Denying Facts

[7djengo7]

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?

<REACTION, BUT NO ANSWER>

​

<REACTION, BUT NO ANSWER>

​

Why is it Darwin cheerleaders are so consistently loath to engage in epistemological inquiry?

I have an idea: What say we let's try and change the subject to be about cookbooks, or basketball hoops, or odometers, instead of about boring, fundamental questions such as "What is the nature of evidence?" and "Why should we call this 'evidence', but not that?"

 

[7djengo7]

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'

How is any of what you've written, here, supposed to be considered a defense against the charge I've leveled against you Darwin cheerleaders, that when you call something "science", or when you call something "evidence", or when you call someone an "expert", you're doing nothing more than merely taking, and parroting, somebody else's word for it?
just askin'

How is your admission that you "take things on faith" supposed to be considered a defense of my charge that everything you say in the name of "science", you are saying only because someone whom you revere as "science" has handed it to you?
just askin'

 

[Jonahdog]

​

​

Why is it Darwin cheerleaders are so consistently loath to engage in epistemological inquiry?

I have an idea: What say we let's try and change the subject to be about cookbooks, or basketball hoops, or odometers, instead of about boring, fundamental questions such as "What is the nature of evidence?" and "Why should we call this 'evidence', but not that?"

You have complained about those of us who accept what experts suggest do not do our own investigation. Just trying to bring it down to a daily level. How do you know your measuring cup holds one cup> that the basket ball rim is the correct height, unless you check yourself? Seen pictures of the coronavirus? How do know they are accurate unless you have access to an electron microscope and do your own checking?

What facts underlying your own beliefs have you bothered to check on your own.

Why are you so angry on here? You "level charges", you malign famous scientists, you call people names. How old are you? A very precocious 7 as in your screen name?

 

[Right Divider]

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.

My theory comes with an adubdance of evidence too. Why won't you actually discuss the EVIDENCE instead of what your experts think about the evidence?

Facts aren't open to "interpretation".

The facts that you call evidence most certainly are.

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

Baloney... Your evolution of the solar system has tons of problems with the evidence. And yet you blindly support it because your "experts" tell you to. The evolution of the solar system blatantly defies the laws of physics. If would be hard to believe that you don't know about it. But, of course, you've buried you head in the fallacious appeals to authority... so that's were you need to start. Get real ... talk about the evidence... don't just keep telling me that some really smart people believe THEIR interpretation of that evidence. That THEY are extremely certain of THEIR interpretation of the evidence.

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

Your ad nauseam appeals to authority are tired and fallacious.

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.

That you reject the Bible as the ultimate source of truth has already been noted.

That real science has not problem with God and His Word is another thing.

Please stop telling us how many people believe your story and instead start supporting your story from the evidence.

Start with something easy, so that you don't strain yourself.

 

[Arthur Brain]

My theory comes with an adubdance of evidence too. Why won't you actually discuss the EVIDENCE instead of what your experts think about the evidence?

Not scientific evidence it doesn't. Heck, I've seen your "discussions" with Alate and after breaking things down into laymans terms you weren't interested in addressing her points but just dismissing her half the time.

The facts that you call evidence most certainly are.

No, they aren't themselves but a refusal to acknowledge them is always someone's prerogative I suppose...

Baloney... Your evolution of the solar system has tons of problems with the evidence. And yet you blindly support it because your "experts" tell you to. The evolution of the solar system blatantly defies the laws of physics. If would be hard to believe that you don't know about it. But, of course, you've buried you head in the fallacious appeals to authority... so that's were you need to start. Get real ... talk about the evidence... don't just keep telling me that some really smart people believe THEIR interpretation of that evidence. That THEY are extremely certain of THEIR interpretation of the evidence.

Get real yourself. If you think established theory is defying the laws of physics then you show more ignorance of how the science process works. If it was so self evidently erroneous it would never have got off the ground because the evidence couldn't possibly support it and it would have been debunked at the time, let alone now.

Your ad nauseam appeals to authority are tired and fallacious.

Because it does and young earth creationism does not. Man living at the same time as dinosaurs?!

Pass.

That you reject the Bible as the ultimate source of truth has already been noted.

That real science has not problem with God and His Word is another thing.

Please stop telling us how many people believe your story and instead start supporting your story from the evidence.

Start with something easy, so that you don't strain yourself.

Funny, you throw around the word fallacy a lot and then commit one of your own. Rejecting young earth creationism is not the same as rejecting the bible in any way, shape or form.

Real science certainly doesn't have a problem with God but then why would it? Sensible people don't have any problem with an old universe, evolution etc and many Christians are scientists.

Even when people have shown you the evidence you don't listen anyway because your belief in a young earth is that entrenched it's pointless. Alate one got tired in the end and I don't blame her.

 

[ok doser]

Man living at the same time as dinosaurs ...

What is your evidence that they didnt?

 

[Lon]

What is your evidence that they didnt?

Dinosaur and human bones fossilized together?

Found in the same layers?

Dinosaur and human footprints fossilized?


:think: I'm not sure how one would prove a negative, other than the example that no human bones are found (very often anyway) with Dino bones. An exception, however, would be difficult for evolution to explain. Evolution theory would be turned on its head.

 

[User Name]

:think: I'm not sure how one would prove a negative, other than the example that no human bones are found (very often anyway) with Dino bones.

Of course dinosaurs and humans lived together! Haven't you ever watched "Land of the Lost"? If not, it's time you got started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKejwlhqOt0

 

[Right Divider]

Not scientific evidence it doesn't.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Heck, I've seen your "discussions" with Alate and after breaking things down into laymans terms you weren't interested in addressing her points but just dismissing her half the time.

Your guru was much like you, she would NOT touch the problems with radiometric dating with the ten foot pole.

No, they aren't themselves but a refusal to acknowledge them is always someone's prerogative I suppose...

I guess that you are blissfully unaware that there is not a single model for the old universe cosmology, but many. And they ALL make many ASSUMPTIONS because there is no empirical evidence to support them. They ALL have many serious problems that you will not even attempt to discuss. You always, without fail, fall back on the "experts" (and pretend that they never discuss the problems as well).

Get real yourself. If you think established theory is defying the laws of physics then you show more ignorance of how the science process works. If it was so self evidently erroneous it would never have got off the ground because the evidence couldn't possibly support it and it would have been debunked at the time, let alone now.

Discuss the rotation of the planets in the solar system with regards to your evolutionary theory about their origin. They defy the idea that the formed from a rotating gas cloud and yet that seems to be the prevailing model for their formation in an old universe.

Because it does and young earth creationism does not. Man living at the same time as dinosaurs?!

Pass.

Ignore any opposing evidence... stonewall.... mock..... anything but any actual discussion of facts.

Funny, you throw around the word fallacy a lot and then commit one of your own. Rejecting young earth creationism is not the same as rejecting the bible in any way, shape or form.

I did NOT say that. So that is just you lying again.

The order of creation described in the Bible opposes the evolutionary theory of the order of creation. Some people try to bend the Bible instead of believing it.

Real science certainly doesn't have a problem with God but then why would it?

Real science certainly does not have a problem with God, but old universe speculation sure does.

Sensible people don't have any problem with an old universe, evolution etc and many Christians are scientists.

And many scientists that are Christians do not accept the idea of an old universe. No doubt you believe them to be non-sensible.

Even when people have shown you the evidence you don't listen anyway because your belief in a young earth is that entrenched it's pointless. Alate one got tired in the end and I don't blame her.

Address some of the problems or continue to stonewall. It's up to you.

Here's a news flash for you: No theory of the origin of the universe relies solely on empirical evidence.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical [h=1][/h]

[h=2]Definition of empirical[/h] 1: originating in or based on observation or experience
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4: of or relating to empiricism

Obviously the origin of the universe has to be based on something else.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

In this case it does, creationism is not science.

Your guru was much like you, she would NOT touch the problems with radiometric dating with the ten foot pole.

Outright dishonesty on your part. Alate One didn't shy away from anything and went to such patient lengths to explain things only to encounter wilful ignorance and outright childishness on occasion. Quit lying about people.

I guess that you are blissfully unaware that there is not a single model for the old universe cosmology, but many. And they ALL make many ASSUMPTIONS because there is no empirical evidence to support them. They ALL have many serious problems that you will not even attempt to discuss. You always, without fail, fall back on the "experts" (and pretend that they never discuss the problems as well).

I've linked you to in depth articles that I've read on the subject and there are not these "serious problems" that you assert at all. You still don't seem to understand how scientific theories are formulated.

Discuss the rotation of the planets in the solar system with regards to your evolutionary theory about their origin. They defy the idea that the formed from a rotating gas cloud and yet that seems to be the prevailing model for their formation in an old universe.

What do you think you've done here? Proved that physics has defied an old universe because it doesn't correspond to the laws of physics?

Ignore any opposing evidence... stonewall.... mock..... anything but any actual discussion of facts.

What "evidence"? Something you've linked to from a site that doesn't promote teaching creationism as science in schools?

I did NOT say that. So that is just you lying again.

What was the point in you saying it if not to imply that very thing? Go on, explain or quit with the dishonesty yourself.

The order of creation described in the Bible opposes the evolutionary theory of the order of creation. Some people try to bend the Bible instead of believing it.

No, it doesn't and no they don't. How you can't see a poetic and metaphorical narrative going on in Genesis is just bemusing. It's not a scientific textbook either as nobody would understand it back then. These days we know what causes thunderstorms. You think people in the bronze age had any sort of clue?

Real science certainly does not have a problem with God, but old universe speculation sure does.

No, it doesn't, at all and real science is what we have which is why plenty of people who accept an old earth/universe/evolution also have faith.

And many scientists that are Christians do not accept the idea of an old universe. No doubt you believe them to be non-sensible.

Depends, misguided for sure.

Address some of the problems or continue to stonewall. It's up to you.

Here's a news flash for you: No theory of the origin of the universe relies solely on empirical evidence.

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical [h=1][/h]

Obviously the origin of the universe has to be based on something else.

They've been addressed already and I'm not interested in an encore. Your ignorance into how dating methods work is all "assumption" is just tiresome. You make it sound as if scientists around the world just decided to agree on some random figure for the age of the universe or something which is obviously nonsense. There's no absolute set figure but the data is certainly one that is billions of years old. Carry on with the same ole if you want.

 

[Right Divider]

In this case it does, creationism is not science.

Creationism sees the same facts and comes to a different conclusion. Sorry you don't like the conclusion. It does not make it any less scientific.

Outright dishonesty on your part. Alate One didn't shy away from anything and went to such patient lengths to explain things only to encounter wilful ignorance and outright childishness on occasion. Quit lying about people.

The basis of radiometric dating is the model of an old universe that has many, many problems. To call that "empirical science" is a joke.

I've linked you to in depth articles that I've read on the subject and there are not these "serious problems" that you assert at all. You still don't seem to understand how scientific theories are formulated.

You could not possibly be more wrong. Start with the orbits and rotations of the planets in the solar system based in the evolutionary model of their origin. It's opposed to physics.

What do you think you've done here? Proved that physics has defied an old universe because it doesn't correspond to the laws of physics?

LOL... the opposite ... old universe models defy physics. Learn to read.

What "evidence"? Something you've linked to from a site that doesn't promote teaching creationism as science in schools?

:juggle:

What was the point in you saying it if not to imply that very thing? Go on, explain or quit with the dishonesty yourself.

I've been completely honest... so don't lie about that.

No, it doesn't and no they don't. How you can't see a poetic and metaphorical narrative going on in Genesis is just bemusing. It's not a scientific textbook either as nobody would understand it back then. These days we know what causes thunderstorms. You think people in the bronze age had any sort of clue?

There is NOTHING "poetic" about the creation accounts in the Bible. So continuing to repeat that lie is dishonest.

No, it doesn't, at all and real science is what we have which is why plenty of people who accept an old earth/universe/evolution also have faith.

:roftl:

Depends, misguided for sure.

No, they are the correct ones.

They've been addressed already and I'm not interested in an encore. Your ignorance into how dating methods work is all "assumption" is just tiresome. You make it sound as if scientists around the world just decided to agree on some random figure for the age of the universe or something which is obviously nonsense. There's no absolute set figure but the data is certainly one that is billions of years old. Carry on with the same ole if you want.

I'll show you a few AGAIN, since you ignored them before:

• The origin of radioactive isotopes in distance stars and them coming to earth (this is a HUGE assumption and is completely unprovable by empirical evidence).
• That the decay that we see today had been constant forever (another HUGE assumption that is ... again... completely unprovable by empirical evidence).
• That all daughter elements are ONLY from the decay of their mothers (i.e., no outside influences).
• That no other mother elements are introduced or removed (i.e., no outside influences).

Go ahead and poo-poo those again... but those are FACTS. Deal with them instead of running to your gurus "expert" opinions.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Creationism sees the same facts and comes to a different conclusion. Sorry you don't like the conclusion. It does not make it any less scientific.

That's like saying a car is blue and yet it isn't. Creationism doesn't even acknowledge the facts.

The basis of radiometric dating is the model of an old universe that has many, many problems. To call that "empirical science" is a joke.

You need to read up some more on how science works.

You could not possibly be more wrong. Start with the orbits and rotations of the planets in the solar system based in the evolutionary model of their origin. It's opposed to physics.

Write a paper on it.

LOL... the opposite ... old universe models defy physics. Learn to read.

Oh, another one reduced to the "LOL" antic, there's a shock. If an old earth model defies physics then write a thesis on it, otherwise meh. It's a global conspiracy in the scientific community because they all know it defies the very same branch of science under scrutiny and yet it'll still be passed without any question!

I've been completely honest... so don't lie about that.

No, you haven't and you know fine well what you were at the very least implying. I've had the honesty to acknowledge my own error in a misreading of one of your own posts lately so don't play dumb. Do I have to quote you on the point?

There is NOTHING "poetic" about the creation accounts in the Bible. So continuing to repeat that lie is dishonest.

Wow, so you think it's all to be taken word for word literal then? There's nothing dishonest about seeing obvious poetic narrative RD. It's not dishonest to not see it either although it's a bit bizarre.

:roftl:

Well, that was an...altogether non and juvenile response as to why people have faith who believe in actual science. Well done?

No, they are the correct ones.

Of course they are in your belief system. Nothing can counteract it, no matter what the evidence.

I'll show you a few AGAIN, since you ignored them before:

• The origin of radioactive isotopes in distance stars and them coming to earth (this is a HUGE assumption and is completely unprovable by empirical evidence).
• That the decay that we see today had been constant forever (another HUGE assumption that is ... again... completely unprovable by empirical evidence).
• That all daughter elements are ONLY from the decay of their mothers (i.e., no outside influences).
• That no other mother elements are introduced or removed (i.e., no outside influences).

Go ahead and poo-poo those again... but those are FACTS. Deal with them instead of running to your gurus "expert" opinions.

Yes, I will because it's been shown to you time and time again how science works and you just won't listen no matter what.

 

[ok doser]

There is a plague (excuse the expression) of fact-denying. On many controversial topics, we find that people on one side or the other deny facts, as a means of argument. This is not limited to COVID discussions (more on this later). For example:

Global warming. The Earth is in fact warming. It's measurable. There are numbers. It's known. One could argue that it is caused by human activity, or that it isn't, or that we should do something about it- or not. But numbers are numbers. So we do we find so many people insisting that the facts are 'wrong'?

COVID-19. It was handled poorly in some countries, states and or cities. Who's to blame? Well, that's a heavy political question. But why do we find so many claiming that the disease isn't dangerous, there are simple cures that are being 'squashed', people aren't really dying from it, numbers are false, lock-down is pointless? There are solid facts out there. Why deny the facts?

I'm reminded of our Flat Earth friends, who will insist that the sun doesn't set the way we see it, that you can't see further from a mountain than on a plain, that the stars don't move the way we see them move....

