Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sasquatch

Greetings

Recommended Posts

Ike have you read her actual papers? "And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it". Where? Please show me where she is quoted as stating this. And as for "debating" In order for a debate to continue, there must be new points made. Otherwise, it's stagnant, and pretty much over. While there's always new discoveries being made in evolution, the same isn't true of creationism. The debate among scientists has been over for decades.. however, the public and political debate is far from over.

 

Its stagnant when one side provides all the evidence and the other ignores them and continues on with their minor point.

 

Even IF we allowed you to claim that ALL the fossils that have soft tissue in them, to be called "contaminated". (Yet with the sheer amount of fossils that have been claimed t have soft tissue, it would be claiming that all the scientists are incompetent and continue to contaminate every single sample)

 

Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside

 

http://news.national...ino_tissue.html

 

 

You STILL haven't dealt with

 

- DNA that was found signalling that the fossil was merely 10,000 years old at MAX

- The fact that the radiometric dating process is founded on assumptions, (see my candle analogy)

- The fact that the RATE team has used a superior method and have found the Earths age to about 6000 years

- and the Biochemical evidence which you refuse to comment on

 

(These are just my points you continue to avoid.... )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However if only we were so allowing, you haven't demonstrated any form of evidence for your claims about the fossils being "pond scum" and now "contaminated". I did ask you for the papers describing such hence the onus is on you to provide your evidence.

 

Further the only evidence you have given was debunked by the fact that the methods used, (radiometric dating) is based on assumptions leading to the claim that it is not only unreliable but intellectually dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ike have you read her actual papers? "And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it". Where? Please show me where she is quoted as stating this. And as for "debating" In order for a debate to continue, there must be new points made. Otherwise, it's stagnant, and pretty much over. While there's always new discoveries being made in evolution, the same isn't true of creationism. The debate among scientists has been over for decades.. however, the public and political debate is far from over.

 

From this response it's more than clear you still don;t listen. So all I can figure is that all of this is just a game to you and truth or anything else does not matter except what you believe. So without further due in wasting everyone's time you are now banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweitzer said everyone knows soft tissue doesn't last millions of years. :gigglesmile:

 

She seems reasonable to me. At least she's keeping her work seperate from her personal religious beliefs. And she also admits the possibility of contamination existed and that more work needs o be done to come to a true conclusion..

 

They did that work and all it did was confirm existing soft tissue and a lack of contamination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Please test the laws of logic."

 

There are no "laws" of logic - there are simply rules. These rules amount to axioms. Hence logic is an arbitrary system we use for establishing the validity and truth value of a given formal argument. Please note that validity (whether or not the argument is constructed properly) and truth value (whether or not the argument is true) are two completely different things, and they are not related.

 

 

"Please test the laws of science."

 

You need to be very careful with this statement. What do you mean by a "scientific law?" The true laws of science are mathematical - that is, they simply describe the relationship between two variables that we have measured. Boyle's Law, for example, describes the mathematical relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas under fixed temperature. It can indeed be tested, and has been so many times with always the same result that it is considered a "law" - that is, it is always true. However, it would only take a single validated observation to the contrary to make us reject the law altogether. So the laws of science definitely can be tested. Every time we make a new observation we test the law. But after a certain (very large) number of tests, each additional test becomes trivial. Also, note that things like "natural selection" or the Theory of Evolution are not scientific laws. They are explanations.

 

"Please test the ability of a person to make rational choices."

 

This can indeed be tested, and is done so all the time by psychologists and others. Check any of the books by Michael Shermer, Robert Park, etc. We simply design experiments which demonstrate the basis upon which human beings, individualy or in groups make decisions.

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Please test the laws of logic."

 

There are no "laws" of logic - there are simply rules. These rules amount to axioms. Hence logic is an arbitrary system we use for establishing the validity and truth value of a given formal argument. Please note that validity (whether or not the argument is constructed properly) and truth value (whether or not the argument is true) are two completely different things, and they are not related.

 

 

"Please test the laws of science."

 

You need to be very careful with this statement. What do you mean by a "scientific law?" The true laws of science are mathematical - that is, they simply describe the relationship between two variables that we have measured. Boyle's Law, for example, describes the mathematical relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas under fixed temperature. It can indeed be tested, and has been so many times with always the same result that it is considered a "law" - that is, it is always true. However, it would only take a single validated observation to the contrary to make us reject the law altogether. So the laws of science definitely can be tested. Every time we make a new observation we test the law. But after a certain (very large) number of tests, each additional test becomes trivial. Also, note that things like "natural selection" or the Theory of Evolution are not scientific laws. They are explanations.

 

"Please test the ability of a person to make rational choices."

 

This can indeed be tested, and is done so all the time by psychologists and others. Check any of the books by Michael Shermer, Robert Park, etc. We simply design experiments which demonstrate the basis upon which human beings, individualy or in groups make decisions.

 

Rich

 

How old was that post of mine? I thought we had moved on from that.

 

 

The laws of logic, laws of science and our ability to make rational decision CANNOT be tested scientifically.

 

Since to do so would equate to circular reasoning.

 

You assume the laws of science in order to scientifically test the laws of science of which science itself is based.

 

You assume the rules, (laws), of logic in your scientific test of the rules, (laws) of logic of which a logical conclusion can be made

 

You assume that you do indeed have the capability to make rational decisions before embarking on any scientific endeavour, (let alone testing that you are capable of making such decisions in the first place)

 

 

 

Further I'd like you to also engage the context of where I said these things. Sasquatch was claiming for "evidence" of my logical conclusion that stems from the argument for God from Biochemistry.

 

" Its a logical conclusion.... You cannot scientifically test logic"-post# 20

 

"EDIT: also asking to test a logical conclusion would lead to an infinte regress as you would then need to ask to test the conclusion of the tests you did on the original conclusion, and then test the conclusion that was made about the test of the original conclusion.... This is what I'd like to call the Dawkins fallacy, (from the who designed the designer argument)."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Please test the laws of logic."

 

There are no "laws" of logic - there are simply rules. These rules amount to axioms. Hence logic is an arbitrary system we use for establishing the validity and truth value of a given formal argument. Please note that validity (whether or not the argument is constructed properly) and truth value (whether or not the argument is true) are two completely different things, and they are not related.

 

 

"Please test the laws of science."

 

You need to be very careful with this statement. What do you mean by a "scientific law?" The true laws of science are mathematical - that is, they simply describe the relationship between two variables that we have measured. Boyle's Law, for example, describes the mathematical relationship between the pressure and volume of a gas under fixed temperature. It can indeed be tested, and has been so many times with always the same result that it is considered a "law" - that is, it is always true. However, it would only take a single validated observation to the contrary to make us reject the law altogether. So the laws of science definitely can be tested. Every time we make a new observation we test the law. But after a certain (very large) number of tests, each additional test becomes trivial. Also, note that things like "natural selection" or the Theory of Evolution are not scientific laws. They are explanations.

 

"Please test the ability of a person to make rational choices."

 

This can indeed be tested, and is done so all the time by psychologists and others. Check any of the books by Michael Shermer, Robert Park, etc. We simply design experiments which demonstrate the basis upon which human beings, individualy or in groups make decisions.

 

Rich

 

I find it ironic that you claim a worldview of agnostic yet you use atheist debate tactics and atheist references, Why not agnostic references since you claim to be agnostic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms