My theory, again, is that Santa Claus distributed the fossils after the Easter Bunny dug the holes for him. Prove me wrong. My theory has every bit as much evidence and credibility as yours, and you have just as much ability to "prove me wrong" as I do. There is as much evidence for Santa and Easter Bunny as there is for Satan (or any god or demon for that matter) -- and even you, in your post, use the phrase "IF he exists" (my emphasis, your words).
Anyone can concoct a ridiculous explanation and then challenge someone to "prove" it wrong. It is a logical fallacy, and I suspect you know that perfectly well. You continue to advance this nonsense just to get a rise. It is indeed ridiculous, laughable, and unworthy of serious consideration.
But, if you want to "prove" my theory is wrong, granting me the same caveat that you gave yourself (i.e., IF he exists), do so. Prove that Santa didn't drop those fossils off of his sleigh.
Church Discipline
Re: Church Discipline
And there is just as much evidence that rates of decay have never varied or been influenced in any way. All of these positions require some belief in something that cannot be proved and therefore cannot be really be questioned...at some point it is a belief and faith. Some are obviously more silly than others, but they share that aspect of not being able to prove it didn't not happen.
(and yes I know pointing out the belief aspect of all positions can drive some people up the wall when they are confronted with this inconvenient fact)
Still, we can narrow the possibilities. For instance as this is the CofC doctrine forum, we can rule out Santa Claus and Easter Bunny since those are just corruptions from the RCC.
(and yes I know pointing out the belief aspect of all positions can drive some people up the wall when they are confronted with this inconvenient fact)
Still, we can narrow the possibilities. For instance as this is the CofC doctrine forum, we can rule out Santa Claus and Easter Bunny since those are just corruptions from the RCC.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
-
NeverAgain
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:20 am
Re: Church Discipline
Sorry, klp. Not the same thing. Agricola gave you plenty of real and demonstrable research to work from; there are voluminous scientific works and proofs to back up the facts upon which scientific theories are based.
Willful ignorance or obstinate refusal to acknowledge reality to support a "faith" based fantasy are not virtues and really unworthy of a thinking and reasoning human being.
Willful ignorance or obstinate refusal to acknowledge reality to support a "faith" based fantasy are not virtues and really unworthy of a thinking and reasoning human being.
Re: Church Discipline
Belief is a tricky sort of word and we use it every day and some of the usages are slippery - for instance, I might say that 'I believe' that 2+2 is four and 'I believe' that there is no Santa (or I don't believe there is a Santa) but those two usages are not the same.
At any rate, some 'beliefs' are based on some good solid reliable observations about the world together with, perhaps, some pretty decent assumptions, while other 'beliefs' are based on - basically - nothing whatsoever.
My belief that 2+2 is 4, and that radiometric dating of rocks is reliable are a lot more concrete than my belief that the revelation at Sinai is - in some sense - 'real'.
One is well supported by evidence and experience and observation, the other is purely a faith statement.
Fortunately, as a faith statement about Sinai, I'm not necessarily interfering with any actual data about anything (hey, I'm flexible about when, where, and exactly what...)
At any rate, some 'beliefs' are based on some good solid reliable observations about the world together with, perhaps, some pretty decent assumptions, while other 'beliefs' are based on - basically - nothing whatsoever.
My belief that 2+2 is 4, and that radiometric dating of rocks is reliable are a lot more concrete than my belief that the revelation at Sinai is - in some sense - 'real'.
One is well supported by evidence and experience and observation, the other is purely a faith statement.
Fortunately, as a faith statement about Sinai, I'm not necessarily interfering with any actual data about anything (hey, I'm flexible about when, where, and exactly what...)
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Church Discipline
KLP, you're right that the dating of extremely old rocks relies heavily on consistent rates of radioactive decay. Dating of younger rocks (and other things) doesn't do so as exclusively because the data can be corroborated through other methods. In the latter case, the radioactive decay method has proven to be reliable. So your suggestion of fluctuating rates of decay would only apply to the very old cases. It also has no direct evidence supporting it, that I'm aware of. In fact, the concept of a young earth has no direct evidence either.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the method of your argument?
1. Suggest an explanation, with no scientific evidence, to a scientific question.
2. Point out an unlikely but technically possible flaw, again with no scientific evidence, in the methodology used to establish the dominant scientific understanding of the issue.
3. Conclude that the dominant understanding is incorrect and the suggested, unsupported explanation is correct.
In other words, if we were to assume that the current methods used to date very old rocks were unreliable, why should we then conclude that the earth is 6000 (10,000?, 1,000,000?) years old? If the method used to get to the conclusion is flawed that doesn't automatically make another, unsupported conclusion right.
Lev
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the method of your argument?
