Converstion Poll

[busterdog]

You really could have made more sense with that post.

Refutation is in the eye of the beholder. You can say something has been refuted all you want. Until the opposition recognizes that assertion, what is the point other than to simply declare victory for yourself?

 

[Deamiter]

Well in scientific circles, when an argument is shown to be flawed it generally isn't used any more. If somebody were to show me how the argument that evolution violates entropy is incorrect because evolution requires no increase in thermal microstates in a closed system, I'd avoid the argument in the future.

To repeat an argument because one doesn't understand the explanation of why it's flawed is hardly a good excuse -- people can continue to repeat refuted arguments all they want and even BELIEVE that they are accurate, but it tends to demonstrate a lack of intellectual honesty when they refuse to TRY to understand why an expert in the field would suggest that the argument is flawed.

So yes, there can be disagreement about what is refuted, but that only makes sense among professionals where one understands WHY another thinks the argument is refuted and can show specifically why their argument is flawed. That one doesn't UNDERSTAND why an argument is flawed doesn't in the least make it less flawed, it just means they're repeating a flawed argument.

 

[Mallon]

There is an easy way to tell whether one idea or another is flawed or not: Put them both to the test. Whichever one makes the least accurate predictions is flawed.

 

[busterdog]

There is an easy way to tell whether one idea or another is flawed or not: Put them both to the test. Whichever one
makes the least accurate predictions is flawed.

Works for me. To follow the models of Galileo, Semmelweis and even Darwin, we will just have to wait a number of decades before Setterfield is in Chapter One of every physics book.

 

[Mallon]

Works for me. To follow the models of Galileo, Semmelweis and even Darwin, we will just have to wait a number of decades before Setterfield is in Chapter One of every physics book.

Care to make it interesting?

 

[Deamiter]

busterdog, have you looked at the following link yet? I brought it up weeks ago but you seem to have utterly ignored it on the thread dedicated to setterfield. That you keep supporting setterfield as if his work has not been disproven suggests that you haven't looked closely into this site:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/

 

[MatthewEn]

whats the diffrence ??????????????????????????

IDK im a bit new

 

[w00dy]

im open to creationism, allways have been. but i think evolution is the method the lord has used to sculpt his clay

 

[Keemah]

I have always been, and still am a OE/YW/GTC. I'm a gap theory believer, so I believe that the earth itself could be billions of years old, but the inhabited world, as we know it, is only about 6.000 years or so old.

 

[pyro214]

they can co-exist?

so one could be both...which is what i have come to understand during my time spent at these forums.

 

[Grigorii]

From creationism to the theory of evolution.

Gregorios