Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

[klaus54]

That you have "NO idea of what I mean" is the understatement of the decade!

OF COURSE in physics, chemistry, etc. "science" means "natural science" - that is so by definition. When I wrote "(natural) science" I was specifying a restriction to the natural domain - not the entire domain of science. Again, why am I even bothering with this? I may as well be trying to teach a rusty nail how to add fractions.



Yaaaawwwnnnn !!!



Nope, you've now entered into metaphysics - you're just too ignorant and dumb to know it.



Nope ... what we have here is yet another instance in which when you start paying
my bills then I'll do as you wish. Until that day you will have to suffer my words.

Jorge

Again, you admit you're using a non-standard definition of science. If you make a personal definition you can "support" anything you wish.

Talk about h - y - p - o - c - r - i - s - y and d - e - c - e - p - t - i - o - n.

So we can assume from now on that anything you say regarding Creation "Science" is wrong from the get-go.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It will save lots of time trying to get you to discuss evidence.

K54

[klaus54]

Thanks for that Klaus - the only thing I could think of was that maybe ocean levels had something to do with it ... but that didn't seem to fit well enough.

You're welcome, but I didn't really explain much but just pointed out a (big) factor in the configuration of tides on coastlines -- which are the movers in depositing sediments that are used to measure paleo-tides.

The impression I get from doing some reading is that this issue, as in most of scientific knowledge, is not completely settled -- but settled well enough to demolish a 6Ka Earth-Moon system by several orders of magnitude.

But YECs thrive on epistemic nihilism.

K54

[klaus54]

...
Nope, you've now entered into metaphysics - you're just too ignorant and dumb to know it.

Nope right back at you. We have no methodology to study the non-material world inductively.

Projection -- what a surprise...

...
Nope ... what we have here is yet another instance in which when you start paying
my bills then I'll do as you wish. Until that day you will have to suffer my words.

Jorge

Yep -- we all now know that you're using a personal definition of "science" that's not the same as natural science.

That explains wonderfully why you can never back up your blathering with facts.

Fallacy of Equivocation Alert -- Lurkers beware!

K54

[Jorge]

This kind of gets back to where our last conversation trails off.

This is going to tax my memory. Let's see how I do ...

I'm curious as to how the Christian-Creationist "science" (as you term it) operates. Specifically, how does one evaluate the relative probabilities of a miracle vs. a natural explanation? Because natural science is all about evaluating the relative probabilities of different options (i.e. - for Kepler exoplanet data, the analysis pipeline weighs the probabilities of eclipsing binaries vs. planets). How does one weigh the probability of a miracle?

Take this the right way, no offense intended: Just as with the vast majority of people, in your words I detect extreme confusion and ignorance of these things. Truthfully, I do not fault you. I fault the piss-poor "educational" system. But that would be another (long) subject so let me try to concisely respond to your post.

LISTEN CAREFULLY: There is no such thing as "Christian-Creationist science" (using your words, not mine). The (bona fide) science that I use is exactly the same as that of the most ardent Atheist-Humanist or Hindu or Muslim or Theistic Evolutionist or any other ideological position. I use F = ma --- so do they. I use F = GM₁M₂/r² --- so do they. I hold fast to the Laws of Thermodynamics --- so do they. Are you getting the idea?

Any -- ANY! -- bona fide science for the Biblical Christian-Creationist (like me) is exactly the same as for anyone else. The problem is not found there. The problem occurs when bona fide science is used to extrapolate and to infer into realms that are NOT observable, testable or verifiable AND that rely on presuppositions that go beyond what we would accept as "scientific fact" (other than believing it to be so). When that happens, it's NOT bona fide science any longer but rather a mixture of science with metaphysics. That's as concisely as I can make it.

Thus, your question "how does one weigh the probability of a miracle?" is ill-stated. Clearly, one cannot "weigh the probability of a miracle". We're talking about two completely different things here.

I'm also somewhat curious about the existence of a sectarian science. does Christian-Creationist "science" necessarily exclude anyone who does not subscribe to Christian beliefs?

As I just finished outlining, there is no "sectarian science". The Biblical Christian-Creationist practices exactly the same bona fide science as everyone else. In my decades of work applying bona fide science, I assure you that I did not ever employ "miracles" or a different set of equations.

There is a huge amount of agenda-driven propaganda on this matter. The Materialists want people to believe that if you are a Christian then you must renounce science and/or start practicing some kind of 'voodoo, miracle science'. That is a blatant lie aimed at getting people to reject Biblical Christianity and, once that happens, those people land into the waiting arms of Materialism (Humanism-Atheism). It's a spiritual-ideological war, not one of science.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Nope right back at you. We have no methodology to study the non-material world inductively.

Projection -- what a surprise...



Yep -- we all now know that you're using a personal definition of "science" that's not the same as natural science.

That explains wonderfully why you can never back up your blathering with facts.

Fallacy of Equivocation Alert -- Lurkers beware!

K54

Read my last post - it may do you some good but I HIGHLY doubt it.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Read my last post - it may do you some good but I HIGHLY doubt it.

Jorge

I did read your last post. You reiterated that you have a personal definition of "science" which you can use to confound the ignorant.

In THIS forum we are interested in NATURAL science -- i.e., the study of matter and energy, testable hypotheses to explain phenomena, and theories that group together hypotheses into a consilient "best available explanation". You do NONE of that.

So again, LURKERS BEWARE: Jorge equivocates on the definition of science. His definition requires no evidence since his mind is already made up, and he routinely commits at least three and a half logical fallacies:

Equivocation (this was established a few posts ago)

Projection (in nearly EVERY post)

Ad hominem (in nearly EVERY post)

Epistemic nihilism (more of a metaphysic than a fallacy)

Any others?

K54

P.S. Oh, and "Lying by Omission" comes to mind. Isn't that the title of a web screed he authored?

[HMS_Beagle]

LISTEN CAREFULLY: There is no such thing as "Christian-Creationist science" (using your words, not mine). The (bona fide) science that I use is exactly the same as that of the most ardent Atheist-Humanist or Hindu or Muslim or Theistic Evolutionist or any other ideological position. I use F = ma --- so do they. I use F = GM₁M₂/r² --- so do they. I hold fast to the Laws of Thermodynamics --- so do they. Are you getting the idea?

Jorge

What science did you use to determine the Barringer Meteor Crater wasn't caused by an Earth impact event but was merely a huge gopher hole?

Jorge, the YEC Blunder King.

[lilpixieofterror]

Again, you admit you're using a non-standard definition of science. If you make a personal definition you can "support" anything you wish.

Talk about h - y - p - o - c - r - i - s - y and d - e - c - e - p - t - i - o - n.

So we can assume from now on that anything you say regarding Creation "Science" is wrong from the get-go.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It will save lots of time trying to get you to discuss evidence.

K54

To be fair, Jorge is using an older and somewhat archaic view of the word 'science' before it became more associated with what would technically be the 'natural science'. Of course, few people are going to know that and almost everybody associates the word 'science' with natural science, so I know I try to be careful to distinguish between the two.

[klaus54]

To be fair, Jorge is using an older and somewhat archaic view of the word 'science' before it became more associated with what would technically be the 'natural science'. Of course, few people are going to know that and almost everybody associates the word 'science' with natural science, so I know I try to be careful to distinguish between the two.

"Science" as it has been used for over two centuries is NATURAL science as per textbook definitions. If you're gonna apply the etymological "scientia" it can apply to ANY knowledge. But that's NOT what this forum is about, and it's NOT what we mean when try to get Jorge to answer scientific questions.

Jorge has effected a VERY OBVIOUS case of the Fallacy of Equivocation. The absolute worst case of this is when a YEC uses the AKJV 1611 translation of I Tim 6:20.

And I was simply pointing to the readers to beware his debate strategy.

K54

P.S.

The other fallacies Jorge commits stand as I indicated.

Pix, the term for what we now called Natural Science was initially "Natural History."

[Jorge]

"Science" as it has been used for over two centuries is NATURAL science as per textbook definitions. If you're gonna apply the etymological "scientia" it can apply to ANY knowledge. But that's NOT what this forum is about, and it's NOT what we mean when try to get Jorge to answer scientific questions.

Jorge has effected a VERY OBVIOUS case of the Fallacy of Equivocation. The absolute worst case of this is when a YEC uses the AKJV 1611 translation of I Tim 6:20.

And I was simply pointing to the readers to beware his debate strategy.

K54

P.S.

The other fallacies Jorge commits stand as I indicated.

Pix, the term for what we now called Natural Science was initially "Natural History."

Jorge

[klaus54]

Jorge

After your little nap, perhaps you'll be refreshed enough to deal with the issues.

1) Equivocation on the definition of "science".

2) Your projection of YEC ideology to scientific method "ideology".

3) Your substitution of insults and avoidance for answering pointed questions.

4) Your strawman of "TE" ideology.

Also,

5) You have NEVER given your plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal reading of the first Genesis story. If you can't do that, then why all the bluster about being true to God's word, when you can't even tell us what God's word MEANS in the context of Creation ("Science" as you call it.)

So do take a little nappy-poo, have a cup of strong coffee, and return bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to debate cogently.

K54

P.S. I just noticed in another thread in a discussion with OmegaRed that you brought up the equivocation of "science" in I Tim. 6:20 A King Jimmy 1611.

Too funny...

[HMS_Beagle]

After your little nap, perhaps you'll be refreshed enough to deal with the issues.

1) Equivocation on the definition of "science".

2) Your projection of YEC ideology to scientific method "ideology".

3) Your substitution of insults and avoidance for answering pointed questions.

4) Your strawman of "TE" ideology.

Also,

5) You have NEVER given your plain, simple, straightforward, direct, literal reading of the first Genesis story. If you can't do that, then why all the bluster about being true to God's word, when you can't even tell us what God's word MEANS in the context of Creation ("Science" as you call it.)

So do take a little nappy-poo, have a cup of strong coffee, and return bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to debate cogently.

K54

P.S. I just noticed in another thread in a discussion with OmegaRed that you brought up the equivocation of "science" in I Tim. 6:20 A King Jimmy 1611.

Too funny...

Jorge exhibits all the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, i.e.

• Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
• Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
• Envies others and believes others envy him/her
• Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
• Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
• Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
• Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic

We should lobby him to seek professional help.

[TheLurch]

LISTEN CAREFULLY: There is no such thing as "Christian-Creationist science" (using your words, not mine).

No, they were your words - i was quoting you, as was plainly clear in my post. I'm a bit confused as to why you're assigning your own statements to me..

The problem occurs when bona fide science is used to extrapolate and to infer into realms that are NOT observable, testable or verifiable AND that rely on presuppositions that go beyond what we would accept as "scientific fact" (other than believing it to be so). When that happens, it's NOT bona fide science any longer but rather a mixture of science with metaphysics. That's as concisely as I can make it.e

I guess this gets into what you consider "observable, testable, or verifiable". Many aspects of reconstructing are covered by that description. To give one example, we can do things like verify the presence of ash corresponding to historic volcanic eruptions in things like ice cores and regular sedimentary deposits, and use that to confirm that these deposits are generated annually, and that, within experimental error, carbon dating provides accurate timing in the past. We can also verify, again using multiple samples around the world, that these repeated layers extend deep into the past, and continue to provide consistent dates for prehistoric volcanic eruptions.

All of this, to me at least, seems to fall under the umbrella of "observable, testable or verifiable". Maybe our definition of these terms differ in some way.

[Jorge]

I guess this gets into what you consider "observable, testable, or verifiable". Those three words seem clear enough. Can you observe? Can you test? Can you verify?Many aspects of reconstructing are covered by that description. Can you observe one kind of creature (e.g., a theropod) becoming another (e.g., a bird)? Can you test a macroevolutionary event? Can you verify a macroevolutionary event? To give one example, we can do things like verify the presence of ash corresponding to historic volcanic eruptions in things like ice cores and regular sedimentary deposits, and use that to confirm that these deposits are generated annually Are they really annual under all circumstances? The Lost Squadron Planes, found only 50 years later, were in ice/snow indicating many hundreds of years of ice/snow layers. , and that, within experimental error, carbon dating provides accurate timing in the past Accurate timing for all KNOWN dates in the past (where a direct correlation can be made). Beyond that it all relies on the assumption that things in the (more distant) past were just as they are today - what if they weren't? I say they weren't - there was a discontinuity that changed everything. . We can also verify, again using multiple samples around the world, that these repeated layers extend deep into the past, and continue to provide consistent dates for prehistoric volcanic eruptions. That is only true within a paradigm that feeds off of itself - it is self-verifying and circular. One of the reasons why a "convergence" in different sources is found is precisely because of this.

I've interjected brief comments on each of your items above.

All of this, to me at least, seems to fall under the umbrella of "observable, testable or verifiable". Maybe our definition of these terms differ in some way.

I appreciate the effort that you're making. You just need to go deeper. Everything that you've listed above has been addressed and answered many times by BC scientists. Just to get you started, I'll select one: the ice cores. Here's some material:

http://www.icr.org/article/8026/
http://www.icr.org/article/ice-cores-age-earth/
http://creation.com/do-greenland-ice...-annual-layers
http://creation.com/greenland-ice-co...hic-deposition

These are just four - dozens more are available.
There's plenty out there, Lurch, you just have to look.
The case against Biblical Creationism isn't as "solid" as they have led people to believe.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge exhibits all the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, i.e.

• Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
• Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
• Envies others and believes others envy him/her
• Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
• Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
• Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
• Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic

We should lobby him to seek professional help.

Before trying to become "S. Freud", get a better score on the science quiz for young teenagers.

Jorge