- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:22 pm to DanTiger
quote:
I try not to be arrogant in any statement I make and always leave the possibility of being wrong open.
People who are smart enough to acknowledge self-doubt are usually pretty smart. It's the overconfident bastards that you have to watch out for. They can drive straight off a cliff without ever seeing the edge.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:27 pm to thermal9221
quote:
Neither can religion
Actually it does, in fact that is part of the point. But it requires believing in something you cannot scientifically prove.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:29 pm to Cs
I ask, who gives a frick how it started.
The past is the past, and the future is now.
Life's a garden, dig it.
The past is the past, and the future is now.
Life's a garden, dig it.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:31 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
It cannot explain who
There has to be a who?
For the why matter, that's what scientists all over the world are trying to figure out.
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:32 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
The very fact that you couch this statement as "is believed to be" shows it is not a demonstrable fact. It is a simple belief.
So you think the Earth being about 4 billion years old is nothing but a "simple belief"?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:34 pm to Fun Bunch
Because you and I cannot simply demonstrate how, it's not demonstrable to him I suppose.
My favorite point to counter that kind of logic with is.. If you wanted to dedicate years to learning how the science works and be able to prove it.. you can. If you rather not do that, then you have to take the science on faith. The biggest difference from religion being that you can go figure it out for yourself if you really want to.
My favorite point to counter that kind of logic with is.. If you wanted to dedicate years to learning how the science works and be able to prove it.. you can. If you rather not do that, then you have to take the science on faith. The biggest difference from religion being that you can go figure it out for yourself if you really want to.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:36 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
There has to be a who?
Who, what, why? - It is basically the same question. What if science is merely man's way attempting to reverse engineer God's methods?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:40 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
So you think the Earth being about 4 billion years old is nothing but a "simple belief"?
Yes. It could be that old. It might not be that old. I don't think we know and probably won't ever know. And I'm not sure it is that important that we know.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:41 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
Yes. It could be that old. It might not be that old. I don't think we know and probably won't ever know.
So, how do you think scientists have come an approximate number they consider to be basically fact?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:55 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
So, how do you think scientists have come an approximate number they consider to be basically fact?
Radiometric dating - which is based on assumptions about the rate of decay and transmutation of atomic particles. And in the last 150 years alone you can find dozens of scientists who vary in their estimation of the age of Earth by a several billion years. Hardly an exact science.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:04 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
Radiometric dating - which is based on assumptions about the rate of decay and transmutation of atomic particles. And in the last 150 years alone you can find dozens of scientists who vary in their estimation of the age of Earth by a several billion years. Hardly an exact science.
Not to be pedantic, but "assumptions" about rate of decay exist only because there is no known method by which the rates can be modified. Until something is found that can dramatically alter the decay rates, our "assumption" that they are static is all but fact. Not to mention, that these decay rates match up with other dating methods such as tree rings, ice cores, helioseismic dating, etc. etc.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:14 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Not to be pedantic, but "assumptions" about rate of decay exist only because there is no known method by which the rates can be modified.
Or they could be accelerated by events that we haven't experienced in recorded history or even have a concept of. But we are going to assume that decay has been static nevertheless and refuse to acknowledge that we don't know what we don't know.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:20 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
Who, what, why? - It is basically the same question. What if science is merely man's way attempting to reverse engineer God's methods?
I disagree that it's the same question. And as far as I'm concerned, this is no God.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:21 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
But we are going to assume that decay has been static nevertheless and refuse to acknowledge that we don't know what we don't know.
Scientists rarely, if ever, refuse to acknowledge something they don't know. They are bad at what they do if they are unwilling to admit what they don't know.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News