03 Jan 2019, 9:16 am
03 Jan 2019, 1:54 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Yes, most of Science is based on "Theories", but not by the layperson's definition of the word.
I think logic is better than hypothesis.
Logic tells me, scientists don't know what happened millions of years ago.
So, that's it.
No need for people to make stuff up.
Sure, anything is possible, but we just don't know, so that's it.
Germ theory is "just a theory".
So tell the hospital to never use antiseptics, and antibiotics on you because "logic tells you" that microbes don't cause disease, or even exist in the first place.
03 Jan 2019, 2:50 pm
03 Jan 2019, 3:13 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Yes, most of Science is based on "Theories", but not by the layperson's definition of the word.
I think logic is better than hypothesis.
Logic tells me, scientists don't know what happened millions of years ago.
So, that's it.
No need for people to make stuff up.
Sure, anything is possible, but we just don't know, so that's it.
Germ theory is "just a theory".
So tell the hospital to never use antiseptics, and antibiotics on you because "logic tells you" that microbes don't cause disease, or even exist in the first place.
That's the point.
They can apply the scientific method to gravity, germs, but not to evolution thousands (millions) of years ago.
So, Darwinism is a faith-based religion.
And Darwinist is laughably someone who purports to know what happened millions of years ago.
03 Jan 2019, 4:23 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Yes, most of Science is based on "Theories", but not by the layperson's definition of the word.
I think logic is better than hypothesis.
Logic tells me, scientists don't know what happened millions of years ago.
So, that's it.
No need for people to make stuff up.
Sure, anything is possible, but we just don't know, so that's it.
Germ theory is "just a theory".
So tell the hospital to never use antiseptics, and antibiotics on you because "logic tells you" that microbes don't cause disease, or even exist in the first place.
That's the point.
They can apply the scientific method to gravity, germs, but not to evolution thousands (millions) of years ago.
So, Darwinism is a faith-based religion.
And Darwinist is laughably someone who purports to know what happened millions of years ago.
You can apply the scientific method to fossils as well. So WTF are you talking about?
You cant go back in a time machine and observe the dinosaurs as living creatures, but you cant personally go to the moon as it exists in the present day either. The spots of the moon that the astronauts walked upon could have been exceptional little spots. The whole moon could be made of green cheese. According to your logic anyone who claims that the moon, Mars, Alpha Centuari, etc, are all NOT made of green cheese, are fraudsters practicing a faith based religion because you personally cant visit those places.
03 Jan 2019, 4:47 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Yes, most of Science is based on "Theories", but not by the layperson's definition of the word.
I think logic is better than hypothesis.
Logic tells me, scientists don't know what happened millions of years ago.
So, that's it.
No need for people to make stuff up.
Sure, anything is possible, but we just don't know, so that's it.
Germ theory is "just a theory".
So tell the hospital to never use antiseptics, and antibiotics on you because "logic tells you" that microbes don't cause disease, or even exist in the first place.
That's the point.
They can apply the scientific method to gravity, germs, but not to evolution thousands (millions) of years ago.
So, Darwinism is a faith-based religion.
And Darwinist is laughably someone who purports to know what happened millions of years ago.
You can apply the scientific method to fossils as well. So WTF are you talking about?
You cant go back in a time machine and observe the dinosaurs as living creatures, but you cant personally go to the moon as it exists in the present day either. The spots of the moon that the astronauts walked upon could have been exceptional little spots. The whole moon could be made of green cheese. According to your logic anyone who claims that the moon, Mars, Alpha Centuari, etc, are all NOT made of green cheese, are fraudsters practicing a faith based religion because you personally cant visit those places.
Right, when people make stuff up -- that's not Logic.
A fossil tells you nothing except the story you make up.
Let's see .. from this fossil ...
A small laceration in his skull indicates this was a warrior. <--- ASSUMPTION
Based on where the skull was found, he belong to a specific group <---- ASSUMPTION
The skull indicates features of modern man <--- ASSUMPTION
Based on shape of the jaw/teeth he was a omnivore <---ASSUMPTION
Based on X ... we conclude ... Y <---ASSUMPTION
A fictional story is not logical.
03 Jan 2019, 4:52 pm
03 Jan 2019, 5:18 pm
Fnord wrote:
Ahh ... but are you a degreed professional in the fields of anthropology, archeology, and/or paleontology?
No?
Then leave the professional analyses to the professionals, and save your bed-time stories for your kids.
No?
Then leave the professional analyses to the professionals, and save your bed-time stories for your kids.
More than a bedside story ... they made a movie about it .. GALAXY QUEST ...
Aliens discover a Star Trek like tv series and think it's REAL and PART OF EARTH's HISTORICAL RECORD.
03 Jan 2019, 7:05 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Yes, most of Science is based on "Theories", but not by the layperson's definition of the word.
I think logic is better than hypothesis.
Logic tells me, scientists don't know what happened millions of years ago.
So, that's it.
No need for people to make stuff up.
Sure, anything is possible, but we just don't know, so that's it.
Germ theory is "just a theory".
So tell the hospital to never use antiseptics, and antibiotics on you because "logic tells you" that microbes don't cause disease, or even exist in the first place.
That's the point.
They can apply the scientific method to gravity, germs, but not to evolution thousands (millions) of years ago.
So, Darwinism is a faith-based religion.
And Darwinist is laughably someone who purports to know what happened millions of years ago.
