Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 137

Thread: "What if you're wrong?" - Richard Dawkins

  1. -111
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,358
    vCash:
    7731
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by CashInFist View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys



    This is the guy I was talking about.

    The criticism section on that page was 3 times as big as the actual explanation
    Criticism

    His model has been criticized by other scientists and old earth creationists such as Hugh Ross and Samuel R. Conner.[6] Humphreys has replied to Ross and Conner's critiques.[7]
    On Humphreys' thousands-of-years-old universe, in 1998 physicist Dave Thomas wrote that Humphreys "has his astronomy backwards - the Kuiper Belt contains the remains of the "volatile" (icy)planetesimals that were left over from the formation of the solar system - numbering in the hundreds of millions. If anything, it is the Kuiper Belt that supplies the more remote hypothesized Oort Cloud, as some icy chunks are occasionally flung far away by interactions with large planets."[8]
    [edit]Sea Salt Issue

    Thomas also criticised Humphreys' idea that there is "not enough sodium in the sea" for a several billion year old sea, writing, "Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method."[8]
    [edit]Helium Problems

    Geologist Kevin Henke has criticised Humphreys for stating that "zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old."[9][10] Henke wrote that the equations in Humphreys' work "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these 'dating' equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[9] Humphreys has replied to Henke's criticisms.[10][11]
    [edit]Earth Cooling Model

    Scientists Glenn Morton and George L Murphy have dismissed Humphreys' cooling model as "wrong" because "it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed." First, in a classical model for a harmonic oscillator (like a particle oscillating in a crystal), "the particle does not lose energy to the cosmic expansion." Second, Humphreys' model "is too slow to be useful to the creationist agenda." Thirdly, "there would be visible effects in the spectra of light emitted during the Flood, including those from stars a few thousand light years away in our own galaxy. A change in the energy levels of atoms (which this idea would entail) would change the frequencies at which light is emitted in a fashion that would be observable. The lack of such observations rules out Humphreys' cooling mechanism as a reasonable possibility." Lastly, they criticized it for contradicting the theological foundation Humphreys uses in another publication.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -112
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1278
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Why can't no one have an answer?


    Simply because holding to axioms that you have no reason for holding to given your worldview is irrational. Are you really going to admit that only the Christian worldview is rational?


    Like I said, just because you say God does these things, doesn't make it true.


    Me saying it no, but me proving it through logical syllogisms and negation as I have done certainly does prove it is true.


    You don't have proof. There's a reason people ask "do you believe in God?", and not "do you know about God", because the existence of God can't be proven, nor disproven.


    You are confusing truth with persuasion, the number of people who are persuaded by or who believe a certain argument is completely irrelevant to the truth of that argument. You asserting there is no proof of God is also irrelevant since I have already provided a completely valid and thus un-refuted argument that does prove God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    The criticism section on that page was 3 times as big as the actual explanation


    Of course it was; the whole article was written by an atheist and the majority of the criticism section has nothing to do with Humphrey’s cosmological model. I am just appalled at the fact you seem to believe that a user-generated site like Wikipedia proves anything at all. Humphrey’s has addressed every single one of those criticisms in both his book and subsequent articles. I don’t even subscribe to his model, but your “refutation” of it is just ridiculous.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  3. -113
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,692
    vCash:
    33612
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    No, all you did was incorrectly alter the form of the argument from a valid syllogism into something that no longer contained an antecedent or consequent in premise 1. This does nothing to prove your point because the argument is no longer the same as the one I used. It would be like doing the following…

    P1 If light didn’t exist, I could not see.
    P2 I can see
    C. Therefore light exists.

    That’s a completely valid and sound syllogism; formally it is identical to mine. Now what you did was…
    P1 I can see
    P2 For seeing to be possible for me, light must exist
    C. light exists.

    P1 no longer contains an antecedent or a consequent and P2 no longer either affirms the antecedent or denies the consequent. So you have merely rearranged the argument into an invalid syllogism and then acted as if that refuted my argument when my initial syllogism was completely valid. So you didn’t prove anything either way.

    If you’ll notice though, the “light” syllogism above is very similar to mine; light existing is one of the necessary preconditions to seeing. So if a person can see they can have confidence light exists. God is one of the preconditions of intelligibility, so if a person can gain knowledge they can have confidence that God exists.
    Nice job dodging the point. It is still up to you to prove the statement "knowledge is possible" is valid. The statement cannot simultaneously be used as proof that God exists and God existing be the proof that the statement is true. That's a tautology.

    Also, you haven't defined "knowledge."
    Quote Quote  

  4. -114
    CashInFist's Avatar
    Waterlogged

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    3,967
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    West Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    The criticism section on that page was 3 times as big as the actual explanation
    Do scientists EVER agree? On ANYTHING?!?!? LOL

    ---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

    Also, the center of the universe would have to closely be at the origination of the BIG BANG.
    Last edited by CashInFist; 08-24-2012 at 08:26 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -115
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Seasoned Veteran

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    503
    vCash:
    2674
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    That just proves right there science will never get you truth or even certainty whereas religion can.
    O man this is pure gold. It all comes down to this. Some people believe and some people don't, but there will never be true certainty in either direction. If you're 100% certain in your own mind, I applaud you. But realize that your certainty isn't based on evidence, facts, and common sense, but instead relies on faith.

