Appearance to the untrained eye may be subjective, and as such, renderers any opinion meaningless. To the trained eye and instruments, however, appearance is anything but subjective.Uphill Battle said:
Upvote
0
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.
Appearance to the untrained eye may be subjective, and as such, renderers any opinion meaningless. To the trained eye and instruments, however, appearance is anything but subjective.Uphill Battle said:I love the use of hypothetical conversations.
Apperance is subjective. The adage, beauty is in the eye of the beholder holds alot of truth. You look at a painting and hate it, I look at it and love it. subjective. The same goes for looking at the earth, if you are talking about apperance. I look at it, and it DOES NOT look billions of years old. but it is a subjective observation. I never once claimed it was scientific.
nvxplorer said:Appearance to the untrained eye may be subjective, and as such, renderers any opinion meaningless. To the trained eye and instruments, however, appearance is anything but subjective.
Uphill Battle said:The same goes for looking at the earth, if you are talking about apperance. I look at it, and it DOES NOT look billions of years old. but it is a subjective observation. I never once claimed it was scientific.
Baloney. Can you diagnose a patient without training? If a motor appears to be missing, can you make this determination without training (or instruments)? My point is that, without training and/or instrumentation, appearances can be deceiving or ambiguous. You look at a cliff and say, Young earth. Are you qualified to make such a statement? If not, your opinion is meaningless. Can you tell me which of two randomly chosen rocks is older, without using instruments? Appearance itself has nothing to do with training, which is irrelevant to my statements. The interpretation of appearance, however, is entirely relevant to training.Uphill Battle said:appearance has nothing to do with training. (and appearance has nothing to do with intruments, either.)
nvxplorer said:Baloney. Can you diagnose a patient without training? If a motor appears to be missing, can you make this determination without training (or instruments)? My point is that, without training and/or instrumentation, appearances can be deceiving or ambiguous. You look at a cliff and say, Young earth. Are you qualified to make such a statement? If not, your opinion is meaningless. Can you tell me which of two randomly chosen rocks is older, without using instruments? Appearance itself has nothing to do with training, which is irrelevant to my statements. The interpretation of appearance, however, is entirely relevant to training.
Well then, what is your point? If a doctor said it appears youre having a heart attack, would you submit to medical attention, or listen to your carpenter neighbor who says it doesnt appear that way to him? If you submit to the doctors trained opinion, why do you reject the trained opinions of those who say old earth? (I know, I know - Genesis.)Uphill Battle said:This is why I used the term subjective. The earth looks young TO ME. The cliff look young TO ME. I neither claimed it as science, nor use it to convince anyone else of my beliefs. And I am not completely untrained. I have much the same education that many who believe in Old earth do. I just don't believe it.
nvxplorer said:Well then, what is your point? If a doctor said it appears youre having a heart attack, would you submit to medical attention, or listen to your carpenter neighbor who says it doesnt appear that way to him? If you submit to the doctors trained opinion, why do you reject the trained opinions of those who say old earth? (I know, I know - Genesis.)
A photo that appears here from time to time shows a segment of the canyon from an angle where visible are two or three meanders. These are no ordinary meanders, however, as the canyon/river sweeps fully 180 degrees from left to right.Uphill Battle said:The Grand canyon does not seem demonstratby old to me.
I'm sorry but when it comes to a spherical planet verses a flat one in an age and time when we can venture into space and look back at the planet, navigate to any point on it and circle it in a balloon, I don't think the subjective-card plays out very well.Uphill Battle said:again though, appearance is subjective, isn't it?
TeddyKGB said:A photo that appears here from time to time shows a segment of the canyon from an angle where visible are two or three meanders. These are no ordinary meanders, however, as the canyon/river sweeps fully 180 degrees from left to right.
If you have had a college Earth science course, you know basically how meanders form. To suggest that such features are comfortably consistent with a massive, short-lived deluge (to say nothing of a 6000-year-old Earth) betrays a profound ignorance of geology.
What holes? What assumptions?Uphill Battle said:Because I believe the holes in the explainations to be alot wider than they are willing to admit. Because the assumptive qualities behind alot of the science. The fact that I believe in things science doesn't even begin to explain. That a good start?
Again, what presuppositions?Uphill Battle said:profound ignorance? or profound disagreement with many geological presuppositions?
nvxplorer said:What holes? What assumptions?
Humor me. Forget the holes. Tell me what assumptions are fallacious and why.Uphill Battle said:the same ones that have been argued about over and over and over. Need they be listed? You know that I will not believe your point of view, you won't believe mine. What's the point?
I just stated WHY.
nvxplorer said:Humor me. Forget the holes. Tell me what assumptions are fallacious and why.
I will respect your disagreement on the grounds that it does not appear in the formUphill Battle said:profound ignorance? or profound disagreement with many geological presuppositions?
Ill focus on this. What evidence do you have that the laws of physics have changed over time? Its ironic that you cling to appearances, yet it appears that the sun rises every day, that objects will always fall to the ground, that water seeks its own level. From your observations, how can you conclude that any of these laws are not constant? Its doubly ironic that you consider the idea of uniformitarianism to be fanaticism. Generally, it is those who claim they can fly off cliffs that we consider to be lunatics, not those who say it is an impossibility.Uphill Battle said:the assumptions of uniformitarianism.
nvxplorer said:Ill focus on this. What evidence do you have that the laws of physics have changed over time? Its ironic that you cling to appearances, yet it appears that the sun rises every day, that objects will always fall to the ground, that water seeks its own level. From your observations, how can you conclude that any of these laws are not constant? Its doubly ironic that you consider the idea of uniformitarianism to be fanaticism. Generally, it is those who claim they can fly off cliffs that we consider to be lunatics, not those who say it is an impossibility.
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?