Key Assumption Made in Discovery of Dark Energy in Error

[Arthur Brain]

I'm open to any facts. If you'd like to discuss some facts, please do.

P.S. You never did attempt to discuss the facts of radiometric dating. You always took the 'discussion' back to consensus.

Well, no, you aren't. You've admitted that you're not open to anything that contravenes a young earth etc because as far as you're concerned it can't be any older than a certain amount of years because of how you interpret a Biblical account. You've described anything that opposes such a view as "foolishness" in your own terms because of that, despite the actual fact that science the world over has no truck with it and including many Christians who aren't bound by such rigid doctrinal limitations.

Where it comes to consensus and theories in science then you can't play ignorant as to either anymore. They don't just come about on a whim.

 

[Clete]

Well, no, you aren't. You've admitted that you're not open to anything that contravenes a young earth etc because as far as you're concerned it can't be any older than a certain amount of years because of how you interpret a Biblical account. You've described anything that opposes such a view as "foolishness" in your own terms because of that, despite the actual fact that science the world over has no truck with it and including many Christians who aren't bound by such rigid doctrinal limitations.

Where it comes to consensus and theories in science then you can't play ignorant as to either anymore. They don't just come about on a whim.

Are you really this thick?

How can anyone not be open to facts? A fact is a fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation or application of some fact or set of facts, doesn't mean that they aren't open to the facts themselves.

His point. as well you know, was basically to challenge you to present any facts that you think contradicts the idea that the Earth is young. Based on what you've said in this ridiculous post, my bet is that you don't know any such facts.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, no, you aren't.

Well, yes, I am.

You've admitted that you're not open to anything that contravenes a young earth etc because as far as you're concerned it can't be any older than a certain amount of years because of how you interpret a Biblical account.

I've never said any such thing.

You've described anything that opposes such a view as "foolishness" in your own terms because of that, despite the actual fact that science the world over has no truck with it and including many Christians who aren't bound by such rigid doctrinal limitations.

I've never said any such thing.

Where it comes to consensus and theories in science then you can't play ignorant as to either anymore. They don't just come about on a whim.

The "consensus" is OFTEN wrong... whim or not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Are you really this thick?

How can anyone not be open to facts? A fact is a fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation or application of some fact or set of facts, doesn't mean that they aren't open to the facts themselves.

His point. as well you know, was basically to challenge you to present any facts that you think contradicts the idea that the Earth is young. Based on what you've said in this ridiculous post, my bet is that you don't know any such facts.

I'm open to facts for certain so your little ad homs don't do you any favours. The fact of the matter is that the evidence does not tie in with fundamentalism and so what? Science doesn't care about what you believe or insist upon and nor should it. If you knew anything about how actual scientific methods work and how theories come about then you'd know fine well why there's a global consensus on matters such as evolution, old earth/universe etc.

If your belief is contingent on the earth being young then that's up to you. It doesn't for many Christians or people unfettered by a dogmatic belief system.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, yes, I am.


I've never said any such thing.


I've never said any such thing.


The "consensus" is OFTEN wrong... whim or not.

Well if you're open to the earth being old then good for you then. Might want to quit talking about "facts" that are just part of your belief system and "foolishness" in relation to science though.

 

[Clete]

I'm open to facts for certain so your little ad homs don't do you any favours. The fact of the matter is that the evidence does not tie in with fundamentalism and so what? Science doesn't care about what you believe or insist upon and nor should it. If you knew anything about how actual scientific methods work and how theories come about then you'd know fine well why there's a global consensus on matters such as evolution, old earth/universe etc.

If your belief is contingent on the earth being young then that's up to you. It doesn't for many Christians or people unfettered by a dogmatic belief system.

My belief doesn't alter facts, moron! I cannot believe that you aren't capable of following the point here.

You claiming that "the evidence does not tie in with fundamentalism" doesn't make it so! You are completely incapable of presenting one single fact that disputes it. That's not to say that there aren't facts that might present a challenge to explain but there is simply nothing that requires a millions of years old Earth.

 

[Arthur Brain]

My belief doesn't alter facts, moron! I cannot believe that you aren't capable of following the point here.

You claiming that "the evidence does not tie in with fundamentalism" doesn't make it so! You are completely incapable of presenting one single fact that disputes it. That's not to say that there aren't facts that might present a challenge to explain but there is simply nothing that requires a millions of years old Earth.

Of course it doesn't and the fact that science undermines fundamentalist dogma is a given, unless you're a conspiracy nut or the like. The evidence supports an old earth/universe/evolution etc. That's not to say that there isn't a creator, just not one that has to be constrained by certain belief systems.

I won't return the juvenile insults in kind.

:e4e:

 

[7djengo7]

Of course it doesn't and the fact that science undermines fundamentalist dogma is a given, unless you're a conspiracy nut or the like. The evidence supports an old earth/universe/evolution etc. That's not to say that there isn't a creator, just not one that has to be constrained by certain belief systems.

I won't return the juvenile insults in kind.

:e4e:

It's interesting how terrified are you, and your fellow TOL Darwin cheerleaders (like Stuu), of trying to engage any of the questions I've asked y'all concerning the nature of evidence. Whenever you call something "the evidence", you mean absolutely nothing more than, "Boooooooooo! I really don't like what you say is the truth, so I will just sit here and keep booing it in as many different trite, meaningless verbal forms as I can parrot!"

Every time you say silly things like, "The evidence supports an old earth!", or, "The evidence supports evolution!", you're merely reasserting that old-earthism/Darwinism is true. You saying, "The evidence supports an old earth!", is just you chirping one of your conditioned verbal variants on "The earth is old!" What do you feel you get out of doing that?

 

[Right Divider]

Well if you're open to the earth being old then good for you then. Might want to quit talking about "facts" that are just part of your belief system and "foolishness" in relation to science though.

If you would like to discuss facts, let's do that.
If you want to continue to try and use consensus as your proof, that's not scientific facts.

 

[Clete]

Of course it doesn't and the fact that science undermines fundamentalist dogma is a given, unless you're a conspiracy nut or the like. The evidence supports an old earth/universe/evolution etc. That's not to say that there isn't a creator, just not one that has to be constrained by certain belief systems.

I won't return the juvenile insults in kind.

:e4e:

What evidence?

 

[Right Divider]

What evidence?

Consensus :french:

 

[ok doser]

... how actual scientific methods work ...

... how theories come about ...

... there's a global consensus ...

as a professional scientist, i'm always amused by this sort of sixth grade "thinking" :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's interesting how terrified are you, and your fellow TOL Darwin cheerleaders (like Stuu), of trying to engage any of the questions I've asked y'all concerning the nature of evidence. Whenever you call something "the evidence", you mean absolutely nothing more than, "Boooooooooo! I really don't like what you say is the truth, so I will just sit here and keep booing it in as many different trite, meaningless verbal forms as I can parrot!"

Every time you say silly things like, "The evidence supports an old earth!", or, "The evidence supports evolution!", you're merely reasserting that old-earthism/Darwinism is true. You saying, "The evidence supports an old earth!", is just you chirping one of your conditioned verbal variants on "The earth is old!" What do you feel you get out of doing that?

You've all had evidence provided for you and in detail all ends up. How Alate One and Barbarian had the patience to deal with many of you and go to such lengths to explain things is a credit to them, even if a thankless endeavour for those who are mired in a belief system who just won't listen anyway. If your belief is absolutely contingent on a young earth/global flood and whatever else then there's no shaking that type of mindset unless there's a change. Alate One was a YEC at one point by way of.

 

[ok doser]

You've all had evidence provided for you and in detail all ends up. How Alate One and Barbarian had the patience to deal with many of you and go to such lengths to explain things ...

in barbie's case it was trolling, plain and simple

in ala's case, I always suspected OCD

 

[Right Divider]

You've all had evidence provided for you and in detail all ends up. How Alate One and Barbarian had the patience to deal with many of you and go to such lengths to explain things is a credit to them, even if a thankless endeavour for those who are mired in a belief system who just won't listen anyway. If your belief is absolutely contingent on a young earth/global flood and whatever else then there's no shaking that type of mindset unless there's a change. Alate One was a YEC at one point by way of.

We were all old earth evolutionists too. But now we know better.

 

[Arthur Brain]

We were all old earth evolutionists too. But now we know better.

:AMR:

 

[Right Divider]

:AMR:

:banana:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:banana:

How were you an "old earth evolutionist" beforehand?

 

[Right Divider]

How were you an "old earth evolutionist" beforehand?

Because I once believed in "billions of years and that my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather might have been an 'ape-like creature'". That's what we were taught in our schools. We were just little kids, so we believed what we were told. We grew up and wised up.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Because I once believed in "billions of years and that my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather might have been an 'ape-like creature'". That's what were taught in our schools. We were just little kids, so we believed what we were told. We grew up and wised up.

Oh, and then fundamentalist dogma negated all of that? Oh, and yes, science teaches what you've described word for word...

:freak: