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

On 4 Dec 2005 10:58:19 -0800, "Thought Provoker" <dfcord@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>>> 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.

And that was your error. Among the list of things you suggested for
'basic assumptions' are things which, historically, the anti-evos have
disparaged by refering to them as 'assumptions'. ie 'you have no proof
that the earth is that old, it is just something you assume.'

I see subsequently that you used a different meaning of 'assumption',
but as that meaning is rarely (read 'never') used in this group, you
got jumped on. I think if you go back over the thread, you will find
that the source of nearly all of your disagreements is that (local)
misuse of the term 'assumption'.

>So much for my attempt to engage ID advocates in joining
>the discussion.
>
>But by all means, please continue to lecture professor.
>
>Provoking Thought
>

--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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. ... >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 ... language of scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do scientists agree on the age of the universe and earth?
    ... Thought Provoker wrote: ... I've repeatedly stated that I make no claims to absolute truth. ... I have studied geology and palaeontology for over 30 years, excavated, ... If you make statements implying that science makes claims to absolute ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Reading the source of a HTML file, which is displayed by a webbrowser control
    ... Then just refer to them in your generated HTML with absolute (as opposed ... Absolute links have the great disadvantage that you can't use them if you ... Your commitment seems to make and break the newsgroup(It's a figure of ... commitments is the spirit of the newsgroup, but if you don't post, the ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.atl)
  • Re: Optimizing code - is /O2 faster that /Ox ???
    ... > when you did give absolute wrong answers. ... may be considering is when I added the Ticks properties of TimeSpans ... > a language.vb newsgroup. ... You may have another opinion. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
Loading