Can you make assumptions in science?

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks. None of your above has anything to do with science, though.

Neither do your pejorative replies. Again, pot-kettle. You're scoring well!

We're getting close to the last defence of the indefensible.

pot-kettle - Is that a hat-trick?

Is that anything to do with science?

Are any of your replies to me anything to do with science?
Your only response to me has ever been pejorative.

So.......

Pot-Kettle

Why should I respond to you with science. You never address it with science when I do?

But you define science in a way that precludes investigation. That means that any criticism of your ideology is ipso facto "unscientific".

As I said before: "science" is anything that agrees with your ideology. Nothing at all to do with observations of the World around us.

Once again you show the depth of your hypocrisy. For all but that last sentence, you are describing your own posts.
And that last sentence I have covered to a vacant response from you.

No they cant. but that is not what I have done, instead, once again, you are unaware that this is exactly what you are guilty of.

Like I have previously asked as have others, provide specific, science based evidence (which means papers published in recognised journals and peer reviewed). You appear not to be able to do this, plus you have now done exactly what I expected I.E. posted entire articles from creationist sites. This brings me to the understanding that you have run out of ideas and concepts that you understand and are relying entirely upon the work of individuals, to the extent that you are not even sure what they are talking about or if their work has been falsified. Trust me it has.

Unlike you, although my area of knowledge is scant in relation to geology I am going to use your post as an opportunity to learn and understand the actual science as best I can. I have already come across many articles which falsify the sites you posted, but I will not comment more until I have a better grasp.

You see David this is the major difference between you and I. You accuse me of serving a dogma, but this is not so. I look for evidence and more importantly I look for evidence that comes about via careful experiment, and observation of the natural world. Not only this but the evidence I seek must also be backed up by repeated observation by others checking and re-checking the data. Above all I am open to changing my mind, open to my understanding of things to be falsified. You on the other hand have just shown your hand by posting a link to a full page without bothering to explain the evidence in your own words and providing the link as evidence for your knowledge.

It is you David, not I, who is blinded by dogma.

That'd be fine, arty, except that your argument is circular. You're insisting that I only use material that you approve because it suits your case; the case that I am demonstrating to be an elaborate hoax sustained by censorship of any dissent, and a plethora of carefully selected lies and slogans relentlessly imposed as the "unassailable" Party Line. You are, again and still, defining science as only that which supports your ideology.

There is plenty of evidence of fraud masquerading as "science", and I have given plenty of practical examples of how and why the glib ideology you espouse is unscientific and impossible according to observable reality. Of course, that means that I am "insane" and must be "re-educated" in a Gulag psychiatric facility... the last defence of the indefensible.

Yes you have, except you do not realise that they are all own goals.

BTW now you see how easy it is to take an author out of context by only citing part of their message. This is something you and your fellow creationists do habitually to scientific papers. I will agree that the media also do this in support of their particular agenda, but this is not the case for the whole scientific community. For pities sake David do you really think a fraud such as you are suggesting could be maintained for over 150 years, across such a broad section of the scientific community, one that encompasses so many disciplines and possibly tens of millions of scientists.

More to the point, lets say such a fraud were possible, why would they do it?

That's a fair question, Arty, even though it's many faceted and convoluted. Let's start at the final cause;

The short answer... egomania. It is common for humans to desire autonomy... some reasonable, some unreasonable. Take the usual adolescent rebellion for example. "I want to be master of my own destiny" which is fair enough as long as the limits of what is within your control is recognised. A problem for parents of adolescents.

However, an extreme of egomania imagines that reality itself can be subjected to the whims of the ego if the perception of reality is altered to conform to the ego. Examples abound in "Eastern philosophies" and their translocation into "Western philosophy" by the likes of Rene Guenon and many of his fellow travellers.

Ah well! That's probably way more than you can tolerate for now.

money and fame.

I think you need to change your user name as it is somewhat fallacious. You actually believe that millions of scientists lie about evolution, biology, geology, physics etc for the sole purpose of money and fame. In your "sophisticated" thought bubble have you ever considered the money and fame that would accompany any person who could provide empirical evidence for YE Creation. They would in one stroke change all we hold true about the natural world and would have as a result extraordinary fame and if they managed it correctly, finances to match. And right here is the issue, the YEC fraternity has been trying for some 100 plus years to disprove all this but they cant, they cannot provide one piece of empirical evidence to support their views, so instead they use products (eg information tech) of the extraordinarily successful scientific method to claim its proponents are guilty of a centuries old fraud involving millions of people.

Has it ever occurred to you that believing the account of a collection of writings dating back millennia might not be the best way to learn about the natural world???

I didn't say every scientist is a liar but many of them are and they lie for the obvious reasons.

You can say the same about some religious leader, politicians and so on.

Ah! We could do with a bit of sophistication around here. Welcome, Sophisticated! Take up a cudgel and join the melee.

Don't be silly, Arty. One is much more likely to be put to death for exposing popular myths than to gain wealth and fame. Anyhow, we're not even talking about YEC... just about "assumptions in science". And in particular, the assumption that everything that didn't exist causes itself to become whatever it will be for no reason. How much fame and money will you lavish on me (or anyone else) for bringing down that giant wind-bag of a Sacred Cow?