Re: Do scientists agree on the age of the universe and earth?

>> Ok Mr. Forrest
>>
>> I give up.
>>
>> You are absolutely right.
>>
>> People debating in this newsgroup for the side of prevailing
>> scientific thought don't use their knowledge as a club
>>
>Are you suggesting that they should supress their knowledge to give the
>other side a chance of formulating a coherent argument?

I am suggesting they should supress their pontification.

>Why?

To promote discussion instead of rhetoric.

>> to
>> claim they are the holders of absolute truth and anything
>> else is "utter nonsense", "bollocks", "demonstratably
>> false" and "can't" possibly be right.

>I've repeatedly stated that I make no claims to absolute truth.

good

>I have studied geology and palaeontology for over 30 years, excavated,
>collected and prepared many fossils from many different formations,
>carried out original reseach on vertebrate fossils and published in
>academic journals, made presentations at scientific conferences,
>debated matters of geology and palaeontology with other
>palaeontologists, and am now studying for a PhD in vertebrate
>palaeontology.
>
>So I know the subject pretty well. It might just be worth your while to
>consider that I may have something useful to say about the subject.
>
>If I write something like "demonstrably false", it is because it is
>demonstrably false: i.e I can demonstrate by referrence to evidence
>that something is false.
>
>If you make statements implying that science makes claims to absolute
>truth, I can reasonably label them as "utter nonsense" and "bollocks"
>because that is exactly what they are: if you think that science makes
>claims to absolute truth, you need to learn more about the nature of
>science.

I have repeatedly agreed "science" does not make claims of absolute
truth. It is the people on the side of science that appear to have
that attitude at times.

If your purpose here in the talk.origins newsgroup is to educate the
uneducated, fine. However, let me suggest the simply telling your
students they are wrong and you are right isn't as helpful as allowing
them to come to knowledge through their own means of understanding
(maybe even using their own definition of terms).

You are acting like a many University Professors that do not suffer
fools lightly. I question your expectations of this newsgroup. Of
course, I could be wrong. Is there a more appropriate newsgroup
than this one?

As for me, I am not interested in becoming fluent in speaking the
language of scientists. I wish to be learn enough to understand
a controversial public topic. I also strive to facilitate the thought
processes with an observation or two.

I have long ago learned that being right offers surprising little in
the way of authority in the real world. You can have all the facts
and knowledge you want, but unless you interact and
communicate (not pontificate) with others, it is meaningless.

This thread has over fifty posts to it. The original post included
this...

"The reason I ask is that ID advocates include both YEC and
OEC proponents and this bothers me. If they can agree on ID,
scientifically, how can they disagree on the age of the universe
and earth?"

My response was to ask ID advocates if they would even
agree to some basic assumptions.

So much for my attempt to engage ID advocates in joining
the discussion.

But by all means, please continue to lecture professor.

Provoking Thought

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... Few scientists see any point in further piling on ... You still have not explained how one can falsify "luck". ... That is what science is all about - predictive value, not absolute ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hard Sci-fi?
    ... Either you desire absolute ... it down with your nonsens philosophy. ... Science should have taught you that science itself began as philosophy ... scientists before drawing that conclusion. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Jerichos fallen walls: Harmonizing Archaeology and the Bible
    ... now that the precise date for that event is more absolute to ... produce the physical evidence for his claim despite it having been patiently explained to him many times. ... Some of us are not only interested in science, ... the nature of this newsgroup and apparently ignorant of the fact that archaeology is a science and must follow the rules of science. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Do scientists agree on the age of the universe and earth?
    ... >>I've repeatedly stated that I make no claims to absolute truth. ... >>I have studied geology and palaeontology for over 30 years, excavated, ... >>because that is exactly what they are: if you think that science makes ... >If your purpose here in the talk.origins newsgroup is to educate the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ida the so-called "missing link" snigger
    ... Religion doesn't even bother trying to prove anything, while by its very nature science can only ever prove something beyond reasonable doubt according to the knowledge available at that time. ... If a scientist comes up with a theory and performs an experiment to 'prove' that theory, the results will be scrutinised by other scientists. ... Those scientists cannot claim with absolute certainty that if the experiment were to be repeated 2000 more times, that the result would not be exactly the opposite. ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool)
Loading