Key Assumption Made in Discovery of Dark Energy in Error

[Right Divider]

Oh, and then fundamentalist dogma negated all of that?

No, I just go with the facts now. The fundamentalist dogma was what they taught in school.

Oh, and yes, science teaches what you've described word for word...

No, it doesn't. But I understand that your religious dogma forces you to believe in fairy tales.

:freak:

:wave2:

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I just go with the facts now. The fundamentalist dogma was what they taught in school.


No, it doesn't. But I understand that your religious dogma forces you to believe in fairy tales.


:wave2:

No, you don't. If your belief is so contingent on a young earth etc etc then hey, good for you if it works.

You are in no position to talk about facts and the fairy tale aspect is rather ironic.

Believe what you will. Plenty of scientists believe in God as well.

 

[Right Divider]

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

If your belief is so contingent on a young earth etc etc then hey, good for you if it works.

If your belief is so contingent on rejecting God and relying on man-made fabrications etc etc, then hey, good for you if it works.

You are in no position to talk about facts and the fairy tale aspect is rather ironic.

You hate facts. That's why you would not discuss the facts of radiometric dating and that's why you repeatedly went back to how many people believe it or what great credentials many of those that believe it have.

Believe what you will. Plenty of scientists believe in God as well.

Back to fallacies about who believes what. You are consistent in your confusion.

 

[Gary K]

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.

If Alate One actually was a YEC at one time she should have stayed with her beliefs so she wouldn't have become just a one-winged whatever just fluttering around in the constant circles she made. She could have had two wings and actually flown as God designed. As for barbie? He was the constant source of logical fallacies.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If Alate One actually was a YEC at one time she should have stayed with her beliefs so she wouldn't have become just a one-winged whatever just fluttering around in the constant circles she made. She could have had two wings and actually flown as God designed. As for barbie? He was the constant source of logical fallacies.

She was true to her beliefs which is why she didn't remain one. "Fluttering around"? Uh huh, she schooled people in science as did Barb.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, I do.


If your belief is so contingent on rejecting God and relying on man-made fabrications etc etc, then hey, good for you if it works.


You hate facts. That's why you would not discuss the facts of radiometric dating and that's why you repeatedly went back to how many people believe it or what great credentials many of those that believe it have.


Back to fallacies about who believes what. You are consistent in your confusion.

Rejecting man made dogma aka fundamentalism is neither confused or rejecting God. Nor is it "hating facts". Plenty of people free of the shackles of such have no problem with science and faith.

 

[Right Divider]

Rejecting man made dogma aka fundamentalism is neither confused or rejecting God. Nor is it "hating facts". Plenty of people free of the shackles of such have no problem with science and faith.

Always the false accusations and false dichotomies.

And, ONCE AGAIN, you conflate what some people believe with truth.

I have no problem with science and faith. I have issue with fake science. The kind of fake science that relies on an atheistic, materialistic world view.

If you didn't hate facts, you might actually discuss some of them.... like the fact that radiometric dating is a farce.

 

[JudgeRightly]

She was true to her beliefs

But not to the truth.

And so, because man is inherently wicked, by holding to her beliefs, which can change, whereas what God says has not changed, she allowed herself to be convinced by falsehoods, that inherently claim that what God said is not truth.

 

[7djengo7]

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.

You're doing it again. You're repeatedly asserting that the nonsense and falsehood you promulgate as Darwin cheerleaders is evidence (despite the fact that it is not), just like you assert that your old-earth falsehood, and the nonsense you call "evolution", is truth (despite the fact that it is not). All assertion from you and your fellow Darwin cheerleaders, yet zero evidence from you.

Whenever you assert, as you're doing here, that something is evidence for your nonsense and falsehood, do you really expect others to just take your (Darwin cheerleaders') word for it? Why would you really expect us to take your word for it, despite the fact that we know that your word for it is false?

​

​

 

[Arthur Brain]

But not to the truth.

And so, because man is inherently wicked, by holding to her beliefs, which can change, whereas what God says has not changed, she allowed herself to be convinced by falsehoods, that inherently claim that what God said is not truth.

Of course it was to the truth. Fundamentalism is not the same thing and that's all you're really promoting here as are others where it comes to such rigid dogmatic belief systems regarding the age of the earth etc. Alate had the courage to face up to what the evidence actually presented and thankfully freed herself of the shackles of such belief systems and could reconcile her faith with science. If you insist that the Bibles account of creation can only be read as literal verbatim then that's your prerogative, just as it for others to dismiss such and see the obvious allegory going on in a book that would hardly have gone into scientific detail that would go over most people's heads now, let alone in the bronze age.

