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

Helloooo

Recommended Posts

 

Are you creating a conspiracy? lol

 

Err no

 

 

Newton, (believed to be the greatest scientist in History), wrote more about God than he did about Physics... Should tell you something wink.png

What that he was religious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Already answered it Gilbo - go back and read it again if you are struggling.

 

Um no.. All you did was state "Already answered it twice" in response to this post...

 

 

 

 

Actually quite often they get differing results... Its just that it is repeated over and over until a "correct" result is obtained..... See below... 5.19 onwards... Out of 100 different tests only 4 came up with the number they wanted, whilst getting totally contradictory dates including dates which were older than supposed age of the Earth... Seems a bit "hit and miss" to me, not particularly reassuring.

 

 

 

 

 

And 8.00 onwards

 

 

 

Please read my post.

 

 

If you have a method that can give false positive results then how can you know that the results being given are not false positive?.. Does this not concern you? Do they conduct these other tests on fossils?

 

 

 

Please go through each of these techniques and demonstrate how they are consistent. Simply saying so doesn't make it so smile.png

 

All you are doing is simply claiming you have answered something when you haven't, people can go back and read the conversation and see that the trail leads to the above post which you have dodged...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly. At the end of the day a person like Louis Pasteur or Raymond Damadian had/have no problem doing science in a paradigm respecting the God of scripture as creator and Genesis as the narrative for how He did it.

 

I would go one step further and say uniformitarianism, Darwinian Evolution and surreptitiously placed relativism are the real intellectual killers that plague our culture intellectually and morally.

 

I agree completely Adam. Evolutionary thinking has allowed assumptions as "evidence" in science... Its really quite worrisome when one considers the actual definition of empirical and try and apply it to empirical science..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name one thing that is subject to the scientific method that is threatened by a belief in creation. Creation does threaten Darwinian Evolution, which isn't science but a religion (or worldview... if you please) masquerading as science. Actually, a non-crippled examination of science is itself a threat to Darwinian Evolution. That's why NCSE is working to keep information out of science classrooms and curiously not trying to get it in.

 

Religious views matter not one bit in modern science, the biblical version of creation in no way threatens ToE, rather you are the one feeling threatened.

The threat is from passing off creationist science as real science and trying to get it in the class rooms - fortunately that would never happen in Europe

Every single religious person I know doesn't feel this threat - is it primarily an american thing?

 

No. I can demonstrate to anyone reading this that you exercise a double-standard if you think Darwinian Evolution is science and Creation is false because it can't be demonstrated using the scientific method.

 

ToE is science.

Creation from the literal interpretation of Genesis is a story in a book with many authors and translations written by men many centuries ago

about the supernatural. The two are quite separate for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Religious views matter not one bit in modern science, the biblical version of creation in no way threatens ToE, rather you are the one feeling threatened.

The threat is from passing off creationist science as real science and trying to get it in the class rooms - fortunately that would never happen in Europe

Every single religious person I know doesn't feel this threat - is it primarily an american thing?

 

 

ToE is science.

Creation from the literal interpretation of Genesis is a story in a book with many authors and translations written by men many centuries ago

about the supernatural. The two are quite separate for me.

 

Can you please demonstrate how evolution appeases the scientific method, as Adam mentioned... Rather than simply stating the faith claim that "evolution is science" with zero evidence to back up such an assertion, (hence you take it on faith)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Um no.. All you did was state "Already answered it twice" in response to this post...

 

 

 

 

All you are doing is simply claiming you have answered something when you haven't, people can go back and read the conversation and see that the trail leads to the above post which you have dodged...

 

Or they can see that I have answered it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you please demonstrate how evolution appeases the scientific method, as Adam mentioned... Rather than simply stating the faith claim that "evolution is science" with zero evidence to back up such an assertion, (hence you take it on faith)..

 

I'm not going to rehash the whole definitions of the scientific method for you on this thread, it's being done elsewhere and quite

clearly demonstrates ToE is a bona fida scientific theory in every sense and your argument fails.

Science has lots of evidence - you will claim it is not evidence - but like I said earlier; Science will always win out over pseudoscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or they can see that I have answered it

 

Wrong... You never commented on the videos I gave which demonstrated that you are incorrect... Radiometric dates are done over and over and over with inconsistent results with only a handful chosen which fit with the evolutionist pre-conceived timeline, as mentioned in the videos the method gave results which were older than the presumed age of the Earth... Yeah, very reliable....

 

In terms of additional methodologies, multiple radiometric dating methods are NOT DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES... I already mentioned before your post that with radiometric dating there are inherent flaws in the method and therefore any radiometric dating will contain these inherent flaws, ergo to test that entire methodology an ENTIRELY NEW methodology would be required to test it...

 

As I asked....

