Spock Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2014 S: hey c, what about starlight? We are seeing light from stars wayyyyyyyyy longer than 10,000 years old.C: there you go again s, wanting to talk science while all I want to talk about is the Bible and Hebrew grammar.S: take for instance this supernova that was observed in 1987 that came from the large magellinic cloud galaxy not to far from our own galaxy. It has been determined through several independent studies that the light from this supernova explosion occurred 167,000 light years ago. Obviously, that is way more than 10,000.C: good question s, and I don't have an answer right now. But let me check and see if Answers in Genesis has one. They are pretty good at doing that (coming up with rebuttals whenever science comes out with something new.)S: do they have open minded scientists working there in AIG?C: I think they are, but of course, they are not allowed to share any study or finding that would oppose their mission, which is to pooh pooh any science discovery that can possibly question the six day creation account.S: what about all the Christian scientists who support an old earth? Do you consider their work knowing that they too have the Holy Spirit guiding their lives?C: no, like I told you, we don't trust science or scientists even the ones who bow their knee to Jesus. They obviously sold their birthright like Esau did.Disclaimer: a wee bit of a hyperbole with tongue in cheek, but was done to make a point or two. (Good writing does that at times.)They say elevation is always evident by that which is lifted up...As Christ was lifted up in death of the first sin, so that, life cannotbe determined by death but that of life which was before sin as lifted upto life making sin the not it has always been! Love, Steven Ok, that rebuttal made no sense. Hey Shiloh, where are you? Let me have it bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I was simply trying to ascertain who first envisioned the concept that was later codified into the Scientific Method..... What Aristotle proposed is the basis for any means scientists use to collect and interpret data. "tie Aristotle into the proposal of falsifiable experiments." ahhh, I think I see. To "Scientifically" Prove Aristotle or (insert any historical figure) actually existed (via the Scientific Method) would be impossible, eh? Well some TRUTHS fall outside "science's" purview. I have no idea where your line of thinking just went. "What Aristotle proposed is the basis for any means scientists use to collect and interpret data." What is the point? "I have no idea where your line of thinking just went." Well I was trying to figure out where your line of thing was going with this..... "If in your belief repeatable, falsifiable experiments are the only valid method of obtaining truth scientifically, then you would need to tie Aristotle into the proposal of falsifiable experiments." And then... made a guess. "If in your belief repeatable, falsifiable experiments....." So it's my personal conjured belief?? Well here you go.... 'Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence So as I said, petition the Scientific Establishment to change the definitions. PM me when it changes. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 S: hey c, what about starlight? We are seeing light from stars wayyyyyyyyy longer than 10,000 years old.C: there you go again s, wanting to talk science while all I want to talk about is the Bible and Hebrew grammar.S: take for instance this supernova that was observed in 1987 that came from the large magellinic cloud galaxy not to far from our own galaxy. It has been determined through several independent studies that the light from this supernova explosion occurred 167,000 light years ago. Obviously, that is way more than 10,000.C: good question s, and I don't have an answer right now. But let me check and see if Answers in Genesis has one. They are pretty good at doing that (coming up with rebuttals whenever science comes out with something new.)S: do they have open minded scientists working there in AIG?C: I think they are, but of course, they are not allowed to share any study or finding that would oppose their mission, which is to pooh pooh any science discovery that can possibly question the six day creation account.S: what about all the Christian scientists who support an old earth? Do you consider their work knowing that they too have the Holy Spirit guiding their lives?C: no, like I told you, we don't trust science or scientists even the ones who bow their knee to Jesus. They obviously sold their birthright like Esau did.Disclaimer: a wee bit of a hyperbole with tongue in cheek, but was done to make a point or two. (Good writing does that at times.) They say elevation is always evident by that which is lifted up...As Christ was lifted up in death of the first sin, so that, life cannotbe determined by death but that of life which was before sin as lifted upto life making sin the not it has always been! Love, Steven Ok, that rebuttal made no sense. Hey Shiloh, where are you? Let me have it bro. Spock, your post was nothing but an attempt at mockery and I have no respect for it. I really see no reason to waste my time trying form a reasonable response to a bunch of immature drivel. When you would like to revise that post into something an adult would say, let me know I will respond to it. Otherwise that post isn't worth the paper that lines my cat's litter box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2014 S: hey c, what about starlight? We are seeing light from stars wayyyyyyyyy longer than 10,000 years old.C: there you go again s, wanting to talk science while all I want to talk about is the Bible and Hebrew grammar.S: take for instance this supernova that was observed in 1987 that came from the large magellinic cloud galaxy not to far from our own galaxy. It has been determined through several independent studies that the light from this supernova explosion occurred 167,000 light years ago. Obviously, that is way more than 10,000.C: good question s, and I don't have an answer right now. But let me check and see if Answers in Genesis has one. They are pretty good at doing that (coming up with rebuttals whenever science comes out with something new.)S: do they have open minded scientists working there in AIG?C: I think they are, but of course, they are not allowed to share any study or finding that would oppose their mission, which is to pooh pooh any science discovery that can possibly question the six day creation account.S: what about all the Christian scientists who support an old earth? Do you consider their work knowing that they too have the Holy Spirit guiding their lives?C: no, like I told you, we don't trust science or scientists even the ones who bow their knee to Jesus. They obviously sold their birthright like Esau did.Disclaimer: a wee bit of a hyperbole with tongue in cheek, but was done to make a point or two. (Good writing does that at times.) They say elevation is always evident by that which is lifted up...As Christ was lifted up in death of the first sin, so that, life cannotbe determined by death but that of life which was before sin as lifted upto life making sin the not it has always been! Love, Steven Ok, that rebuttal made no sense. Hey Shiloh, where are you? Let me have it bro. Spock, your post was nothing but an attempt at mockery and I have no respect for it. I really see no reason to waste my time trying form a reasonable response to a bunch of immature drivel. When you would like to revise that post into something an adult would say, let me know I will respond to it. Otherwise that post isn't worth the paper that lines my cat's litter box. Fair enough. To each his or her own. I have no desire to edit it. I thought the post made a couple of great points with a little humor thrown in. Obviously, not all found it as funny as I did. Maybe somebody else will be moved to discuss those points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,281 Content Per Day: 7.99 Reputation: 21,501 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Analyzing calculations and the (alleged) "evidence" thereof is not an EXPERIMENT or a TEST. I don't disagree with their "CURRENT" calculations, I'm sure the Mathematics are beyond reproach....However, unless you acquire that time machine to verify the numbers, well...it would be impossible for me to invalidate unverified data. In other words, Validate the Data FIRST (which is impossible because it's in the past) then I'll hook up my "scientific" calculator and take a crack at er. Savvy? So, something that took place yesterdays is impossible to validate since it's in the past. What a great way to view the world. I am not picking on you but desperately trying to show you what you are seeking for!All that is read or seen presently is examined by that presence and is suspect to error or fault by the presence of lies or believed error propagated as truth... (not all are purposely deceiving but are themselves deceived) Examine this reality for a moment- an evolutionary module relies on change in order to be truth yet more importantly it requires a constant of laws in order to be examined today bring those present laws in application of past that we cannot visit or verify only assume that constant is in those same laws... do you not find it unsettling that a system beginning from such radical change as nothing becoming something returning to nothing, (in regard to life as we know it), and in that drastic change that same module requires no change in laws that govern it to drastically change so as to be able to predict what was by what is observed today... to wordy I know here maybe this way- in a closed system of constant change 'the evolutionary module' using present predictabilities must be reliant upon a constant of no change to evaluate the past! I cannot believe a thinking mind and not see this as a logical fallacy of the very platform on which the whole is built Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2014 Analyzing calculations and the (alleged) "evidence" thereof is not an EXPERIMENT or a TEST. I don't disagree with their "CURRENT" calculations, I'm sure the Mathematics are beyond reproach....However, unless you acquire that time machine to verify the numbers, well...it would be impossible for me to invalidate unverified data. In other words, Validate the Data FIRST (which is impossible because it's in the past) then I'll hook up my "scientific" calculator and take a crack at er. Savvy? So, something that took place yesterdays is impossible to validate since it's in the past. What a great way to view the world. I am not picking on you but desperately trying to show you what you are seeking for! All that is read or seen presently is examined by that presence and is suspect to error or fault by the presence of lies or believed error propagated as truth... (not all are purposely deceiving but are themselves deceived) Examine this reality for a moment- an evolutionary module relies on change in order to be truth yet more importantly it requires a constant of laws in order to be examined today bring those present laws in application of past that we cannot visit or verify only assume that constant is in those same laws... do you not find it unsettling that a system beginning from such radical change as nothing becoming something returning to nothing, (in regard to life as we know it), and in that drastic change that same module requires no change in laws that govern it to drastically change so as to be able to predict what was by what is observed today... to wordy I know here maybe this way- in a closed system of constant change 'the