Jump to content


Photo

Why We Just Don't Believe Them


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#61 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 September 2015 - 01:38 PM

 

Please Cease and Desist from posting on "Science" related topics.

No. 

 

  I will not answer your questions

You are not required to answer my questions.   I can understand how difficult it is for you to have your best quote mines and speculation reduced to ashes by a device many, if not most, of us have in our cars and/or cell phones.

 

 (or your frivolously contrived Baseless Assertions carefully documented facts) As Gilbo would say.... "fixed it for you."

 

 

until you have shown @ least a 3rd grade Acumen in any of the disciplines i.e., Physics, Chemistry, Biology ( actual "Sciences").

Speaking of "at least a 3rd grade acumen" ... You still haven't handled D=RT.... a third grade equation that you introduced to the "One way speed of light" discussion.

 

The difference between us is that I'm capable of actually evaluating what is said.  

 

Calypsis hates that almost as much as you do.  He keeps claiming I ignore the articles he produces.  That is not true.  What I do is to evaluate the impact of the "possible" finding as if it is true to determine the impact of it.  Without exception, the "possible" finding has an insignificant impact.

 

To date, all you have shown is an ability to use quotes ...  often out of context (ie:  quote mines), insults, and endless badgering of other forum members in an attempt to browbeat them into submission.  I have explained before, I'm not one some 19 year old recruits that you can just run roughshod over at will.

 

If you're unsure as to Why ???   :think:  And what is my Justification for this action,  Well...

I know why.... you're a regurgiquoting, hypocritical, quote mining troll who has been caught playing sophomoric games one time too many.


  • Schera Do likes this

#62 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 28 September 2015 - 04:04 PM

Not sure if this is helpful or not, but this atheist inadvertently gives a great definition/reason why evolution is an ideology, and should not just simply be believed. He's discussing ideology generally, and I believe feminism specifically, but his characterization of ideology fits deep time evolution to the proverbial "T".



#63 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 September 2015 - 04:34 PM

popoi:

 

 

There is no single expert that you should believe without qualification. That's not how science works.

 

I never said I did. The facts speak for themselves regardless of who says it or what the qualifications. So what are the 'fact's in the matter. Tell us.
 

Spheroid, actually. Using Google Earth as a reference is probably fine, but if it provides faulty information, it's not a good indication that geography as a whole is flawed.

 

Sphere is close enough. https://en.wikipedia...Spherical_Earth
 
"Using X method, we get an estimate of 100 billion" and "Using Y method, we get an estimate of 400 billion" aren't contradictory. "There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy" and "There are 400 billion stars in our galaxy" are. Some of the articles you originally posted are flawed because they make the second kind of statement, which is bad, but shouldn't be taken as an indictment of the actual scientific work, which is making the first kind of statement.

 

Then maybe you ought to approach NASA, National Geographic, Scientific American, NIA, etc. and tell them so.Even if one of the five guesses turns out to be correct the error factor is huge and much more than what can be reasonably justified.
 

But you don't actually believe in those things, because you think they could be changed at any time. The whole point of laws of science is that things keep happening the same way.

 

I do actually believe them. BUT...if they are subject to change and it can be proven that can happen then I will accept the change. The only thing that is not truly subject to change is God's Word.

 
This is an unintentionally good analogy. Imagine you're studying a city by telescope. You have extremely high resolution pictures of everything you're able to see from your station, but only for a small range of time.

You're able to count a lot of people who are visible from your position, but obviously can't count anyone who's obstructed by a building or other obstacle. However, you can estimate how many other people there are based on the number and size of buildings, the number of cars, the infrastructure you can see, etc. None of those are going to provide a definite answer, and they may not be very close to each other, but it's at least a starting point for further investigation.

 

So I ask you again: which figure out of the five choices I listed do you take? State it then prove it.

You're much more likely to see a death in process than a birth, since I would guess a much higher percentage of births than deaths happen indoors, but you can probably figure out that some births have happened if you see babies around.

 

Dream on. Just like you do in thinking that nature will create life from non-living matter by blind processes. You're just wishing, nothing more.



#64 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 29 September 2015 - 04:26 PM

Not sure if this is helpful or not, but this atheist inadvertently gives a great definition/reason why evolution is an ideology, and should not just simply be believed. He's discussing ideology generally, and I believe feminism specifically, but his characterization of ideology fits deep time evolution to the proverbial "T".

https://youtu.be/xOEMvPVT8v8

.
Yes, but where it the bleeping 22 minutes?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users