 

 

If you have a method that can give false positive results then how can you know that the results being given are not false positive?.. Does this not concern you? Do they conduct these other tests on fossils?

 

 

 

Please go through each of these techniques and demonstrate how they are consistent. Simply saying so doesn't make it so smile.png

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to rehash the whole definitions of the scientific method for you on this thread, it's being done elsewhere and quite

clearly demonstrates ToE is a bona fida scientific theory in every sense and your argument fails.

 

Who asked you for definitions? I was simply asking for your EVIDENCE that evolution is scientific.... Do you have EVIDENCE or not? Or will you admit that your statement was a claim borne of faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I asked....

 

 

If you have a method that can give false positive results then how can you know that the results being given are not false positive?.. Does this not concern you? Do they conduct these other tests on fossils?

 

 

 

Sigh.. I answered that when you first asked it on post #21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sigh.. I answered that when you first asked it on post #21

 

Here is your post

 

 

 

It's the principal reason that geologists never rely on just one dating method, with no checks or balances. That would be pretty wreckless. For most rocks, multiple types of radiometric dating are appropriate; and in practice, multiple samples would always be tested, not just one like Austin used. In combination, these tests give a far more complete and accurate picture of a rock's true age than just a single potassium-argon test could. In addition, stratigraphic and paleomagnetic data can often contribute to the picture as well. From many decades of such experience, geologists have excellent data that guides proper usage of each of these tools, and they don't include gross misuse of potassium-argon dating.

 

And if you had bothered to READ the post you were replying too.....

 

gilbo12345, on 22 Feb 2014 - 12:27 AM, said:snapback.png

If that is the case then how can you know that the right test was conducted on samples which gave a "correct" age... Those rocks could also be young and just give the same false positive results given for Austin's rocks, but evolutionists assume the numbers are correct, how do they know?

 

If you get false positive results from a test then you need a way to determine whether a false positive was done or not, ergo there needs to be another totally different method to verify those results... Yet what happens when different results are obtained which do you go with?... Ah so you need another totally different method to ensure which one to go with, so at least two more totally different methodologies need to be used, yet there aren't any...

 

 

Additionally I asked you whether these non-radiometric techniques were done on the fossils, and I asked you to demonstrate whether they were consistent... To which you claimed you already did... Despite these questions being based on your reply meaning you couldn't have....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who asked you for definitions? I was simply asking for your EVIDENCE that evolution is scientific.... Do you have EVIDENCE or not? Or will you admit that your statement was a claim borne of faith?

 

So how does evolution fit within the scientific method? Is it amenable to empirical experimentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Please go through each of these techniques and demonstrate how they are consistent. Simply saying so doesn't make it so smile.png

 

 

See post #33

I spent ages trying to find a free copy of the zircon paper so that I could study it after you posted the video.

I then spent loads more of my time learning about the techniques and the science involved as a lot of it went over my head.

Only after investing that time and then watching the video a second time did I understand enough to know the guy in the video

didn't have a correct understanding of the paper and was making issues out of things that really weren't issues at all.

 

Of course me simply saying so doesn't make it so. That is why I invited you to do the research yourself and study the papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

macten, on 21 Feb 2014 - 8:26 PM, said:snapback.png

 

It's the principal reason that geologists never rely on just one dating method, with no checks or balances. That would be pretty wreckless. For most rocks, multiple types of radiometric dating are appropriate; and in practice, multiple samples would always be tested, not just one like Austin used. In combination, these tests give a far more complete and accurate picture of a rock's true age than just a single potassium-argon test could. In addition, stratigraphic and paleomagnetic data can often contribute to the picture as well. From many decades of such experience, geologists have excellent data that guides proper usage of each of these tools, and they don't include gross misuse of potassium-argon dating.

 

And if you had bothered to READ the post you were replying too.....

 

gilbo12345, on 22 Feb 2014 - 12:27 AM, said:snapback.png

If that is the case then how can you know that the right test was conducted on samples which gave a "correct" age... Those rocks could also be young and just give the same false positive results given for Austin's rocks, but evolutionists assume the numbers are correct, how do they know?


 

If you get false positive results from a test then you need a way to determine whether a false positive was done or not, ergo there needs to be another totally different method to verify those results... Yet what happens when different results are obtained which do you go with?... Ah so you need another totally different method to ensure which one to go with, so at least two more totally different methodologies need to be used, yet there aren't any...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My first reply still addresses these issues Gilbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo12345, on 18 Mar 2014 - 4:08 PM, said:snapback.png



Who asked you for definitions? I was simply asking for your EVIDENCE that evolution is scientific.... Do you have EVIDENCE or not? Or will you admit that your statement was a claim borne of faith?



Like i said it's been done on another thread. Don't want this thread regurgitating the same stuff.

