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.
IMO, objective evidence of the usage of the scientific method in arriving at affirming statements, distinguishes 'scientific' from 'non scientific'. Scientific theories are usually supported by lots of consistent, independently verifiable, well tested results, no(?)Very much so. "falsifiability" works fine for small claims, but the big frameworks with lots of evidence aren't going to fall to one anomaly that seems to "falsify" things. (A sub-sub-sub theory might fall.)
It's in the subforum where you can't post and anti-science prevails.
50 Years of Deafening Silence Confirms Radioisotope Halos Have Destroyed Evolution - It's Time For A Proper Burial
**** Note **** (If you wish to skip the boring science lesson and head down to the bottom to find out about the "50 years of deafening silence" - be my guest) Dr. Robert Gentry, a Seventh-day Adventist scientist, made an extremely important discovery many years ago. After much research, in...www.christianforums.com
That claim was debunked last century - we've had at least one thread where it was covered.Yeah, well, polonium halos.
For those duped by creationist claimsThat claim was debunked last century - we've had at least one thread where it was covered.
"Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one-time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness."See TalkOrigins for details.
In fact Gentry did publish in Nature and Science, what the OP doesn't realize Gentry made no references to creationism let alone supporting it.I saw that thread last week or so in the cesspool. The OP's argument is largely: "Fancy science guys won't respond to obvious nonsense in the peer-review literature, so it must be true."
If only those posters knew what happens when we get such a missive from one of the science cranks:
We read aloud from it at lunch or something and mock it to our great amusement. We do not write papers to refute it.
(That's how I first encountered Mr. Mozina's "writing partner" with his "NS in the core of the Sun" model of non-reality.)
Why wouldnt it see the light of dayIn fact Gentry did publish in Nature and Science, what the OP doesn't realize Gentry made no references to creationism let alone supporting it.
If he did his work wouldn't have seen the light of day in either journal.
Nature did write up a piece on Gentry suing arXiv.
Why wouldnt it see the light of day
Needed for clarity, for lo, someBecause those are science journals, and admitting that your work is based on creationist assumptions is admitting that it isn't scientific.
IDKWYATA.Needed for clarity, for lo, some
Believe it's the work of the
WWCOSSTSTTOG
World wide conspiracy of satanic scientists to
suppress the word of god
Good question. I honestly don't know how world wide spread that kind of thinking is, but I've ran into it with my own extended family. And if anyone has spent any amount of time here in this form you have seen that trajectory even here.Do you believe such a thing exists?
Many a Believer thinks so
Good question. I honestly don't know how world wide spread that kind of thinking is, but I've ran into it with my own extended family. And if anyone has spend any amount of time here in this form you have seen that trajectory even here.
Alas there is no worldwide satanic conspiracy. But there is one inside a lot of people's heads.
In your opinion, how should psychiatrists score a person who sees Christian symbols on a Rorschach test?
Yeah... parody is too easy toThen we must be careful not to encourage such ideas. For example, I don't even believe in Satan, which sort of makes it hard to be in a satanic conspiracy.
Sorry, I'm not educated enough, familiar enough, or foolish enough to have an opinion on the matter.
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?