    Also, I never called you ignorant, I believe I said that you are either full of ignorance or denial to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. After reading your posts after my statement, I have to conclude that it's 100% denial.
    Last edited by JackFinfan; 08-24-2012 at 12:27 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -116
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Seasoned Veteran

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    503
    vCash:
    2674
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    Itís not up to me to prove radiometric dating doesnít work; itís up to you to establish that it has ever worked in the first place. Point to one instance where a rock of empirically known age was dated accurately using radiometric dating. If the method doesnít work on rocks of known age, then to assert that it works on rocks of unknown age is completely absurd. You yourself said science is based on skepticism, so I am merely being skeptical of your dating method until you can demonstrate it actually works.
    Waldorf's 5 d's of debating...dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge. Rob already explained to you the merits of radiometric dating, now it's your turn to debunk or provide evidence to the contrary. But you won't and you can't, because like I said before, you're in a complete state of denial about anything that contradicts your beliefs.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -117
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1278
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Nice job dodging the point. It is still up to you to prove the statement "knowledge is possible" is valid. The statement cannot simultaneously be used as proof that God exists and God existing be the proof that the statement is true. That's a tautology.


    Well the definition of knowledge is usually along the lines of, “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.”

    It’s actually rather easy to prove knowledge is possible, it’s through negation. Any argument to the contrary is self-refuting because it presupposes knowledge is possible. Therefore even questioning whether knowledge is possible is indirectly proving that knowledge is possible. It’s very similar to how you can prove your own mind exists, the very act of doubting your own existence actually proves your own mind’s existence because your mind existing is a necessary precondition of the act of doubting. These forms of indirect proofs are fundamental to logical reasoning because they prevent an infinite linear regression of proofs.

    Quote Originally Posted by JackFinfan View Post
    O man this is pure gold. It all comes down to this. Some people believe and some people don't, but there will never be true certainty in either direction. If you're 100% certain in your own mind, I applaud you. But realize that your certainty isn't based on evidence, facts, and common sense, but instead relies on faith.

    Are you absolutely certain that absolute certainty is impossible?

    You actually have demonstrated you live by far more blind faith than I ever could, after all you seem to believe that a dating method that has never been empirically verified on rocks of known age somehow magically works on rocks of unknown age. Now that is truly blind faith!

    Also, I never called you ignorant, I believe I said that you are either full of ignorance or denial to believe the Earth is 6000 years old. After reading your posts after my statement, I have to conclude that it's 100% denial.


    Why is it denial? You haven’t provided me with a single reason to believe the earth is billions of years old besides making some sort of appeal to majority opinion and then to some dating method that has never been shown to work on rocks of known age. I am the won in denial? I was really hoping you’d give me a bit more to sink my teeth into.

    Quote Originally Posted by JackFinfan View Post
    Waldorf's 5 d's of debating...dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.


    That’s only four Ds since you used dodge twice.


    Rob already explained to you the merits of radiometric dating,


    No he didn’t, he explained the theory behind it to me (something I was already fully aware of mind you), I simply asked for proof that it works in the real world. I am still waiting for that empirical evidence; I want to see the method work on rocks of empirically verifiable age, is that too much to ask for? I feel like the kid asking to go backstage at a magic show with the way you guys are acting.


    now it's your turn to debunk or provide evidence to the contrary. But you won't and you can't, because like I said before, you're in a complete state of denial about anything that contradicts your beliefs.


    There’s nothing to debunk yet, you still need to prove the method actually works. You also never answered my question, if different radiometric isotopic methods produce discordant dates would you admit that disproved the theory?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -118
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Seasoned Veteran

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    503
    vCash:
    2674
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post


    Thatís only four Ds since you used dodge twice.


    Did I use dodge twice? wow you sure got me.......lmao
    Quote Quote  

  9. -119
    JackFinfan's Avatar
    Seasoned Veteran

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2010
    Posts:
    503
    vCash:
    2674
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    Why is it denial? You haven’t provided me with a single reason to believe the earth is billions of years old besides making some sort of appeal to majority opinion and then to some dating method that has never been shown to work on rocks of known age. I am the won in denial? I was really hoping you’d give me a bit more to sink my teeth into.
    Alright, you want to "sink your teeth." Since you're the one who is "absolutely certain" then provide me with evidence suggesting the Earth is 6000 years old. It seems like you're pretty confident so have at it. My guess is you won't, because your only strategy is to play devil's advocate, dodge, and misrepresent arguments. Lets see you put some stuff out there for us to critique.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -120
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,692
    vCash:
    33612
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    Well the definition of knowledge is usually along the lines of, “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.”

    It’s actually rather easy to prove knowledge is possible, it’s through negation. Any argument to the contrary is self-refuting because it presupposes knowledge is possible. Therefore even questioning whether knowledge is possible is indirectly proving that knowledge is possible. It’s very similar to how you can prove your own mind exists, the very act of doubting your own existence actually proves your own mind’s existence because your mind existing is a necessary precondition of the act of doubting. These forms of indirect proofs are fundamental to logical reasoning because they prevent an infinite linear regression of proofs.
    The cogito is true outside the "preconditions of intelligibility", which is entirely the point of it. All it says that if you think you must exist, not that your senses are reliable or that the laws of nature are predictable or any of that. It is not "knowledge" as you're using the term. Try again.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 08-24-2012 at 07:23 PM.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. marlon wayans to play richard pryor in "biopic"
    By dreday in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 02:55 PM
  2. video: what "shoe bomber" Richard Reid could have done to a plane
    By CharlestonPhan in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 08:42 PM
  3. Replies: 196
    Last Post: 12-13-2006, 05:25 PM
  4. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-10-2006, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •