Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Dave" <horndw@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Varvarians, shale on you!!! (was Re: Questions for Young Earth Creationists)
Date: 8 Aug 2005 18:59:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 98
Sender: news@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1123552779.967726.201280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <SAbIe.104797$%K2.87026@pd7tw1no> <1123199213.535199.106120@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <dcv6md$nu9$0@pita.alt.net> <s4JIe.119960$%K2.45229@pd7tw1no> <1123246059.815681.309470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <akJIe.120050$%K2.50321@pd7tw1no> <dd22es$of6$0@pita.alt.net> <slrndfb4bu.6hq.mightymartianca@nobody.here> <dd5sbt$l9j$0@pita.alt.net> <1123466715.172507.48520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <dd79sp$cen$0@pita.alt.net> <1123495368.096515.228340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1123540965.975613.212170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1123552203 97813 128.100.83.246 (9 Aug 2005 01:50:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 01:50:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.181.197.86
In-Reply-To: <1123540965.975613.212170@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=70.181.197.86;posting-account=nEn-Wg0AAAC1L2Nj59OUQoR_OBjqwx0s
X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender autoqualified);processed by UCSD_GL-v2.1 on mailbox8.ucsd.edu;
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-Spamscanner: mailbox8.ucsd.edu (v1.6 Aug 4 2005 15:27:38, -2.4/5.0 3.0.4)
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 23201 j791xmPK033338 mailbox8.ucsd.edu)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darwin.ediacara.org id j791nsuP097736
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:4107
Uncle Davey wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > news:1123466715.172507.48520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Uncle Davey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Snip
> > > >
> > > > > Some aspects of YEC are true and some parts of Gosse are
> > > > > true, in my view.
> > > >
> > > > Which "aspects" are objectively, scientifically, or
> > > > empirically true? Be ready to cite evidence.
> > >
> > > I said they were true in my view.
> >
> > So why are they "true" in your view?
>
> Because they make sense to me, they hold together like a jigsaw,
> for me.
Yes, you've said that. You're a broken record, in that way. But when
will you be ready to cite specifics and, as I said above, evidence?
> > > In my view, things don't need to be empirically proven to
> > > be true...
> >
> > Or even empirically supported?
>
> No. Not even that.
So, basically, anyone can come along and declare something "true" and
fervently believe it (there's the "blind faith" part), and it's true,
even if it can be empirically shown to be false? There is no evidence
that the Earth is as young as claimed by YECs, with whom you
sympathize, at least to some level, and yet you adhere to that
out-moded and even false idea. What good is faith in a false thing?
Yes, I know that's loaded. Answer it in general.
> > > ...in fact the opposite is sometimes the case - things which
> > > appear to be empirically proven are only so in the context of
> > > the giant circular argument that is secular and evolutionary
> > > thinking.
> >
> > Give a specific example.
>
> The way dating by carbon 14 and other dating methods corroborates
> other things that corroborate it, for instance, and all just to
> give us a long time so that evolution could have taken place.
Since you cited C-14, specifically, you are aware, of course, that it
has a rather low-end upper limit, right?
The verification methods used for some dating methods are not circular.
One does not say anything like "the C-14 age is 40,000 years because
the C-14 says so." *That*'s circular. Instead, another method is used
for verification and corroboration. In science, one frequently uses
corroborating data to confirm other data that may be gathered by
different means. Since you didn't use a specific example, even though
I asked for one, that's the best response I can give at the moment.
I'm not going to *assume* your arguments, particularly in these
situations. I'll need a *more* specific example.
> > > > Snip
> > > >
> > > > > I have not however seen a convincing disproving of either
> > > > > the Gosseist or the modern YEC position.
> > > >
> > > > What hasn't been effectively, scientifically, objectively, or
> > > > scientifically disproven as much as science can do that?
> > >
> > > We're having a separate discussion about that, and I'm still
> > > waiting for your first response.
> >
> > Actually, you're not. You've seen the summary, first-impression
> > list of responses. It's not a separate discussion--it's very much
> > a part of this discussion, and this discussion is very much a part
> > of it.
>
> That hasn't been here, though, has it?
You made quite a bit of noise about how you will move it or respond
anywhere you wish, since I allegedly "moved" it, which I didn't do, and
I told you that I didn't care what you did. Respond anywhere.
> That has only been posted to maleboge.org, where it isn't even on topic.
In fact, it *is* on-topic. I told you that. You don't get to decide,
the moderators decide. Get over yourself.
Snip whining and attempt at diversion.
Snip rest
|
|