Denying Facts

[chair]

I didn't expect this thread to generate its own proof. But it did.

 

[ok doser]

I didn't expect this thread to generate its own proof. But it did.

The good ones usually do :thumb:

 

[Right Divider]

Are you suggesting there are no problems and assumptions in the young earth model?

Of course not.

The second sentence needs no comment.

You're speechless... that's good.

 

[Right Divider]

It doesn't need helping.

Keep your head in the sand.

No, you don't otherwise you wouldn't have come up out with so much ignorance about it on here.

Your uninformed opinions mean nothing to me.

Then add one then.

I already have... you just completely ignored it. That seems to be your MO.

It's not a belief system, it's science.

It's a belief system that hides behind psuedo-science.

Uh, the way it's worded RD. :AMR:

Once AGAIN... SHOW IT.... don't just give your meaningless opinions.

No, you believe whatever supports your belief in a young earth. That you didn't understand it is not surprising considering you're ignorant of how the scientific method itself actually works.

Repeated nonsensical opinions.... deal with facts.

No, you don't else you wouldn't have been so ignorant of how it works on here. I've read up on plenty thanks and where it comes to "worship" then that's more apt to you and how you'll lap anything up that supports your creationist belief. That is not science.

Run and hide... it's all that you do.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Keep your head in the sand.

And be where you're at? No thanks.

Your uninformed opinions mean nothing to me.

That would be your remit. You've shown an astounding ignorance as to how the peer review process actually works and made some bonkers claim that an established theory somehow disobeys its own laws...:dizzy:

I already have... you just completely ignored it. That seems to be your MO.

You've wrote a paper? Do share it then.

It's a belief system that hides behind psuedo-science.

You realize you've just described creationism, right?

Once AGAIN... SHOW IT.... don't just give your meaningless opinions.

Read it. You ever studied English at school, literature, poetry? If you can't see any allegory in Genesis then it's utterly bizarre how you can't but then, that's what some rigid belief systems do unfortunately.

Repeated nonsensical opinions.... deal with facts.

They're not ridiculous as you've displayed a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific method works on here. You don't deal in facts as was more than evidenced with Alate's thread. You had no counter after lengthy explanations were provided for questions you asked.

Run and hide... it's all that you do.

The irony...

 

[Right Divider]

And be where you're at? No thanks.

How old are you?

That would be your remit. You've shown an astounding ignorance as to how the peer review process actually works and made some bonkers claim that an established theory somehow disobeys its own laws...:dizzy:

You seem to think that a successful peer review among those who predominately favor an old universe somehow turns vague models into irrefutable facts. Fascinating.

You think that the evolutionary "theory" has laws? Wowsers. NEWS FLASH... physics is NOT the result of evolutionary theories.

The MODELS for the evolutionary theory of origins have many problems and you are blind to them ALL. Talk about :dizzy: and :juggle:.

You've wrote a paper? Do share it then.

How old are you? You asked for a problem... I gave you one... you've completely ignored it.

You realize you've just described creationism, right?

Nope.

Read it. You ever studied English at school, literature, poetry? If you can't see any allegory in Genesis then it's utterly bizarre how you can't but then, that's what some rigid belief systems do unfortunately.

I have read it.... it's not poetry in any way. Please quit avoiding your duty to demonstrate your claim. Continuously repeating your claim does not count as supporting your claim with an argument.

They're not ridiculous as you've displayed a complete lack of understanding of how the scientific method works on here. You don't deal in facts as was more than evidenced with Alate's thread. You had no counter after lengthy explanations were provided for questions you asked.

Repeating yourself for your own benefit... Address the science and the problems with the models.

 

[Arthur Brain]

How old are you?

Older than you, that's for sure, or at least I would hope so. "LOL".

You seem to think that a successful peer review among those who predominately favor an old universe somehow turns vague models into irrefutable facts. Fascinating.

And once again with the ignorance where it comes to peer review. How do you manage to continue to be so wilfully ignorant?

You think that the evolutionary "theory" has laws? Wowsers. NEWS FLASH... physics is NOT the result of evolutionary theories.

Um, never said that it was...:AMR:

The MODELS for the evolutionary theory of origins have many problems and you are blind to them ALL. Talk about :dizzy: and :juggle:.

Coming from someone who is so mind numbingly clueless about how the scientific process works, that is priceless. You think that science starts with a belief system and then uses pseudoscience to support it? That's creationism all ends up. Actual science starts with evidence and then the explanations for it. No belief system, no philosophy...

How old are you? You asked for a problem... I gave you one... you've completely ignored it.

I'm 48, you? Where did I ask for a problem? You were talking about papers that have been written so I asked you to add one and you said that you did. So do share...

Nope.

