Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 79
  1. #1
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570

    Creationism, geology and science (sf. Science stories)

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    A lot of assumptions there, including uniformitarianism: presupposing that the temperatures have been at current levels for millions of years, then using that to prove the same. Dr Snelling, criticised on this blog, is more qualified in geology than the critic.
    I assume this is the same Andrew Snelling who published the paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit where he documented deposits and processes taking place millions of years in the past.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    Banned Hydra
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    A lot of assumptions there, including uniformitarianism:
    Are you saying uniformitarianism is an assumption like the Earth is flat is an assumption?

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    You did not try to find the real point of the article in the abstract. I have heard that called cherry picking. Maybe cherry picking is as you say common practise but I call it not truthful talking.
    Complete crap. You have no clue about normal article-pasting etiquette: past the first few paragraphs is a very common practice. Cherry-picking includes taking a phrase out of context, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    Are you saying uniformitarianism is an assumption like the Earth is flat is an assumption?
    Both false. The leading flat-earther is one of your fellow evolutionists:

    “The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.” (Natalie Wolchover, Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011.)
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #4
    Banned Hydra
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Complete crap. You have no clue about normal article-pasting etiquette:
    I don"t want to read what some one else thinks. I want to know what you think and why you think it.



    Both false. The leading flat-earther is one of your fellow evolutionists:

    “The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.” (Natalie Wolchover, Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map, Live Science, 23 June 2011.)
    Shelton sounds may be he is mad. But can you answer me "Are you saying uniformitarianism is an assumption ?"

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    I don"t want to read what some one else thinks. I want to know what you think and why you think it.
    I could cite only from my articles and books if you really want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    Shelton sounds may be he is mad.
    No doubt. But the fact remains that the leading flat-earther is one of you guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johns View Post
    But can you answer me "Are you saying uniformitarianism is an assumption ?"
    Of course. In 1785, before examining the evidence, James Hutton (1726–1797), ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed:

    ‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ ( ‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785)
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #6
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    I could cite only from my articles and books if you really want.
    If any of your geology-related articles were published in scientific outlets or any of your book were published by academic publishers then perhaps they would be worth reading. However the vast majority of your articles are published on the web site of the church you work for and your books are published by pro-christian, non-scientific publishers. In essence you have free rein to write or copy whatever you like with little or no critical review. Makes being a "scientist" very easy.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,762
    Yes. we know that RW accepts only publications that explicitly or implicitly support his own faith of atheopathy.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #8
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Yes. we know that RW accepts only publications that explicitly or implicitly support his own faith of atheopathy.
    So are you saying there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientific publishing. Is that more likely or is it more likely your "articles and books" are just not up the standards required by the scientific community?

    The world-wide conspiracy theory makes no sense since many of the supposed gate-keepers are people of various faiths including many, many Christians.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    So are you saying there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientific publishing. Is that more likely or is it more likely your "articles and books" are just not up the standards required by the scientific community?
    Doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a shared world view of materialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    The world-wide conspiracy theory makes no sense since many of the supposed gate-keepers are people of various faiths including many, many Christians.
    Even these professed adherence of "various faiths" have materialism as their real faith for all practical purposes. They are useful idiots for the real materialists like you and Dawk.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #10
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a shared world view of materialism.
    But your worldview of "magic exists" makes no sense while "the universe behaves in a predictable way" has lead to all the techniological advances you now enjoy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Even these professed adherence of "various faiths" have materialism as their real faith for all practical purposes. They are useful idiots for the real materialists like you and Dawk.
    So you think there is a conspiracy of materialists that control science? That's just too precious.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    But your worldview of "magic exists" makes no sense while "the universe behaves in a predictable way" has lead to all the techniological advances you now enjoy.
    My worldview denies that magic exists. And "the universe behaves in a predictable way" is itself a prediction from the biblical teaching of a divine Lawmaker who is a God of order not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). The premise does not arise from your atheopathic faith. See also The biblical roots of modern science and Why does science work at all? and The Christian Roots of Science & Busting The Myths of Science:



    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    So you think there is a conspiracy of materialists that control science? That's just too precious.
    You're the one who keeps bringing up conspiracies although I have disclaimed them. Evidently you are very conspiratorially minded
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #12
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    The term "operational science" is a creationist invention. In simple terms there are claims which can be tested by experiment and there are claims which cannot. Some scientific disciplines deals more with the former sort of claim and other disciplines more with the latter. But all scientific disciplines deal with both sorts of claims. The idea that some disciplines are "operational" and others are historical is a false dichotomy. Furthermore historical claims can be studied and claims decided scientifically.

    Regarding who is the real conspiracy theorist. You are the one claiming that the scientific literature is under the control of an atheist cabal lead my me and Richard Dawkins who are using scientists of faith as useful idiots to further our nefarious plans.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    The term "operational science" is a creationist invention. In simple terms there are claims which can be tested by experiment and there are claims which cannot. Some scientific disciplines deals more with the former sort of claim and other disciplines more with the latter. But all scientific disciplines deal with both sorts of claims. The idea that some disciplines are "operational" and others are historical is a false dichotomy. Furthermore historical claims can be studied and claims decided scientifically.
    I wonder what category basin modelling is supposed to be in? As it is tested by experiment (ie used to find oil), it must be experimental. However, it relies on the age of the earth:
    Geophysical, geological and geochemical data are often put together in a digital basin model, which simulates the development of a sedimentary basin through time. Important input is the depth and age of geologic layers, source rock properties and subsurface temperatures. The basin model should be calibrated against measured data, from wells or outcrops. The results from such analyses are evaluated in the context of the geological and thermal history of the sedimentary basin. By doing this, a basins petroleum system may be defined in time and space. This knowlegde is important when exploring for oil and gas.
    Maybe it can be done using YEC geology, but I'm still waiting for a reply on that

    Basin modelling demonstrates that Rincewind is correct: There is no clear distinction between 'experimental' and 'historical' science.

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    The term "operational science" is a creationist invention.
    More nonsense. Evolutionists have also acknowledged the difference between evolution as a historical science and observational science like physics:

    “For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
    —Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.

    “If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”
    —Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Regarding who is the real conspiracy theorist. You are the one claiming that the scientific literature is under the control of an atheist cabal lead my me and Richard Dawkins who are using scientists of faith as useful idiots to further our nefarious plans.
    You're the one talking about cabals and conspiracies; I am talking about a common shared faith in materialism, which you and Dawk also hold blindly.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #15
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    More nonsense. Evolutionists have also acknowledged the difference between evolution as a historical science and observational science like physics:

    “For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
    —Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.

    “If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”
    —Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.
    Do you have any examples of the term "operational science" being used outside of the AiG bubble?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    You're the one talking about cabals and conspiracies; I am talking about a common shared faith in materialism, which you and Dawk also hold blindly.
    I'm talking about it because you imply it. My claim is that no such conspiracy exists and if your writings were worth anything at all the creationist "scientists" would be in line for several Nobel prizes. As I see it there are two possible hypotheses...

    H0 : Creation science is pure applesauce.
    H1: Creation science is scientifically valid but suppressed by a conspiracy of materialist gatekeepers.

    Since H1 implies a worldwide conspiracy which is playing the thousands of christian, islamic, jewish, buddhist, etc scientists for dupes I find this quite unlikely and therefor prefer to retain H0.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Science stories
    By Rincewind in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 518
    Last Post: 02-11-2019, 12:26 PM
  2. Matthew and Luke on the year of Jesus' birth (sf Science Stories)
    By Rincewind in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-02-2015, 07:50 PM
  3. Shortage of researchers, sf. Science stories
    By arosar in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 16-06-2014, 09:13 AM
  4. Religion and Science of Cosmology (s.f. Science Stories)
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 23-05-2013, 11:28 AM
  5. The Science Of Chess!!
    By Funiatra in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

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