Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Pensylvania rules on ID (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: Pensylvania rules on ID
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Everard, you keep saying the existence of the hypothetical Oort Cloud "explains all the evidence." So far the only such evidence you have cited seems to be the existence of short-period comets. What produces the short-period comets is what we are debating. Must you always assume what you are trying to prove in order to prove what you are assuming?"

Good grief, Ron. Did you read my posts? Doesn't look like it...

Short-period comets come from the Kuiper belt, not the oort cloud. I said this several times.

The oort cloud not only explains why we see long-period comets (not short-term. Thats the kuiper belt), but also the mathematical nature of the LP comets that we observe. The oort cloud hypothesis is also consistent with observational evidence of the structure of young solar systems, (something else I also mentioned twice previously). It is consistent with the fact we have not seen any comet that arrives from interstellar space, and it is consistent with the fact that LP comets arrive isotropically, and is consistent with the shape of the orbits described by comets entering the closer solar system, (again, things I have mentioned several times).

As far as what produces the short period comets, they come from the Kuiper belt. If you want to know how the kuiper belt was formed, then I'll be glad to discuss that, assuming you promise to stop saying that short term comets come from the oort cloud. The oort cloud and the kuiper belt are two entirely different clusters of bodies.

Please note that we DO have direct observational evidence of the kuiper belt.

"You said that the number of observed short-period comets has been increasing. Can you back that up?"

I didn't say this.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

I didn't read the whole article, I did read what you quoted. And, yes, we can indirectly observe the electron. We can also indirectly observe the oort cloud... not in exactly the same ways,


Didn't think you'd bothered to read it. And your still wrong, the Oort cloud is not observable in ANY way. If you want to continue to say it is, then provide evidence. I've shown articles by scientists who say it is NOT observable in any way. You can't counter that with your own opinion, not with any level of credulity anyway.

quote:


Falsifiability does not require that current technology be able to falsify the hypothesis, only that a specific experiment can be done (or combination) which will yeild a result or results which would show the hypothesis to be innacurate. There is currently no such proposed experiment by IDers, while there are numerous ways the oort cloud could be falsified, e.g. sending a shuttle out 50,000 AU's from the sun and looking around.


Falsifiablitly doesn't require that it can be falsified with the technology available now?? So your saying if its conceivably falsifiable its scientific. Well hot damn, I'm sure that will make a lot of imaginative people very happy.

quote:


Yes they do offer differing explanations, but the dating of materials in the earth is not on nearly as shaky ground as the oort cloud. In fact, you have to be a grade A idiot to think that much of the material making up the earth is not over 3 billion years old, after reviewing the evidence (and no, I won't retract that statement.)


Well, first of all stop the pejorative remarks or find a different thread. Its plain simple ad hominem, and thats not acceptable and it's completely uncalled for. Your preemptive refusal to retract it only makes you appear boorish. If your trying to kill your credibility your doing a good job.

Secondly, ID doesn't absolutely require a young earth, its just one avenue being explored to falsify Evolution. Evolution however DOES require a very old earth, but depending on your particular flavour of ID, it can go either way. Don't mistake this in anyway as a concession to your argument, I'm just pointing out that this is really more in defense of evolution than any kind of damning evidence against ID.

quote:


The science on the age of certain rocks in the earth is, pardon the pun, rock solid... and none of that tufa crap either).


Rock solid evidence puhleez. It can't be tested or proven. Thats far short of rock solid. Like all your other evidence, there are other interpretations.


See Here Like I said before, its all a matter of interpretation.

quote:


Except:
A) We do have ways of testing it indirectly, currently. Long period comets that do not have their mathemtical origins inside the gravitational field of the sun that showed up would falsify the oort cloud hypothesis, at least partially, as an example.


How? clarify this please.

quote:


B) Its not a requirement of science that we be able to test AT THIS TIME, only that an experiment or experiments be proposed that could be done to falsify the hyptothesis.


Ok... I'll claim there are aliens on alpha centauri. since math says its possible and someday we might be able to send a ship or a probe there to prove it, I guess that makes it as valid a theory as Oort today and just as proven. [Razz]

quote:


I've yet to see a reasonable explanation for the age of rocks in the earth and age of meteorites as dated by methods that do not have long term error. (See here for example)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html


Ok, how can you know any dating method has no chance for long term error? Its impossible. Dating methods are based on many assumptions that have not been proven and cannot be tested. See the link I mentioned above.

quote:


This is a false statement. I believe 9 comets have been observed to come from the kuiper belt in the last 10 years.


Backup your claim please.


P.S. Do you have something against using [Quote] tags??

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Didn't think you'd bothered to read it. And your still wrong, the Oort cloud is not observable in ANY way. If you want to continue to say it is, then provide evidence. I've shown articles by scientists who say it is NOT observable in any way. You can't counter that with your own opinion, not with any level of credulity anyway.
He said we could send a shuttle out and look around. Why wouldn't this work?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard, are you saying we have actually observed Oort clouds in alien star systems? Or is this merely a theory of star system formation than you are invoking?

I keep saying that the Oort cloud is claimed to be the source of the short-period comets, because that is the only claim I hear old universe proponents make. Is it YOUR claim that the Kuiper belt is the source of short-period comets, or can you show that this is really what the scientists on your side of the debate have been claiming all along? I believe history will show that the original reason for postulating the existence of the Oort cloud was to account for the existence of the short-period comets, and that the Kuiper belt was not viewed as sufficient explanation.

[ January 05, 2006, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ok... I'll claim there are aliens on alpha centauri. since math says its possible and someday we might be able to send a ship or a probe there to prove it, I guess that makes it as valid a theory as Oort today and just as proven. [Razz]
Well, that's kinda childish. [Smile] Everard eludes to various tests and evidence that supports the Oort cloud. You don't have the same. You might be able to say "just as proven in this thread", but even that would be stretching it a bit, since Everard at least names some of the evidence, even if he doesn't prove it here (proving it would be rather difficult here, though citing the proof would be great).
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Various tests and evidence" that the Oort cloud exists. Such as?
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I keep saying that the Oort cloud is claimed to be the source of the short-period comet, because that is the only claim I hear old universe proponents make. Is it YOUR claim that the Kuiper belt is the source of short-period comets, or can you show that this is really what the scientists on your side of the debate have been claiming all along? I believe history will show that the original reason for postulating the existence of the Oort cloud was to account for the existence of the short-period comets, and that the Kuiper belt was not viewed as sufficient explanation.
Link showing that this is common knowledge - short period from Kuiper, long term from Oort

Another one, that even agrees with Lambert about the existence of the Oort and the inability of the Kuiper Belt to provide enough short period comets

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
"Various tests and evidence" that the Oort cloud exists. Such as?

I'm assuming you can read Everard's posts as well as I can. If you honestly feel the need to ask me to quote the relevant posts, I'll go ahead and garbage up the thread and do so.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Mainstream science has been blatantly wrong many times in the past.
True, but notice how often it has been correct.

Also note how it was determined that mainstream science was wrong. What methodology was used. Biblical revelation? Gut feeling? No, mainstream science discovered it was wrong.

Let me interject a minor point here, it was determined to be wrong by what you'd have called fringe scientists, not mainstream, people like creationist scientist who went against the commonly held theory of the day. Which I think illustrates the lack of validity of your argumentum ad numerum.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

As pointed out before, sceintific methodology is a process that weeds out bad theories. Sometimes it takes longer than others, but eventually it seems to work. And I would state that it works better than any other method we have.

Agreed. Whats the point here?

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Creationism (which includes ID, since they use similar arguments) has had over 100 years to accumulate data to support its idea. A vast majority of the experts in the various fields (biology, geology, paleotology, astromony) have rejected these theories as falsified. They have embraced, however, the theory of evolution. Only a relative handful of scientists have rejected evolution, and many because of religious objections.

Again you fall back on argumentum ad numerum. The number of people that believe theory A vs. theory B does not prove anything.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Name a theory with over a hundred years of history that has been proven wrong in the last few decades. One that has implications in several fields like evolution. I can't think of any, except perhaps Newtonian gravity--which can be derived from Einstein's gravitational theories, so they really are related.

Yet another fallacious argument. Your making generalizations here.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Contrary to what some will assert, we are as sure of evolution as we are of any other scientific theory.

We? Who do you claim to speak for? YOU might be as sure of it as any other scientific theory but thats irrelevant as is anyone elses surety or lack thereof on the matter.

The only thing that matters is the facts, of which, evolutions is lacking. Its not testable, its never been observed and its definitely not proven hard science no matter how much its adherents try to present it as such.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

It does not mean it cannot be wrong, and it does not mean it will not change. But if something as established and universally acknowledged as evolution cannot be taugh in schools, what science can be taught?

How about something actually useful? There are many things far more practical that are testable, hard science, to teach at the k-12 level. Plus as an added bonus, testable science is also more fun in that you can often let students duplicate experiments. [Big Grin] Can you offer any good reason why evolution needs to be taught in k-12 schooling?
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
quote:
Didn't think you'd bothered to read it. And your still wrong, the Oort cloud is not observable in ANY way. If you want to continue to say it is, then provide evidence. I've shown articles by scientists who say it is NOT observable in any way. You can't counter that with your own opinion, not with any level of credulity anyway.
He said we could send a shuttle out and look around. Why wouldn't this work?
its not feasible. Its so far away that with our current technology, you may as well shoot for alpha centauri because theres no chance of getting a shuttle to either.

On Oort cloud theory:
quote:

The inner cloud, where most of the nuclei reside, is believed to have a radius of 10,000 to 20,000 AU. An AU (Astronomical Unit) is the mean distance between the Earth and Sun, and is roughly 1.50 x 108 km.

Note, thats just the INNER Oort cloud, the theory actually requires 2 clouds now because computer models have largely invalidated the single cloud theory.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
quote:
Ok... I'll claim there are aliens on alpha centauri. since math says its possible and someday we might be able to send a ship or a probe there to prove it, I guess that makes it as valid a theory as Oort today and just as proven. [Razz]
Well, that's kinda childish. [Smile] Everard eludes to various tests and evidence that supports the Oort cloud. You don't have the same. You might be able to say "just as proven in this thread", but even that would be stretching it a bit, since Everard at least names some of the evidence, even if he doesn't prove it here (proving it would be rather difficult here, though citing the proof would be great).
I realize is a ridiculous assertion, but under the same definitions of science that validate Oort, that is also valid. I was trying to show how ridiculous Ev's claim was with that.

Also, you admit that Everard ELUDES to tests. And your right, I haven't done the same. I don't ELUDE to anything, I show papers written by scientists that backup my position. I showed a couple different articles from scientists saying there is NO evidence, there is only a theoretical mathematical model, which is no evidence. Ev has provided NIL to support his claim that its testable or observable other than vague reassurances that there are "tests".

So who's more credible? My articles written by scientists, or Ev's assurances?

[ January 05, 2006, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Joe Schmoe ]

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is feasible to send a probe to the Oort cloud, is it not? It certainly seems possible to detect objects that far out, either using optics (we can "see" objects in other solar systems) or by direct observation - we can, with current technology, send a probe out that far, and maneuver the probe as needed, etc.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Didn't think you'd bothered to read it."

Didn't need to read it. There are errors in what you quoted. I'll read it later on, though (I'm now pushing towards having to go to work).

"And your still wrong, the Oort cloud is not observable in ANY way. If you want to continue to say it is, then provide evidence."