Well, yes, you described to a tee how creationism works, you certainly didn't describe how the scientific method operates.

I have read it.... it's not poetry in any way. Please quit avoiding your duty to demonstrate your claim. Continuously repeating your claim does not count as supporting your claim with an argument.

Talking snakes? It's chock full of allegory and there's plenty of biblical, scholarly articles on this although it should be obvious to a layman. One that isn't beholden to a belief system at any rate.

Repeating yourself for your own benefit... Address the science and the problems with the models.

You don't even know how science works RD. It's astonishing on some level.

 

[Right Divider]

And once again with the ignorance where it comes to peer review. How do you manage to continue to be so wilfully ignorant?

I know how it works and I also understand its flaws. You seem to think that it's flawless.

Um, never said that it was...:AMR:

That would be your remit. You've shown an astounding ignorance as to how the peer review process actually works and made some bonkers claim that an established theory somehow disobeys its own laws...:dizzy:

What in the heck do you mean by that?

I never said anything that can even remotely be twisted to say that. Physics is empirical science and the evolutionary models have big problems with that.... Again, discuss the motions of the planets and how they could have "evolved" that way.

Coming from someone who is so mind numbingly clueless about how the scientific process works, that is priceless. You think that science starts with a belief system and then uses pseudoscience to support it? That's creationism all ends up. Actual science starts with evidence and then the explanations for it. No belief system, no philosophy...

You can repeat that as much and you like. It does not change the fact that it's a lie. I understand science perfectly well. You believe in "models" with a sort of religious devotion.

You do (or at least should) understand that there is NOT a single model, but many completing models. All have their problems. That is why new ones are created that disagree with the ones before... "that's how science works".

I'm 48, you? Where did I ask for a problem? You were talking about papers that have been written so I asked you to add one and you said that you did. So do share...

If you cannot find problems with the existing models, it's because you don't want to.

I'm quite a bit older than you.

Well, yes, you described to a tee how creationism works, you certainly didn't describe how the scientific method operates.

ALL science... be it atheistic or theistic, has the same evidence. Both create a model based on that evidence. The fact that fits the evidence best is that the solar system did NOT evolve but was created.

Talking snakes? It's chock full of allegory and there's plenty of biblical, scholarly articles on this although it should be obvious to a layman. One that isn't beholden to a belief system at any rate.

The talking snake is NOT part of the CREATION narrative. You'll need to do A LOT better than that.

You don't even know how science works RD. It's astonishing on some level.

I do... you don't. Quit trying to impress us and get down to FACTS... like the motions of the planets and their compositions. Clearly... not evolved.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I know how it works and I also understand its flaws. You seem to think that it's flawless.

If you know how it works then why be so ignorant as to call it people with a "philosophy working together to confirm that philosophy"?

What in the heck do you mean by that?

I never said anything that can even remotely be twisted to say that. Physics is empirical science and the evolutionary models have big problems with that.... Again, discuss the motions of the planets and how they could have "evolved" that way.

You said the evolution of the solar system blatantly defies the laws of physics, despite the established understanding of the solar system and it's time frame being actual...physics.

You can repeat that as much and you like. It does not change the fact that it's a lie. I understand science perfectly well. You believe in "models" with a sort of religious devotion.

You don't if you can't understand that the scientific method starts with evidence, not any sort of belief, philosophy or bias.

You do (or at least should) understand that there is NOT a single model, but many completing models. All have their problems. That is why new ones are created that disagree with the ones before... "that's how science works".

There's none that undo an old universe and sure, some theories are modified when new evidence comes to light but there's no major "problem" that casts doubt on the universe being billions of years old.

If you cannot find problems with the existing models, it's because you don't want to.

It wouldn't bother me if the universe was just a few thousand years old or billions, it's really not that big a deal for me as I don't ascribe to a rigid belief system. There's nothing to suggest it isn't actually billions of years old just as there's nothing to suggest that the theory of evolution is "flawed" either.

I'm quite a bit older than you.

Really? You really should drop the "LOL" shtick then...

ALL science... be it atheistic or theistic, has the same evidence. Both create a model based on that evidence. The fact that fits the evidence best is that the solar system did NOT evolve but was created.

:doh:

There's no such thing as "atheistic" or "theistic" science. It's just science.

The talking snake is NOT part of the CREATION narrative. You'll need to do A LOT better than that.

No, RD, I don't. If you were a kid at school then I could understand how allegory wouldn't mean very much in terms of narrative and writing but if you're older than me then your school days ended a long time ago. It's obvious and there's plenty scholarly articles on the web that explain it if you're interested which I'm betting that you're not.

I do... you don't. Quit trying to impress us and get down to FACTS... like the motions of the planets and their compositions. Clearly... not evolved.

