanic origins are here to see and there is no way the whole process of formation and erosion took place in only 6,000 years. Your view of the world is at best simplistic. To think that layers of silt can be converted into layers of rock in only a year is quite frankly deluded.
    To top it off you still haven;t explained why we don't see evidence of magnetic water.
    Checking your references I find any tree ring chronology that goes back beyond the biblical date for the flood relies , not on the simple counting of rings in any single log, but on constructing a sequence , sometimes computer aided, from logs of various ages. The falsification of the biblical flood date depends on the robustness of that constructed chronology.
    I'm not saying it's wrong - just obviously not as reliable as one might hope for the high stakes involved.
    As to your volcano and consolidating " silt" layers ...... I have handled, on a beach on French Island , an fruit box shaped sandstone (Beach Rock) rock in which was embedded sundry bottles and rusty cans. We may agree that the artifact was not even one million years old.
    I have viewed in a museum on the shipwreck coast a lump of "rock" out of which protruded a number of brass bells. Similarly clearly the rock was not millions of years old.
    Of course, if one arbitrarily closes one,s mind to some sources of evidence one risks missing a whole class of evidence.

    If someone can explain how a singularity can originate out of nothing then i suggest that is the person who might be in the best position to provide an explanation of how , at the moment of creation, water might have it's molecular moments aligned.

  32. #1642
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,443

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    . . . not only have we officially been surveyed to find we don't believe in normal marriage anymore . . .
    Ah, right; I thought Frank was Australian. The quote is, however, utterly and completely wrong, a willful and egregious distortion of the facts. The referendum had nothing at all to do with people's attitudes toward ordinary heterosexual marriage. Once the law is revised, that will continue completely unchanged. I'm just an average straight guy, happily married for 37 years now, and same-sex marriage hasn't had the slightest effect on on my life, except that I got to go to Monica and Nicole's wedding.

    Anyway, back to the miraculous magnetic water.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  33. #1643
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    13,597

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Geez.

    Will somebody give the poor guy a straw so he can stop grasping for them?
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  34. #1644
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    46,443

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Hey, give the poor fellow a break - denying a large portion of the information people have collected about the universe to defend one specific interpretation of one specific ancient ancient creation myth - that's hard work, and requires mental gymnastics which few of us are capable of.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  35. #1645
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    18,441

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Having never attended etc...

    Anyone think he made it up all by himself? Or are we thinking of Bishop Ussher.?


    As to defending oneself against a charge of having been brainwashed, a long hard look at Wikipedia's list of logical fallacies might provide some clues.

    See, for instance, Appeal to authority.
    Someday, I'm going to settle down and be a grumpy old man.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •