Double truth...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Fraud by scientists - or by anyone for that matter is certainly dithspicable. I wont comment further on the ones you mention because I haven't investigated them because I fail to see the relevance.

well well, how convenient, not relevant eh? dithpicable

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pah, that sir is an unmitigated fabrication, you're lucky i don't ask Scriabin to solicit a charge of defamation of character against you on my behalf!

🙂 I could easily prove that it is not fabricated, but then you would stop talking to me again wouldn't you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well well, how convenient, not relevant eh? dithpicable

You are more than welcome to explain its relevance or even better, answer the actual question which you are continuing to avoid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
🙂 I could easily prove that it is not fabricated, but then you would stop talking to me again wouldn't you?

that depends on how you go about it, from my memory i remember you slavering on about earthquakes being the result of Adamic sin, quite preposterous really, by that point i had quite enough, you were bordering on insanity and i thought it prudent to leave you to your own delusions, it is not what was being said, but the constant negativity, for the Bible counsels us Christians with regard to these type of things, to shun 'foolish questions', and speeches which violate that which is Holy, therefore we cannot be blamed for following its advice and taking precautions like extracting ourselves from unwholesome situations.

But shun foolish questionings and genealogies and strife and fights over the Law, for they are unprofitable and futile. - Titus 3:9

i do hope you understand 🙂

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Nerd. 😛

LOL, i do not deny it!🙂

I have a cyber-friend of about 7 years, who frequented a discussion forum with me. That is until recently when the discussion forum was wiped out and a new, flakey one put in its place, so I left. Still looking for a discussion forum home but anyway I digress.

This friend of mine used to work as an anthropologist. He went on case studies in this country as well as South America. He was not a Christian. Notice I say, "was." To his utter frustration and leading to his exit from the field, he was consistently told to ignore any evidence that conradicted what long had been established. He recounted multiple times where he would present found evidence that shattered what had already been established, which would have caused at minimum a lengthy sidetrack from the current mission, but also threatened to rewrite books. As he stated which I can only paraphrase since all the information is now gone from the website, he had no choice but to leave the anthropological field of study because it was clear that they had already decided what was true and refused to be deterred by evidence. This is where science isn't science anymore but the fact is, today's scientific community would rather reject and dismiss than have to go back to square one... there's just too much effort and money at stake.

Anyway my friend, once the blinders were removed and he realized how little science REALLY knows... he was nudged in the direction of the opposite and eventually became a Christian... even a preacher for a couple of years. (until he stepped down from the pulpit after realizing how corrupt the church is as well, lol)

Even carbon-dating isn't totally reliable.

There are a ton of assumptions and a ton of dogma, dare I say doctrine in the scientific community. Problem is, laypeople like us are left with nothing but what is given to us. We read books and watch videos but rarely are we given any of the evidence that threatens to turn science on its ear.

I'll be mocked I'm sure, since I can't do much but just say this and ask people to open their minds to the possibilities... I'm just not an expert and don't have the time or wherewhithall to do all the googling and researching for everyone else.

It works both ways I guess. The secular folk aren't going to chane their mind until a different truth becomes completely undeniable. And to be fair, until such time as my Christian beliefs are proven false, I as well have no inclination to seek out a reason to change them.

I just giggle at people's notion that science has it all right, when at best all they have for proof are books and video productions.

Christians are laughed at for believing what they believe when all they have is a Bible to lean on. Ironically, the same goes for the secular world, but for the scant few who are actually in science labs conducting the research first hand.

Originally posted by sumydid
I have a cyber-friend of about 7 years, who frequented a discussion forum with me. That is until recently when the discussion forum was wiped out and a new, flakey one put in its place, so I left. Still looking for a discussion forum home but anyway I digress.

This friend of mine used to work as an anthropologist. He went on case studies in this countr ...[text shortened]... the scant few who are actually in science labs conducting the research first hand.

some sense and honesty in the spirituality forum at last! i thank you for this my friend!🙂

Originally posted by sumydid
I have a cyber-friend of about 7 years, who frequented a discussion forum with me. That is until recently when the discussion forum was wiped out and a new, flakey one put in its place, so I left. Still looking for a discussion forum home but anyway I digress.

This friend of mine used to work as an anthropologist. He went on case studies in this countr the scant few who are actually in science labs conducting the research first hand.

Even carbon-dating isn't totally reliable.

Out of curiosity, how old do you think the earth is?

I can't do much but just say this and ask people to open their minds to the possibilities...

You mean you can't do more than this "Science is the Devil!" type of shrieking? You mean you can't present some considered argument for your own view? Also, for our intents and purposes here, no one should be interested here in mere "possibilities" but rather in plausibility. You have some plausible account for, say, cosmological origins or, say, the diversity of life on earth? Then let's hear it. You have some outrageously implausible (yet broadly possible) account? Then don't waste our time.

