It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
I was actually referring to the rest of my post rather than the external sources.
I have to ask why you included it then?
I see so often a tactic in this origins debate to just Google search for some contradictory piece of evidence and paste it as a counter-point.
Kinda why I refuse to go into the O&C forum.
Quite often an argument will be made, then others will use a Google counter-argument that is chock-full of logical fallacies,
then the poster's supporters will gather like a wild pack of dogs, high-five each other, and award stars for an absurd counter-argument.
I don't have the patience or time to engage in that circus.
I see you as reasonable, therefore i prefer to discuss this topic with you privately instead of in public where a majority of people have no clue what constitutes a sound logical argument or counter-argument.
Now, I unfortunately lack access to a copy of the book, and it would be inanely ridiculous of anyone to ask that I refute a whole book. Nonetheless, this book still relies on the false premise that the sun is shrinking, for which the evidence is weak.
I disagree completely. But, would you like to provide me with your address in a U2U and I'll mail you a signed copy of the book at my expense?
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
The sun is according to your scientific sources approximately 4.57 billions years old. Not even your science is 100% accurate.
Science have no idea or can't agree on when grass and plants started to appear.
And they never will.
So i dont know how you can claim anything at all.
Your claims are just as accurate as your idea of creation.
You have no clue, because your resources have no specific scientific data to make any scientific claims.
Question:
-When exactly did the sun appear?
- When exactly did plants appear according to your science? 2.0, 2.4, 3 or 4 billion years ago. Which one did you choose as your accuracy?
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
When you argue against creation. You use precision. But when you talk about science precision is not all that important?
If land plants are said to be found 4.75 billion years ago. And the sun appeared 4.57 billion years ago. I have to ask. Is that a typing error made by you. Or a typing error made by Wiki. Because you also state that the sun is a Hell of a lot older than 4.57 billion years?
Anyway, this statement is utterly false. We know that we've had land plants for about 475 million years. We know that the sun is a hell of a lot older than that.
But wiki. does say that the sun appeared 4.57 billion yeas ago.
I'm not sure, but it seems to be about 4.75 billion years ago when the hydrogen cloud of this solar system first collapsed.
But any way, you admitted by your own dates that plans grew before the sun appeared.
I also have to ask. What scientific facts do you have that the Hydrogen collapsed and formed the sun?
What made the hydrogen collapse? Is there a fact involved or a hypothesis theory involved?
Anyway, this statement is utterly false. We know that we've had land plants for about 475 million years. We know that the sun is a hell of a lot older than that.
Even if we weren't specifically sure when land plants first evolved, we'd have an idea of when life first formed, which was definitely well after the sun formed.
Hell, even if we weren't specifically sure of when the first life formed, we'd have an idea of when the Earth formed, and that would most definitely (have an idea that it was after the Sun formed)
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
To note that other people have a disagreement with the fellow. And that the claims aren't backed by evidence. That was the main thrust of that post and the post I made that you've just responded to.
Soooo...how is that different from what you're doing?
That and you're a creationist....creationists tend to find it too toasty.
Pot
Kettle
Black
The article you provided is full of logical fallacies. Now, if you'll go to O&C I'll point that out, but that is not the topic of this thread.
Please, provide evidence of this. Hell, I see it being done by creationists all the time, but rarely (if ever) by non-creationists.
Now, if you're talking about creationists doing this with each other, I'll agree. They never provide anything that is evidence based or works at all.
Eh, it takes a lot. That's why I dropped US political madness, I found it so inane and based in pure emotional response that I had to decide between either engaging in discussion on O&C or on that forum...I chose O&C because there's at least some discussion of facts.
No offense, but this would include yourself.
Not that you're not a fairly reasonable individual (my position is that few individuals are more than 'fairly reasonable' but that is due to remaining teenage misanthropy that I haven't yet shaken out of my system), but you've yet to put forth any sort of sound argument for a creationist position when you've tried.
With regard to philosophical and theological debate you're definitely great with the formulation of arguments, but you don't seem to have the subtle difference in approach required for scientific debate.
Now, I don't do discussions in private u2u form because I have a limited amount of time and it would become ridiculous with all the people who would prefer to have a private discussion rather than a public one.
It also allows for the discussion to be public, which lets a lot more people take part, especially those who take part passively. More people read those threads than partake in the discussion and those are the people who I post for.
That is a genuinely kind offer, but it would probably cost you quite a bit. I'm living in Malta and it would end up probably costing you more to ship it here than for me to pick up the book. I'll pick it up myself.
Unfortunately, I have an entire boatload of assignments to do in the coming month and a half...and then I have another full semester of University, visits to Universities to look into my graduate studies, and then second semester assignments.
However, I will try to make a thread relating to the book in summer. Though it would be appreciated if you u2u'd me the ISBN for the book.
Originally posted by bogomil
I can understand, why solipsistic attitudes are so popular amongst fanatics.
You can fabricate your own epistemology, methodology and 'facts', and start from the 'condition' that this whole system is disproved. Otherwise you've 'won' and can safely ignore feedback on your nonsense.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical
To note that other people have a disagreement with the fellow. And that the claims aren't backed by evidence. That was the main thrust of that post and the post I made that you've just responded to.
That's why I said it was an Ad Hominem link against what Dr. Lisle had to say on the subject.
One link showed ignorance to his book, the professor displayed clearly that he barely read two paragraphs of the first chapter. Then takes two quotes from the first chapter that Dr. Lisle NEVER authored.
The second link is purely arbitrary conjecture. neither link discussed Dr. Lisle's arguments, but attacked him personally and professionally.
Soooo...how is that different from what you're doing?
I hope you're kidding. I don't need to "Google" arguments. I have seen Dr. Lisle's lectures in person, and have several of his books and DVDs. I actually make an argument from what the man said, both hearing the arguments in person and from reading them in his books.
That and you're a creationist....creationists tend to find it too toasty.
Not at all, the problem with that forum is the Evolutionists and the Creationists are arguing over "evidence", when both sides will look at the same thing and arrive at two completely different conclusions based upon their different worldviews. It's a never-ending argument circle/circus. I prefer to argue in this forum and attack the secular/humanist worldview that is behind Evolution.
Some may find it "toasty", I prefer to view it as trying to heard cats covered in Vaseline.
Pot
Kettle
Black
The article you provided is full of logical fallacies. Now, if you'll go to O&C I'll point that out, but that is not the topic of this thread.
Ridiculous.
Please, provide evidence of this. Hell, I see it being done by creationists all the time, but rarely (if ever) by non-creationists.
Case in point: The last thread I made about Dr. Kent Hovind's video about dinosaurs.
The Evolutionists posted numerous things attacking Dr. Hovind as a person, his degree, and hardly anyone presented counter-arguments to what Dr. Hovind presented in the video.
That's a classic "Ad Hominem" attack. Then all the Evolutionists gave each other numerous stars for their Ad Hom posts, which were completely fallacious to begin with.
The absurd ones even complained Dr. Hovind "wasn't a real scientist". WELL DUUUH! His Ph.D is in EDUCATION.
He's a teacher, not a scientist. He never presents HIS work, but presents the works of other scientists. What teachers do.
Now, if you're talking about creationists doing this with each other, I'll agree. They never provide anything that is evidence based or works at all.
I completely disagree.
Eh, it takes a lot. That's why I dropped US political madness, I found it so inane and based in pure emotional response that I had to decide between either engaging in discussion on O&C or on that forum...I chose O&C because there's at least some discussion of facts.
i agree with you there, I stopped entering the Politics forums myself.
No offense, but this would include yourself.
Not that you're not a fairly reasonable individual (my position is that few individuals are more than 'fairly reasonable' but that is due to remaining teenage misanthropy that I haven't yet shaken out of my system), but you've yet to put forth any sort of sound argument for a creationist position when you've tried.
I disagree, just because the argument has not persuaded you doesn't mean it was not a sound argument. oftentimes an argument will be strong and sound and if the audience is not ready to let that argument challenge their worldview it will basically fall on deaf ears. If your standard for "good" means it has to persuade then that's out of my control.
With regard to philosophical and theological debate you're definitely great with the formulation of arguments, but you don't seem to have the subtle difference in approach required for scientific debate.
I appreciate that, however, I feel that my reasoning is sound across the board and the battle is not evidence vs evidence, but worldview vs worldview.
Well, you're half right. It isn't evidence vs evidence. It is, in fact, evidence (science) vs world view (nonscience). The science is open for everyone, even believers in various religions. My favorite paleontologist, Robert T. Bakker happens to be a Pentecostal preacher, I'm sure his worldview in most matters is more likely to line up with yours than mine.
You would look at the Geologic column and see evidence of millions of years of Evolution and I look at the same evidence and see a giant flood 4,000 years ago that deposited heavier materials by way of Hydrological Sorting.
Except that you are demonstrating an ignorance of Hydrologic sorting, that isn't a worldview, it's a lack of information. Aside from that fact that Hydrologic sorting would put a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, a tetrapod in the Jurassic, etc, there isn't a single instance in which you can apply a geologic column solely to Hydrologic sorting. Sure, there are localized instances where there are periods of lakes being in places, inland seas, etc. But they're never a full column.
Now, I don't do discussions in private u2u form because I have a limited amount of time and it would become ridiculous with all the people who would prefer to have a private discussion rather than a public one.
And that's fine, we can have our public discussions in this forum where I prefer to address our different worldviews. just know why I refuse to go into the Origins forums. To me it's a circus arguing the wrong thing: Evidence.
Demonstrate to me that your position on Hydrologic sorting has some validity, and I might be inclined to see your point, if not agree with it. Until then, it's founded in an ignorance of geology, which is frankly a really cool science. Geologists rock. (Yes, I made the corny joke).
It also allows for the discussion to be public, which lets a lot more people take part, especially those who take part passively. More people read those threads than partake in the discussion and those are the people who I post for.
I share the same sentiments. I've always said the number of "views" is always about 5 times greater than the number of "posts" in any given thread/forum.
Another thing we agree on. It's a shame that they got rid of the 'views' counter.
That is a genuinely kind offer, but it would probably cost you quite a bit. I'm living in Malta and it would end up probably costing you more to ship it here than for me to pick up the book. I'll pick it up myself.
it doesn't hurt me at all, my funds are quite substantial. Plus, it would be a nice gesture to provide you with an author-signed copy.
Even if I were to take up the offer, I'm in the middle of a very busy year both academically and professionally. Try to give me a reminder in a few months and I might consider it.
Again, the generous offer is appreciated. I'll read the book sometime in the summer and possibly put up a thread. Depends on my workload or if I can get financing for my next project. In the best case scenario (at least for me, not for the ATS community), I put out the thread in September (classes resume in October). Worst case scenario (again, for me), I put it out in July.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
If you believe so look up the term arbitrary
No, an Ad Hominem attack would be to call him a poop head. To call his work unsupported and to point out that others believe it to be so....that's not an ad hominem attack.
Scroll to the rnd of Page 18 and read through page 19 for one of those quotes
The other quote is in reference to a speaker series entry on the blog of Answers in Genesis, which can be found here and it doesn't seem clear whether or not he did or did not write the work written above. No author seems to be provided. At best PZ Meyers was confused by Answers in Genesis and their odd lack of attributions in writings. Also, note that I called him "PZ Meyers" instead of "Dr. Meyers". PZ has published far more work than Lisle, has published primarily academic works, and is far more respected for his evidence based works. He's also a nice guy. Not that Lisle isn't, I just don't know much about his personality.
and it doesn't seem clear whether or not he did or did not write the work written above. No author seems to be provided.
It's also an article that contains 10 citations, which you clearly didn't see. If you had, you would have realized I was pulling my punches by notproviding this source. But anyway, it should be easy enough for me to refute anything he says.
I don't doubt that you own several books and DVDs all from the same source. And I don't doubt that it's a creationist source that doesn't publish his supposedly paradigm changing scientific papers in the appropriate journals and instead publishes them in an upstart creationist journal that doesn't have any proper protocols in place.