You can apply the scientific method to fossils as well. So WTF are you talking about?
You cant go back in a time machine and observe the dinosaurs as living creatures, but you cant personally go to the moon as it exists in the present day either. The spots of the moon that the astronauts walked upon could have been exceptional little spots. The whole moon could be made of green cheese. According to your logic anyone who claims that the moon, Mars, Alpha Centuari, etc, are all NOT made of green cheese, are fraudsters practicing a faith based religion because you personally cant visit those places.
Right, when people make stuff up -- that's not Logic.
A fossil tells you nothing except the story you make up.
Let's see .. from this fossil ...
A small laceration in his skull indicates this was a warrior. <--- ASSUMPTION
Based on where the skull was found, he belong to a specific group <---- ASSUMPTION
The skull indicates features of modern man <--- ASSUMPTION
Based on shape of the jaw/teeth he was a omnivore <---ASSUMPTION
Based on X ... we conclude ... Y <---ASSUMPTION
A fictional story is not logical.
None of your "assumptions" are actually "assumptions".
03 Jan 2019, 9:44 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
None of your "assumptions" are actually "assumptions".
That's fraudster-speak.
Me: I claim to have old Roman Julius Caesar gold coins.
Me: They're worth triple, I say, because they were in Caesar's personal vault.
Buyer: Proof?
Me: Caesar's coins were stamped a particular way, and this one has that stamping.
Buyer: That's an assumption.
Me: Nonsense. None of my "assumptions" are actually "assumptions" ....
03 Jan 2019, 9:49 pm
You're saying you would bet on something's authenticity because it's shiny, why not bet on authenticated facts using real measurements? If you seriously think the scientific method is a sham, what do you believe made your computer?
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
03 Jan 2019, 9:51 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
None of your "assumptions" are actually "assumptions".
That's fraudster-speak.
Me: I claim to have old Roman Julius Caesar gold coins.
Me: They're worth triple, I say, because they were in Caesar's personal vault.
Buyer: Proof?
Me: Caesar's coins were stamped a particular way, and this one has that stamping.
Buyer: That's an assumption.
Me: Nonsense. None of my "assumptions" are actually "assumptions" ....
What you called assumptions in the post about the skull are all backed up years of gridlocking reinforcing evidence from multiple fields. Not the same thing as me telling you that "this is Hitler's staff car, priceless, but I will let you have it for a good price", or ceasars coins or whatever. With Hitler's staff car you only have my word. Not years of research from different fields backing it up.
But lets just cut to the chase.
What are you really trying to prove?
That God created the earth in seven days in four thousand BC?
Last edited by naturalplastic on 03 Jan 2019, 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
03 Jan 2019, 9:54 pm
I grew up in labs. Assuming they don't exist is like assuming your computer was made by Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
04 Jan 2019, 9:21 am
naturalplastic wrote:
... But lets just cut to the chase. What are you really trying to prove? That God created the earth in seven days in four thousand BC?
[sarcasm]Well, I have it on the HIGHEST AUTHORITY (Wikipedia, of course), that a HIGHLY-PLACED religious AUTHORITY PROVED beyond any shadow of a doubt that the EARTH WAS CREATED at 18:00 on October 22, 4004 B.C.
Wikipedia wrote:
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his identification of the genuine letters of the church father, Ignatius, and for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC according to the proleptic Julian calendar.
So, there you have it! Even Wikipedia agrees that Darwin's theory of evolution is utter nonsense, that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, and that the Bible is not only historically accurate down to the last letter, but that it is the ultimate in scientific journalism!Are you going to argue with Wikipedia?
[/sarcasm]
Did I mention that the foregoing was sarcasm? Yes? Good!
04 Jan 2019, 5:53 pm
Fnord wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
... But lets just cut to the chase. What are you really trying to prove? That God created the earth in seven days in four thousand BC?
[sarcasm]Well, I have it on the HIGHEST AUTHORITY (Wikipedia, of course), that a HIGHLY-PLACED religious AUTHORITY PROVED beyond any shadow of a doubt that the EARTH WAS CREATED at 18:00 on October 22, 4004 B.C.
Wikipedia wrote:
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his identification of the genuine letters of the church father, Ignatius, and for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC according to the proleptic Julian calendar.
So, there you have it! Even Wikipedia agrees that Darwin's theory of evolution is utter nonsense, that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, and that the Bible is not only historically accurate down to the last letter, but that it is the ultimate in scientific journalism!Are you going to argue with Wikipedia?
[/sarcasm]
Did I mention that the foregoing was sarcasm? Yes? Good!That's funny.
Well, believe what you will.
However, I don't believe anyone knows what happened millions of years ago.
04 Jan 2019, 6:09 pm
They're called geologists. Or radiometric technicians. If ignorance of science doesn't kill us all within a century, someone will know what strata layers we're buried in. When we eat we're consuming radioactive isotopes along with regular matter. Radiocarbon dating just measures their decay against the elements' half life; the time it takes for half their mass to be lost via radioactive decay.
A good forensic anthropologist could tell from my bones in an hour what sports I like (muscle attachments), my diet (bone density & composition), my age at time of death (by reading my teeth like tree rings), my genetic lineages (bone structure, particularly cranial anatomy) and I'm sure they could say I'm a programmer because it messed my fingers up.
A million years is an instant in geological time. We are not proselytizing you, we actually know these things. You can always learn unless you would prefer lies.
_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos
