Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And yet you are typing on a computer.Merlin said:So OK,
you blindly accept the proclamations of anyone who is 'expert'.
I do not.
Merlin said:So OK,
you blindly accept the proclamations of anyone who is 'expert'.
I do not.
Merlin said:The Pentium computer chip looks evolved too.
I can trace its probable source to the bell labs transistor of long ago.
I can see various steps in the evolution and I can see different chip species branches.
I notice how the chip in the Mac and PC are likely evolved from the same ancestor.
Because those are not really comparable. Chips do not look designed and cannot be classified the same way biological organisms can. In short, chips look nothing like biological orgnanisms.Yet I personally believe there was intelligent intervention and the ICs did not come about on there own by natural forces.
Merlin said:So OK,
you blindly accept the proclamations of anyone who is 'expert'.
I do not.
That is fine only so far as it can be demonstrated, not assumed into the future or past!Loudmouth said:... Sitting on your duff and proclaiming "That can't be right" is not a very good argument when there are ways to demonstrate whether or not someone is right.
dad said:That is fine only so far as it can be demonstrated, not assumed into the future or past!
I see myself agreeing with this thought. I too am frustrated when some creationists attempt to trump certain knowledge with their own theories. I have nothing against creationists using science, actually I encourage it, but what I don't want them doing is extrapolating the data to fit their preconceived notion of what it should say. I firmly believe science should report the facts and forget the non-observable hypotheses, evolutionary or otherwise.Pete Harcoff said:I've noticed that in some cases (particularly with creationists, but in other cases as well) non-experts seem to view their own knowledge as on par or even trumping experts in a certain field. For example, I've worked as a computer tech in the past and it's always amazed me the certain people that will happily diagnose or suggest fixes for a PC issue when they clearly don't have a clue.
Not to mention it makes them look rather foolish too.Pete Harcoff said:I can only imagine how scientists must feel when confronted by obviously un-educated and un-trained creationists. It makes me wonder if people really appreciate the work that goes into those disciplines.
Rightly so!Pete Harcoff said:But then I come here and I see some creationists making conclusions about fossils based on low-res diagrams or photos grabbed off a web site... Are you kidding me? There is no way I'm going to take some person's ad-hoc opinion seriously over people working in that field.
......Oklo shows that radioactive reaction took place, although basically precisely what kind is not demonstrated. The end result of the excercise resembles a reaction end result as we today in reactors. How it actually got there is not demonstrated at all. There is a big pile of assumptions, including how it, if I remember correctly, came up from miles below the earth at one point, in some imagined past. All of these are only as good as the underlying belief that the past was the same as today. If there was no decay in the past, generally, for example, and this was a special purpose group of reactors, we have no way of knowing how God actually did it. Did He use some type of reaction more resembling cold fusion, that leaves a similar isotopic signiture there? We wouldn't know, as man has only a limited knowledge of atom splitting. For all we know, it was a power source for onr of the rivers of Eden, set up by God (even if it was 'hot' like present reactions) to give them hot water!Loudmouth said:Exactly. Assertions and stories about talking snakes are not demonstrations. Fulfilled predictions, such as the Oklo reactors and supernova 1987a, are demonstrations. Appealing to a sky daddy to make contradictory evidence disappear is not a demonstration.
This last statement is a bit strange, don't you think? Physics is almost entirely build on non-observable hypotheses. We cannot 'observe' electrons, atoms, gluons and what more, we cannot 'observe' relativity or the reactions in chemistry. We can test the hypotheses against the evidence, though, and that's what matters.vossler said:I see myself agreeing with this thought. I too am frustrated when some creationists attempt to trump certain knowledge with their own theories. I have nothing against creationists using science, actually I encourage it, but what I don't want them doing is extrapolating the data to fit their preconceived notion of what it should say. I firmly believe science should report the facts and forget the non-observable hypotheses, evolutionary or otherwise.
I'm talking specifically about what happened in the past and how we interpret/hypothesize the evidence into the theories we hold today.Tomk80 said:This last statement is a bit strange, don't you think? Physics is almost entirely build on non-observable hypotheses. We cannot 'observe' electrons, atoms, gluons and what more, we cannot 'observe' relativity or the reactions in chemistry. We can test the hypotheses against the evidence, though, and that's what matters.
I'm talking specifically about what happened in the past and how we interpret/hypothesize the evidence into the theories we hold today.
There goes history, a large part of physics (all observations from the past), anthropology, forensic science etc etc.vossler said:I'm talking specifically about what happened in the past and how we interpret/hypothesize the evidence into the theories we hold today.
vossler said:I'm talking specifically about what happened in the past and how we interpret/hypothesize the evidence into the theories we hold today.
You are dead wrong. The seperation of the spiritual left the physical temporary universe AS IS. If we were to change THAT, we would run into your problems, it was not THAT that was changed, it was the merged universe we are the change. Dig?Valkhorn said:With regards to physics, if the laws were even slightly different then the universe would not have existed as it is today - even a slight change in gravity over the course of 10 years would send us into the sun or into outer space.
Of course creationists like to think the speed of light changed or that gravity changed (i.e. dad) but the truth is even one minute change over the course of 1000 years would yeild enough of a change over several that would be quite noticeable - and yet we have zero evidence for this. Period.
Your nonsense about the spiritual past is pure fantasy for which you can offer not a snigle shred of evidence, as has been pointed out to you countless times before.dad said:You are dead wrong. The seperation of the spiritual left the physical temporary universe AS IS. If we were to change THAT, we would run into your problems, it was not THAT that was changed, it was the merged universe we are the change. Dig?
No more fantasy than a spiritual added future. That is the way it is. Nothing you have to say can change that, or evidence a tiny thing to support your same same same past claims of shame.Electric Skeptic said:Your nonsense about the spiritual past is pure fantasy for which you can offer not a snigle shred of evidence, as has been pointed out to you countless times before.
Exactly as fantastic as a spiritual added future. You can't provide any evidence for that, either.dad said:No more fantasy than a spiritual added future.
False. You've been given evidence, repeatedly. You just put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and yell 'isnotisnotisnot'.dad said:Nothing you have to say can change that, or evidence a tiny thing to support your same same same past claims of shame.
How do you accurately test something that happened in the distant past if you weren't there? No matter how you do it, you're basing it on assumptions, not facts.caravelair said:We make an observation of some evidence, and come up with a hypothesis that might explain the evidence, THEN we TEST the hypothesis against further evidence. this is the important part. a scientific theory must make predictions about what evidence we will find in nature, then we look for evidence that might falsify these predictions. it is by testing that we can objectively determine which theory best explains the evidence. it's not a matter of interpretation or personal opinion, as you seem to suggest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?