Denying Facts

Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
No, it isn't and like with evolution a 'theory' in science is about as close to fact as you can get.
Click to expand...
Repetition of your belief system is not a "supporting fact".

Arthur Brain said:
The scientific method involves collating data and findings and then formulating conclusions based on the evidence gathered.
Click to expand...
Everyone has the same facts. It's the interpretation that differs.

Arthur Brain said:
It's globally accepted that the universe is not young and the earth is not ten thousand years old but billions because of the evidence.
Click to expand...
Not true, but thanks for repeating again.

Arthur Brain said:
There's no credible evidence to support a young earth because creationism is simply not science.
Click to expand...
Fake news. False "fact".

Arthur Brain said:
It's the complete reverse. It starts off with a determined conclusion based on a dogmatic belief system and then tries to shoehorn data to fit in with it.
Click to expand...
Your opinions are just that.

Neither you nor anyone else observed the creation of the universe, therefore we are both using what we can observe to create our theories about its origin.

The naturalistic theory fails on many levels including basic physics. A spinning dust cloud cannot create our solar system. That is a fact based on the known laws of physics.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Repetition of your belief system is not a "supporting fact".
Click to expand...

It's not a belief system, it's science and when something becomes a theory it's because of the abundance of evidence that supports it.

Everyone has the same facts. It's the interpretation that differs.
Click to expand...

Facts aren't open to "interpretation".

Not true, but thanks for repeating again.
Click to expand...

Well it is but I'm not bound by a belief system that has to deny evidence.

Fake news. False "fact".
Click to expand...

Well, no. The evidence supports an old earth, universe, evolution etc, globally accepted in science because of the evidence.

Your opinions are just that.

Neither you nor anyone else observed the creation of the universe, therefore we are both using what we can observe to create our theories about its origin.

The naturalistic theory fails on many levels including basic physics. A spinning dust cloud cannot create our solar system. That is a fact based on the known laws of physics.
Click to expand...

It's not opinion to point out that creationism starts out with a conclusion which is the opposite to the scientific method. There's no disparity with a belief in God and accepting that the universe is billions of years old either.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Right Divider said:
That's because they are "true believers" just like you.

Perhaps you should actually spend just a little time looking at some of the issues. Try "old galaxies in young universe" for a start.

Science Magazine has piece with a funny title: "Early Galaxies Baffle Observers, But Theorists Shrug"

In the summary another interesting one: "Astronomers announced the discovery of a startling number of mature galaxies in the young universe."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/303/5657/460.1.summary
Click to expand...

Well, you could always take a stroll over to your local university, bring the articles and see if someone can provide a better explanation other than just reading the title.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Arthur Brain said:
No, it isn't and like with evolution a 'theory' in science is about as close to fact as you can get.
Click to expand...

Speaking as a professional scientist, trained, educated, and certified by my state to work AND teach in the field, I will tell that you're wrong - that your understanding is taught to NO ONE, not even little children.

Data are facts. And they come with inherent assumptions.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain said:
It's not a belief system, it's science and when something becomes a theory it's because of the abundance of evidence that supports it.
Click to expand...

By "when something becomes a theory", all you mean is "when certain people I revere choose to go from not calling something a theory to calling it a theory".

​
Arthur Brain said:
Facts aren't open to "interpretation".
Click to expand...

LOL

Here's the first thing that was presented when I Googled 'interpretation': "the action of explaining the meaning of something"

So, what you're saying is that "Facts aren't open to [being explained]". I like that you say that. It's funny, because, inasmuch as you're all about calling nonsense "facts", you're absolutely right: The nonsense you chant as a Darwin cheerleader is, indeed, not open to being explained. Only what has meaning is open to explanation, but your Darwinist nonsense, being nonsense, has no meaning, and is thus, as you've just admitted, not amenable to being explained.​

​
Arthur Brain said:
Well it is but I'm not bound by a belief system that has to deny evidence.
Click to expand...

What you're obviously bound by is your compulsion to call nonsense and falsehood, "evidence".
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
7djengo7 said:
By "when something becomes a theory", all you mean is "when certain people I revere choose to go from not calling something a theory to calling it a theory".
Click to expand...

Erm, no. Anyone familiar with the term on a scientific level knows what it means. Not altogether surprised that you don't, very much not in fact.



