Rediscovery of Technology

DDHv wrote:There are tons and tons of sediments. Look at the Grand Canyon. There is a disconformity at the top of the Muav Limestone, and Karst topography at the top of the Redwall. Also there is the modern erosion on top. But there are at least 14 uncomformities, and most of them don't show signs of above-water erosion. According to Wikipedia, six of them, using the usual circular fossil date reasoning show gaps of over 100 million years!

Your point being? The bible states, in no uncertain terms, that the last of these events was witnessed and survived by humans. That simply isn't true. The biblical chronology, which can be dated back with surprising accuracy by extrapolating from statements in the bible, says that Noah's flood happened somewhere between 4 and 5000 years ago. For that particular event, no corroborating evidence can be found (because it would require a massive die-off in animal and plant life followed by a degree of speciation not seen outside of lab-grown bacteria cultures). So, again, my point is that the biblical story of the flood is either allegorical, or an overblown representation of some actual historical event, or both. But it is NOT a good account of history.

More personally: My mother told me that when she got badly sick as a child, they couldn't get her to a doctor. The grandparents prayed for her to be healed, in the name of Jesus, and she got well. Tonsil removal when a young adult led to the surgeon commenting that he had never before seen tonsils with a scar tissue cross on each. Hearsay evidence.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Confirmation bias. A whole range of cognitive biases play into this. It is not proof of anything beyond the human mind's ability to make connections between distant causes and effects, and how it can mislead us.

Later, A job produced small nicks on each hand, two or three a week. This allowed an experiment. Picking a hand at random, I prayed in Jesus name for one hand, not the other. The hand prayed for healed faster. For you this is hearsay.

The placebo effect is real. The effect of prayer on healing is not (at least according to several studies to that effect).

The point is to look for solid data that contradicts our paradigms. The hardest part is knowing our assumptions. The next hardest is checking the solidity of the data since none of us has seen everything. We confuse theory and facts.

Your assumption is that god exists. This, just like 1+1=2, is an unproveable, axiomatic statement, and given that nothing in the physical world requires it to be true in order to explain something, it is basically a null statement. Its value in terms of scientific inquiry is null.

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever,
Unless you test your assumptions.

Have you absolutely, conclusively, reproducably proven that god exists? No? Well, guess we have a problem here.

The E wrote:Have you absolutely, conclusively, reproducably proven that god exists? No? Well, guess we have a problem here.

Have you absolutely, conclusively, reproducably proven that god doesn't exist? No? Well, guess we have a problem here.

The problem is that any being powerful enough to create the cosmos must therefore be powerful enough to arrange things so that there is no observable proof that he/she/it actually exists. Therefore, you can argue that the fact that there is no proof that God exists is in fact proof that God must exist!

Simple.

Michael Everett wrote:Have you absolutely, conclusively, reproducably proven that god doesn't exist? No? Well, guess we have a problem here.

As it is technically impossible to prove somethings non-existance, no not really.

Michael Everett wrote:The problem is that any being powerful enough to create the cosmos must therefore be powerful enough to arrange things so that there is no observable proof that he/she/it actually exists. Therefore, you can argue that the fact that there is no proof that God exists is in fact proof that God must exist!

Simple.

I´m sure the almighty flying spaghetti monster will be pleased to hear that you have proven its existance so faithfully.

Michael Everett wrote:

The E wrote:Have you absolutely, conclusively, reproducably proven that god exists? No? Well, guess we have a problem here.

Have you absolutely, conclusively, reproducably proven that god doesn't exist? No? Well, guess we have a problem here.

The problem is that any being powerful enough to create the cosmos must therefore be powerful enough to arrange things so that there is no observable proof that he/she/it actually exists. Therefore, you can argue that the fact that there is no proof that God exists is in fact proof that God must exist!

Simple.

You could argue that but it does not make it true, and the problem is yours. The only fact in this whole debate is that there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of your god, or any other god, or gods. Theologians have been trying to rationalize their way around that fact for thousands of years but have been unable to escape it.

They demand that we abandon the principles of logic and reason that work perfectly well in every other area of knowledge and "have faith" that they know what they're talking about and are qualified to tell us how to run our lives.

Well, I refuse. The burden is not upon me to prove that your invisible man in the sky does not exist; it is upon you to provide even one shred of evidence that he does. Until you can present that evidence, I will have to conclude that such beliefs are fantasies, and remain so no matter how many people share the same delusions.