The secular folk aren't going to chane their mind until a different truth becomes completely undeniable.

Some maybe, but not on the whole. There are any number of very responsible "secular folk" who are just trying the best they can to come up with views that actually fit the evidence at their disposal. Part of being responsible here is that their view be amenable to being revised or overturned as new evidence comes up. But that doesn't mean they are looking for something "completely undeniable". Again, considerations go toward plausibility.

I just giggle at people's notion that science has it all right, when at best all they have for proof are books and video productions.

Christians are laughed at for believing what they believe when all they have is a Bible to lean on. Ironically, the same goes for the secular world

I don't know too many folk who think "science has it all right" or that the body of prevailing scientific opinion is infallible, so why don't you give up this silly caricature already? Again, despite whether you wish to acknowledge this fact or not, there are many scientists out there who are characteristically responsible when they carry out their work and build their beliefs. They also offer up their findings to the community through avenues that are designed to promote quality and healthy skepticism, like peer review and the like; and this encourages healthy debate on the topic at hand. This means that any individual view and any overall prevailing view if there be one, are, as I said before, subject to revision as appropriate. I don't hear you contributing anything meaningful or constructive to (or even attempting to partake in) the healthy debate.

And there's also a big difference between the book you cling to and, say, all the scientific publications that I can access to try to build a picture of the available evidence. For one, mine (at least the ones I would take as reliable) are peer reviewed and, as I mentioned, are part of an overall project to foster healthy debate on whatever topic at issue; whereas yours isn't. For two, the ones I have access to actually try to argue in some manner for their theses; whereas your book seems allergic to anything resembling argument. And anyway, your book doesn't even offer anything above the metaphorical for much of these types of descriptive inquiries into the world.

Beyond that, part of your issue here points to the different positions of the layperson and the actual scientist. Yes, not everyone has direct access to the first-order evidence and data. Yes, sometimes you have to weigh the testimony of the presumed experts. Yes, sometimes you have to put a little faith in these experts, and this envelops considerations of their reputation and track record. At bottom, it's just like any source of testimony: you have to consider the issue of its reliability. If you're an inquiring mind, you'll have to do some research into the scientific body of work that has been reported. And at bottom, like anything else, your view should accord with what you take to be the actual evidence that bears on the topic. What's mysterious about any of this? In the same way you can take biblical testimony to be reliable based on your deliberations on it, I can take the considered arguments and body of work of, say, a particular scientist in a particular area to be reliable based on my evidential considerations.

There are a ton of assumptions and a ton of dogma, dare I say doctrine in the scientific community.

Give us some examples. What are some unwarranted assumptions that are prevailing in the scientific community? See, eventually you'll have to actually present some argument in order to be taken seriously. Shrieking anti-science drivel at the top of your lungs won't take you very far.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Even carbon-dating isn't totally reliable.

Out of curiosity, how old do you think the earth is?

I can't do much but just say this and ask people to open their minds to the possibilities...

You mean you can't do more than this "Science is the Devil!" type of shrieking? You mean you can't present some considered argument for your own -science drivel at the top of your lungs won't take you very far.[/b]

Shrieking anti-science drivel at the top of your lungs won't take you very far

what is it wid you man, its not anti science its simply non science, as the case of Ramapithecus has clearly demonstrated, NOT ANTI SCIENCE, get it, NOT ANTI SCIENCE but dogma and wishful thinking, masquerading as science, are you denying this case and others, that it does not exist?

Originally posted by sumydid
Even carbon-dating isn't totally reliable.

How so? I think the C14-method works very well.

It is correlated with dendro-chronology with high degree of accuracy. Two methods giving the same result must be both right or both wrong.

So please, motivate your statement that carbon-dating isn't totally reliable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that depends on how you go about it, from my memory i remember you slavering on about earthquakes being the result of Adamic sin, quite preposterous really, by that point i had quite enough, you were bordering on insanity and i thought it prudent to leave you to your own delusions,

To set the record straight I had asked:
Or are you one of those Christians who thinks that earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by sin?
To which you replied:
wrong, it is all directly traceable in one way or another to the rebellion in the Garden of Eden
When I asked for clarification you said:
sorry i do not need to explain anything to you,
and a few posts later decided to exit with:
i never stated that earthquakes were the result of Adamic sin, you did! so if you want to be taken seriously, best evaluate your own propaganda! from this point on, unless you have anything positive to say to me, do not bother posting in response to my thoughts, for i do not wish to feel and think as negatively as you -have a good day - regards robbie.

Of course all this followed a whole thread in which I was asking for clarification on sacrifice and you were trying very hard not to answer the question, so I really wasn't very surprised when you found an excuse to exit.

Originally posted by twhitehead
To set the record straight I had asked:
Or are you one of those Christians who thinks that earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by sin?
To which you replied:
wrong, it is all directly traceable in one way or another to the rebellion in the Garden of Eden
When I asked for clarification you said:
sorry i do not need to explain anything not to answer the question, so I really wasn't very surprised when you found an excuse to exit.

pah, you are confusing the moral issues which according to scripture have resulted from a morally independent stance and natural disasters, which are just that, persons being the victim of circumstance, although there is ample biblical evidence that suggests that in the coming system these will be brought under control, and rather interestingly one of Christs prophecies states that there would be an increase in earthquakes as this system draws to an end! there was enough in that thread to satisfy even the most thirsty of students, if i failed to answer the question, and man i tried, it was because i could no understand what you were asking, it seemed to me there was enough info in that thread and i stated that i could not add to it, yes, i judged that by your tone and reference to Adamic sin and natural disasters, which was your invention, you had lost the plot and were now bordering on the absurd, which i have every right to extricate myself from. constantly berating is very wearisome to deal with and if no common ground can be found then its simply time to move on, we cannot stop to kick every dog that barks at us, can we? no insult intended

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Shrieking anti-science drivel at the top of your lungs won't take you very far

what is it wid you man, its not anti science its simply non science, as the case of Ramapithecus has clearly demonstrated, NOT ANTI SCIENCE, get it, NOT ANTI SCIENCE but dogma and wishful thinking, masquerading as science, are you denying this case and others, that it does not exist?

are you denying this case and others, that it does not exist?

I'm not sure what you are asking me or otherwise trying to say. I don't see any actual substantive argument coming from you or sumydid; rather, you guys just seem to be flinging really general accusations in the direction of 'science' broadly construed. And hey, as I hinted to the other guy already, if you have some more plausible account than the prevailing ones in competition in the literature, then let's hear it already!

Are you asking me whether or not I acknowledge that certain scientific positions, even prevailing ones at time, have turned out to be mistaken? Are you asking me whether or not I acknowledge that, further, some of these instances were carried out under fraudulent and irresponsible venture? I acknowledge both. But what's your point? What is your actual argument? As far as I can tell, your argument seems to be something like the following:

(1) [insert some supposed example where evolutionary science failed; where some scientific discovery turned out to be false, perhaps even predicated on fraudulent or reckless reporting.]
(2) Holy crap, see (1)!!!!
(3) Therefore, evolution theory is all lies!

I mean, is that some sort of joke?

By the way, have you looked into the book I mentioned to you a while back when you were ignorantly declaiming on the supposed complete lack of evolutionary explanation for human moral faculty? Well, of course you haven't!!! That's because, as I have told you before and will readily state again: you are intellectually lazy and utterly disingenuous on this and closely related topics. The way you declaim on evolutionary theory without even having the slightest inclination to actually genuinely engage the topic or gather even a bit of understanding on it is just shameful.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
pah, you are confusing the moral issues which according to scripture have resulted from a morally independent stance and natural disasters, which are just that, persons being the victim of circumstance,

But as I have pointed out several times now (and quoted your exact words) it is you that made the claim and not me. Why do you keep saying that it was I that brought up Adamic sin as the cause of earthquakes when it was quite clearly you? We were discussing suffering and I pointed out that most human suffering was caused by natural circumstances such as disease and natural disasters at which point it was you that blamed this on adamic sin.

there was enough in that thread to satisfy even the most thirsty of students, if i failed to answer the question, and man i tried, it was because i could no understand what you were asking, it seemed to me there was enough info in that thread and i stated that i could not add to it,
I was more than willing (and still am) to try to reexplain what I was asking but you chose to exit first.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]are you denying this case and others, that it does not exist?

I'm not sure what you are asking me or otherwise trying to say. I don't see any actual substantive argument coming from you or sumydid; rather, you guys just seem to be flinging really general accusations in the direction of 'science' broadly construed. And hey, as I told the other ...[text shortened]... genuinely engage the topic or gather even a bit of understanding on it is just shameful.[/b]

oh lemony yellow one how refreshing it is to read your candid statement, i salute your honesty and integrity although your train of thought attributed to others (the three easy steps to enlightenment) , while imaginative, leaves a lot to be desired.

no i have not read your book suggestion for i am too busy reading things that are, at least to me, infinitely more captivating, for example CJS Purdy, the search for chess perfection, the most instructive games of chess ever played, Irving Chernev, pawn structure chess, Andrew Soltis and the chess mind, Gerald Abrahams. this is enough to keep me out of mischief at the moment.

please be assured i am not anti science, not in the slightest, i think science is wonderful, the most exciting developments are yet to be discovered. i think the application of nanotechnology especially in the field of medical science is nothing short of astonishing, but then to me, so is 'the creation', - kind regards robbie.