I have provided evidence... but here it is again: The mathematics of the LP comet orbits indicate a region in space from which all of these comets are arriving. Thats, more or less, the same sorts of observational evidence we have for things like the electron. We see the EFFECTS of the electron, even though we can't see the actual electron. As I've also said, the oort cloud is not on as firm ground as other scientific theories, and I've even labeled it an hypothesis. The primary difference between the electron and the oort cloud is that there are more effects to look for more consistently from the electron, then from the oort cloud, and the electron can be played with in the laboratory.

" I've shown articles by scientists who say it is NOT observable in any way. You can't counter that with your own opinion, not with any level of credulity anyway."

Please read the ornery rules. My opinion on whats out there, if explained carefully, should carry as much weight as anyone else's opinion, in these forums. There are restrictions on that, of course. But I've simply been saying that indirect observational evidence counts as observational evidence... otherwise we have to throw out the electron as a scientific theory.

"Falsifiablitly doesn't require that it can be falsified with the technology available now?? So your saying if its conceivably falsifiable its scientific. Well hot damn, I'm sure that will make a lot of imaginative people very happy."

Sorta what I'm saying. But until you've run those falsifiablity tests, its a scientific hypothesis. And, of course, there are other rules for scientific hypotheses other then being falsifiable. If you meet all of those criteria, but the only possible tests to falsify are ones that are not currently available, then the idea is scientific,as a hypothesis, even though it cannot be currently falsified. Depending on the supporting evidence, its conceivable for an unfalsified hypothesis to make it to the status of a theory. Unfalsified hypotheses and theories often opperate the same way, if both provide predictive power. If a hypothesis has virtually no predictive power, then it won't be used as a theory. On the other hand, a hypothesis with powerful predictive ability might be used regularly, even though no falsification tests have occured yet, as long as the predictive power holds true.

"Well, first of all stop the pejorative remarks or find a different thread. Its plain simple ad hominem, and thats not acceptable and it's completely uncalled for. Your preemptive refusal to retract it only makes you appear boorish. If your trying to kill your credibility your doing a good job."

Perhaps. There ARE areas in which I won't reconsider my opinions of people, though, unless they offer compelling evidence that I should reconsider. Beliving that the rocks on the earth are 6000 years old shows extreme irrationality in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you want to argue those rocks came from elsewhere, then at least we have grounds to talk. But if you argue they aren't 3 billion+ years old, then we don't, because you aren't using physical evidence to reach your conclusions.

"Secondly, ID doesn't absolutely require a young earth,"

I agree. I'm not arguing against ID at the moment (except peripherally). I'm arguing against Ron's position, as supported by you, for the most part, and ron DOES argue a young earth.

"Like all your other evidence, there are other interpretations.


See Here"

Ahh yes, I should look at a link that argues against straw men? (edit: thats probably a little strong. Rather, it doesn't address the areas of concern) If you look at the link I provided earlier, the radioactive dating method used to date 3+ billion year old rocks is uranium-lead. Not carbon or potassium dating.

"Except:
A) We do have ways of testing it indirectly, currently. Long period comets that do not have their mathemtical origins inside the gravitational field of the sun that showed up would falsify the oort cloud hypothesis, at least partially, as an example.


How? clarify this please."

The oort cloud hypothesis says that LP comets come from a region of space inside the solar sphere of influence. If a comet arrived from inter-stellar space, then we'd know that the oort cloud hypothesis as it currently stands is incorrect.

"Ok... I'll claim there are aliens on alpha centauri. since math says its possible and someday we might be able to send a ship or a probe there to prove it, I guess that makes it as valid a theory as Oort today and just as proven. "

Its not as valid. No predictive power. Also no evidence that the hypothesis is built upon. What are you offering up for your observational data that requires the explanation of aliens on alpha centauri that can't be explained by current scientific theories that are built upon observational evidence?

"Ok, how can you know any dating method has no chance for long term error? Its impossible."

"No" was a mistake of laziness. To be more clear: We know that there are dating errors in, for example, Carbon-14 dating methods, especially as we get past a certain date. On the other hand, uranium dating, we don't know of any errors in the method that would cause significant % error in estimations of age at the time scales we are talking about.

"Backup your claim please."

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/kuiper.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

http://www.harmsy.freeuk.com/kuiper.html

http://www.nineplanets.org/kboc.html

etc.

Apparently the number is more like 800.

[ January 05, 2006, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A general note on methodology:

Joe, if you want me to read a specific paragraph, please post it here. If someone posts a link, without quoting from the link, I generally skim the link very quickly, because I'll assume that its either being provided to back up a very specific claim (like the ones in my previous post which back up my claim of observed kuiper belt objects), in which case I trust that the link does indeed do what the poster says it does, or as a source of general interest. If you want me to read the whole article, and your argument relies upon everything in the article, please specify that... I probably won't respond to it immediately, because the amount of time I spend reading non-ornery material that is posted on ornery fluxates greatly day to day and week to week. Put succinctly, I'm far more interested in debating YOU then someonese you link to.

This is why I largely have been summing up arguments. If you're interested enough, you'll go do your own research to verify what I say. If you aren't interested enough, its unlikely you'd read an entire article I post anyways (especially as such an article might take you a couple hours to go through).


I try to treat people the same way in regards to linking, though sometimes I fail at that. But at least you now know where I'm coming from with links.

In regards to using quotes, simply the way I am comfortable using my browser makes it inconvient to use the UBB code. If its seriously bothering you, I can start using the code, but I prefer not to.

[ January 05, 2006, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
it was determined to be wrong by what you'd have called fringe scientists, not mainstream, people like creationist scientist who went against the commonly held theory of the day. Which I think illustrates the lack of validity of your argumentum ad numerum.

Yes and no. Theories have been challenged by outsiders, since by definition a new theory is not the establishment. However, in no sense are these outsiders "like creationists". Usually, new theories come from younger generations, who can look at the data with fresh eyes. Creationism isn't a response to data at all. Creationists start with an answer (gleaned from a non-scientific source) and then look for evidence to support it. Insofar as it is science, it is done in bad faith (pun intended). Einstein, for example, didn't solidify his worldview from reading the Talmud, and then try to confirm it with scientific observations. What he and others did (and do) is look at the data itself and try to find the simplest (Occam) explanation that takes all of it into account. Its a process that necessitates the ability to abandon incorrect or falsified theories and aspects of theories. Creationists cannot do this, because the "answer" has been predetermined. When they find data that contradicts their theory, its the data which is ignored or discarded, not the theory. Science does not work this way.

You are correct that scientists, being flawed human beings, are often irrationally attatched to established theories. Relativity wasn't accepted overnight, nor the Copernican solar model. However, what makes progress possible is not the incidental fact that new theories come from outside the establishment, but from the crucial fact that they come from people following sound method. Since Creationists don't follow (scientifically) sound methods, they are very unlikely to contribute to new scientific understanding.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

I have provided evidence... but here it is again: The mathematics of the LP comet orbits indicate a region in space from which all of these comets are arriving. Thats, more or less, the same sorts of observational evidence we have for things like the electron. We see the EFFECTS of the electron, even though we can't see the actual electron. As I've also said, the oort cloud is not on as firm ground as other scientific theories, and I've even labeled it an hypothesis. The primary difference between the electron and the oort cloud is that there are more effects to look for more consistently from the electron, then from the oort cloud, and the electron can be played with in the laboratory.


Thank you, you admit its a hypothesis and not a theory. Thats really all I've been arguing for. My point being that Oort's hypothesis is nowhere near a conclusive refutation against Ron's comet assertion.

quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

Please read the ornery rules. My opinion on whats out there, if explained carefully, should carry as much weight as anyone else's opinion, in these forums. There are restrictions on that, of course. But I've simply been saying that indirect observational evidence counts as observational evidence... otherwise we have to throw out the electron as a scientific theory.


Funny you should bring up forum rules. There is no ornery rule that says that. First, you setup a straw man by saying "My opinion on whats out there, if explained carefully, should carry as much weight as anyone else's opinion" This is not what I was saying in any way. I've never said your opinion is not as valid as mine. But I CAN make the assertion that your opinion is not as valid as an article by a scientist with evidence to the contrary.

Since you want to refer the forum rules let me share a piece of the rules with you.

quote:

Personal attacks, mockery, or speculation about the motives of people posting here are not allowed, and such posts will be removed without notification. Repeated offenders will be banned from the site.

Personal courtesy is the fundamental condition of free discussion, and free discussion is the fundamental condition of democratic government.

quote:
Everard wrote:

In fact, you have to be a grade A idiot to think that much of the material making up the earth is not over 3 billion years old, after reviewing the evidence (and no, I won't retract that statement.)


Please explain to me again how I am the one who needs to read the rules?

quote:
Everard wrote:

Perhaps. There ARE areas in which I won't reconsider my opinions of people, though, unless they offer compelling evidence that I should reconsider. Beliving that the rocks on the earth are 6000 years old shows extreme irrationality in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you want to argue those rocks came from elsewhere, then at least we have grounds to talk. But if you argue they aren't 3 billion+ years old, then we don't, because you aren't using physical evidence to reach your conclusions.


Still doesn't give you the right to call Ron a "grade A idiot." (I say Ron because I don't really have a firm position on the young earth / old earth debate, and so will choose to overlook the remark personally).

quote:
Everard wrote:

Ahh yes, I should look at a link that argues against straw men? As noted by the link I provided, the radioactive dating method used to date 3+ billion year old rocks is uranium-lead. Not carbon or potassium dating.


Straw men indeed. The link provides refutations to all types of radiometric dating that I've ever heard of.

quote:
Everard wrote:

"No" was a mistake of laziness. To be more clear: We know that there are dating errors in, for example, Carbon-14 dating methods, especially as we get past a certain date. On the other hand, uranium dating, we don't know of any errors in the method that would cause significant % error in estimations of age at the time scales we are talking about.


Just so we are clear, which uranium method are you specifically talking about?

quote:
Everard wrote:

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/kuiper.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

http://www.harmsy.freeuk.com/kuiper.html

http://www.nineplanets.org/kboc.html


Apparently the number is more like 800.

Not according to your sources. [Razz]

What it really says is:
quote:

There are more than 800 known trans-Neptunian objects (as of early 2004);

Your mis-representing it. It in no way claims these are comets. The closest thing I could find in your sources to supporting your 9 comet claim in my quick examination of your links is:

quote:

There are presently nine known objects orbiting between Jupiter and Neptune (including 2060 Chiron (aka 95 P/Chiron) and 5145 Pholus; see the MPC's list). The IAU has designated this class of objects as Centaurs. These orbits are not stable. These objects are almost certainly "refugees" from the Kuiper Belt. Their future fate is not known. Some of these show some cometary activity (ie, their images are a little fuzzy indicating the presence of a diffuse coma).

Thats some really cautious language there.

This to me says, what we REALLY have is 9 objects, of which SOME MAY be acting comet like because the images are a little fuzzy, but we have ZILCHO actual, identified comets from the Kuiper belt. Unless I missed something? I admit I didn't spend a whole lot of time reading.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
A general note on methodology:

Joe, if you want me to read a specific paragraph, please post it here. If someone posts a link, without quoting from the link, I generally skim the link very quickly, because I'll assume that its either being provided to back up a very specific claim (like the ones in my previous post which back up my claim of observed kuiper belt objects), in which case I trust that the link does indeed do what the poster says it does, or as a source of general interest. If you want me to read the whole article, and your argument relies upon everything in the article, please specify that... I probably won't respond to it immediately, because the amount of time I spend reading non-ornery material that is posted on ornery fluxates greatly day to day and week to week. Put succinctly, I'm far more interested in debating YOU then someonese you link to.

This is why I largely have been summing up arguments. If you're interested enough, you'll go do your own research to verify what I say. If you aren't interested enough, its unlikely you'd read an entire article I post anyways (especially as such an article might take you a couple hours to go through).


I try to treat people the same way in regards to linking, though sometimes I fail at that. But at least you now know where I'm coming from with links.

In regards to using quotes, simply the way I am comfortable using my browser makes it inconvient to use the UBB code. If its seriously bothering you, I can start using the code, but I prefer not to.

Ok, Ev. Thanks for explaining your methodology. I appreciate you taking the time to do that. It will make it easier to understand how to present information to you in the future. [Big Grin]
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joe - the rules:

quote:

1. We aren't impressed by your credentials, Dr. This or Senator That. We aren't going to take your word for it, we're going to think it through for ourselves.

2. We don't like being spun. That doesn't mean we aren't sometimes fooled by the way reporters slant their stories, but when we find out how we've been manipulated, we get a little mad and we refuse to trust that writer, commentator, that magazine, that newspaper, that news network, or that politician again.

3. We think America is larger and more important than our self-interest. You can't buy our integrity with a boomtown economy, and we won't let you shame our country just to avoid risking American lives. We Americans have never been afraid to make sacrifices for a worthy cause.

4. We believe that character matters -- our own character, the character of our leaders, and the character of our nation as a whole. We don't like bullies and cowards, liars and hypocrites, and we don't appreciate it when our leaders make our nation behave as if that were what Americans are.

5. We'll forgive your misdeeds, but only if you apologize sincerely and never do it again. Our trust, once betrayed, is not lightly restored.

6. We vote.

7. We know that good, wise people sometimes disagree. So we listen to the views of others, and have no patience with those who shout others down or use ridicule or coercion to silence serious arguments. Only fanatics and dictators assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil or stupid.

8. We believe in right or wrong. Individual cases may merit compassion, but the law must be respected. Along with individual freedom must come responsibility for others. Along with compassion for the minority's needs must come respect for the majority's will.

9. We believe in representative government, with the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution. Judges do not have the right to create law. Presidents do not have the right to lie to, conceal information from, or ignore the prerogatives of Congress. Congressmen must act first for the good of the nation, and only secondarily for the benefit of their constituents.

10. We reject violence except in self-defense or to protect the weak against aggression.

Note the one I bolded - the first one? That's what Everard is talking about.

Note the one I bolded and italicized - the seventh one? That's the one Joe is talking about.

Any questions?
Source

[ January 05, 2006, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
you are == you're

you are != your

carry on [Smile]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Let me interject a minor point here, it was determined to be wrong by what you'd have called fringe scientists, not mainstream, people like creationist scientist who went against the commonly held theory of the day. Which I think illustrates the lack of validity of your argumentum ad numerum.
No, they were not “fringe scientists.” They were mainstream scientists who published in mainstream scientific journals. When the accepted evidence became significant, then the theory itself was accepted.

Much of creationism research is done in creationism journals, which are not accepted by mainstream science. This is because the journals are not vetted by mainstream scientists, so they are not sure of the results. (Of course, even articles published in mainstream journals can be incorrect, but this is the first test an article goes through.) Without this minimal assurance of the accuracy of the facts and conclusions, mainstream scientists will not use it in their research. Thus it remains “fringe.”

This does not mean it is necessarily bad science (although some of it probably is), but that it is unreliable science, in that it has not even passed the first test of a scientific article.

quote:
Again you fall back on argumentum ad numerum. The number of people that believe theory A vs. theory B does not prove anything.
True, it is the research and reasoning that proves scientific theories. What I am saying is that, if 100 people study the evidence and 99 of them agree with one theory, and one person disagrees, which theory is more likely to be true? If 99 of them say the second theory is unscientific, and one disagrees, which position should be taught in introductory classes?

quote:
We? Who do you claim to speak for? YOU might be as sure of it as any other scientific theory but thats irrelevant as is anyone elses surety or lack thereof on the matter.
I probably should say scientists in general, which I really do not count myself among. [Embarrassed] However, I also speak for society in general, which supports science as it is practiced today, so as a representative of American society, I can say that “we” are as certain of evolution as any other scientific theory.

quote:
The only thing that matters is the facts, of which, evolutions is lacking. Its not testable, its never been observed and its definitely not proven hard science no matter how much its adherents try to present it as such.
I think you put too high a criteria for “proven hard science.” Much of what is considered proven and hard science would not meet your criteria. Everard’s example of the electron would fit as not being “proven hard science,” I believe.

For instance, which of the following (or which aspects) would you consider not to be “hard science”:

Astrophysics
Atomic physics (including radioactive decay)
Paleontology
Geology
Genetics
Evolutionary biology
Anatomy
Meteorology
Medicine

I could imagine every one of these as being not “hard science,” depending on your definitions of “testable” and “observed.” However, I can also imagine every one of them being so, too. So could you provide your definitions along with your categorizations?

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
Joe - the rules:

quote:

1. We aren't impressed by your credentials, Dr. This or Senator That. We aren't going to take your word for it, we're going to think it through for ourselves.



Note the one I bolded - the first one? That's what Everard is talking about.

Note the one I bolded and italicized - the seventh one? That's the one Joe is talking about.

Any questions?
Source

Well, I guess I fail to see how number 1 applies to what I said. I assume Ev was not trying to accuse me of using my credentials as evidence as I've never stated my credentials period.

That leaves me with the second part, "We aren't going to take your word for it, we're going to think it through for ourselves." I never made any claims on "my word," nor did I ever say Ev or anyone had to take my word on anything. Everything I said was backed up with scientific articles. If anything, Ev was the one saying we should take his word that Oort had been tested and such.

So how does rule 1 apply to me? If I've broken the rule please explain so I can avoid doing so in the future, because right now I just can't see it. If I can't see it, I can't avoid making the same mistake in the future. I don't want to do that. I always do my very best to follow forum rules.

Aside from that, am I the only one that thinks rule #1(and half the others) isn't a rule at all? Rule #1 does not seem worded as a rule to me, its really just a statement the way I read it.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey DonaldD, as long as we Canadians are policing things I'll play, too!


Allude ≠ Elude


(edited for wrong nitpick)

[ January 05, 2006, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ron Lambert wrote: Drewmie, you asked me what the purpose of my religion is. The short answer is that Seventh-day Adventists see themselves as playing the role of the prophet Elijah within the modern, spiritual Israel of Christendom, seeking to call Christians first of all, and after them the whole world, back to faithfulness to God, in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ. At least, that is the way I would put it.
This is quite interesting, and the rest of your post is too (I have quite an interest in comparative religion). The doctrines of Seventh Day Adventists are especially interesting, as they are one of the few Christian religions (in my opinion), along with Latter-Day Saints, that have a quite specific and highly organized idea of the earthly plan, and of what we are working toward.

Unfortunately, I have to apologize, because that's not what I meant to ask about. I'm asking about "purpose" in the sense of what your religion does for you. What benefits does it provide consistently and without exception? What is the point?

For example, I believe the promise of the gospel is "peace in this life and eternal life [meaning life with God, not just immortality] in the life to come." That is why we share the Gospel to others. That is why we try to better ourselves and teach our children. Would you agree with that?

If so, then I consider all the other items (missionary work, prayer, living the commandments, studying the scriptures, loving and serving our fellow man, learning about our origins and relationship with God, etc.) to be MEANS to that end. When they do not ultimately serve the end of providing peace in this life and eternal life in the life to come, they don't have much use.

As such, I don't understand why a fight between ID and evolution is so important. ID takes spiritual things, and pretends they are TEMPORAL things. As such, they no longer seem to serve the purpose of the Gospel. The myths of the creation of the world, of Adam and Eve, of the serpent and the fall, etc. are ALL crucial to our understanding of our SPIRITUAL nature and our relationship to God. And by "myths," I don't mean "falsehoods" but rather stories that are meant to symbolize ourselves and our nature. I believe they happened, but whether they happened historically or not, their meaning and importance to us is not in the least bit lessened. To disagree, you would have to accept that Christ's parables are less important if they didn't actually occur.

These myths completely lose their most crucial significance if we ponder them as wordly histories and scientific explanations. They lose their spiritual power. As such, I don't want ANY science to muck up the waters of things that I believe are only useful in matters of faith.

In short, religion and science have completely different basic purposes. And I don't want either one messing with the other, thereby diluting the effectiveness of both.

[ January 05, 2006, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
Let me interject a minor point here, it was determined to be wrong by what you'd have called fringe scientists, not mainstream, people like creationist scientist who went against the commonly held theory of the day. Which I think illustrates the lack of validity of your argumentum ad numerum.
No, they were not “fringe scientists.” They were mainstream scientists who published in mainstream scientific journals. When the accepted evidence became significant, then the theory itself was accepted.

I disagree with your assessment. History has many important discoveries from scientists that were fully considered "fringe scientists" and ridiculed by mainstream science. They were definitely NOT mainstream scientists.

Here are some examples

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

quote:
Again you fall back on argumentum ad numerum. The number of people that believe theory A vs. theory B does not prove anything.
True, it is the research and reasoning that proves scientific theories. What I am saying is that, if 100 people study the evidence and 99 of them agree with one theory, and one person disagrees, which theory is more likely to be true? If 99 of them say the second theory is unscientific, and one disagrees, which position should be taught in introductory classes?

The obvious answer, is of course you go with what the 99 say. However, If you're talking specifically about my argument against teaching ID AND evolution in school, then I would have to say your setting up a straw man. My premise is not whether ID or Evolution should be taught, but rather, why teach either? Theres plenty of science out there that the full 100 scientists, so to speak, would agree on as solid science. Teach science that is demonstrable/observable. I am sure theres enough hard science to more than cover k-12.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

quote:
We? Who do you claim to speak for? YOU might be as sure of it as any other scientific theory but thats irrelevant as is anyone elses surety or lack thereof on the matter.
I probably should say scientists in general, which I really do not count myself among. [Embarrassed] However, I also speak for society in general, which supports science as it is practiced today, so as a representative of American society, I can say that “we” are as certain of evolution as any other scientific theory.


Ok, I understand what your saying and as far as We, the scientists go, you'd be correct. But when you go on to say "so as a representative of American society, I can say that “we” are as certain of evolution as any other scientific theory." You would be incorrect. This is why I wanted clarification.Polls show that in america more people believe more in creationism than evolution.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

quote:
The only thing that matters is the facts, of which, evolutions is lacking. Its not testable, its never been observed and its definitely not proven hard science no matter how much its adherents try to present it as such.
I think you put too high a criteria for “proven hard science.” Much of what is considered proven and hard science would not meet your criteria. Everard’s example of the electron would fit as not being “proven hard science,” I believe.


So... In other words you find my lack of faith disturbing? [Big Grin] No, seriously, perhaps your right. But since no ones really taken up my school debate, I decided to try and help Ron out a bit.

