quote:

Originally posted by Seventil You say "get over it" a lot. I don't really know why. It seems you've given up and made your decision on how everything works and how everything has always been...

How am I giving up? I simply cannot do anything over your ignorance of known scientific events such as chemistry. I'm telling you to "get over it" because you need to learn to accept certain premises to be true, because it's logically ridiculous to handwave such highly acceptable known events. If you don't want me saying that, I'll simply say something else.

How's, "stop being ignorant and foolish"?

quote:

I'm not saying Chemistry is an unviable or unimportant field. No one will question the uses or advances that it's given us as a whole.

With your ridiculous logic that is exactly what you are doing.

quote:

Yes, I have. Maybe I should have paid attention more. I must have missed the part where we can measure something for a short period of time and say it's %100 fact that it's always been that way.

I'm sorry you didn't pay attention. Understand, however, that it's with high reliability that we know and understand a great deal more about the world such as certain medications or combinations of medicaton can cure diseases, greatly slow down HIV, cancer, cistic fibrosis; or quicken the healing of broken bones, lesions, etc. Otherwise we'd still be attributing the Plague to Satan without understanding that it came from rat fecies, or that leeches will heal diseases, or that dunking witches until they drown will both convert the witch into a Christian and cure the town of it's agricultural hardships.

It's with high reliability that we know how to make successful aircrafts, drive more efficient cars, transfer data quicker through fiber optic cabling, or pretty much any discovery for that matter.

It's just science, stop being ignorant and foolish.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I don't find it any more absurd than the fact that all your facts are based off of a biased that assumes something didn't happen.

Repetition does not make your point more true. You have yet to explain how I'm assuming anything that didn't happen. Please do so now.

I read and understand the basic premises and observations performed by scientists, I read and understand that they hypothesize and test their hypothesis, and that they draw conclusions based on their tests as to whether or not their observations were correct. These tests are then repeated again and again by other scientists to test the reliability of the initial observations, and more of the same conclusions are reached. Other scientists perform other tests and observations that often coincide with the previous scientists' work, sometimes in an unrelated field, and those observations corroborate well with each other.

But it gets better, a piece that I have left out so far - these scientists then utilize their data to predict future observations and future discoveries - and lo and behold the predictions are right on the money.

This has been the case with evolution. It has withstood this process for over 150 yrs., the same process that is utilized with every other field of science.

It's just science. Stop being ignorant and foolish.

quote:

By doing this, you are calling every culture that believes in a flood theory (200 or so was it?) naive and plain wrong in their beliefs.

Am I supposed to be scared by this somehow?

Look, anyone can believe in anything they choose. I have no beef with unsupported beliefs. You want to belief in Christ - cool. You want to belief in Allah, lovely. You want to believe in the Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks!, knock yourself out.

But there has been and always will be a difference between an unsupported belief and supported scientific phenomena. As I've stated before, you're much better off not to intermingle the two.

Besides, you did not tell me why you choose not to believe in those other stories.

And so to conclude, am I to understand that all events are therefore relative to a human witness to those events?

So I can kill your mother without anyone ever seeing it happen, and you would agree that it's logical to conclude that I am not the culprit? Did God bring down His mighty hand and stab her with a knife then?

How about Lucifer?

Zeus?

Allah?

Great Cookie Monster?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Jul-28-2004 at 21:23

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil The problem is that all of your testing methods use the same damn assumptions that I've trying to get through to you all along.

You mean those darn assumptions that have such a high reliable probability, esp. when we cross reference with other "assumptions", giving us even more highly reliable figures, and then cross reference them with non-related "assumptions", furthering our reliability?

What's your problem with a 1 in 12 billion or so probability figure on all these darn "assumptions"?

You like DNA evidence in the courts? If I kill your mother, would you appreciate the reliability of her blood on my knife?

If you don't appreciate reliability, I guess we should let murderers like myself go free all the time. Those darn statistics just seem to keep getting in the way, don't they?

Really, you need to stop being ignorant and foolish.

quote:

They are all interesting reads, however. Pompeii is a mute point since it happened in 79 A.D., which is post-flood. Using it proves neither of our points. Good article, however. I like how it "proves" all other Ar-Ar testing.

In order for it to be a moot point, you need to provide positive verifiable evidence that a catastrophic, world wide flood occurred.

Why are you avoiding this?

And shy of your flood theory (which you have yet to present), it proves the reliability of that particular dating method.

But let's suppose on Make-Believe Land if I agree to the fallacious theory of the Flood, and that would mean that the decay rates are erroneous. How then, would that coincide with the known factors of present day decay rates?

IOW, if decay rates are NOT constant, how could we rely on the expiration dates of drugs being constant?

How could we rely on nuclear reactions of highly unstable material that fuel our energy?

How could we rely on chemical pesticides having any effect on crops?

If we cannot rely on constant decay rates, how would all these occurrences be possible?

If you say that decay rates can change, how and when should we measure these changes so we can rely on certain occurrences I gave as examples can become more reliable?

What is the underlying mechanism that causes the change in the decay rates, so chemists, physicists, astronomers, biologists, and paleontologists, can understand and predict these changes in order for their work to be more logically consistent?

Do you not understand the major fallacy of your argument yet as we apply it to present day science?

BTW, those reads are pretty extensive. Forgive me if I seem a little incredulous in your reading skills.

quote:

I'm not trying to refute the methodology or processes of the current methods. I'm refuting the validity, because, as I've said before, they all assume everything has been the same.

You haven't provided supporting evidence that they are not constant. Please do so now.

So do I understand that you have accepted the fact that a 1/2 life exists for atomic particles?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Jul-28-2004 at 22:01

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I'd like to invoke the common sense rule. Let me respond by asking you a series of questions: 1. Can you, or anyone, observe the scientific constants that we use to "date" everything, that were present 6000-4400 years ago?

Can you, or anyone, observe the fact that your mother was murdered with my knife?

quote:

2. Can you, or anyone, observe the scientific constants present now?

Are you asking if we can observe decay rates now? Sure, what's the problem with that?

quote:

3. What is the probabilty that they are the same and how did you come to that conclusion?

How can atomic particles give inconsistent decay rates? Again, if you state that their rates have somehow changed over time, the burden is on you to demonstrate this. You have yet to prove this.

Keep in mind, I'm open to the possibility, despite the fact that it would completely undermine known and highly accepted chemical and nuclear phenomena (we really should be throwing away all those nuclear research papers by now). You just haven't done a very good job demonstrating it.

quote:

I'd like to see the probability formula you use to come to the conclusion that a worldwide flood did indeed not happen.

It is not up to me to prove a negative. I could just as easily say I would like to see the probability formula you use to come to the conclusion that the Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks! cried his eyes out from above because he ran out of cookies and caused a worldwide flood from his tears, did not happen.

Rather than attempt to prove a negative (which is a logical fallacy), the burden is on you to prove the positive.

Enough dodging. Show me your positive, verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence of a worldwide flood now, please.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I would venture to guess Mr. Twain would think differently in modern day times. I would also venture to guess that Twain was not referring to the field of statistics, but rather A given statistic (like morbidity rates, etc.). Quite a difference of reference, if this is the case.

I think in this case, Mr. Twain would certainly not, since your "statistics" are being used for the sole purpose of backing up your "theory".

quote:

A highly tested and consistent premise becomes reliable. What’s your problem with that?

Yes, it sure does. It does not however...

1. Mean that the reliable fact has always been the same.
2. Mean that the reliable fact will always be the same.

I'd venture to say it will probably remain the same, and being ignorant of a worldwide flood or the fall of man, it might have always been the same.

quote:

Christ man, what’s up with this “Father Opus” crap? I know I’m 30 for God’s sake, and that may be pretty damn old by Tranceaddict standards, but damn, do I have to be reminded so damn often? You still have not presented any positive, tested, retested, verifiable evidence for creation. Please do so now.

I do apologize for using "Father" - I will use "Brother" from now on. Until you convince me that believing in evolution isn't a faith, we are "Brothers" in faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I think in this case, Mr. Twain would certainly not, since your "statistics" are being used for the sole purpose of backing up your "theory".

Your statements are becoming more and more absurd.

By your logic, statistics should not be utilized to support a given theory or hypothesis?

What in god's name do we use them for then?

Do you even understand science in any way?

quote:

Yes, it sure does. It does not however... 1. Mean that the reliable fact has always been the same. 2. Mean that the reliable fact will always be the same. I'd venture to say it will probably remain the same, and being ignorant of a worldwide flood or the fall of man, it might have always been the same. I do apologize for using "Father" - I will use "Brother" from now on. Until you convince me that believing in evolution isn't a faith, we are "Brothers" in faith.

Then for the last time, demonstrate how the decay rates have not been the same, and will not always be the same. You seem so eager to accept certain known truths about chemistry, such as certain medications you take when you're sick. Why are you having such a difficult time with this constant chemical property of decay rates?

Last time, please demonstrate how it is not constant.

And please demonstrate with positive evidence a worldwide flood.

Christ I really am in repeat mode here.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Enough dodging. Show me your positive, verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence of a worldwide flood now, please.

I've put up with your circular reasoning for quite a while now. Allow me to show you mine.

"While living in self-indulgence, false teachers mock at the idea of Christ's return. They are consumed by intellectual arroagance and senuality. It is no wonder that they oppose any suggestion of a future judgement."

"The skeptics argue that the promise of Christ's second coming is unreliable (2 Pet 3:4). They ask why He has not returned by now. Their question is followed by the reason for their skepticism. They believe that the universe operates by natural law, which has been in operation since the beginning. "Natural law cannot be violated," they reason; "therefore it is impossible for a miracle to occur. For a miracle would be a violation of the natural order of things."

"Peter responded directly to the underlying reason for the scoffers' question, then he gave his answer to the question (2 Pet 3:4-7). The underlying reason for their skepticism is their deliberate choice to reject God's Word (v.5). They havechosen to reject the idea that God has relationship to or with this world. Peter provided four subjects about which the skeptics are willfully ignorant: the Creation, the Flood, the present world, and the judgement of fire."

I guess I should thank you - without people like Brother Opus, the Bible would indeed, be false.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I've put up with your circular reasoning for quite a while now. Allow me to show you mine. "While living in self-indulgence, false teachers mock at the idea of Christ's return. They are consumed by intellectual arroagance and senuality. It is no wonder that they oppose any suggestion of a future judgement." "The skeptics argue that the promise of Christ's second coming is unreliable (2 Pet 3:4). They ask why He has not returned by now. Their question is followed by the reason for their skepticism. They believe that the universe operates by natural law, which has been in operation since the beginning. "Natural law cannot be violated," they reason; "therefore it is impossible for a miracle to occur. For a miracle would be a violation of the natural order of things." "Peter responded directly to the underlying reason for the scoffers' question, then he gave his answer to the question (2 Pet 3:4-7). The underlying reason for their skepticism is their deliberate choice to reject God's Word (v.5). They havechosen to reject the idea that God has relationship to or with this world. Peter provided four subjects about which the skeptics are willfully ignorant: the Creation, the Flood, the present world, and the judgement of fire." I guess I should thank you - without people like Brother Opus, the Bible would indeed, be false.

You haven't done a very convincing job at showing that my reasoning is circular. I asked you to demonstrate this. Either support your assertions or retract them.

I asked you for positive, verifiable, tested, retested, and falsifiable evidence of the Flood, and you gave me Bible quotes? You have correctly stated earlier that the Bible was circular reasoning.

Does circular reasoning somehow = positive, verifiable, tested, retested, and falsifiable evidence in your logical world?

Why are you avoiding showing me supporting evidence of a catastrophic, worldwide Flood?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I inserted this as an edit to a previous post, but I wanted to make sure you didn't overlook it:

quote:

But let's suppose on Make-Believe Land if I agree to the fallacious theory of the Flood, and that would mean that the decay rates are erroneous. How then, would that coincide with the known factors of present day decay rates? IOW, if decay rates are NOT constant, how could we rely on the expiration dates of drugs being constant? How could we rely on nuclear reactions of highly unstable material that fuel our energy? How could we rely on chemical pesticides having any effect on crops? If we cannot rely on constant decay rates, how would all these occurrences be possible? If you say that decay rates can change, how and when should we measure these changes so we can rely on certain occurrences I gave as examples can become more reliable? What is the underlying mechanism that causes the change in the decay rates, so chemists, physicists, astronomers, biologists, and paleontologists, agriculturalists, can understand and predict these changes in order for their work to be more logically consistent? Do you not understand the major fallacy of your argument yet as we apply it to present day science?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And please demonstrate with positive evidence a worldwide flood. Christ I really am in repeat mode here.

That's who you reminded me of! Zindler. Haha, I hadn't read this debate in a while...

http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...is-zindler.html

Proof of the flood? Morris said it well:


MORRIS: I think the story of the flood clearly has its miraculous aspects to it; but by and large, the kinds of things that are mentioned in the scriptures regarding Noah's flood are natural processes. I mean we're talking rainfall and erosion and deposition; and these sorts of things are present processes that are studiable and understandable. [20] And in those areas, by all means, I do believe that the flood account is compatible with the geologic data. Now we can't prove the flood; [21] we didn't see the flood. It's totally outside the realm of our experience, and so we can only argue by analogy of that. My study of geology has shown me that by and large all of the rock units that are on the earth's surface were laid down by catastrophic processes. [22] We've studied, we have a big study of Mt. St. Helens, for instance, and we study that terrible catastrophe and we see the sorts of things... that dinky little volcano- I mean it wasn't too dinky for people living on the north side of the mountain in 1980... But that dinky little volcano did the sorts of things, laid down the sorts of layers that we see in the geologic record throughout. All of geology is beginning to move toward this catastrophic interpretation of the rocks...

....

ZINDLER: Chalk is being formed in the present...

MORRIS: ...that's right, but we have to impose on that [sic] data certain assumptions, a certain interpretive framework. In geology we were taught... you were taught, I was taught, that the present is the key to the past...

ZINDLER: Sure...

MORRIS: ...and by studying the present we may find analogies... and so we might know something about the past. But as I said, at Mt. St. Helens, there are episodes in the present which give us a peek into a very catastrophic possibility for the past... [25]

ZINDLER: It shows the 27 buried fossils...at Yellowstone Park...it shows quite clearly how 27 layers of fossil forests were buried [26] ... But getting back to the chalk, how could chalk have been formed? These are microscopic fossils of organisms... There is a very strict limitation as to how many of these organisms can live in the sea at any one time. There are remains of little granules formed by algae, the so-called coccoliths. You can only grow so many algae per square meter of surface of the sea at one time...

MORRIS: Let me tell you the error of your thinking, Frank. You're making the assumption that the present is the key to the past...

....

Brother Opus, we're having the same argument here. I'll concede the fact that you, as evolutionists, have a lot more qualified scientists to back up your theory, hence more biased "evidences" and whatnot - but we're still arguing a mute point are we?

What I don't get is why you still take your belief as fact.

I've admitted time and time again that what I believe is indeed a belief, and that it takes faith.

What I don't get it why someone as bright as yourself would delude yourself so much as not realizing evolution takes faith and is indeed a belief, not scientific fact.

On a note on the above debate between Morris and Zindler, I'd like to point out the fact they start out the debate with "Morris wouldn't answer my phone calls" and such. It's sad evolutionists and creationists both do this to try and debunk a person before the debate even starts.

Reading just the facts and opinions stated in that interview sums up the reason I am so fascinated by the eternal argument between the two standpoints.