If you have a good argument- make it! Don't pretend reality is different than it is.

I hope you're appreciating the irony of artie refusing to even consider the facts that RD is putting right in front of him.

 

[ok doser]

... how science works ...
... how science works ...

Your understanding of "how science works" is that of a sixth grader.

I can state that as a ***FACT*** because I have taught science from first grade up through high school and beyond, often tutoring at the college level.

 

[Right Divider]

That's like saying a car is blue and yet it isn't. Creationism doesn't even acknowledge the facts.

Fake analogies don't help your case.

You need to read up some more on how science works.

I know how science works. That's exactly why I point out the numerous problems and assumptions that oldies use.

Write a paper on it.

There are many out there of which you are blissfully unaware.

Oh, another one reduced to the "LOL" antic, there's a shock. If an old earth model defies physics then write a thesis on it, otherwise meh. It's a global conspiracy in the scientific community because they all know it defies the very same branch of science under scrutiny and yet it'll still be passed without any question!

LOL... It's hard to believe that you have no clue about the difficulties of the belief system that you have such faith in.

No, you haven't and you know fine well what you were at the very least implying. I've had the honesty to acknowledge my own error in a misreading of one of your own posts lately so don't play dumb. Do I have to quote you on the point?

:wave:

Wow, so you think it's all to be taken word for word literal then? There's nothing dishonest about seeing obvious poetic narrative RD. It's not dishonest to not see it either although it's a bit bizarre.

Demonstrate what you think is the "obvious poetic narrative" in the creation accounts.

Well, that was an...altogether non and juvenile response as to why people have faith who believe in actual science. Well done?

:french:

Of course they are in your belief system. Nothing can counteract it, no matter what the evidence.

I believe the evidence. I used to believe in an old universe too, because I accepted it without understanding it... like you do.

Yes, I will because it's been shown to you time and time again how science works and you just won't listen no matter what.

I know how science works. That's why I understand the problems with the evolutionary universe. You on the other, do not understand how it works and instead worship the gurus instead of attempting any real understanding for yourself.

 

[ok doser]

I know how science works. That's why I understand the problems with the evolutionary universe. You on the other, do not understand how it works and instead worship the gurus instead of attempting any real understanding for yourself.

What I find most discouraging about artie is his lack of intellectual curiosity. :sigh:

 

[Right Divider]

What I find most discouraging about artie is his lack of intellectual curiosity. :sigh:

He's a company man.

 

[Jonahdog]

What I find most discouraging about artie is his lack of intellectual curiosity. :sigh:

And I had just replaced my irony meter.

 

[Jonahdog]

I know how science works. That's exactly why I point out the numerous problems and assumptions that oldies use.



LOL... It's hard to believe that you have no clue about the difficulties of the belief system that you have such faith in.

Are you suggesting there are no problems and assumptions in the young earth model? The second sentence needs no comment.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Fake analogies don't help your case.

It doesn't need helping.

I know how science works. That's exactly why I point out the numerous problems and assumptions that oldies use.

No, you don't otherwise you wouldn't have come up out with so much ignorance about it on here.

There are many out there of which you are blissfully unaware.

Then add one then.

LOL... It's hard to believe that you have no clue about the difficulties of the belief system that you have such faith in.

It's not a belief system, it's science.

:wave:

Too childish to address your mistake then. Okay.

Demonstrate what you think is the "obvious poetic narrative" in the creation accounts.

Uh, the way it's worded RD. :AMR:

:french:

How old are you?

I believe the evidence. I used to believe in an old universe too, because I accepted it without understanding it... like you do.

No, you believe whatever supports your belief in a young earth. That you didn't understand it is not surprising considering you're ignorant of how the scientific method itself actually works.

I know how science works. That's why I understand the problems with the evolutionary universe. You on the other, do not understand how it works and instead worship the gurus instead of attempting any real understanding for yourself.

No, you don't else you wouldn't have been so ignorant of how it works on here. I've read up on plenty thanks and where it comes to "worship" then that's more apt to you and how you'll lap anything up that supports your creationist belief. That is not science.