To my mind, All I have to do is show that disbelief in evolution is not unreasonable. This is why I am making such a big deal about it being unproven. I am trying to drive that home. Ron should not be ridiculed, mocked, called "Ron Quixote" and "a grade A idiot," just because he doesn't buy into a theory thats far short of proven by many estimations. I have a big soft spot for underdogs, especially when the majority stoops to ad hominem attacks. Now since you and Ev(the two mainly debating against Ron) have both more or less admitted Evolution is not proven, I think my point is basically made. I think by showing evolution is not proven, I've shown that Ron is therefore not a "Ron Quixote." Plain and simple, he just chooses not to buy into an unproven theory.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

For instance, which of the following (or which aspects) would you consider not to be “hard science”:

Astrophysics
Atomic physics (including radioactive decay)
Paleontology
Geology
Genetics
Evolutionary biology
Anatomy
Meteorology
Medicine

I could imagine every one of these as being not “hard science,” depending on your definitions of “testable” and “observed.” However, I can also imagine every one of them being so, too. So could you provide your definitions along with your categorizations?

These are way too broad. Your probably right that they encompass things that fit my defintion of hard science and things that don't.

Well, its been fun but I'm out. I'll be in meetings the rest of the day. [Frown]

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I disagree with your assessment. History has many important discoveries from scientists that were fully considered "fringe scientists" and ridiculed by mainstream science. They were definitely NOT mainstream scientists.
And I disagree with your disagreement. Picking some modern names from the list, here are where these professors worked:

Robert Bakker (University of Colorodo)
Robert L. Folk (Univesity of Texas, Austin)
Thomas Gold (Cornell University)
Lynn Margulis (University of Mass.)
Alfred Wegener (University of Graz, Austria)
George Zweig (MIT)

Furthermore, where did they publish their work? Only in popular literature? I very, very much doubt it. I would bet that much of their work was published in peer-reviewed journals.

So I would not consider them "fringe" in the same way as creationists are.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The following quote quite well summarizes the criticisms I have of the Kuiper belt argument:

quote:
"Many thousands of asteroids exist in the inner solar system, so we should not be surprised that some objects have been discovered beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto. Several hundred of these ‘KBOs’ have now been observed. But a Kuiper Belt would need around a billion icy cores in order to replenish the solar system’s supply of comets. It remains to be seen whether KBOs exist in such abundance. Currently, this is merely an evolutionary speculation.

"It should also be noted that the observed KBOs are much larger than comet nuclei. The diameter of the nucleus of a typical comet is around 10 kilometers. However, the recently discovered KBOs are estimated to have diameters ranging from about 100 to 500 kilometers. This calls into question the idea that these objects are precursors of short-period comets. So, the discovery of objects beyond Neptune does not in any way confirm a Kuiper Belt—at least not the kind of Kuiper Belt that evolutionary astronomers require." -- "Kuiper Belt Objects: solution to short-period comets?" by Robert Newton

As for the Oort cloud, I found this article by Danny Faulkner referenced:
quote:
"Evolutionary theories of the origin of the solar system state that comet nuclei came from material left over from the formation of the planets. According to the theory, this icy material was sent out to the Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the solar system by the gravity of the newly formed planets. All of the earlier studies ignored collisions between the comet nuclei during this process.

"This new study has considered these collisions and has found that most of the comets would have been destroyed by the collisions. Thus, instead of having a combined mass of perhaps 40 Earths, the Oort cloud should have at most the mass of about a single Earth. It is doubtful that this is enough mass to account for the comets that we see."

Drewmie, you seem to be asking me why I am religious at all. I believe what is true is inseparable from what is right, and that from what is good. I choose good; that is why I seek what is right, and what is true. This is the side I choose to be on in this life. The God of the Bible reveals to me substantive and compelling explanations for all these considerations. God is good, religion based on His Word is right and consistent, and it also tells me the real truth about history from creation to the end of time and then eternity beyond; and makes it clear to me both what God's attitude toward me is, and what I should do in consequence, to have my own meaningful role in what yet remains to be done.

The Bible tells us that God is love; that is also what good is, and the rightness of love is the truth. Love is the right way for the universe to be governed, and God is allowing a great debate to be settled over this, so the question will never arise again.

Wayward Son, you are very mistaken in saying that the scientists who first went against the common view of the mainstream were themselves mainstream. They most certainly were not; they were driven out of the mainstream, ostracized and ridiculed and denounced. It takes a special kind of courage to stand up for truth when it is unpopular. Eventually the masses may make virture of the truth they once opposed, but it is a grievous miscarriage of justice to call the heroes who bucked the mainstream, mainstream. That amounts to the mainstream trying to take credit for the heroes they once denounced and made sport of.

This reminds me of sentiments from the song by James Russell Lowell, "Once to Every Man and Nation." Verse two says:

quote:
Then to side with truth is noble
When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit
And 'tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses,
While the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue
Of the faith they had denied.



[ January 05, 2006, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I believe what is true is inseparable from what is right, and that from what is good.
I must not be reading this right? It's true that children are dying of AIDs all over the world, so that is right, and good?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KinghtEnder, God did not create evil, nor did He consent to the development of any of the evils in the world we rightly decry. But God allows these consequences of the challenge to His rule to be made manifest for all future generations on this and all other worlds to know.

As a race, we have said to God, "Back off and give us space." So He backed off and allowed us to be ruled by "time and chance" (as stated in Ecclesiastes 9:11). Then when things go wrong all over the planet and especially in our own lives, we demandingly ask God, "Why do you allow this to happen?"

God is concerned not merely with the evil that runs its foul course now. He wants to make sure it never rises again, so the universe will be forever secure. As stated in Nahum 1:9: "What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time."

[ January 05, 2006, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nice excuse.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, I'm not asking WHAT you believe, because I think you've been clear on that. I'm asking the PURPOSE of your beliefs, i.e. what's the point? Truth, justice, right, good, etc. are are meaningless if they don't actually DO SOMETHING for us. What do you believe your religion is supposed to accomplish for people?

