Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Donibm

Convincing Arguments ... are STILL just a Theory

30 posts in this topic

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add that a convincing argument is still just an argument and compelling evidence is still just evidence...neither of which are proof.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

A theory is a good thing to be in science. It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value. Gravity is only a theory, but you would't want to jump off a building to test it. If you have a theory you are particularly unhappy with, the science community would be ecstatic to see you disprove it (as theories cannot be proven).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

That's it.  That's all I got for you in this.  It's a CORE PRINCIPLE that you all can build upon yourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

 

 

========================================================

 

Carbon dating itself is a THEORY

 

Well actually Radiometric Dating isn't even a Theory (More like Guessing ;) ) it's in the trash-bin because it's been Falsified by the many False Positives and errors with Known Ages.

 

The antichrist will cause them to believe the lie.

 

Be careful here, I know what you meant, but.....

 

(2 Thessalonians 2:11) "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A theory is a good thing to be in science. It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value. Gravity is only a theory, but you would't want to jump off a building to test it. If you have a theory you are particularly unhappy with, the science community would be ecstatic to see you disprove it (as theories cannot be proven).

 

 

 

=====================================================================

 

It means it has been peer-reviewed and the evidence scrutinized and it has predictive value.

 

Baloney!  It's a Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion......again.

 

Peer review is the opposite of science.....it just ossifies the current paradigms or assumptions and censors competing hypothesis that the "good ole boy" network doesn't like.  This is anti-science, IMHO......

 

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Dr Michael Crichton Speech California Institute of Technology 17 Jan 2003

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122603134258207975

 

 

Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  No legitimate enterprise polices itself.  Would you like me to provide a LONG LIST of examples demonstrating a rather intuitive fact?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Baloney!  It's a Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion......again.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion because Enoch does not understand a concept.  Peer review has nothing to do with consensus...it is just the opposite.  It is a chance for those in your field to tell you that your theory is wrong.   One more concept for which you don't have a clue. Some people see through you Enoch - you are preaching to the choir here - why don't you float your massive knowledge on a board where science prevails and see what the response is?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Baloney!  It's a Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion......again.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah Baseless Unsupported Fallacious Assertion because Enoch does not understand a concept.  Peer review has nothing to do with consensus...it is just the opposite.  It is a chance for those in your field to tell you that your theory is wrong.   One more concept for which you don't have a clue. Some people see through you Enoch - you are preaching to the choir here - why don't you float your massive knowledge on a board where science prevails and see what the response is?

 

 

:huh:

 

Just let you post unsolicited lol.  I must say though this one is in Classic Territory  :thumbsup:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always remember that when dialoging with opposing religions, atheists and evolutionists.

 

They are riddled in THEORIES.  They trust their Professors and trust in the opinions of certain groups.  But a theory is a theory is a theory ... it's STILL a theory.  A commonly accepted theory ... is still a theory.  Carbon dating itself is a THEORY due to all the considerations, like atmosphere, etc.  Nothing has a date tag attached to it.

 

=========================================================================

 

Another surreptitious little escapade they undertake with "Theory" is a pathetic attempt to equivocate....."Look, Gravity is just a Theory, go jump off a bridge and see what happens lol, do you question that?"

 

Then....you know it's commin, "evolution is a Theory"  :24:

 

They need to because it's foundation is built on silly puddy.

 

Funny, you never here anyone defending Einsteinian or Newtonian Physics say "hey, these are as well established as evolution!!" lol. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..."just a theory" haha. next thing you know you will start saying "If man came from dirt, why is there still dirt?" or some silly creationist meme like that...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..."just a theory" haha. next thing you know you will start saying "If man came from dirt, why is there still dirt?" or some silly creationist meme like that...

 

Actually, we "creationists" just intuitively..... stay away from Non-Sequitur's and focus our attention on painfully obvious items such as:

 

Kinesin1_zpse680aede.jpg

 

The Amazing Kinesin, Yes it's Walking......on, predetermined then constructed roads.  It's packages are Date and Time stamped with A Specific Address/Location.  It's akin to a Blind Hyper Nano-Tech Fed Ex Delivery Machine.

 

Then we say to ourselves......well, DUH !! :duh:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0