Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is misapplication of a science evidence against it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    After reading through this thread, does anyone have even a shadow of a doubt that creationists of the ilk of Jorge, Cerebrum, and JR just completely nuts?

    K54

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]1903[/ATTACH]


    You honestly think Cerebrum is a fundy?
    "It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
    -Unknown

    "Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis


    I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I support the :
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      After reading through this thread, does anyone have even a shadow of a doubt that creationists of the ilk of Jorge, Cerebrum, and JR just completely nuts?

      K54

      [ATTACH=CONFIG]1903[/ATTACH]
      The problem is, I've yet to meet a creationist who can defend creation science and attack mainstream science with any consistency and coherence. Out of the hundreds of creationists I've met on these forums, I've only come across four or five who show any understanding of the theory. And their hated of Darwin and his idea is palpable.

      Yet by insinuation or outright assertion, they take on the mantle of articulating God given truth.
      Last edited by rwatts; 09-01-2014, 07:57 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post


        You honestly think Cerebrum is a fundy?
        He certainly is on the creation issue.

        How would you classify such hyperbolic rejection of something that's obviously true (misuse of a theory does not obviate the theory)?

        I classify a Fundy as someone who is so cocksure of his/her ideology that they even reject clear-as-the-blue-sky FACTS.

        In this case C123 accepts the false argument ("category error", "is/ought" fallacy) of Jorge's in light of it's obvious falsehood.

        K54

        P.S. Is this the start of the creationist Inquisition?

        Eppur si muove!!!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by rwatts View Post
          The problem is, I've yet to meet a creationist who can defend creation science and attack mainstream science with any consistency and coherence. Out of the hundreds of creationists I've met on these forums, I've only come across four or five who show any understanding of the theory. And their hated of Darwin and his idea is palpable.

          Yet by insinuation or outright assertion, they take on the mantle of articulating God given truth.
          But in this case, they are not defending anything. All they are doing is making an obvious category error and committing (at least) two logical fallacies. These errors are as plain as day, yet they are going all "Charge of the Light Brigade" to defend their nonsense.

          Is it possible that Jorge, C123, and JR are that dense??

          Or something worse?

          K54

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            Baloney.

            Not only are you wrong about Chuck Darwin, as Rogue06 has brilliantly demonstrated with copious references, but even if Chuck were worse than a combination of Caligula, Attila, and Hitler, it would not affect his science one itty-bit!!!
            That is a point that often seems to get lost in these discussions. Darwin could have roasted and ate orphan babies, locked the doors of hospitals and set fire to the buildings with all the patients trapped inside, pushed little old ladies down stairs, kicked puppies and even tore the "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" stickers off mattresses and it would do nothing to invalidate evolutionary theory.

            In science the only way to discredit something is to demonstrate that it does not match up to the facts and evidence. While with a religion you can discredit it by showing that its founder is a fraud and some sort of reprobate, with science it is only what the evidence reveals that counts.

            Even so, most of his critics are willing to concede that he was a decent human being with nary a whiff of scandal about him. While I wouldn't call him a saint by all accounts he was a good man.
            Last edited by rogue06; 09-01-2014, 08:19 PM.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              That is a point that often seems to get lost in these discussions. Darwin could have roasted and ate orphan babies, locked the doors of hospitals and set fire to the buildings with all the patients trapped inside, pushed little old ladies down stairs, kicked puppies and even tore the "Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law" stickers off mattresses and it would do nothing to invalidate evolutionary theory.

              In science the only way to discredit something is to demonstrate that it does not match up to the facts and evidence. While with a religion you can discredit it by showing that its founder is a fraud and some sort of reprobate, with science it is only what the evidence reveals that counts.
              This is true. The line of logical argumentation is no more sound than arguing that Hitler was a Christian and that (if this were true) it would invalidate Christianity somehow.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                The problem is, I've yet to meet a creationist who can defend creation science .
                I can't speak for everybody who knows and believes The Bible,

                but I , speaking for myself, do not claim there is such a thing as "creation science"

                I put the Bible creation account in SOME OTHER category:


                Bible Creation account, recorded in Genesis, (and specified in Gospel of John 1:3 and Paul's Epistle to the Colossians 1:16)
                IS NOT category-Science

                I believe it belongs in

                Category: HISTORY




                ....not category: Science
                To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                  I can't speak for everybody who knows and believes The Bible,

                  but I , speaking for myself, do not claim there is such a thing as "creation science"

                  I put the Bible creation account in SOME OTHER category:


                  Bible Creation account, recorded in Genesis, (and specified in Gospel of John 1:3 and Paul's Epistle to the Colossians 1:16)
                  IS NOT category-Science

                  I believe it belongs in

                  Category: HISTORY




                  ....not category: Science
                  Like science, history is about ideas and claims. As such, those claims are open to analysis and testing.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    But in this case, they are not defending anything. All they are doing is making an obvious category error and committing (at least) two logical fallacies. These errors are as plain as day, yet they are going all "Charge of the Light Brigade" to defend their nonsense.