I keep asking this, because it seems you draw no distinction between the goals of science and religion. Religion explores truth, while science explores fact. In the scientific world, seeing (or "observing") is believing. In the religious world, feeling is believing. My religion's goals of spiritual peace, joy, and eternal life are not helped by science. Scientific goals of secular human knowledge and progress are not the goals of religion.

Is it not clear that science cannot help my spirit grow? Is it not clear that religion's lofty purposes are wasted dealing with DNA and such temporal things? Is it not obvious that how perfectly I understand the physical, factual origins of mortal man does NOT give me a closer relationship with or help me serve the Savior, my family, or my fellow man?

This all seems pretty obvious to me, which is why I'm baffled why Christians feel remotely threatened by evolution. It's a scientific theory, and as such has absolutely no power to save or damn us. People who have lived righteous lives have believed all kinds of wacked-out things, and some of the most evil people in the world were secularly brilliant.

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wayward Son, you are very mistaken in saying that the scientists who first went against the common view of the mainstream were themselves mainstream. They most certainly were not; they were driven out of the mainstream, ostracized and ridiculed and denounced. It takes a special kind of courage to stand up for truth when it is unpopular. Eventually the masses may make virture of the truth they once opposed, but it is a grievous miscarriage of justice to call the heroes who bucked the mainstream, mainstream. That amounts to the mainstream trying to take credit for the heroes they once denounced and made sport of.
Ron, everyone who stands up to a belief will be ostracized, ridiculed and denounced at some time or other. Look how scientists are ridiculed and denounced by creationists right now. Did you know that evolutionists are atheists? I found that out from David Jeremiah on TV a few months back. And that is the one of the more milder denouncations.

Every new idea in science is ridiculed and denounced at first. Puncutated equilibrium in evolutionary theory was, for example. Scientists are a contentious bunch, who endlessly argue about conclusions. It's one of its strengths.

Why I consider them mainstream is that they have published in mainstream science publications. They did not solely publish books outside of the journals, like Von Danikan's ancient astronaut idea. They got their ideas into the mainstream publications, had them discussed, and, when the evidence was compelling, had them accepted. They were not prophets crying out in the wilderness. They did good, accepted science.

ID and creationism, for the most part, is outside the mainstream. Their studies and publications are mostly published in non-respected journals. This is how I define mainstream and non-mainstream.

So what it proves is that all ideas are ridiculed and denounced, whether they are in the mainstream or outside. Certainly those with a vision should be praised for standing up to what they consider true. But that is the price that has to be paid to get a new idea accepted, since most new ideas turn out to be untrue. And how much praise should we heap on people who proclaim untrue ideas? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SwampJedi
Member
Member # 915

 - posted      Profile for SwampJedi   Email SwampJedi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
ID and creationism, for the most part, is outside the mainstream. Their studies and publications are mostly published in non-respected journals. This is how I define mainstream and non-mainstream.
Maybe the fact that they publish these articles causes other scientists to consider them "not respected"?

In other words, conflation?

Posts: 91 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drewmie, the purpose of my faith--the particular purpose of my denomination--is to prepare ourselves as individuals, and the world, for the Second Coming of Christ, so that as many as possible will be among those who will gladly welcome Him, saying "this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation" (Isaiah 25:9); and not be among those terrified by their own guilty consciences who cry for the mountains and rocks to fall on them and hide them "from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!" (Revelation 6:16)

[ January 06, 2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wayward Son, it does not exactly take courage for people to go along with the present mainstream majority and "stand up" to the opposition of creationists, who are in the minority. When has it ever been hard to side with the majority? It is the creationists who are showing courage, daring to stand up for what they know is right and truly scientific, and continuing to point out the many deficiencies and outright frauds in the evolutionist propaganda, when they are met with unwarranted derision and insult and mischaracterization of their motives and intellectual competence, plus denial of grants for research, etc.

[ January 06, 2006, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" daring to stand up for what they know is right and truly scientific,"

They may know it to be right and truly scientific, but they are wrong on that score. In order for young earth creationism to be true, 99.9%+ of the data we have on the age of the universe, solar system, earth, and objects on the earth, has to be incorrect.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So let it be written, so let it be done.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A document laying out the case of macro-evolution (including dozens of links that are part of the document)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The rebuttal

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

The rebuttal of the rebuttal

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is the creationists who are showing courage, daring to stand up for what they know is right and truly scientific, and continuing to point out the many deficiencies and outright frauds in the evolutionist propaganda, when they are met with unwarranted derision and insult and mischaracterization of their motives and intellectual competence, plus denial of grants for research, etc.
Still doesn't mean they aren't dead wrong. [Big Grin]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard, 99.9% of the data does not have to be wrong for young earth creationism to be right; only the interpretation of the data made by the close-minded majority. Virtually all those interpretations are based on circular reasoning, assuming the things to be proven in order to prove the assumptions. Let just a few key assumptions be irrefutably overthrown, and the whole house of cards will fall.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Everard, 99.9% of the data does not have to be wrong for young earth creationism to be right; only the interpretation of the data made by the close-minded majority"

Or perhaps its the close minded young earth creationists, and not the close minded scientists? Young earth creationism has been around far longer then old earth science. Most of the people who put forward the ideas that undermine the idea of an old universe/solar system/earth have themselves been religious people, so they certainly had to have an open mind on the question of whether or not the universe/solar system/earth is young or old.

You are, of course, correct, that it is the interpretation of the data, and not the data itself. However, the young earth arguments tend to be thrown out because the data doesn't make SENSE from a young earth perspective. In the example of radiometric dating, the oldest rocks on earth have been found to be several billion years old by five DIFFERENT radiometric dating methods (all the ones that can be used on those rocks). Quoting from the link I supplied above to age of earth question on talk origins "To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay)".

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1