Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 143
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,503
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...sd/sarfati.asp

    Another powerful exhibition of Dr Sarfati's ability to combine his scientific expertise with his theological knowledge. One has to admire Jono's techniques in conveying his profound messages in a simple, clear and comprehensible way, so all his readers are able to understand and enjoy them. The article, which I had never read before, is complete with an extensive list of references for further reading!
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  2. #2
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by JaK
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...sd/sarfati.asp

    Another powerful exhibition of Dr Sarfati's ability to combine his scientific expertise with his theological knowledge. One has to admire Jono's techniques in conveying his profound messages in a simple, clear and comprehensible way, so all his readers are able to understand and enjoy them. The article, which I had never read before, is complete with an extensive list of references for further reading!
    Yes yes, your Jono nuthuggerism has already been noted. Thanks.

    Never mind that Jono has never worked as a scientist nor published a scientific paper for more than 15 years. Mind you that is unlikely to make him shy in parading his scientific "credentials" since he has no formal training in logic whatsoever and believes it is reasonable to market his latest book as a logician.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,503
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Yes yes, your Jono nuthuggerism has already been noted. Thanks.

    Never mind that Jono has never worked as a scientist nor published a scientific paper for more than 15 years. Mind you that is unlikely to make him shy in parading his scientific "credentials" since he has no formal training in logic whatsoever and believes it is reasonable to market his latest book as a logician.
    He still runs rings around you, and you have no logical argument to juxtapose to his statements apart from (unsuccessful) efforts to act smart when you are obviously stupid as pointed out in numerous times by Igor! Now, I don't want to engage with you on a personal level! I can't stand your sorry sight of trying to use your whatever powers you have here to save your sorry arse, just get out of my sight!
    Last edited by ER; 07-08-2010 at 10:51 PM.
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  4. #4
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,988
    Quote Originally Posted by JaK
    He still runs rings around you, and you have no logical argument to juxtapose to his statements apart from (unsuccessful) efforts to act smart when you are obviously stupid as pointed out in numerous times by Igor!
    And you'd know all this how?

    As it happens the piece you link to contains a howler as early as the second sentence of the main section:

    However, science deals with repeatable observations in the present, while evolution/long age ideas are based on assumptions from outside science about the unobservable past.
    Science does to a large degree deal with the testing of hypotheses in the present by subjecting them to testing by gathering fresh data. But there is nothing to stop that fresh data from being data concerning things that happened in the distant past.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,503
    If this is a divine intervention I better admit that I meant his sorry arse not soffy arse, I corrected it! As for the rest of it I will come back when I have time!
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Science does to a large degree deal with the testing of hypotheses in the present by subjecting them to testing by gathering fresh data. But there is nothing to stop that fresh data from being data concerning things that happened in the distant past.
    Minor point of order Mr Speaker; fresh data is collected in the present, therefore the observation is also in the present. Its one's beliefs (or theories) about the past and about the pattern or the characteristics of the collected data that would make one think that it is data about things in the distant past. Such beliefs/theories may or may not prove to be true; but the observation is still in the present is it not? Its the existing beliefs/theoies that are critical in forming the meaning of the observation which can then be assigned to an event believed to be in the distant past, but might in face end up being observations about an event that, in actuality, was not in the distant past and was in fact in the recent past.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  7. #7
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    11,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Minor point of order Mr Speaker; fresh data is collected in the present, therefore the observation is also in the present. Its one's beliefs (or theories) about the past and about the pattern or the characteristics of the collected data that would make one think that it is data about things in the distant past. Such beliefs/theories may or may not prove to be true; but the observation is still in the present is it not? Its the existing beliefs/theoies that are critical in forming the meaning of the observation which can then be assigned to an event believed to be in the distant past, but might in face end up being observations about an event that, in actuality, was not in the distant past and was in fact in the recent past.
    But even if you look at it from that angle, Jono's statement is still false. The so called "long age" is based on observations that are repeatable, verifiable, and observable now, therefore by Jono's own expressed standard are science, not "assumptions".
    meep meep

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Observations about things such as rocks (for example) don't come with in-built age measurements. Such age dating comes from other theories and assumptions (e.g. based on beliefs about rate of radioactive decay, about the speed of light, etc etc). If you change your belief about the rate of decay of carbon14, then the calculation of the age of a piece of buried timber changes.

    The age of the timber hasn't changed significantly (apart from the passing of time whilst you re-do the calculation) ... but one's belief about the age of the timber HAS changed. We see this all the time when examining geological structures. Scientists see some particular piece of observational evidence but based on other factors and how probable or significant they think those factors are, they then recalculate what this means.

    I would have thought this much was blindingly obvious: one should separate out into two different categories:

    * the actual age of an object; and
    * one's beliefs about the actual age of an object

    People think they are dealing with facts, but a lot of the time they are not; they are dealing with conclusions drawn from theories about the meaning of observational facts. Those conclusions tend to be conflated with observational facts through habit, or perhaps through laziness, or some other factor.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  9. #9
    Batoutahelius road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    11,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Observations about things such as rocks (for example) don't come with in-built age measurements. Such age dating comes from other theories and assumptions (e.g. based on beliefs about rate of radioactive decay, about the speed of light, etc etc). If you change your belief about the rate of decay of carbon14, then the calculation of the age of a piece of buried timber changes.
    No, they come from repeatable, verifyable tests. Calling it belief is a strawman.

    The age of the timber hasn't changed significantly (apart from the passing of time whilst you re-do the calculation) ... but one's belief about the age of the timber HAS changed. We see this all the time when examining geological structures. Scientists see some particular piece of observational evidence but based on other factors and how probable or significant they think those factors are, they then recalculate what this means.

    I would have thought this much was blindingly obvious: one should separate out into two different categories:

    * the actual age of an object; and
    * one's beliefs about the actual age of an object
    Yes exactly, which is how we know it works. In cases where we have an object of a known age, perform blind tests on the object and see if the results match. Guess what; they do.

    People think they are dealing with facts, but a lot of the time they are not; they are dealing with conclusions drawn from theories about the meaning of observational facts. Those conclusions tend to be conflated with observational facts through habit, or perhaps through laziness, or some other factor.
    Yeah I agree.
    meep meep

  10. #10
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Minor point of order Mr Speaker; fresh data is collected in the present, therefore the observation is also in the present. Its one's beliefs (or theories) about the past and about the pattern or the characteristics of the collected data that would make one think that it is data about things in the distant past. Such beliefs/theories may or may not prove to be true; but the observation is still in the present is it not? Its the existing beliefs/theoies that are critical in forming the meaning of the observation which can then be assigned to an event believed to be in the distant past, but might in face end up being observations about an event that, in actuality, was not in the distant past and was in fact in the recent past.
    I think you are just confusing yourself. If you re-read what Kevin said you will see he did not say the observation took place in the distant past but the data was "concerning things that happened in the distant past".

    When you dig up a new hominid bone, for example, you are collecting the data in the present but the hominid did indeed live in the distant past. Exactly how distant is a matter for some conjecture, but certainly not recently.

    Regarding your later comments on radioactive decay. Yes it assumes that radioactivity has behaved in a very similar way in the distant past as it does at present. Firstly that is not an unreasonable assumption if there is no reason to think otherwise, and secondly, this is not the only reason to think the method is valid. Cross correlation with other methods (both radioactive dating with other elements and non-radioactive techniques) supports the methods.

    The only reason for not thinking radioactive dating methods are not valid is a deeply held conviction in a religious belief that the world must be less than 10,000 years old. I understand you hold your pseudoscientific beliefs very deeply however, not so deeply that they can masquerade as supportable by observation. Or that perfectly good science is somehow flying in the face of reason.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by JaK
    If this is a divine intervention I better admit that I meant his sorry arse not soffy arse, I corrected it! As for the rest of it I will come back when I have time!
    Since you have immediately resorted to the schoolyard measure of "I know you are but what am I" and "wait till my mates Jono and Igor get here" I wouldn't hurry back if I was you. I'm sure if you had anything of substance to contribute you you have done so by now. The thread can do without vacuous nuthuggers.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    The thread can do without vacuous nuthuggers.
    I disagree, you are quite welcome to post in this thread.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  13. #13
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    I disagree, you are quite welcome to post in this thread.
    As usual your post has no relationship to the facts.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I think you are just confusing yourself. If you re-read what Kevin said you will see he did not say the observation took place in the distant past but the data was "concerning things that happened in the distant past".
    ... and if you re-read what I said, my point is that the statement that the data was "concerning things that happened in the distant past" is not a statement about observation but is rather a statement about assumptions and conclusions; i.e. it draws conclusions based on a whole host of other assumptions. The observation itself is incapable of drawing a conclusion about the distant past, although if the observation (and accompanying written records) extended for long enough it might extend some centuries or even millenia into the past.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    No, they come from repeatable, verifyable tests.
    Can you give me an example of an observational, repeatable, verifiable test which can give you knowledge about the age of an object where the object is "millions of years old"?

    n.b. I will not accept examples which draws conclusions based on underlaying assumptions about the speed of light, its supposed invariance, rates of radioactive decay, and so on. I'm interested in whether observational science can give certain results in the order of millions of years.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •