BS: in the beginning and now

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 20 - 09:55 PM

Our central air blower decided it was done after 60 years.
They don't make bearings like that anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Dec 19 - 04:47 PM

GTE? I don't get the reference. YOU used the term "consensus science", I just found a place discussing the concept of consensus in basic science and I am suggesting that you don't truly understand the implications.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Dec 19 - 09:50 AM

I too believe in dry docks :^/
One can see I borrowed the term 'provable facts' from 7 stars to have some communication in common, and then probably use it against him later. Amusing thread drift did not allow that but it is just as well.

Evolution is not completely understood/knowable as in the case of the crocodile whose evolutionary path appears to have stopped. I say it hasn't really stopped. I bet if we look more closely, it may have unexpressed genes to adapt to different conditions that are millions of years old and subject to mutation we could not predict.

When 99% of a subject is knowable but 1% is not, it does not mean that we should negate the 99%. This is my version of the uncertainty principle ;^/

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Dec 19 - 08:31 AM

I’ve read your link Bill.   1, explain how that applies to my position and not to yours , and ,2, explain how the GTE leads to genetics and then to dna discovery , as the stricken claims

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 08:36 PM

*grin* that's why one 'believes' in dry dock...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Joe_F
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 08:30 PM

Quine, quoting Neurath, says: Revising our beliefs is like repairing a ship at sea: you can take any part out and work on it, but you can't take it all apart, or it will sink.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 07:59 PM

",,,could it be that that there is some force behind the argument"
Not really.

"it’s not just creationists that have a ‘belief system ‘ : even evolutionists themselves have admitted as much . "

Whatever 'some' may have said, they certainly didn't mean what YOU do... IF they actually said 'belief'. All decent scientists 'believe' that the scientific method is the best approach, but that is not nearly the same as 'believing' that they thereby have some sort of eternal truth as you seem to do about yours. I don't know where YOU picked up the term "consensus science", but no scientist would use it.

You might read this article about it. It pretty well shows that 'consensus' is way different that what you'd like it to mean.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 07:18 PM

“...anything but respectful...” so is the estimation of one who religiously holds to evolutionism.          Bill , if I seem to be using my arguments like a bludgeon, could it be that that there is some force behind the argument . I agree that evidence is more reasonable a term to use , but we all have the same evidence , but interpret it differently “...rejecting a pretty clear set of data ...’    it’s begging the question who is rejecting clear data .....             and it’s not just creationists that have a ‘belief system ‘ : even evolutionists themselves have admitted as much .    “98+%’....”. I’m pretty sure they said the same to all those in the past that were later deemed right after all , and the fact that evolutionists have to appeal to the unscientific idea of consensus science , rather than evidence their belief ,speaks volumes .   Consensus ‘science’ “is not going to wash” !

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 06:14 PM

I don't mind debating with people who disagree with me, Bill. Can't recall specific examples now but you and I have occasionally been at loggerheads. I like to think it's been more a question of perspective and approach than of "stance"...

But it's always the same old stuff with our mutual friend. He posts and I (and you) respond to the same points I've (we've) responded to dozens of times before, often with the most cogent arguments I (we) can muster, which is highly respectful. But, dammit, there's a limit. And here he is again, being anything but respectful. But we had a lovely sunset this evening and I've stocked up on well-priced red wine for Christmas...

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 05:38 PM

Pete.. you use your personal concept of the notion of 'proof' like a bludgeon. The way you use it, almost nothing beyond pure mathematics can be definitely 'proven'.

   Various sorts of data gathered by science are evidence in a never ending search for better understanding. Rejecting a pretty clear set of data that conflict with your belief system because they don't adhere to your narrow idea of proof is just that... narrow and personal.
   I don't know any other way to say it. Steve is pretty blunt... but his basic understanding of science is the same as mine... and of 98+% of all scientists.
Believe what you wish, but coming up with rhetorical ways to refute science is not going to wash.

   **Further, deponent sayeth not**

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 04:02 PM

I have neither "evolutionary beliefs" nor am I remotely interested in "provable facts." The fact that you incessantly repeat these things in spite of my constantly contradicting you marks you out as as vexatious troll.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 19 - 03:19 PM

I’m not sure that Donuel claimed that scientists arrive at “provable facts” : it looked a bit ambiguous to me . Of course , if he really did mean that, it seems we agree to some measure on that , but then it just goes to show Steve , that your evolutionary beliefs are not “provable facts “ either !!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Dec 19 - 08:16 AM

Steve, you are right.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 09:02 PM

But enough about me, other than cooking and eating and its aftermath, what about you and your endeavors.

(The rest of my bio is in the UFO measurements thread)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 08:52 PM

Correction: I did try 20 years of (self indulgent) cartooning with mixed results. People like serious silly villain characters like you stiff upper lipped staunch English twits. John Cleese made a career of it.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 08:25 PM

You're a bloody comedian, that much is true.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 08:10 PM

Of course I am no scientist. I have never claimed such a thing.
However it is possible for a non scientist to make contributions.

The King's speech therapist comes to mind. No credentials.

wysiwyg

Do you know how many Phd's Tesla had?

We probably have the same number Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 07:30 PM

No scientist is interested in "provable facts." Your remark confirms once and for all that you are neither a scientist, nor do you know what science is.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 06:59 PM

I don't need a foil but it is fun/entertaining to have a comedic feud and still tell the truth. Things can be learned. Now back to the feud

I'm good at curious speculation. Scientists must have enormous patience to plod through years of crunching numbers to arrive at a provable fact. While I admire that perseverence I can not begin to imagine I could ever be that focused. Life is too short and I am not suited for such a long and winding road. Languages and proper names escape my memory but for some reason geometry just comes to me. I'm like a playful otter and Steve is a perplexed pedigreed poodle.
I often say I can not imagine a fully activated and talented person but I expect they exist. Perhaps it is Steve. In which case I would be dissappointed.

Live briefly and go bankrupt

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 06:47 PM

That clinches it: you are an idiot. Goodnight.

(I wonder whether I might get a PM from a mod telling me to treat you gently, that you have issues, that I shouldn't upset you, just in case...)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 05:35 PM

The old ploy of trying to get theads closed is old fashioned and out of place when Steve rails at me. I rather enjoy the frustration of a staunch control freak grade school teacher having a tantrum. I see it as deserved pay back for the psychological torture some of your students had to endure. I am not sure they are better people ego-wise for the experience but I hope so. You never speak more truth than your communications with me. :^?

But surely I jest.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 05:31 PM

My excuse is that my IQ was measured at 178 and that I know that the measure is complete bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 05:25 PM

That posts for you Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 05:23 PM

No one is ever as smart or clever as they would like to think. I know I am below 100IQ but I keep tryin, whats your excuse?
Live briefly and go bankrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 04:33 PM

My "confusion" is as nothing alongside yours, you patronising git. You are the most confused and uncommunicative person around here by a country mile, one who routinely tries to bullshit us with the latest bit of some complicated book or other you've recently managed to half-digest, bullshit ill-concealed in your cod-obscurantism. You would do really well to resolve never to mention me by name in your posts. I may have suggested that before. Cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 19 - 07:27 AM

Here is the Creationist Museum with anamatronic evolutionary BS

Truth often looks like sarcasm but since I do both I understand your confuson Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 04:01 PM

Actually, "we demonstrate" doesn't chime with me either. I remember my first year at university being severely told off for heading a write-up "Experiment to demonstrate..." Science isn't about demonstrating: it's about investigating then communicating your findings.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 03:50 PM

Well yes on the whole, but I don't require evidence to "believe," thanks. I require evidence to assess and come to a judgement. I don't need any evidence at all to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Dec 19 - 12:03 PM

Sigh. Faith is belief *without* evidence. Atheists and other skeptics require evidence to believe.

And no scientist says Prove. We demonstrate.

Also if you say We evolved from X and we have consciousness therefore X had consciousness, you understand neither evolution nor consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:23 PM

" But , back to evolution, whatever has been concluded from anything from the far past, not observed, and recorded, carries with it the the bias , and conditioning of the researcher,..."

*grin* like ancient parchment scrolls? Were they really 'recorded'..or just re-told until they were accepted? *shrug*
   No one doubts that they were physically written down by men.. and the same stories were told differently by different men. We have only their crumbling documents to assure us that the stories were given to some by some spiritual being in some metaphysical way. There is certainly no way to 'test' that!
   Science at least is willing to adjust its findings when new data is discovered. I don't think the religious tenets of any belief system... Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist..etc. are often updated. The Catholic Pope in the 2nd Vatican Council was given the right to rule **Infallibly** on matters of faith & morals... and that has been an awkward and argued thing ever since. Several Muslim groups are seriously at odds over who the rightful successor to Muhammad was. A couple of Buddhist groups differ markedly on basic doctrines. And Christians even argue about which Books of the Bible were left out and how they were chosen by King James' preferred scholars.
I just shrug and try to keep up with the various sciences.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:05 PM

Obscurantist tripe from Donuel, as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:25 PM

"No one expected the Scopes Trial inquisition in 2019"
But there is still a buck to be made at Creationist museums as animatronic pet dinosaurs are petted by cavemen around the campfire.
"Sit Dino sit"

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 03:30 PM

He likes being outnumbered, Bill (x2) in a perverse "last man valiantly standing" role. What he lacks in that role is a sword of truth to wave.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 03:11 PM

While it is true that any experiment done in the present is then immediately in the past , that is not the point is it . The experiments done in the present , and even in the recent past, are observed , verified, and recorded. Granted, there have been frauds, and many ‘peer review’ have initially slipped through the net, and been passed. Who knows how many have not been uncovered . But , back to evolution, whatever has been concluded from anything from the far past, not observed, and recorded, carries with it the the bias , and conditioning of the researcher, which often a priori excludes other explanations                “Science can do radio carbon ...”      indeed it can , but only by making assumptions about past conditions do they arrive at whatever date , and if they don’t like the date , they reject it and try another method , and if they can’t get the result they want , they can put it down to the continuous development of science

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mossback
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 01:05 PM

Steve:

You do realize you'd have better luck "debating" a Scientologist, a Holocaust denier, or even a Trumpist.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 11:50 AM

Pete.. "experiments ON the past" is not a fair way to characterize what scientists do. In one sense, any experiment done today IS on the status of some material as it 'was'... even if that's only minutes, hours or days ago.
When bones are found..or even buried carcasses of Wooly Mammoths...or Otze the Ice Man.., science can do radio-carbon dating and determine approximate age. That, in one clear sense, is an experiment on the past.
   I know you have objected to that sort of science because you 'believe' that dates over 8000 years or so are precluded by religious texts... but we will of course differ on that. Scientists WILL continue to refine techniques and measure "the evidence from the past". Some aspects of *now* don't make sense without it.

(good cop, Steve?. Just a quick reminder to Pete that he is outnumbered... which he already knows.)

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 11:14 AM

Ooh it's a music thread now!

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:05 AM

Some will rob you with a six-gun
And some with a fountain pen

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 07:00 AM

At least he uses a pen/keyboard while you use a club.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:59 AM

I've never had an issue with people who follow their own private paths through life as long as they don't use it as a stick to control others with (children in particular). I do have a big issue with people who come on to this discussion forum propagating ignorant and unscientific nonsense. Pete gets his wisdom from creationist websites and he hasn't got even the faintest clue as to what evolution is, let alone evolutionary theory. Do try to be clear-sighted enough to realise that. He's a propaganda mouthpiece, naive in that shall we be kind enough say, for some very nasty, very controlling people.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 19 - 05:48 AM

You're kidding? Have you lost your memory?
It would be callous to bring up the glorius tragic anguish which was soothed by faith and guided all concerned. Let it be said folks chose the best path for them and remained faithful in the midst of a momumental challenge and gift. Real human events rise above arguments that are pithy in comparison. The freedom to choose your own medicine is a key to a pursuit of happiness. If a person wielded their truth/lie like a club you should probably arm yourself but I don't see that happening.
If you still do not understand Steve, let it be.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 08:31 PM

What are you talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 08:24 PM

Knowing why there was such a 7*'s post, contains more wisdom than having a atheist diatribe by Steve who I mentioned in jest.
aside
Today I learned about Steve stars

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 06:56 PM

I have no interest in wresting anyone's beliefs away. I don't mind challenging them of course. The anti-evolution post just before this one is such garbled, ignorant nonsense that I'm amazed that its perpetrator could be so daft as to want to expose his idiocy by posting it. Now it's time for you to do your good cop bit, Bill... ;-)

I was at the house of some good friends today. They have one of those beautiful potted orchids that have become very popular. What a lovely, beautiful, intricate, delicate thing, came the remark (they're fine Christian people). Sez I, it is. A tiny part of the beauty, complexity and diversity of life on Earth. But, sez I, adding a slightly less romantic though pertinent note, just like us that orchid flower is the fruit of four billion years of evolution*, a process that progresses in tiny juddering steps. I think that anti-evolutionists have real difficulty in getting their heads round that terrifying time span. Well I know they have. They appear, some of them, to have invented 4004 BC...


*With a bit of artificial selection tweaking, of course...
.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:43 PM

However we can take future observations and extrapolate. That is much the same as using past indicators to see the present changes.

I don't know anyone here who wants to wrest your beliefs away. Well I know Steve a little. I prefer addition of knowledge over subtraction.
At least for a short while.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:19 PM

I agree Bill , that absolute proof is not scientific language , it’s just that certain atheists speak as though it is when it comes to the ‘fact’ of evolution. Seems to me Bill , that you come close to it in your affirmation of evolutionism .                I rather suspect that we will differ on what constitutes the scientific method relating to evolution . I would say that you cannot do experiments on the past and make repeatable observations , and so the evolutionist has to extrapolate from what is observable       “Details change “ I would say that was an understatement , and ask why something that has to undergo so many changes and retractions can be thought of being so tried and true !                                  But I appreciate your civil discussion Bill

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 19 - 04:08 PM

“Another key piece of evidence is the cosmic microwave background ..”    what do you make of the horizon problem Donuel ?

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 19 - 01:47 PM

Einstein had a hard time comparing or contrasting anything to an immense black hole until Hiesenberg suggested a small white penis.

Hipparchus, Copernicus, and Galeleo walk into a bar and meet Newton Herchel, Maxwell, Kepler and Einstein when Maxwell chides "you guys were suppose to be here first, you're late.
Einstein tells Maxwell, not if time stopped sufficiently for you late newcomers Max.

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 19 - 11:18 AM

Dead stars are exploding all around the universe and we aren’t really sure why – but now a pair of researchers think that minuscule black holes made from dark matter might be to blame.

Burnt out stars known as white dwarfs can ignite into a type Ia supernova when they gather matter from a neighbouring star or merge with other astronomical objects. Exactly how this works is still open to interpretation. “The dirty secret of supernovae is that in the computer models, we can’t ever actually get them to do the dark matter bomb.

For something as ubiquitous and non interactive as dark matter, maybe they have different properties under an immense gravitational crush. The earliest black holes are thought to be all dark matter.
BOOM --> go directly to black hole. do not pass GO



https://www.newscientist.com/article/2226326-black-holes-formed-from-dark-matter-could-be-making-dead-stars-explode/#ixzz67LL6e7E7

Subject: RE: BS: in the beginning and now
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 19 - 05:22 PM

The word WHY did it for me.