1. Suggest an explanation, with no scientific evidence, to a scientific question.
2. Point out an unlikely but technically possible flaw, again with no scientific evidence, in the methodology used to establish the dominant scientific understanding of the issue.
3. Conclude that the dominant understanding is incorrect and the suggested, unsupported explanation is correct.
In other words, if we were to assume that the current methods used to date very old rocks were unreliable, why should we then conclude that the earth is 6000 (10,000?, 1,000,000?) years old? If the method used to get to the conclusion is flawed that doesn't automatically make another, unsupported conclusion right.
Lev
Re: Church Discipline
Well - true enough. I happen to think the base assumption that the rate of decay is constant over time is well supported. But proving that wrong (in some unspecified fashion, because I can't think how) would not automatically prove some other notion right. You'd have to have proof for any other assertion, based on some other set of basic assumptions.
That's the same problem AIM, AIG and other creationist orgs have with evolution. The Theory of Evolution is extremely well supported, but of course (by some stretch of the imagination - a very BIG stretch at this point) I suppose someone might 'prove' it is wrong. However, that would still not prove that 'creationism' is somehow CORRECT. It just means people have to develop another theory that explains life's development over time better than the TOE does (which at this point, would be pretty hard to do).
I mean, 'creationism' (by which I mean 'special creation of separate 'kinds' within the last few thousand years or so by a deity') is not a scientific theory at all, any way you look at it, and it wouldn't replace the TOE, even if the TOE were 'proven wrong' (and that seems highly unlikely).
That's the same problem AIM, AIG and other creationist orgs have with evolution. The Theory of Evolution is extremely well supported, but of course (by some stretch of the imagination - a very BIG stretch at this point) I suppose someone might 'prove' it is wrong. However, that would still not prove that 'creationism' is somehow CORRECT. It just means people have to develop another theory that explains life's development over time better than the TOE does (which at this point, would be pretty hard to do).
I mean, 'creationism' (by which I mean 'special creation of separate 'kinds' within the last few thousand years or so by a deity') is not a scientific theory at all, any way you look at it, and it wouldn't replace the TOE, even if the TOE were 'proven wrong' (and that seems highly unlikely).
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: Church Discipline
Satan is a created being, as are the demons/djinn, and therefore are a part of nature just like you and me. Theoretically speaking scientsts should be able to invent some test to find them and prove they exist.NeverAgain wrote:My theory, again, is that Santa Claus distributed the fossils after the Easter Bunny dug the holes for him. Prove me wrong. My theory has every bit as much evidence and credibility as yours, and you have just as much ability to "prove me wrong" as I do. There is as much evidence for Santa and Easter Bunny as there is for Satan (or any god or demon for that matter) -- and even you, in your post, use the phrase "IF he exists" (my emphasis, your words).
Anyone can concoct a ridiculous explanation and then challenge someone to "prove" it wrong. It is a logical fallacy, and I suspect you know that perfectly well. You continue to advance this nonsense just to get a rise. It is indeed ridiculous, laughable, and unworthy of serious consideration.
But, if you want to "prove" my theory is wrong, granting me the same caveat that you gave yourself (i.e., IF he exists), do so. Prove that Santa didn't drop those fossils off of his sleigh.
Take your Santa Claus theory. If Santa Claus laid down fossils after the Easter Bunny dug holes for them you should occassionally find an old bunny fingernail/claw or whatever they have as well as perhaps small pieces of glitter around the fossil that fell off Santa while the fossil rubbed against his suit. You may even see red dyed fur that got pulled of his coat and stuck to small barbs on the fossil and were buried with it.
The Quran says Satan was made from smokeless fire. What kind of fires are clean burning and what machines could we invent that could detect a clean burning fire we could not see?
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
Re: Church Discipline
........and 'I believe' that there is no Santa (or I don't believe there is a Santa)..........
Santa is real. He just turned out not to be what we thought when younger.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx
-
margin overa
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:17 pm
Re: Church Discipline
Santa...Satan...both wear lots of red. Minions to do the work. Too close for comfort, I'd say.B.H. wrote:........and 'I believe' that there is no Santa (or I don't believe there is a Santa)..........
Santa is real. He just turned out not to be what we thought when younger.
Re: Church Discipline
margin overa wrote:Santa...Satan...both wear lots of red. Minions to do the work. Too close for comfort, I'd say.B.H. wrote:........and 'I believe' that there is no Santa (or I don't believe there is a Santa)..........
Santa is real. He just turned out not to be what we thought when younger.
Have you ever seen the movie Santa's Slay? It's based on such an idea. Santa was actually Satan's son who killed everyone he could on Christmas Day. The Archangel Michael beat him in a bet and made him be good and deliver presents for a thousand years. The time was up and Santa goes back to his old habits.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.----Karl Marx