FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-06-2007, 01:24 PM   #621
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: California
Posts: 2,215
Default

FYI guys, vulcanism is an accepted variant form of volcanism, the study of volcanoes. </nitpick>
Occam's Aftershave is offline  
Old 08-06-2007, 01:26 PM   #622
mung bean
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yeah, you tell 'em, Occam's. Comes from the Roman god Vulcan.


Dave, now that Eric has explained it are you up to speed on this?
If you aren't, hows about you tell us exactly which bit you're having difficulty with.
We can always use shorter words if you need us to.
 
Old 08-06-2007, 01:47 PM   #623
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by afdave View Post
No. Just mistaken. Are you telling me that it is your opinion that scientists are incapable of being mistaken?
All of them, Dave? You think every single fucking scientist who has ever worked in either 14C, tree ring, coral ring, ice core, lake-bed varve, or marine sediment dating, along with all the fucking scientists who work in the other three dozen radiometric dating techniques, are all mistaken? Jesus fucking Christ, Dave, you're talking about tens of thousands of individuals, all of whom have training and expertise in the relevant fields, and you think every single last one of them is wrong?

But you, who have zero training in any relevant field, who doesn't even understand what the term "falsifiable" means in a scientific context, you think you're the one who's right.

And you wonder why you get ridicule here.
Eric, I think you're making an interesting point. Actually doing science requires intellectual capacity, education, training - and to do it well, experience. The number of people who feel they are entitled to a definitive opinion on a scientific subject without the prerequisite experience, training, education, etc.

It is as if I read three random pages of a flight trainer's manual and then attempted to take an F14 into combat. It would be suicidal and folks would rightfully laugh their heads off as I crashed and burned.

As Dave is doing here.
Constant Mews is offline  
Old 08-06-2007, 01:48 PM   #624
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave View Post
FYI guys, vulcanism is an accepted variant form of volcanism, the study of volcanoes. </nitpick>
That's OK, Dave doesn't understand the difference between hydrologic and hydraulic. :devil1:
Constant Mews is offline  
Old 08-06-2007, 02:29 PM   #625
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: California
Posts: 18,543
Default

I see that you have posted recently, Mr. afdave. I wouldn't want you to forget your moral duty:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by afdave View Post
1) There is no scientific conspiracy. The scientists involved no doubt are thoroughly convinced of the truth of what they write.
I am glad to see that you have decided to apologize for this earlier statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by afdave View Post
It is my theory that scientists obtain consilience (sort of) in dating because there is an agreed upon consensus out there that everyone shoehorns their dating results into.
I am sure the actual "I'm sorry I said that. I was wrong." just slipped your mind temporarily. I'll keep reminding you that you actually need to say it.

[mom]It isn't an apology until you say sorry![/mom]
If you would like people to see you as a moral person, you should apologize for what you said. If you do not do so, the average person is going to think that your mom didn't raise you right.
Smullyan-esque is offline  
Old 08-06-2007, 03:07 PM   #626
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 1,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy
Dave, how many times do we have to explain this to you? The coral and the ice cores and the tree rings do not all have to be in the fucking lake.
Tried telling him that once before Eric, namely here. He ignored that too.

But then we're dealing with an individual who seems to be unable to comprehend that 16 > 7.

So, outstanding questions for Dave to address with substantive answers include ...

Calibration Curves (Courtesy of Constant Mews and many others);

Honesty of accredited scientists (Courtesy of Smullyan-esque and many others).

Anyone here holding their breath?
Calilasseia is offline  
Old 08-06-2007, 03:42 PM   #627
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 2,209
Default

A new page, so let's recap where we are with Dave.


The green words:

IF ALL THE DATING METHODS FAILED FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, THEN THEY WOULDN'T AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER!!!

BUT THEY DO, SO THEY DON'T!!!

AND THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY ALL FAIL FOR THE SAME REASON!!!

THEREFORE, THE DATING METHODS WORK, AND THE EARTH IS OLDER THAN YEC PERMITS!!!



The purple words:

Is your response to the green words that the conscilience is explained by the fact that all the scientists who contributed to the conscillience carry deeply held beliefs of an old earth, and that they all unwittingly allowed these beliefs to influence the outcomes of their experiments?

Are you willing to commit to this position? If not, what is a response to the green words that you are willing to commit to?



We're waiting, Dave.
Silent Dave is offline  
Old 08-06-2007, 08:06 PM   #628
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 2,209
Default

Dave, I know damn well you've seen the green and purple words by now. What is your response?
Silent Dave is offline  
Old 08-06-2007, 10:30 PM   #629
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bloomington, MN
Posts: 2,209
Default

Dave, please note that you have been challenged to formal debates here and here.
Silent Dave is offline  
Old 08-06-2007, 10:40 PM   #630
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tower of Babel
Posts: 557
Default

Dave, I encourage you to read Genesis 11, your salvation rests in the CONFOUNDATION principle.
biblethumping is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.