In addition, the fact that their "faith" leads many of these people to also believe things that are provably untrue makes their arguments even less convincing.
-------------------
Complex questions never have simple answers. Hell, most simple questions don't have simple answers.

The burden is not upon me to prove that your invisible man in the sky does not exist; it is upon you to provide even one shred of evidence that he does. Until you can present that evidence, I will have to conclude that such beliefs are fantasies, and remain so no matter how many people share the same delusions.

A statement that something is fantasy provides no evidence.

An alternate assumption:

http://www.icr.org/article/flumes-zoom- ... k-history/

And the experimentation it is based on:

http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/

Someone should investigate thoroughly how wide the Tonto Group (Tapeats sandstone under Bright Angels shale under Redwall Limestone) is at right angles to the Grand Canyon. The assumption of long age deposition with uplifts, etc. predicts a nearby mountain range to provide the water velocity needed to move the pebble base of the Tapeats. This implies a relatively narrow width from said mountains. A flood assumption predicts flows across large portions of the continents.

http://www.icr.org/article/geological-provincialism/

points to some evidence of extreme width. I wonder what further evidence would come from deep well logs in these areas? "the Potsdam Sandstone of the Northeast is unbelievably similar to the Tapeats Sandstone of Arizona, complete with the Great Unconformity at the base and worm burrows near the top!"


There are other evidences also.

http://www.icr.org/article/dont-grand-c ... case-deep/

Thomas Kuhn's work shows our historical human tendency to anchor on a paradigm. The only solution I can see is to have a basic paradigm that says we are certainly wrong somewhere, and insist on going to the historical, experimental, observational, and predictive evidence to test our ideas. A paradigm exists to make thinking easier. This doesn't mean we are excused from doing critical thinking based on evidence.

If we don't carefully separate data from theories, how can we correct ANY idea? It looks like many theories can be made from a set of data. What is needed is to look for data that can show which theory fits reality more closely.

I made a decision decades ago to insist on solid facts. Preferably experimental or from detailed observation.


Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever,
unless you test your assumptions!

DDHv wrote:A statement that something is fantasy provides no evidence.

I'm not the one making fantastic claims about the existence of something that violates everything we have learned using evidence, logic and reason. These methods produce facts that are testable, verifiable and repeatable. You have no facts to present.

Thomas Kuhn's work shows our historical human tendency to anchor on a paradigm. The only solution I can see is to have a basic paradigm that says we are certainly wrong somewhere, and insist on going to the historical, experimental, observational, and predictive evidence to test our ideas. A paradigm exists to make thinking easier. This doesn't mean we are excused from doing critical thinking based on evidence.

If we don't carefully separate data from theories, how can we correct ANY idea? It looks like many theories can be made from a set of data. What is needed is to look for data that can show which theory fits reality more closely.

That's called the scientific method, which we are called upon to abandon for a "faith" in something unseeable and unknowable. I am perfectly willing to adjust my beliefs when presented with evidence, but not when presented with no evidence.
--------------
Facts remain true whether you like them or not.

Personally? no. as a scientific community? almost certainly yes. the only thing between almost and definitely is the fact that this change would require a precision cahnge from 99.99% to 99.9999% sure that god doesnt exist. Either way, there is no evidence as yet that proves he exists, plenty that he doesnt (spread across pretty much every scientific discipline imaginable), and evidence disproving large swaths of the bible and other holy books, and giving natural causes for natural events for others, without recourse to a god.


But lets say for arguements sake there is a deity. First problem: which one? Abrahamic god? a non abrahmaic, monotheistic relgions god? Is there a pantheon of gods? if so, which pantheon? If there is a deity, statistics still say that your god is very unlikely to be 'The God'.
Second Problem: Why no evidence, however faint, that he exists? with tens of millions of scientists on this planer, surely one has found definitive evidence by now of a god. But we havent.
THird problem: Is it worth taking time to worship god? and which branch of religion should I follow? because chances are i choose wrong, so no paradise for me. But if I do choose correctly, should not I follow every scripture faithfully,to ensure I dont end up in hell? Because no body is perfect, so everyones locked out of heaven.


Logic, evidence and simple common sense dictate to rational people that we shouldnt believe in god, but only that which we know to be true. And as yet, God/gods/deities/supernatural entities such as ghosts, ghouls, wizardry, are all collated under Superstition: irrationally held beliefs about impossible occurances due to how we know the universe works.

Michael Everett wrote:Have you absolutely, conclusively, reproducably proven that god doesn't exist? No? Well, guess we have a problem here.

The problem is that any being powerful enough to create the cosmos must therefore be powerful enough to arrange things so that there is no observable proof that he/she/it actually exists. Therefore, you can argue that the fact that there is no proof that God exists is in fact proof that God must exist!

Simple.

Note - I may or may not actually hold any of my previously stated views.
Or in other words...

DDHv, you seem to be trying to disprove what millions of geologists have concluded. The Earth is billions of years one and humans have only been around for the last few hundred thousand. There's also well documented evidence of geological ages, including ice ages and such, long before the bible is ever even thought of. Things the bible cannot and has not accounted for because it only goes into the Bronze Age and no farther. The most likely reason? Because the bible is made up of the regional folk tales of the Bronze Age and nomadic wanderings of a tiny tribe that has some sort of divine excuse to kill others to take their land.

DDHv, you seem to be trying to disprove what millions of geologists have concluded. The Earth is billions of years one and humans have only been around for the last few hundred thousand. There's also well documented evidence of geological ages, including ice ages and such, long before the bible is ever even thought of.

Appeal to authority is a classic logical mistake.
At present fossils are used to date the strata. The strata are used to date the fossils. Circular reasoning is another logical error. For decades I've made a hobby of testing theories by evidence, with NO theory accepted as evidence.

Josh McDowell was bugged by some Christians at his college. They kept insisting he had a choice between changing his mind and trusting God or being judged by Him. So he set out to document the errors he had been assured were in the Bible. It didn't work out the way he expected. Have you ever studied "Evidence that Demands a Verdict?" His later book updates it. "More evidence that demands a verdict." Fair warning, neither of these is suitable for "Evidence For Dummies."

Have you ever sat down with a copy of "What Is Creation Science? by Henry M. Morris and a notebook and tried to find one error of fact in it?

The basic problem with a paradigm error its support by theory. A paradigm can only be tested by facts.

The wikipedia article on the archeologist, William Mitchell Ramsay says "The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written." By the end of his career, his research had convinced him that Luke was a very accurate historian.

To refer back to this thread's primary question:
Job chapter 38:31 mentions four constellations. Each of them, from doppler measurements, has stars with like velocity. One is so visually spread out that there is no other known method of determining they are truly one star group. A number of other constellations are visual only, with their stars having different velocities.

For that particular event, no corroborating evidence can be found (because it would require a massive die-off in animal and plant life followed by a degree of speciation not seen outside of lab-grown bacteria cultures)

Where is your experimental or observational evidence for slow differentiation? the house sparrow was first introduced to North American in 1852, and again several more times. Wikipedia says, "In North America, house sparrow populations are more differentiated than those in Europe." Depending on who you quote get from twelve subspecies to 35 species. The Hebrew Baramin seems to equate primarily to the family level, not species or even genera, based on ability to interbreed (with some sterile offspring - mules, etc.)

Either the Bible is a 100% factual creation of god, or it's a series of books written by men with an imperfect understanding of history and the world around them. It can't be both perfect and flawed.

Agreed. Now, please document a proven error of fact, not one based on theory. Except, of course, the theory that there is a real universe which should be used to test theories.

When I see one group, however respected, appealing to accepted theory, and another paradigm's supporters doing experiments and pointing to observations, I will doubt accepted theory.

Thomas Kuhn's book points out that although in theory, any fact that solidly contradicts that theory invalidates the theory, in practice, we strongly ignore evidence that doesn't support our current paradigm.

You have no facts to present.

Have you even studied the flume experiments on sediment depositing? Have you in detail looked at the dating method assumptions? Have you looked at any of the non-mineralized fossil discoveries and compared the assumed dates with experimental lifetimes of organic materials without bacteria? If so, please post where we can find those experiments or observations.

One of the reasons I like Institute for Creation Research is their article bibliographies. With Google, anyone willing to do the work can trace back to most of the experiments, observations, or assumptions.

I'm not saying anyone should change their mind. I'm saying we all should examine evidence pointed out by people with other paradigms. Presuppositions (Only with solid evidence will I change my mind.) is permitted. Prejudice (My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts.) is not.