Arthur Brain tries his hand at science. :chuckle:
The Thread Where You Link To Stripe's Best Evidence-Based Posts
- Thread starter Flipper
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Hey, I don't claim to be an expert in science dude. Mainly because I'm not.....
What I'd like to know is why I should ignore the plethora of peer reviewed and accepted evidence for an old earth in favour of YEC which is given practically zero credence in the scientific community at large. Just why is that Stripe?
You need not be an expert to contribute to a discussion. :idunno:
I don't expect you to ignore it. :idunno:
You should, however, realise that the popularity of an idea is no evidence for the idea. Yes, what I say is mocked, marginalised and drowned out at every turn. But in order to engage honestly, what you need to do is address the ideas according to the standard by which they are presented.
Atheists have a long history of relying upon dishonest debating tactics. I believe you could easily do better. A discussion with an honest man would be worth it's weight in gold as opposed to having to spend more time wading through Barbarian's mire. :up:
There are two major errors people make in regards to experts. One is to assume experts know everything about their subject. The other is to assume that the consensus of knowledgeable people isn't a good indicator of truth.
You need to show at least a marginal ability to learn about the subject, and to produce some checkable evidence. That would greatly reduce your problems here.
In science, the standard is evidence. It's not who can tell the best story; it's who can marshall the most evidence.
Are you telling us you're an atheist, Stipe?
Actually, it's not a problem arguing with you. Even when you do something dishonest, it's easy to make you a bad example, and that serves the truth, too.
Evidence can be so - icky, um, Stipe? That's how the game is played. If you want to get to the truth, that "mire" is how it's done. If that bothers you, go back to your new religion.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Agreed. Neither of us are experts so it'd be a bit hypocritical to disagree....
Good.
Except the overwhelming consensus regarding the age of the earth isn't based on popularity but rather evidence. I may not be an expert in any given realm of science but I do know that theories aren't based on what sounds 'popular' but that which can be backed up and tested, hence the peer review process etc. So unless there's some type of agenda going on then what possible reason is there for what effectively mounts to a cover up regarding the age of this planet?
Stereotyping people based on a personal opinion regarding belief or lack of is hardly honest in itself Stripe. You could do better yourself by dispensing with that approach. Plenty of theists and atheists act like jerks but that's no reason to blanket a bunch of folk either way. That way lies ignorance. It's pretty obvious to any outside and objective observer that Barbarian and Alate One (among others) are hardly novices where it comes to science. They're also both Christians. You don't get to be an assistant professor of biology etc on a whim.
Then discuss the evidence! :thumb:
Only if it's not true.
And yet they cannot discuss my ideas without resorting to mockery and lies. :idunno:
Then why do they reject the bible?
No .. you get to be one by being an evolutionist.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
After you? Why is it documented that Bryce Canyon originated and developed over 60 million years ago at least? I provided links that stated the reasons so why should that be discarded in favour of some article by Walt Brown?
Only if it's not true.
It isn't true. You might as well say that atheists in general have blonde hair for all the merit such a claim would have.
Oh give me a break. How many times have you resorted to :mock: Barbie? as "response" or attempts to condescend someone for a lack of understanding in a field in which they're a specialist? This is just lame.
lain: They don't. They just reject your literalist fundamentalism. Big difference.
Oh geez....stick to teaching English Stripe. At least that way you'll be able to teach your pupils what the word "ignorant" means.
lain:
Talk about a huge stretch. There isn't any evidence, it is "interpreted" to mean what you want it to mean.
Wrong again. It took a long time to get around the political pressure for the global warming nonsense to get refuted by the experts in the field. It was popular without proof because of political pressure. Now it is gone since the email hacking, and charges of scientific misconduct. For example.
Of course there is an agenda. They are Christ hating pigs just like you.
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
See, scientists discovered this thing called a 747. Then they saw the blueprints and schematics. But it was decided by peer review that the blueprints weren't drawn by anybody, the ink just lined up like that on the paper by random chance, then the parts of the plane came together in perfect order by sheer chance.
Brainless moron....
:mock: retard77
Because of the evidence.
Why should we reject Dr. Brown's work in favour of your links?