Alate is a professor of biology, she knows more about science than most of the regular contributors here and has had the utmost patience in explaining things from the more complex into laymans terms and has often been met with juvenile "responses" for her efforts. She had the courage to question her beliefs and not hide away from challenges to them. Her faith has hardly weakened but strengthened as a result. I wonder if you've ever really challenged your own?

 

[ok doser]

As for barbie? He was the constant source of logical fallacies.

barbie was a troll, nothing more

 

[Right Divider]

Of course it was to the truth. Fundamentalism is not the same thing and that's all you're really promoting here as are others where it comes to such rigid dogmatic belief systems regarding the age of the earth etc. Alate had the courage to face up to what the evidence actually presented and thankfully freed herself of the shackles of such belief systems and could reconcile her faith with science. If you insist that the Bibles account of creation can only be read as literal verbatim then that's your prerogative, just as it for others to dismiss such and see the obvious allegory going on in a book that would hardly have gone into scientific detail that would go over most people's heads now, let alone in the bronze age.

Alate is a professor of biology, she knows more about science than most of the regular contributors here and has had the utmost patience in explaining things from the more complex into laymans terms and has often been met with juvenile "responses" for her efforts. She had the courage to question her beliefs and not hide away from challenges to them. Her faith has hardly weakened but strengthened as a result. I wonder if you've ever really challenged your own?

Still pushing the credentials instead of the facts. Care to actually discuss the FACTS of radiometric dating? I didn't think so.

 

[User Name]

Still pushing the credentials instead of the facts. Care to actually discuss the FACTS of radiometric dating? I didn't think so.

I'm pretty sure that the experts understand the FACTS of radiometric dating a little bit better than you do.

 

[Right Divider]

I'm pretty sure that the experts understand the FACTS of radiometric dating a little bit better than you do.

ONCE AGAIN the fallacious reasoning. It's called an appeal to authority and it's ALL that some of you use.

Radiometric dating is based on a NUMBER of ASSUMPTIONS.

DISCUSS the FACTS and NOT someones credentials.

 

[User Name]

ONCE AGAIN the fallacious reasoning. It's called an appeal to authority and it's ALL that some of you use.

If I'm having issues with my teeth, I will consult a dental expert, not a plumber. If I'm having legal problems, I will consult a lawyer, not a plumber. Same logic applies here.

 

[User Name]

I will also say that you can plausibly challenge the consensus of experts on a particular topic by becoming an expert on that particular topic yourself and then putting forth a convincing argument based upon corresponding evidence derived from experimentation and observation. Until then, you are just another random guy with an opinion who is throwing in your 2 cents worth.

You and I can have fun debating these topics amongst ourselves, but ultimately we are just pretending like we know what we're talking about when we actually don't.

 

[Right Divider]

If I'm having issues with my teeth, I will consult a dental expert, not a plumber. If I'm having legal problems, I will consult a lawyer, not a plumber. Same logic applies here.

You'd like to think that you're making a good analogy, but you're not.

Dentists, plumbers and lawyers to not rely on a philosophical paradigm to get their work done.

 

[Right Divider]

I will also say that you can plausibly challenge the consensus of experts on a particular topic by becoming an expert on that particular topic yourself and then putting forth a convincing argument based upon corresponding evidence derived from experimentation and observation. Until then, you are just another random guy with an opinion who is throwing in your 2 cents worth.

You and I can have fun debating these topics amongst ourselves, but ultimately we are just pretending like we know what we're talking about when we actually don't.

You just cannot understand that "the consensus of experts" does NOT determine what is true.

You continue time and time again to use FALLACIOUS reasoning.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Still pushing the credentials instead of the facts. Care to actually discuss the FACTS of radiometric dating? I didn't think so.

Alate One went to efforts to explain the evidence in detail and break it down for you only to be met with the usual "response" as the above.

 

[User Name]

You just cannot understand that "the consensus of experts" does NOT determine what is true.

You continue time and time again to use FALLACIOUS reasoning.

Of course "the consensus of experts," in and of itself, does not determine what is true. But it takes an expert to come forward with substantial evidence that can overturn a consensus. Einstein himself was an outsider who overturned the consensus of the physics experts of his day.