Is a naturally occuring universe/life the biggest conspiracy ever?

a reply to: Noinden

So you suddenly admit science got it wrong, yippee crack in the matrix

Doesnt answer my question as to why you want to turn science into a religion

Now explain how everything came from nothing, its a concern of mine.

No more arguing what Dawkins said or didnt.

How did everything come from nothing.
and nothing is nothing, nothing cant be something, nothing is not a box full of air.

Nothing is nothing

a reply to: Raggedyman

You really do have a strange form of myopia neigbhour! I've constantly said that when Science gets something wrong, it admits it, readjusts itself and moves on. I know that bunches your panties badly.

At no time or place have I said I wished to turn science into into a religion. That would be you making unfounded accusations. Prove them, or move on. I have a religion, and it is a mystical one. I have a job too, and it is science. Process Development in Pharmaceutical Chemistry to be exact.

I am not your librarian, so go read some papers.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Ignorance

Are you for real, they date fossils by the rocks they find them in and the rocks by the fossils in them
It's called circular reasoning

I am. Apparently you are not, or you'd already know that's not how they date fossils or strata. Do you just accept the arguments you find at whatever creationist website you without doing any research on their claims for yourself?

How about you show me my ignorance, how about you get the evidence to shut me up

I have, but I highly doubt you'll shut up. You'll just continue to deny that it's evidence without being able to actually refute any of the points that it makes.

It's just ignorance

I agree completely. Claiming that fossils are dated by strata which are dated by fossils which are dated by strata which are etc. is pure, unadulterated, easily-remedied ignorance.

Evidence or turn tail and run, run quick, nobody likes to be seen as a failure

Any malarkey can be shut down with evidence

Evidence provided. But I fully expect the malarkey to continue to flow.

I don't expect you to do anything more than talk opinion, assumption and yourself up

No, I'll just provide evidence that you're wrong. Evidence that you'll simply deny is evidence without even attempting to refute any of it. You claim to understand what is and is not science, but you have yet to show that you can engage in a scientific discussion. Instead, you argue from ignorance and engage in ad hominem attacks.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Can you show me the geological time scale in nature, the bedded rocks

I could but I'm not paying your airfare

Can you tell me why the geological time scale is 200 year old science that hasn't moved on, why I should accept it as valid

Except that your statement is completely untrue. Are you really trying to tell me that Geology has not changed since the 18th century? If so, sign off of ATS, get yourself a library card and go do some research.

Why they date the geological time scale the way they have

If you had bothered to read through either citation I provided in my previous reply you would know the answer to this.

I am not denying 200 year old science, just wondering why I should believe 200 year old science should still be valid if it has no evidence

If it had no evidence, I would be making the same case you are. But you're wrong, so I'm not.

Why do you hate science

I hate science as much as you hate Jesus

why do you call yourself a proponent of science

Because like any other student of science, I follow the data and do so with no regard as to whether or not the conclusion of that data leads to confirming what I already believe is true or leads me down a new rabbit hole.

why don't you demand science be tested

I do expect science to be tested. It's one reason why I'm constantly asking you to support your inane notions with peer reviewed data.

Why do you believe what you are told, unquestioning?

I don't. This is why, despite your protestations towards the relevance, I have pointed out several times that I have an actual degree in Anthropology and studied Hominid evolution for many years and in grad school my focus was on paleoanthropology, specifically working on hypothesis regarding Neanderthal and potential sites of contemporaneous cohabitation between HSS and HN.

I don't believe anything unquestioningly, I hypothesized and tested the data myself. I spent time with people in related disciplines engaging in open dialogues and discussing the positives and negatives regarding varying hypothesis, I read papers and attempted to recreate the data. I did all the legwork you refuse to engage in yourself because its easier to give in to confirmation bias and assume that creationist websites are honest in the name of Jesus and not filled with lying profiteers.

What I have NOT done, is sit in front of my computer denying a mountain of evidence supporting the most thoroughly evidenced Scientific Theory in the history of science, while citing creationist websites that have not actually done the work you seem to believe others in fields related to Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry or Geology don't engage in for some reason.

Do you not get that? There is more evidence supporting MES than there is for Gravity...that magical mystery tour that keeps your feet on the ground.

Science changes due to new data and evidence. Religion only changes due to geopolitical pressures.

a reply to: peter vlar

ahem...

just wondering why I should believe 200 year old science should still be valid if it has no evidence

Yet a 2000 year old book is completely valid



Again, i applaud you three for keeping this going... I suppose it will only show anyone thats reading the motivation of your "opponent"... IF you can call him that

Here we have it, this thread has come down to RaggedyMan (as I said 11 wants you to stop using his moniker!) using the
Big Lie Technique viz fthe repeating a lie, fallacy, slogan, talking-point or deceptive half-truth over and over in different forms ) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.

In this case there are several big lies

He repeats the "we all come from star dust/dirt and water" phrase over and over. Then there is the "we (the scientists) are trying to make Science into a Religion". Despite evidence to the contrary.

When someone debates solely through the use of logical fallacy, one has to question the validity of the points they are making!

a reply to: Akragon

Its not even a 2000 year old book either A certain council of worms decided what would go in it, not you know the Deity in question. Then during the reformation onward it got edited again and again. Read a King James Bible then a Catholic one, and note the difference in length


As for opponent? He's more the Arnold Rimmer of ATS

a reply to: Noinden

just being facetious actually...

The bible didn't actually get complied until the Council of Laodicea... Unlike the topic at hand i do have quite a working knowledge of biblical matters... but this is not the topic

Im just laughing along with the rest of you... a lot of this is grade school knowledge...

I believe our friend here was home schooled... By Ken Ham himself

a reply to: Akragon

My esoteric knoweldge is more towards the myths and legends of the Indo-Europeans (specifically the western ones) but I went to a Christian High school (despite being a pagan). The Christian Bible is a total Frankenstein of a document, but it is all they have

a reply to: Akragon

Well, in all fairness some portions of it are 2600-2800 years old but all the Jesusy parts have only been canonical a little over 1600. None of it predates the creation of the universe like the Midrash would have you believe.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: peter vlar

ahem...

just wondering why I should believe 200 year old science should still be valid if it has no evidence

Yet a 2000 year old book is completely valid

Again, i applaud you three for keeping this going... I suppose it will only show anyone thats reading the motivation of your "opponent"... IF you can call him that

I meant to go there but got caught up in my tirade and by the time I remembered you had already called me out haha

a reply to: peter vlar

I could link and cite but I dont care enough


Yes the geological time scale 200 year old science

linky thing, yes 200 year old unchanged science
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Geological time scale in nature
Cant link anything because it doesnt happen in nature, there is no evidence in nature
www.youtube.com...

Enjoy

Got to ask why do you hate science, why dont you study it instead of believing what you are told all the time

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You really do have a strange form of myopia neigbhour! I've constantly said that when Science gets something wrong, it admits it, readjusts itself and moves on. I know that bunches your panties badly.

At no time or place have I said I wished to turn science into into a religion. That would be you making unfounded accusations. Prove them, or move on. I have a religion, and it is a mystical one. I have a job too, and it is science. Process Development in Pharmaceutical Chemistry to be exact.

I am not your librarian, so go read some papers.

Please, how would that bunch my panties.
You have turned science into a religion, you wont even question it, hell even I question religion, question everything.
Dare I question evolution and you have a temper tanty
Its a sacred cow to you, you wont question it.

Whos panties, your panties.
I am questioning it and you are screeching, thats not how science works, science should be questioned as should religion.

You go mix a few compounds in your mortar and pestle, I will keep pushing science, you believe what you are told, that is what religion does.

Your attitude and denial of testing science is proof, you hate science being questioned.

Dirt and water, dirt and water

and those compounds you mix, just magicy magicy appeared in a big bang, yeah right on

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ignorance

Are you for real, they date fossils by the rocks they find them in and the rocks by the fossils in them
It's called circular reasoning

I am. Apparently you are not, or you'd already know that's not how they date fossils or strata. Do you just accept the arguments you find at whatever creationist website you without doing any research on their claims for yourself?

How about you show me my ignorance, how about you get the evidence to shut me up

I have, but I highly doubt you'll shut up. You'll just continue to deny that it's evidence without being able to actually refute any of the points that it makes.

It's just ignorance

I agree completely. Claiming that fossils are dated by strata which are dated by fossils which are dated by strata which are etc. is pure, unadulterated, easily-remedied ignorance.

Evidence or turn tail and run, run quick, nobody likes to be seen as a failure

Any malarkey can be shut down with evidence

Evidence provided. But I fully expect the malarkey to continue to flow.

I don't expect you to do anything more than talk opinion, assumption and yourself up

No, I'll just provide evidence that you're wrong. Evidence that you'll simply deny is evidence without even attempting to refute any of it. You claim to understand what is and is not science, but you have yet to show that you can engage in a scientific discussion. Instead, you argue from ignorance and engage in ad hominem attacks.

Blah blah blah

creation.com...

Please learn, study, dont just believe what you are told

"Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.

So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be..."

a reply to: Raggedyman

Ahh lad you just love sticking with what you know, and that is the Big lie technique logical fallacy with a dash of Ad Hominem Argument thrown in. You also have no clue on how chemistry is done. Big hint, a mortar and pestle has no place in a process development lab, as it would take a rather long time to mix kilo quantities of chemicals Top taht off, solid solid reactions are not great for purity. So that just proves that you are in no place to tell me, or another scientist "how scienec works".

Now you also have illustrated that you have no clue on how the universe evolved. Lets say it was the big bang (that is where the evidence is, and it fits the cosmology of my spiritual path too, in that order from chaos happened). You don't magically get "everything" after said bang of big size. It takes time, smaller bangs (supernovae etc).

Biggest clue for you, there are far more pieces of evidence for this and biological evolution, than there is for creationism via Jehovah/Allah.

If you want to discuss chemistry, the option is there, your friend with the Kirk fetish tried it already and lost.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Ah yes, the totally unbiased creation.com.

Please learn, study, dont just believe what you are told

Thanks again for the laugh. I love it.

Don't believe what you are told, but go to creation.com and believe what they tell you!

I'm giving you a star for this one. Brilliant satire. My faith in humanity has been restored.

It's funny how science determines the age of fossil by dating the fossil which is created by contaminants which caused the fossil to be a fossil...
The bones that once were are not really what is being dated...
The process is unscientific and even highly deceptive because of the contamination introduced to complete the process...

a reply to: Noinden

What's with the kirk fetish comment?
Always some form of personal attack from you...
As for your comment on me losing a chemistry debate with you I asked you one question...
And that was to determine if you had any actual knowledge...And that has been the extent of our chemistry conversations...

I find it rather odd the need you have to lay claim to being a scientist in every thread I've seen you in...
Yet you are unwilling to provide your doctoral thesis...
Especially given the level of narcissism you portray...
I think you are lying...
I think you Googled the answer...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You have a large picture of James Tiberious Kirk as an icon, one assumes it has a meaning for you. Also fetish has many MANY meanings, I prefer the older one You know the Anthropological usage, perhaps the business one too

As for the chemistry comment. You asked a really basic question, that google could have answered (which tells me you googled a question). My posts prove my knowledge. Just as I will not be proving who I am (and thus my qualifications) on this forum. I've proven who I am to people on here before

But look you were named and you came running. Posting the same old same old, with out any real insight. You still do not understand fossils, radio isotopes and half lives. Good old creationists, never changing, despite the evidence.

I can build a machine to throw balls into the air for a hundred years...
Everytime the ball is thrown into the air it will fall to the ground proving gravity is a fact...

For a very long time science has been trying to force many things to evolve... Fruitfly is a favorite they have tried with many thousands of generations...
Science has failed everytime...

There is proof everyday of our existence for gravity evolution is not showing itself...