To be clear it is the Controversial - why creationists are loyal and honest and Greg does an excellent job on

page 2 to which I really couldn't add any more to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See post #33

I spent ages trying to find a free copy of the zircon paper so that I could study it after you posted the video.

I then spent loads more of my time learning about the techniques and the science involved as a lot of it went over my head.

Only after investing that time and then watching the video a second time did I understand enough to know the guy in the video

didn't have a correct understanding of the paper and was making issues out of things that really weren't issues at all.

 

Of course me simply saying so doesn't make it so. That is why I invited you to do the research yourself and study the papers.

 

I'm inviting you to DEMONSTRATE HOW he is wrong... Simply saying he is without demonstrating it means nothing at all...

 

 

 

gilbo12345, on 18 Mar 2014 - 4:08 PM, said:snapback.png

Like i said it's been done on another thread. Don't want this thread regurgitating the same stuff.
To be clear it is the Controversial - why creationists are loyal and honest and Greg does an excellent job on
page 2 to which I really couldn't add any more to.

 

 

So now Greg has given an empirical experiment on which evolution can be deemed as following the scientific method.... I wonder why he never mentioned it on my "evolution did it" thread which was created exactly for that topic... Perhaps because he did no such thing... Greg wasn't discussing evolution fitting with the scientific method, ergo your claim here is based on faulty logic since Greg wasn't discussing what you are attempting to dodge now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely Adam. Evolutionary thinking has allowed assumptions as "evidence" in science... Its really quite worrisome when one considers the actual definition of empirical and try and apply it to empirical science..

I wonder if macten will throw variation within a bodyplan and claim all the proof needed for macro scale changes and common descent?

 

Show a long-haired dog and a short-haired dog and it's all the proof he needs the beetles and the birds eating them had a common ancestor.

 

Great Faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if macten will throw variation within a body plan and claim all the proof needed for macro scale changes and common descent?

 

Hey its "evidence" isn't it ;) I mean if one can observe slight variations why can't larger ones be extrapolated?..... (Perhaps because such extrapolation is based on imagination not evidence ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey its "evidence" isn't it ;) I mean if one can observe slight variations why can't larger ones be extrapolated?....

I don't know, Gilbo, is your question religiously motivated? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey its "evidence" isn't it wink.png I mean if one can observe slight variations why can't larger ones be extrapolated?..... (Perhaps because such extrapolation is based on imagination not evidence wink.png )

 

Not so Gilbo - I could trawl through past threads and find sooo much evidence put forward as per your demands but you refuse to believe it and or misunderstand it.

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if macten will throw variation within a bodyplan and claim all the proof needed for macro scale changes and common descent?

 

Show a long-haired dog and a short-haired dog and it's all the proof he needs the beetles and the birds eating them had a common ancestor.

 

Great Faith.

 

Seriously Adam, I know this is a Christian ministry run forum but lurkers out there reading this, well, I just think you may do more harm than good to your cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously Adam, I know this is a Christian ministry run forum but lurkers out there reading this, well, I just think you may do more harm than good to your cause.

macten, what else can you demonstrate? Is there anything beside microevolution that is observable, testable and repeatable? It takes great faith to take that and then believe there is a common ancestor between your goldfish and your golden retriever. It takes hand-waving to equate your faith in common ancestry to something that can be demonstrated with the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Gilbo, is your question religiously motivated? wink.png

 

I didn't think asking how evolution is amenable to the scientific method a religious question wink.png Perhaps because it steps on the toes of the religious evolutionists? Maybe lol.

 

 

 

Not so Gilbo - I could trawl through past threads and find sooo much evidence put forward as per your demands but you refuse to believe it and or misunderstand it.

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection.

 

Perhaps read my replies to such since to my knowledge all of this "so-called evidence" has been debunked.... Anything that requires one to first presuppose evolution in order to be evidence for evolution is committing the logical fallacy of begging the question... Do you really think something based on a logical fallacy can be deemed scientific? Is that really the extent of evolutionist critical thinking facilities? I know you guys can do better, perhaps try and observe the issue from a view of neutrality, leave your evolutionist bias at the door and look at the facts without additional storytelling or imagination based claims...

 

Perhaps rather than stating yet more baseless claims about the "evidence of evolution", you could try actually giving some examples. I am sure the lurkers are waiting, asking, begging for you to finally put some money where your mouth is smile.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not so Gilbo - I could trawl through past threads and find sooo much evidence put forward as per your demands but you refuse to believe it and or misunderstand it.

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection.

So where is it? The Evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection.

So where is it? The Evidence.
He can give you all kinds of evidence for change over time (which is not on debate here because we agree) and he can give you all kinds of evidence for adaptation (which also is not on debate here because we agree) but while he's doing that he's going to forget to give you any evidence for common descent and just assume it's proven with the other two. Just a hunch. ;)

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