LOL

Here's the first thing that was presented when I Googled 'interpretation': "the action of explaining the meaning of something"
So, what you're saying is that "Facts aren't open to [being explained]". I like that you say that. It's funny, because, inasmuch as you're all about calling nonsense "facts", you're absolutely right: The nonsense you chant as a Darwin cheerleader is, indeed, not open to being explained. Only what has meaning is open to explanation, but your Darwinist nonsense, being nonsense, has no meaning, and is thus, as you've just admitted, not amenable to being explained.​


​
​
Click to expand...


Of course not. Facts can be explained and where it comes to evolution, have been on a regular basis on here. Nice waffle you have going though as per usual.

What you're obviously bound by is your compulsion to call nonsense and falsehood, "evidence".
Click to expand...

You seem to have me confused with yourself.

"LOL"

:plain:​
​
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain said:
No, you don't. Science deals in evidence, not philosophy or religious belief. Theories only become so after stringent testing on a continual basis and young earth creationism doesn't get credence because the evidence simply doesn't support it.
Click to expand...

But, you don't deal in evidence, right? Because you are not science, are you?

When your gurus--those you worshipfully call "science"--tell you that something is evidence, what do you do in order to find out whether or not what they tell you is true? What do you do in order to find out whether or not what they call "evidence" is, in truth, evidence? That is, what do you do to (if you will) "stringently test" whether or not what your gurus tell you is true is actually true?

Of course, I "ask" you these questions merely tongue-in-cheek. For, of course you do not question whether or not what your "Science" gurus say is true. You're a mere parrot, and you simply take their word for it that what they say is true.

Your "scientific method" is, from front to back, nothing but your habit of appealing to the dictates of those whom you, with no reason, whatsoever, consider to be authority. You and your fellow Darwinist cheerleaders like Alate_One, Stuu, Jonahdog, The Barbarian, and who knows who, might like to get together and hold A.A. meetings--rap sessions of your fraternity of Appealers to Authority. Of course, from such an A.A. meeting as that, it's not possible that any of you's gonna adjorn being one whit closer to achieving sobriety than when you'd first arrived; rather, by participating in such an echo chamber discussion, you will not fail to stagger out of there, each time, in more of a drunken stupor than you were in at the previous meeting.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
7djengo7 said:
But, you don't deal in evidence, right? Because you are not science, are you?

When your gurus--those you worshipfully call "science"--tell you that something is evidence, what do you do in order to find out whether or not what they tell you is true? What do you do in order to find out whether or not what they call "evidence" is, in truth, evidence? That is, what do you do to (if you will) "stringently test" whether or not what your gurus tell you is true is actually true?

Of course, I "ask" you these questions merely tongue-in-cheek. For, of course you do not question whether or not what your "Science" gurus say is true. You're a mere parrot, and you simply take their word for it that what they say is true.

Your "scientific method" is, from front to back, nothing but your habit of appealing to the dictates of those whom you, with no reason, whatsoever, consider to be authority. You and your fellow Darwinist cheerleaders like Alate_One, Stuu, Jonahdog, The Barbarian, and who knows who, might like to get together and hold A.A. meetings--rap sessions of your fraternity of Appealers to Authority. Of course, from such an A.A. meeting as that, it's not possible that any of you's gonna adjorn being one whit closer to achieving sobriety than when you'd first arrived; rather, by participating in such an echo chamber discussion, you will not fail to stagger out of there, each time, in more of a drunken stupor than you were in at the previous meeting.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that was so boring and inexact that by the end of the third paragraph I just kinda tuned out...
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
7djengo7 said:
When your gurus--those you worshipfully call "science"--tell you that something is evidence, what do you do in order to find out whether or not what they tell you is true? What do you do in order to find out whether or not what they call "evidence" is, in truth, evidence? That is, what do you do to (if you will) "stringently test" whether or not what your gurus tell you is true is actually true?
Click to expand...

Ever do any cooking? Do you double check that the measuring cups or spoons you have are accurate or do you just take it on faith, because after all they were most likely made by people who knew what they were doing? Do you, yourself, measure the height, tension and circumference of any basket ball hoop where you might play? Take a measuring tape to your local foot ball field or track to make sure they are accurately laid out? Double check if your speedometer and odometer are accurate? Or do you accept what someone else has told you?
just askin'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top