Sure, it is. Let's line up all the atheists and see how they get on in a discussion with a YEC. I think BJDavis and that radiology guy are the only ones who can go any length of time without resorting to name-calling and misdirection.
This is called a tu quoque fallacy. You should look it up and quit using it. :up:Oh give me a break. How many times have you resorted to mock: Barbie? as "response" or attempts to condescend someone for a lack of understanding in a field in which they're a specialist? This is just lame.
There is a time and a place for mockery. Atheists tend to think it is when having a discussion with a YEC. I think it is for when people resort to dishonesty and silliness.
Sure, they do. The bible says, "Six days" and "The whole Earth". They reject the plain meaning of the bible.
How was that ignorant? :idunno:
How many biologists do you know who are not evolutionists?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What evidence? Why isn't any of it up for peer review? Science doesn't work on personal agenda as any theory is held to stringent testing to hold water as viable. So why is Brown's work disregarded? You've yet to even attempt to answer this.
But of course you're Captain mature throughout these exchanges and never resort to anything so peurile such as :mock: atheists at all then right? You're a hypocrite Stripe. Fair enough, we all are to an extent but trying to exempt yourself considering the frequency you indulge in such is a complete joke. Double standards dude....
Er, no it actually isn't dude. :e4e:
There is a time and a place for mockery. Atheists tend to think it is when having a discussion with a YEC. I think it is for when people resort to dishonesty and silliness.
Stereotyping people as you do is deserving of mockery then. Plenty Christians think you're wrong and as example I've yet to see Alate one make one liner posts with a smiley attached as response. Have you? You do so regularly. So at least have the guts to man up to it. Double standards again, and transparent at that.
Like I said. Rigid fundamental literalism. Sigh.
Um, because one has to have great aptitude and understanding in any given field to be an expert?
The only way to find out is to read it for yourself. :up:
Or you could just believe what is most popularly believed. Up to you. :idunno:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No evidence??! Accepted by practically the whole of the scientific community on a global scale? I don't interpret it doofus. You just have a brick wall of theology that can't stand to be refuted so you'll just continue to do ostrich impressions...
Yeah Nick. Man does nothing to affect the atmosphere of this planet at all. He's a great steward of the earth and it's inhabitants in general. There's no reason to be concerned by any shifting climate change whatsoever.
lain: What's the agenda? Did these evil scientists do you a disservice by inventing the computer and the world wide web you participate on? Stop being such a whiny flaming hypocrite.
Dude, if the latter is a nod to the old "747 being assembled in a scrapyard by chance" then you've missed the entire point of evolution from a theistic perspective to begin with you berk!!
:doh:
As to your latter 'insults' then....hey. Same ole same old really. You're a thirty odd year old guy who should have grown out of his nappies by now.
:e4e:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why isn't it up for peer review? What do you think is stopping such? An honest answer please?
:e4e:
Get back to us when you're ready to talk evidence. :thumb:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
"Us"? Why can't you give an honest answer as to why YEC isn't even given status as credible science? What's the problem? Why is it not open to peer review? The evidence for an old earth is overwhelming and all you seem to do is parrot what you read from Walt Brown. Why would the scientific community worldwide make up this stuff dude? Go on, be original and answer that.
:thumb:
Nick revives ancient creationist dishonesty:
See, scientists discovered this thing called a 747. Then they saw the blueprints and schematics. But it was decided by peer review that the blueprints weren't drawn by anybody, the ink just lined up like that on the paper by random chance, then the parts of the plane came together in perfect order by sheer chance.
Hard to believe that Nick actually believes anyone here is stupid enough to think evolution works by sheer chance.
He's either an moron, or he thinks everyone else here is a moron.
See, scientists discovered this thing called a 747. Then they saw the blueprints and schematics. But it was decided by peer review that the blueprints weren't drawn by anybody, the ink just lined up like that on the paper by random chance, then the parts of the plane came together in perfect order by sheer chance.
Hard to believe that Nick actually believes anyone here is stupid enough to think evolution works by sheer chance.
He's either an moron, or he thinks everyone else here is a moron.
Stripe on the Hydroplate Theory - with pretty pictures.
More Hydroplates.
Darn, I thought maybe Stipe would link to the post where he showed us his math that disproves evolution.
But I guess he must have lost it, or something...
But I guess he must have lost it, or something...