                    Is it possible that Jorge, C123, and JR are that dense??

                    Or something worse?

                    K54
                    A few of us have a person out on a facebook site at the moment. He presented a talk to young creationists on the weekend. I watched a small amount of a video of his talk. He was choc-a-block full of confidence. He came onto the facebook site to engage us and it's clear that he's utterly and thouroughly clueless about the theory he criticises.

                    His confidence seems to be born out of sheer ignorance, and as long as he thinks his ideas about the Bible and evolution are God given ideas then he will remain ignorant, and cock-sure of himself.

                    It's a real tragedy because Christianity does not have to be like this.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                      I can't speak for everybody who knows and believes The Bible,

                      but I , speaking for myself, do not claim there is such a thing as "creation science"

                      I put the Bible creation account in SOME OTHER category:


                      Bible Creation account, recorded in Genesis, (and specified in Gospel of John 1:3 and Paul's Epistle to the Colossians 1:16)
                      IS NOT category-Science

                      I believe it belongs in

                      Category: HISTORY




                      ....not category: Science
                      History has to be supported by physical evidence. Using "history" as a excuse to dismiss reality is a futile ruse.

                      The evidence in the rocks, stars, and life completely obviates YECism, which makes a complete mockery of the "second book of Creation."

                      The ANE cultural history is not consistent with Sunday School level YECism.

                      Natural science doesn't obviate Christianity for the majority of Christendom.

                      Anyway, your history argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                        Like science, history is about ideas and claims. As such, those claims are open to analysis and testing.
                        sometimes all you got is an eyewitness.
                        Sometimes you have to make a choice between the credibility of an eyewitness or competing interpretations of physical evidence.
                        I think the jury's still out where I live , the USA.
                        To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          After reading through this thread, does anyone have even a shadow of a doubt that creationists of the ilk of Jorge, Cerebrum, and JR just completely nuts?

                          K54

                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]1903[/ATTACH]
                          I haven't read enough of JR's posts to comment but I don't think it is fair to class Cere in the same category as Jorge. When he is here Cere will usually at least try to present evidence and defend it rather than falling back on calling those who disagree drunk, drugged, deranged, dumb or deceitful. While I may disagree with him and the conclusion that he draws Cere is no Jorge.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                            sometimes all you got is an eyewitness.
                            Sometimes you have to make a choice between the credibility of an eyewitness or competing interpretations of physical evidence.
                            I think the jury's still out where I live , the USA.
                            Who's the "eyewitness"? Yet another subterfuge to escape the fact that your YEC interpretation is complete bunk?

                            There are plenty of eyewitnesses who can look at the vast compendium of consilient geologic, astrophysical, and biological data and say with great confidence that the truth is deep time and deep history that completely defies any attempt at a YEC explanation.

                            Perhaps the eyewitness you mention wasn't trying to write a science book? Hmmm... Think about that.

                            Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. But, you threw out a YEC propaganda term, I figured it had to be addressed.

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              Perhaps the eyewitness you mention wasn't trying to write a science book? Hmmm... Think about that.
                              ah, I think that is the point.
                              To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                I haven't read enough of JR's posts to comment but I don't think it is fair to class Cere in the same category as Jorge. When he is here Cere will usually at least try to present evidence and defend it rather than falling back on calling those who disagree drunk, drugged, deranged, dumb or deceitful. While I may disagree with him and the conclusion that he draws Cere is no Jorge.
                                Sorry, but C123 in this thread (and one other) has presented no evidence, nor any argument save emotion and insults. He accused me of being a troll with no evidence. He accused rwatts of breaking the irony meter with no evidence that rwatts did.

                                JR is all over with her/his statements. 1) No boundary between micro/macro evolutions. 2) evolution only within the undefinable notion of "kinds", 3) Both understanding and not understanding the notion of scientific proof, 4) Poking fun at "Darwinists"... Oh, and seemingly proud his/her confusion.

                                And both JR and Cereb have demonstrated agreement with Jorge on his thesis which is trivially false. Neither of them understand the SIMPLE fact that Jorge's committing logical fallacies.

                                What else should I conclude? Outside these few threads I don't know either of em from a can of beans.

                                But if you say they're in a different category than Jorge, I'll certainly take that under advisement.

                                K54

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-18-2021, 12:27 PM
                                10 responses
                                47 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by lee_merrill, 01-16-2021, 03:43 PM
                                2 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-15-2021, 04:43 PM
                                8 responses
                                50 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-15-2021, 07:40 AM
                                21 responses
                                84 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-13-2021, 04:55 PM
                                5 responses
                                27 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Working...
                                X