evolutionary module' using present predictabilities must be reliant upon a constant of no change to evaluate the past! I cannot believe a thinking mind and not see this as a logical fallacy of the very platform on which the whole is built Love, Steven Great post, thank you for taking the time to respond to me. This is the sort of thing that leads to an open discussion. You see a problem with the view of the evolutionary module and you address it. (In the realm of evolution I pretty much agree with you). What you did not do was try and make some artificial distinction between what is and what is not science. You did not tell people their life's work was fantasy, you addressed a specific problem. If every post could be like this, these threads would be much friendlier and people would be so much less defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2014 Analyzing calculations and the (alleged) "evidence" thereof is not an EXPERIMENT or a TEST. I don't disagree with their "CURRENT" calculations, I'm sure the Mathematics are beyond reproach....However, unless you acquire that time machine to verify the numbers, well...it would be impossible for me to invalidate unverified data. In other words, Validate the Data FIRST (which is impossible because it's in the past) then I'll hook up my "scientific" calculator and take a crack at er. Savvy? So, something that took place yesterdays is impossible to validate since it's in the past. What a great way to view the world. I am not picking on you but desperately trying to show you what you are seeking for! All that is read or seen presently is examined by that presence and is suspect to error or fault by the presence of lies or believed error propagated as truth... (not all are purposely deceiving but are themselves deceived) Examine this reality for a moment- an evolutionary module relies on change in order to be truth yet more importantly it requires a constant of laws in order to be examined today bring those present laws in application of past that we cannot visit or verify only assume that constant is in those same laws... do you not find it unsettling that a system beginning from such radical change as nothing becoming something returning to nothing, (in regard to life as we know it), and in that drastic change that same module requires no change in laws that govern it to drastically change so as to be able to predict what was by what is observed today... to wordy I know here maybe this way- in a closed system of constant change 'the evolutionary module' using present predictabilities must be reliant upon a constant of no change to evaluate the past! I cannot believe a thinking mind and not see this as a logical fallacy of the very platform on which the whole is built Love, Steven Great post, thank you for taking the time to respond to me. This is the sort of thing that leads to an open discussion. You see a problem with the view of the evolutionary module and you address it. (In the realm of evolution I pretty much agree with you). What you did not do was try and make some artificial distinction between what is and what is not science. You did not tell people their life's work was fantasy, you addressed a specific problem. If every post could be like this, these threads would be much friendlier and people would be so much less defensive. I concur. This was your best Enoob. I hope to see more of these posts too. Thanks for listening to our frustrations. We want to dialog with you bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 "What Aristotle proposed is the basis for any means scientists use to collect and interpret data." What is the point? Never mind, Enoch. If someone who is not immersed in the sciences as a degree and or a profession wants to argue that he knows and understands what makes good science work better than someone who has - fine. I've got classes to prepare for, and no longer have the time for these circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 20, 2014 "What Aristotle proposed is the basis for any means scientists use to collect and interpret data." What is the point? Never mind, Enoch. If someone who is not immersed in the sciences as a degree and or a profession wants to argue that he knows and understands what makes good science work better than someone who has - fine. I've got classes to prepare for, and no longer have the time for these circles. "and no longer have the time for these circles." My thoughts exactly. "If someone who is not immersed in the sciences as a degree and or a profession wants to argue that he knows and understands what makes good science work better than someone who has" 1. "If someone who is not immersed in the sciences as a degree and or a profession" -----I'm assuming this is meant to be Me? 2. "better than someone who has" ------I'm assuming this is meant to be YOU? If so..... Question: on what basis can you make the assertion in item 1? What Quantitative/Qualitative Data was used to arrive @ this conclusion to separate it from Absolute Conjecture, or using the parlance of our time....a Guess?? I suppose it's ok either way, as long as this is CRYSTAL CLEAR..... 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence You may have the last word. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 20, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) An individual joins a discussion on the game of American Football. This individual starts to say things like "it is not really a touchdown unless they do a triple back flip going into the end-zone. This individual would be assumed not to have any real experience with the game, and would not be taken in a serious manner. And when the individual ask "what do you base this on" everyone would just shake their heads and walk away. Edited January 20, 2014 by LookingForAnswers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts