"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[juvenissun]

But, as you admit you're not an expert compared to a geologist then how would you be able to label yourself as more knowledgable than him on the subject? How would you be able to trust your own conclusion over his when by your own admission, you don't know anything about it?

Any piece of knowledge has multiple faces. An expert looked it from one side. But non-experts look at it from other sides. So, if you want to argue, you need to argue by seeing their sides too.

I trust my conclusion because I see the thing from my side and understand it from my logic.

I say A. You need to argue -A to convince me, not just say B (your expert conclusion).

 

[juvenissun]

This is literally the dumbest thing in this thread. Dumber than all the tripe Jazer wrote, and dumber even than the nonsensical mumblings that AV trots out on this thread like in any other. Because it is the most egregious appeal to popularity that I have ever seen. Just because many people think an argument is "legitimate" does not mean that it is logically sound. And in case you are wondering, logic is not subjective.

I guess you don't know logic that much. If an argument is "legitimate", it means it is logical.

See, this is an example of arguing against you from your side.

 

[Skavau]

Any piece of knowledge has multiple faces. An expert looked it from one side. But non-experts look at it from other sides. So, if you want to argue, you need to argue by seeing their sides too.

But your side is by your own admission and effectively almost by definition motivated or sustained by ignorance (and in the case of creationism the desire for evolution to be untrue). That there is another side does not make it a side to be taken seriously.

I trust my conclusion because I see the thing from my side and understand it from my logic.

That's extremely solipsistic of you. Your reasoning may be true, I could grant you that if you like. But you won't know if what you actually know about the subject is actually true. You could effectively completely misrepresent and misunderstand what you claim to have opinions on and make a complete mess of it. The simplest example I can come off the top of my head is the idea that evolution does not account adequately for the origins of life. It takes someone completely ignorant of the scope and field of evolution to make such a claim. If they had even a basic understanding of evolution they would know that it doesn't talk about the origin of life (that's abiogenesis) and yet they are technically correct. Their logic would be sound. It really doesn't talk about the origin of life and yet because it never meant to it is the equivalent of complaining that evolution does not explain gravity.

The very complaint demonstrates ignorance of the subject at hand and demonstrates that the person making it is more in need of an education than a debate on it. I mean, since you admit that you know little about geology then why wouldn't you educate yourself in it to make sure that your conclusions on it are not based on a misrepresentation about modern-day understanding of it?

 

[juvenissun]

But your side is by your own admission and effectively almost by definition motivated or sustained by ignorance (and in the case of creationism the desire for evolution to be untrue). That there is another side does not make it a side to be taken seriously.

That's extremely solipsistic of you. Your reasoning may be true, I could grant you that if you like. But you won't know if what you actually know about the subject is actually true. You could effectively completely misrepresent and misunderstand what you claim to have opinions on and make a complete mess of it. The simplest example I can come off the top of my head is the idea that evolution does not account adequately for the origins of life. It takes someone completely ignorant of the scope and field of evolution to make such a claim. If they had even a basic understanding of evolution they would know that it doesn't talk about the origin of life (that's abiogenesis) and yet they are technically correct. Their logic would be sound. It really doesn't talk about the origin of life and yet because it never meant to it is the equivalent of complaining that evolution does not explain gravity.

The very complaint demonstrates ignorance of the subject at hand and demonstrates that the person making it is more in need of an education than a debate on it. I mean, since you admit that you know little about geology then why wouldn't you educate yourself in it to make sure that your conclusions on it are not based on a misrepresentation about modern-day understanding of it?

I can accuse your ignorance too. Because you have no idea on what I am talking about. I might be a Bible expert. Do you know the Bible as well as I do? If you don't, how can you say my argument is wrong?

(Sorry, if you don't improve your argument, I might ignore your reply. Like I said, you don't understand my argument.)

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

But if you want to argue with them, then you need to argue on "their" logic, not on your logic.

.....

(I know how to argue against the 6000 years age without using geological knowledge at all).

Could you demonstrate this? For the sake of illustrating your point.


Cause I'm pretty sure I did not catch your intended meaning.

It seems like you are advocating that if you argue with a person who says:
Claim: "The moons is made from cheese cause invisible rabbits are yellow"
The proper response is.
Response: "The moon is made from rock and dust cause the invisible rabbits are green"
Since you have to use 'their logic', no matter how faulty it is? (Pretty sure this isnt how you meant it.)

 

[Skavau]

I can accuse your ignorance too. Because you have no idea on what I am talking about. I might be a Bible expert.

Right, and if you are then I wouldn't presume to correct you on your interpretation of scripture.

In any case, I am going by what you said. You claimed to be ignorant of geology earlier and yet still renegade from the established understanding of it.

Do you know the Bible as well as I do? If you don't, how can you say my argument is wrong?

I haven't.

(Sorry, if you don't improve your argument, I might ignore your reply. Like I said, you don't understand my argument.)

I'm not arguing that we should ignore people who make arguments against things they don't understand only that we should inform them that they are hopelessly ignorant on what they claim to be able to refute and need to get some knowledge on it before proceeding.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I guess you don't know logic that much. If an argument is "legitimate", it means it is logical.

See, this is an example of arguing against you from your side.

lol.

Maybe you should clarify your post, because from the way it's worded, if you understand what logic is, you have a funny way of demonstrating that knowledge. I stand by my previous post.

 

[Split Rock]

They are the people who study, learn and carry out real experiments, only to have the next generation who study, learn and carry out real experiments correct them, only to have the next generation who study, learn and carry out real experiments correct them...

Tombaugh's Folly, eh?

The only folly is those who do not correct their mistakes.. like embedded age.. right, AVET?

Actually, I wasn't going to reply to the OP, since it would be only to correct him (my pastor is not embedded age, he is YEC; I have given a very precise definition of embedded age as: maturity without history; and explained why God did it [anthropic principle, food availability, marriage, have children, etc.]) -- so I just used THREAD TOOLS to subscribe to this thread for read-only purposes; but his second post just begged a response from me.

I could have sworn you said your pastor was the one who taught you embedded age!

 

[Split Rock]

In most careers, being wrong too often is grounds for dismissal. False prophets in ancient kingdoms were stoned or shamed out of town. Only in science, it seems, can experts consistently get it wrong, and not only keep their jobs, but be highly esteemed as experts.

In no profession is anyone always correct... except in creationism, it seems.

Shall we name a few at random?

I'm sure they won't be "at random."

Mercury was once the most popular medicinal metal a famed cure for syphilis, indigestion, old age and almost everything else,

And it worked for syphilis too. It just has a poor therapeutic index. It's not like there were other better choices at the time. Of course, you guys pretend not to understand how we improve our understanding over time... as well as viable options for medical treatment. I don't recall it being used by doctors for the others, including "everything else."

If the brain wasn't working right, why not just take part of it out? That was kind of the logic behind lobotomies, a practice that came of age in the middle of the 20th century. Doctors claimed the "ice-pick-to-the-freaking-eye" method of lobotomy would be as quick and easy as a trip to the dentist.

It was, but the results were quite different. Lobotomies were a desperate treatment where there were no other options. They aren't being used anymore, now that we have other options.. are they? Is this because of creationism?

Before the government stepped in science sold soothing syrups for children that contained morphine, codeine, heroin, opium and even cannabis.

Actually, opiates are very good at calming couphs. They just have an addiction side effect. BTW, they were most prominent in elixers created by snake oil salesmen... people who today choice to be "professional creationists...not scientists.

Shall we go into the electrical cure science gave us for impotance? Or how about Electroconvulsive therapy for depression.

Are they used today?

What did George Washington die from?

Wooden teeth?

Close friends Dr. James Craik and personal secretary Tobias Lear V had the medical practices they followed in that day. So the President was given calomel aka mercury chloride - whose toxicity wasn't known at the time - as a disinfectant and a laxative. He was losing body liquids when he needed them most. In addition, he was subjected to bloodletting by leeches. So the President also was losing blood when he needed it most. ​

None of thase treatments were arrived at by the scientific method... were they?

Shall we go into diet cures or the cure for female hysteria? Maybe we do not want to see what science has offered us in those areas.​

Go right ahead.. none of it addresses the O.P... does it?

Did I mention that The inventor of the lobotomy was given a Nobel Prize for it in 1949. Some 70,000 people were lobotomized before somebody figured out that driving a spike into the brain probably was not the answer to all of life's problems.​

See above.

You look long and hard to try and find something and you come up with nothing.
Everyone will be held accountable to the truth if they want to try to hide from it or not.

Non sequiter.

 

[dad]

We see creationists here claiming ..

Now now, tut tut. Don't think that being fooled by so called experts makes you an expert! No. We all best just look at the facts, and what is known, despite the silly so called experts and their limited and often contradictory stories for pay!

The truth goes marching on! No one of sound mind takes them seriously anymore.

 

[Split Rock]

Now now, tut tut. Don't think that being fooled by so called experts makes you an expert! No. We all best just look at the facts, and what is known, despite the silly so called experts and their limited and often contradictory stories for pay!

The truth goes marching on! No one of sound mind takes them seriously anymore.

LOL! The truth does go marching on... but it always leaves you behind, dad!

 

[dad]

LOL! The truth does go marching on... but it always leaves you behind, dad!

Maybe, but long long long after the so called experts were left in the dirt.

 

[Split Rock]

Any piece of knowledge has multiple faces. An expert looked it from one side. But non-experts look at it from other sides. So, if you want to argue, you need to argue by seeing their sides too.

Nonsense. Why would a side that is completely wrong and based on ignorance be worth looking at? Not all answers carry equal weight. Funny how you guys always want the playing field to reflect the opposite.

I trust my conclusion because I see the thing from my side and understand it from my logic.

What if that trust is misplaced?

I say A. You need to argue -A to convince me, not just say B (your expert conclusion).

Convincing creationists they are wrong about anything is an almost useless gesture.

I guess you don't know logic that much. If an argument is "legitimate", it means it is logical.

No, that is not the definition of "logic." You need to look that word up in a dictionary.

See, this is an example of arguing against you from your side.

No, this is an example of a creationist redefining terms to suit their argument.

 

[Split Rock]

Maybe, but long long long after the so called experts were left in the dirt.

You leave no one in the dirt. Give me one practical piece of knowledge gained by your split/merge dadology... just one. One correct measured distance to a star....one correct measurement of the earth's core. Anything, dad. But no... you have nothing. Nothing but arrogant scoffing. You leave others in "the dirt," only in your own mind. In a mind where you are never wrong. Where you know better than all those "so-called experts" you dispise so much. Where you know God's mind. Where you are "undefeated." A fantasy world created by you. Useless in the real world where the rest of us live.

 

[dad]

You leave no one in the dirt. Give me one practical piece of knowledge gained by your split/merge dadology... just one.

Learning the basis and limits of science. That permeates so much more than just the Permian.

One correct measured distance to a star....

I can't, since space is not known to be the same. Not that I care how far anything is.

one correct measurement of the earth's core.

Spirits live down there. Your radar and sound waves bounce off we know not what down under.


Yes, God's great book leaves scoffing so called science guessers in the dirt. They are so far behind, that I feel guilty laughing at them.

 

[roach]

Sorry, but this thread is hilarious! Good topic to bring out the 'experts'; always an enlightening experience.

 

[Split Rock]

Learning the basis and limits of science. That permeates so much more than just the Permian.

So, nothing practical then.

I can't, since space is not known to be the same. Not that I care how far anything is.

No you don't care. That is why you tell those who do care that they are all wrong.

Spirits live down there. Your radar and sound waves bounce off we know not what down under.

Show us one of these so-called "spirits."

Yes, God's great book leaves scoffing so called science guessers in the dirt. They are so far behind, that I feel guilty laughing at them.

That's a falsehood. you don't feel guilty at all.

 

[dad]

So, nothing practical then.

Of course there is plenty that is practical. One can practically toss out so called science. One can know that their every anti God slur and story is an absolute falseood. One can know that they don't know what they are talking about. One can realize that all their models are based on the present state, and the belief it is able to propel them to infinity and beyond.

No you don't care. That is why you tell those who do care that they are all wrong.

No. It all depends what you care about.

Show us one of these so-called "spirits."

Why, you think they are living with you? I thought we were talking about the deep down under?

That's a falsehood. you don't feel guilty at all.

I admit that I don't feel all that guilty so as to let it ruin me having a good time laughing. Let's be sensible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I could have sworn you said your pastor was the one who taught you embedded age!

46

 

[AV1611VET]

Good topic to bring out the 'experts'; always an enlightening experience.

Just say Jesus walked on water; that'll bring the Inquisition in a hurry -- (depending on who you are).