BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:18 PM

" ... or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution."

As if that were a bad thing to do (leaving aside Snail's Popperian objections, that is)!

The implication being, of course, that spouting a load of nonsense about "creation", because it appears to be described in an old book of dubious provenance and is assumed to be the literal truth rather than some sort of muddled metaphor, is a 'good' thing to do!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 07:07 PM

criticism of my grammer was dropped long before you joined in

Not by me it wasn't sunshine. Being challenged in literacy is one thing. Crowing about it is another. You are ignorant, deliberately ignorant, and aggressively ignorant; about grammar, punctuation, and manners; about science; and about religion. You are not proud of not trying to be better. Some say this is the sin against the Holy Ghost- deliberate and proud benightendness.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 12 - 08:16 PM

Well said, Paul. You are well sussed, pete. You're not the pleasant, reasonable, slightly off-beam duffer you like to pretend you are, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:13 PM

It would probably be kinder to let this thread quietly die but...

Shimrod
When I think about "falsifiability", though, I seem to end up 'chasing-my-own-tail' - which probably means that I don't understand it(?)

Steve Shaw
I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English. I won't be holding my breath.

It's quite simple really. In order to be considered valid science, a theory must be testable. It must be possible to be able to think of a test that could prove the theory wrong i.e. it must be falsifiable. The classic example is "All swans are white.", a perfectly reasonable assumption by someone in the Northern Hemisphere up to a few hundred years ago. This is a perfectly respectable scientific statement because it is easy to think of a way of disproving it; find a swan that isn't white. The fact that travel broadens the mind and Europeans did discover that not all swans are white is not really the point, it is simply that the test was conceivable.

I have had this sort of thing drummed into me throughout my scientific education and I'm rather surprised that the two of you seem to find it such a mystery. As far as I am concerned, it is not, as Steve would have it, "in the land of the philosophical airy-fairies" but central to the scientific method.

For further reading, this Falsifiability looks quite good. The Wikipedia page it refers to is flawed but has its heart in the right place.

Shimrod
Nevertheless, I see the primary point of this thread, and its predecessor, to be about challenging the Creationist world view. And that should be challenged not primarily because it is ascientific (which it most definitely is!) but because it poses profound dangers to freedom - freedom of thought and freedom of action; it's a narrow-minded (understatement of the year!), deeply restrictive and deeply unimaginative view of the world. Because it is so appealing to certain politicians in the West (particularly in the US)it poses a great danger to us all. I suspect that a world dominated by a Creationist world view would be a profoundly oppressive one.

Fair enough, but I'm a little unclear as to what you are going to challenge creationism with if you consider the philosophy of science to be a bit of a side issue. Steve Shaw seems to think that personal abuse, sarcasm and scorn are sufficient. This particular strand of thought began when TIA said "what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.", a statement that Steve Shaw describes as "woolly". What, may I ask, sets science apart from religion as far as you are concerned? (Either of you.)

" ... or continually asserting the "truth" of evolution."

As if that were a bad thing to do (leaving aside Snail's Popperian objections, that is)!

Previously from Shimrod
Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth' but a method for exploring and understanding the Universe, based on experiment and evidence.

Well, I suppose we're all allowed to change our minds. Unfortunately, if you leave aside the "Popperian objections", (not mine) then youi invalidate the scientific evidence in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education trial of 1982 (ref. here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html in case you missed it.) allowing the creationists to win. Is that what you want?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 03:53 AM

This just in..

The bible is truth because it was written 2,000 years ago. The latest Daily M*il is bollocks because it was written 2,000 seconds ago.

I was chatting over the weekend with a close friend who happens to be a "smile too much" born again Christian. Their church is into rock & roll modern hymns, bible class on a Wednesday night, child indoctrination on a Thursday etc. (I went to a christening there once. I thought the rumbling sound was the bass turned up too high. Turns out it was Charles Wesley spinning in his grave.)

I broached the subject of creationism. He said it was tosh, stupid and mocks faith.

You see, the diagnosis is clear. The severity is relative. The delusion is sneaky enough to be rational either side of your own superstition.

Fascinating.

Subject: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 08:46 AM

Simple question, on point, easily debated. Please end the bickering on the other thread I started about the cartoon and discuss this like the gentlemen I know you all can be.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:02 AM

If the year indicated is the standard solar year, the answer is


NO.



If the days counted to add up the age include the "days" in the old testament that actually translates as closer to "a period of time", and those "days" are of variable length, up to billions of solar years, then the answer is


One might make an argument that it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:07 AM

Why?
You already know who thinks it is and why.
We all know that it is put at 14 and a bit billion by Science.

I know we are running out of BS threads, but this one is a complete waste of whatever it is a thread uses up.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM

day (dā)
n.
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.




year (yɪər)

n.
1. a period of 365 or 366 days, in the Gregorian calendar, divided into 12 calendar months, now reckoned as beginning Jan. 1 and ending Dec. 31 (calendar year). Compare common year, leap year.
2. a period of the same length in other calendars.
3.
a. a space of 12 calendar months calculated from any point: We expect to finish in a year.
b. fiscal year.
4. Astron.
a. Also called lunar year. a division of time equal to 12 lunar months.
b. Also called solar year. a division of time equal to 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46 seconds, representing the interval between one vernal equinox and the next.
c. Also called sidereal year. a division of time equal to the solar year plus 20 minutes, the time it takes the earth to complete one revolution around the sun.
5. the time in which any planet completes a revolution around the sun.
6. a full round of the seasons.
7. a period out of every 12 months devoted to a certain pursuit, activity, or the like: the academic year.
8. years,
a. age: a person of her years.
b. old age: a man of years.
c. time; period: the years of hardship.
d. an unusually or markedly long time: We haven't spoken in years.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:10 AM

more to the point how old is the Earth in dynasaur years?
and is carbon dating just a website for Coal Miners?
The answer to the OP is NO - you can't have a sensible debate about it. Unless you preclude the religious dimension.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the universe less than 10k years old?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 09:14 AM

dynasaur?

I am familiar with

dinosaur

and

dynasoar

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:01 AM

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 10:40 AM

Bruce. Stick to the sonnets eh?

Jack. I'm disgusted! I had the final word on that thread, and he who speaks last speaks the truth....

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 12:43 PM

I don't think it's Jacks fault, Musket. He started (yet) another thread and I think it has just been merged with this one. So you will always have the last word on the original :-) Mind you, I am not sure it is Monsieur Matelot at all. Didn't he say goodbye on another thread? No one would be daft enough to storm off in a huff and come back before the door had slammed would they? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 06:44 PM

>>>From: saulgoldie - PM
Date: 01 May 12 - 10:50 AM

Cause the old thread is BIG and takes a while to load. OK, have it at, again, still.

Saul <<<

I wonder at the thought process that tacks a new thread with a different starting topic onto the above?

I guess 300 is not too big. I wonder what is? A thousand maybe? Like that bloody "Darwin's witness thread?"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Mar 14 - 07:24 PM

Over and over and over and over and over again and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and a thousand times more times more and 111 x 10 to the sixth power again and again ...............................................................

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Mar 14 - 10:33 AM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/thanks-anti-vaxxers-you-just-brought-back-measles-in-nyc.html