Then write a paper on it.

lain:

 

[Right Divider]

If you know how it works then why be so ignorant as to call it people with a "philosophy working together to confirm that philosophy"?

Evolutionists confirming evolution is nothing to brag about.

You said the evolution of the solar system blatantly defies the laws of physics, despite the established understanding of the solar system and it's time frame being actual...physics.

Deal with the facts. The planets to NOT rotate or orbit in a way that can be explained by any of the existing models without problems WITH THE PHYSICS. That is well known and documented by many scientists. Your continuing to ignore them won't change that.

Include with that the problem of the missing angular momentum of the sun.

You don't if you can't understand that the scientific method starts with evidence, not any sort of belief, philosophy or bias.

:french: Not evolutionary "science".

There's none that undo an old universe and sure, some theories are modified when new evidence comes to light but there's no major "problem" that casts doubt on the universe being billions of years old.

There are never doubts in the mind of a "true believer".

 

[Jonahdog]

Of course not.

What are some of the problems with the young earth model?
What are some of the assumptions the young earth model is based on?

 

[ok doser]

What are some of the problems with the young earth model?
What are some of the assumptions the young earth model is based on?

Those are actually good questions and if your irony meter is up to it, my intellectual curiosity is aroused.

 

[Right Divider]

What are some of the problems with the young earth model?

The young earth model has some of the same problems (though not nearly as many) as the old earth models.

Both cannot be determined using empirical science.

What are some of the assumptions the young earth model is based on?

Primarily the Bible.

One assumes the Bible is true... the other assumes the Bible is false.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Evolutionists confirming evolution is nothing to brag about.

Of course it isn't but then that's not what happened or happening. How do you suppose such theories come about to begin with? Through observation of the evidence. You claim to know how science works but continually show that you don't. If evolution didn't hold up to scrutiny then it would never have become such an established part of science, end of. Unless you're some sort of conspiracy nut who thinks that scientists around the globe have an agenda going on then acknowledge your mistake or continue in ignorance.

Deal with the facts. The planets to NOT rotate or orbit in a way that can be explained by any of the existing models without problems WITH THE PHYSICS. That is well known and documented by many scientists. Your continuing to ignore them won't change that.

What "facts" exactly and which scientists are claiming this? Are you a physicist? If you're just going to point to some creationist article then pass.

:french: Not evolutionary "science".

See above...:freak:

There are never doubts in the mind of a "true believer".

With you that's self evident, creationism has to be true no matter what is presented to you and hang actual science that obliterates it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The young earth model has some of the same problems (though not nearly as many) as the old earth models.

Both cannot be determined using empirical science.


Primarily the Bible.

One assumes the Bible is true... the other assumes the Bible is false.

No, science works without any sort of agenda or belief system, it's entirely neutral, solely concerned with evidence and the best explanations for the data and theories formulated around such. It neither assumes that the Bible is true or false and doesn't care about beliefs, philosophy or anything else. Yet another ignorant soundbite on your part.

 

[ok doser]

No, science works without any sort of agenda or belief system, it's entirely neutral, solely concerned with evidence and the best explanations for the data and theories formulated around such.

This is a sixth grade level of understanding

 

[7djengo7]

Not scientific evidence it doesn't. Heck, I've seen your "discussions" with Alate and after breaking things down into laymans terms you weren't interested in addressing her points but just dismissing her half the time.



No, they aren't themselves but a refusal to acknowledge them is always someone's prerogative I suppose...



Get real yourself. If you think established theory is defying the laws of physics then you show more ignorance of how the science process works. If it was so self evidently erroneous it would never have got off the ground because the evidence couldn't possibly support it and it would have been debunked at the time, let alone now.



Because it does and young earth creationism does not. Man living at the same time as dinosaurs?!

Pass.



Funny, you throw around the word fallacy a lot and then commit one of your own. Rejecting young earth creationism is not the same as rejecting the bible in any way, shape or form.

Real science certainly doesn't have a problem with God but then why would it? Sensible people don't have any problem with an old universe, evolution etc and many Christians are scientists.

Even when people have shown you the evidence you don't listen anyway because your belief in a young earth is that entrenched it's pointless. Alate one got tired in the end and I don't blame her.

LOL

Arthur Brain keeps farting this same fart of his, over and over and over....

 

[7djengo7]

This is a sixth grade level of understanding

You're exceeding generous to characterize Arthur Brain as exhibiting understanding.

 

[7djengo7]

I didn't expect this thread to generate its own proof. But it did.

Why do you deny facts, hypocrite?

For instance, you deny the fact that the nonsense and falsehood you call "fact" is nonsense and falsehood, and not fact.

 

[Jonahdog]

Primarily the Bible.

One assumes the Bible is true...

Pretty big assumption. What is the basis for that assumption?