Easy way to prove the Earth is at least a million years old

[Willamena]

the scientific method is a tool. right. so what does science do when it isn't using that tool? go outside and have a smoke?

Science is us.


So... yes.

 

[Skwim]

the scientific method is a tool. right. so what does science do when it isn't using that tool? go outside and have a smoke?

When isn't "science," using it? Furthermore, this whole notion of science as some single entity that sometimes does this and somethings does that, is down right absurd.

 

[Skwim]

Not the ladle, the spoon.
That is how I got a slotted spoon, you know.

Sounds incestuous.

 

[Riverwolf]

Knowing how to manipulate the fundamental constituents of the universe to do our bidding is not "wisdom"?

No, it's knowledge.

Wisdom is the ability to discern when to do things, and whether or not they should be done.

In other words, as long as people remain aware of possible consequences, the ability to perform such manipulation is okay.

 

[McBell]

Sounds incestuous.

It is.
But since it is dinnerware, it is allowed.

 

[devilchasnme]

When isn't "science," using it? Furthermore, this whole notion of science as some single entity that sometimes does this and somethings does that, is down right absurd.

Right. Science always uses the scientific method. That's my point.

This started when Mestemia asked me "How do you distinguish between truth and untruth?" so I was explaining to him why I don't use science to get to truth with
a discussion of the way I see the scientific method.

...if science always uses the scientific method and the essence of the scientific method is to never stop questioning then it can never come to truth.

If you believe science can someday discover ultimate truth then I am interested in your reasoning.

 

[McBell]

ah yes.
The unanswered question.
Perhaps you would like to answer it now?

 

[Skwim]

It is.
But since it is dinnerware, it is allowed.

Ah yes, the famous Chicago Cutlery v. American Kitchen Cabinet Consortium decision.

 

[devilchasnme]

You did not answer the question.
How do you distinguish between truth and un-truth?

I have answered the question twice. Here's a third:

truth is buried under layers of untruth - layers of assumptions, misconceptions, understandings, predjudices, lies, beliefs, desires, fears, and on and on... strip away those layers and you will see that which is always the same, that which never changes.

how do you distinguish between truth and untruth? I am interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[DarkSun]

...if science always uses the scientific method and the essence of the scientific method is to never stop questioning then it can never come to truth.

The essence of the scientific method is to keep questioning until you have an answer... and only to start questioning again if that answer is shown the be faulty. If the answer isn't faulty, then there's no need to keep questioning.

 

[McBell]

I have answered the question twice. Here's a third:

truth is buried under layers of untruth - layers of assumptions, misconceptions, understandings, predjudices, lies, beliefs, desires, fears, and on and on... strip away those layers and you will see that which is always the same, that which never changes.

how do you distinguish between truth and untruth? I am interested to hear your thoughts.

You have not said how you know truth from untruth.
You have merely repeated the process of how you believe truth is found.
Or is it your claim that once you reach the very very bottom then the last thing you remove is the truth?

How do you know it is the truth?

I have no idea how you figure to tell the difference between truth and untruth.
That is why I am asking you.

 

[linwood]

...speaking as a theist myself, I must say... that rebuttal is ridiculous.

I have heard it many many times.
It is indeed the "Usual" theistic rebuttal to the argument.

You are apparently not the "Usual" theist.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have heard it many many times.
It is indeed the "Usual" theistic rebuttal to the argument.

You are apparently not the "Usual" theist.

And thank the Gods!

I was raised with science all around me, so I naturally put trust into what scientists have to say when it comes to such matters. (It has to be trust since I lack the capabilities to test their experiments myself.)

 

[javajo]

When God created Adam and Eve, they were adults. So God could create mature stars, for nothing is impossible with God.

 

[Skwim]

When God created Adam and Eve, they were adults. So God could create mature stars, for nothing is impossible with God.

Including seeing into the future and knowing A&E would eventually sin. Yet, being the sadist that he is, god created them anyway. It's like putting a toddler on the seat of a bicycle and telling them not to fall off.

 

[Riverwolf]

When God created Adam and Eve, they were adults.

They were? Where in the text does it say they were adults? After all, the story paints them more like children than adults.

I'm sorry, but that argument is pretty much the weakest... saying God could do it doesn't help the YEC cause in the least bit... it actually hurts them, because it paints God out to be a real bad person: certainly not one worth worshiping.

Not to mention, it doesn't mean God did. The argument is basically nothing more than a desperate attempt to reconcile literalistic interpretation of Scripture with modern scientific observations.

 

[javajo]

Including seeing into the future and knowing A&E would eventually sin. Yet, being the sadist that he is, god created them anyway. It's like putting a toddler on the seat of a bicycle and telling them not to fall off.

God's ways and thoughts are far above mine, but my Bible says he is a good God. God is good all the time, all the time God is good. I trust him that everything will pan out in equity and fairness in the end.

 

[javajo]

They were? Where in the text does it say they were adults? After all, the story paints them more like children than adults.

I'm sorry, but that argument is pretty much the weakest... saying God could do it doesn't help the YEC cause in the least bit... it actually hurts them, because it paints God out to be a real bad person: certainly not one worth worshiping.

Not to mention, it doesn't mean God did. The argument is basically nothing more than a desperate attempt to reconcile literalistic interpretation of Scripture with modern scientific observations.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I think the chicken came first, I assume you think the egg came first. I believe in a God who can do anything and you believe life came from non-life I would suppose. Some people interpret Genesis literally, some not, either way however God did it I believe he did indeed do it. My God is an awesome God.

 

[Riverwolf]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I think the chicken came first, I assume you think the egg came first.

Eggs were around a lot longer than chickens.

I believe in a God who can do anything and you believe life came from non-life I would suppose.

Didn't God make life from non-life?

I am a theist, FYI.

Some people interpret Genesis literally, some not, either way however God did it I believe he did indeed do it. My God is an awesome God.

To each their own.

 

[ninerbuff]

When God created Adam and Eve, they were adults. So God could create mature stars, for nothing is impossible with God.

Fairy tale gods can do anything. Read mythology.