Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Hammster]

None.

It’s obvious, then, that you could be wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It’s obvious, then, that you could be wrong.

I like how you ignored everything else I said.

And to be honest, I'm done having a discussion with you. Ciao.

 

[Hammster]

I like how you ignored everything else I said.

And to be honest, I'm done having a discussion with you. Ciao.

I didn’t ignore it. There was just no point in responding.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that we can't ask Eve.

Nice Dodge.

Does it run?

 

[kiwimac]

Because He explains what He did, and the timeframe in which He did it.

No, no God doesn't. Unless you hold to the idea that God stripped the writers of the Bible of their humanity, their worldview, education and foibles got into the mix.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, no God doesn't.

He not only explained what He did, and the timeframe He did it in, He explains how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were.

 

[Hammster]

No, no God doesn't. Unless you hold to the idea that God stripped the writers of the Bible of their humanity, their worldview, education and foibles got into the mix.

Nope. I don’t hold to that at all. That’s very strange.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nice Dodge.

Does it run?

I wish I had a Dodge, no lie about that. Especially one of the classic muscle cars. They're nice looking cars.

 

[Bradskii]

Saying that most astronomers are wrong because they buy into a faulty premise is not the same thing as saying that astronomy, as a science, is wrong.

You seem to have a completely different logic to the rest of us. Astronomy is the study of distant stars and galaxies. You say every astronomer is wrong about the work he or she does. Completely wrong. Utterly wrong. Not even close to being right. And the theories they use in their work are wrong. Completely wrong. Utterly wrong. That the very basis of the work that they do is completely and utterly wrong.

You are saying that the data is wrong. That the theories are wrong. That the evidence is wrong. Every article about stars and galaxies is wrong. Every paper written about them is wrong. Every book authored is wrong. Every discussion, every conference, every textbook is wrong.

And then laughably, you say that 'Hey, that's not the same thing as saying that astronomy, as a science, is wrong.'

Farcical...

 

[Hammster]

You seem to have a completely different logic to the rest of us. Astronomy is the study of distant stars and galaxies. You say every astronomer is wrong about the work he or she does. Completely wrong. Utterly wrong. Not even close to being right. And the theories they use in their work are wrong. Completely wrong. Utterly wrong. That the very basis of the work that they do is completely and utterly wrong.

You are saying that the data is wrong. That the theories are wrong. That the evidence is wrong. Every article about stars and galaxies is wrong. Every paper written about them is wrong. Every book authored is wrong. Every discussion, every conference, every textbook is wrong.

And then laughably, you say that 'Hey, that's not the same thing as saying that astronomy, as a science, is wrong.'

Farcical...

Explain how, then. You’ve continued to try to make this argument. Explain how someone doing science wrong makes the scientific field wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Explain how, then. You’ve continued to try to make this argument. Explain how someone doing science wrong makes the scientific field wrong.

I'm not making an argument. I'm giving you the facts. You are not just saying that someone is doing the science incorrectly. You are saying that the science is itself wrong. Here's a common definition of science:

'the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.'

So all the study that is done on planets, stars and galaxies is giving us the wrong answers. The observed behaviour of those planets, stars and galaxies is not as we observe them. All experiments conducted on them are wrong. The telescopes and all other instruments are giving the wrong information. They have been built incorrectly. They don't work. Not only the tests for the theories are wrong, the very theories themselves are wrong. The very basis for the science of astronomy is wrong.

It simply couldn't continue. Because nothing matches what you claim. The evidence doesn't match it. The observations don't match it. The theories don't match it. The data doesn't match it. The calculations don't match it. None of the maths matches it.

Compare doing astronomy with investigating the best way to get from New York to L.A. You'd check modes of transport. Cost of fuel. Ticket prices. Times of departure and arrival. Best route. Accommodation. The time it would take. The number of people you could take. The weather. And then you say that none of that is needed because L.A. is only a foot away from N.Y.

So how do you reconcile that with the fact that there are train schedules, maps, hotels and towns en route, gas to be bought, the time it actually takes etc. You could not investigate that trip on your basis. It would be literally impossible. And doing astronomy on your basis would be equally impossible. It would cease to be a discipline within science.

Now, shall we do geology next?

 

[Hammster]

I'm not making an argument. I'm giving you the facts. You are not just saying that someone is doing the science incorrectly. You are saying that the science is itself wrong.

Of course.

Here's a common definition of science:

'the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.'

So all the study that is done on planets, stars and galaxies is giving us the wrong answers. The observed behaviour of those planets, stars and galaxies is not as we observe them. All experiments conducted on them are wrong. The telescopes and all other instruments are giving the wrong information. They have been built incorrectly. They don't work. Not only the tests for the theories are wrong, the very theories themselves are wrong. The very basis for the science of astronomy is wrong.

Or, the data that’s being evaluated is being done using a false presupposition.

It simply couldn't continue. Because nothing matches what you claim. The evidence doesn't match it. The observations don't match it. The theories don't match it. The data doesn't match it. The calculations don't match it. None of the maths matches it.

Then I guess they have more work to do. Let me ask you this. Has there ever been some firm science that has later proven to be wrong?

Compare doing astronomy with investigating the best way to get from New York to L.A. You'd check modes of transport. Cost of fuel. Ticket prices. Times of departure and arrival. Best route. Accommodation. The time it would take. The number of people you could take. The weather. And then you say that none of that is needed because L.A. is only a foot away from N.Y.

I would never say that.

So how do you reconcile that with the fact that there are train schedules, maps, hotels and towns en route, gas to be bought, the time it actually takes etc. You could not investigate that trip on your basis. It would be literally impossible. And doing astronomy on your basis would be equally impossible. It would cease to be a discipline within science.

If this is your best argument, I’m fairly confident

Now, shall we do geology next?

Go ahead. You certainly muffed the punt with astronomy. Let’s see how bad you can whiff on geology.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course.

Then what on earth was this?

'Saying that most astronomers are wrong because they buy into a faulty premise is not the same thing as saying that astronomy, as a science, is wrong.'

I say that you are saying that astronomy is wrong and you deny it. Then 30 posts later I say the same thing and then you agree with it. It's as if there are responses from two completely different people.

So that's decided. Astronomy as a science is completely wrong. And your response, just so there's no doubt:

Of course.

Now let's look at geology. Is it your position that any theory, fact, evidence or claim made by geology that there are parts of the planet over 6,000 years old is wrong?

 

[Hammster]

Astronomy as a science is completely wrong.

I disagree. But you are welcome to your opinion.

 

[Hammster]

Is it your position that any theory, fact, evidence or claim made by geology that there are parts of the planet over 6,000 years old is wrong?

Yes.

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree. But you are welcome to your opinion.

B: 'You are not just saying that someone is doing the science incorrectly. You are saying that the science is itself wrong.'
H: 'Of course.'

 

[Bradskii]

Yes.

Then I don't think that we need go any further with this one. Geochemistry, oceanography, paleontology, sedimentology, geochronolology, spectral geography, geophysics, geomorphology, palynology, christalography, minerology, astrology, stratigraphy, dendochronology, volcanology, seismology, climatology, hydrology, planetary geology, cosmology, astrogeology, geotatistics...etc etc etc etc etc.

There are dozens and dozens of branches of geology. Here's a list: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318602166_150_BRANCHES_OF_GEOLOGYEARTH_SCIENCES

And every one of them tells us that the planet is nowhere near the age you think it is. So all the evidence, all the theories, all the papers, the textbooks, the discussions etc are wrong. Nothing works.

Geology joins astronomy. They both cease to exist.

What next? Physics perhaps?

 

[Hammster]

B: 'You are not just saying that someone is doing the science incorrectly. You are saying that the science is itself wrong.'
H: 'Of course.'

???

 

[Hammster]

Then I don't think that we need go any further with this one. Geochemistry, oceanography, paleontology, sedimentology, geochronolology, spectral geography, geophysics, geomorphology, palynology, christalography, minerology, astrology, stratigraphy, dendochronology, volcanology, seismology, climatology, hydrology, planetary geology, cosmology, astrogeology, geotatistics...etc etc etc etc etc.

There are dozens and dozens of branches of geology. Here's a list: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318602166_150_BRANCHES_OF_GEOLOGYEARTH_SCIENCES

And every one of them tells us that the planet is nowhere near the age you think it is. So all the evidence, all the theories, all the papers, the textbooks, the discussions etc are wrong. Nothing works.

Geology joins astronomy. They both cease to exist.

Nope. It’s so very obvious that you don’t understand what I’m saying, regardless of how simple I make it. So I’m not sure where else to go with this.

 

[Bradskii]

???

Why the question marks? I just quoted my statement and your response. It's post 1192. What's to question?