(November 12, 2010 at 11:15 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Statler, we are all very aware that creationists like to use the lazy argument that "it is only a theory". Please refrain from doing so as you know very well that scientific theories are not in the same catagory as 'Sally theorized that billy ate her soup'. The Oort cloud idea came about for several reasons:

1) No comet's path has been calculated to indicate as coming from interstellar space.

2) All comets so far seen don't all come from one point in space.

3) There is strong orbital and gravitational evidence that many comets furthest point from the Sun lies around 50,000 A.U., roughly 1 Light Year or 50,000 times the distance between Earth and the Sun.

No, there is no definitive evidence (yet) that the Oort cloud exists. So what?

---

Statler wrote:

O.M.G! Before you can even begin to present a validating argument that your God is eternal, you first have to prove that your God even exists. Unless you are arguing that your God is a cat named Fluffy. If so, I can almost believe that.

(November 15, 2010 at 12:41 pm)Sam Wrote:

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Now you are just playing games with semantics. You are right, a person can’t use personal opinion to demonstrate an argument, it’s a good thing I didn’t use personal opinion though right? I used observation. I have never observed a textbook that represents Oort clouds as only a working theory; they all pass it off as a known validated fact. Now you will probably tell me that observation is not part of Science, but that is of course wrong.

I would not presume to say that observation is not a part of Science. You seem to think you know what I am going to say Statler I’m not sure why, but alas, this is not the case.

That’s right, you observed a textbook. Then you formed an opinion about how that material had been presented and how you understood it. Obviously both your opinion and your observations are subjective with regards to this. So you are still no nearer to proving your assertion that secular science is trying to pass the Oort Cloud theory of as a validated fact and therefore your argument that secular science uses ‘Super-Natural Rescue Mechanisms’ all the time is left severely lacking.

A quick look at Wiki also produces this;

Wikipedia Wrote:The Oort cloud (pronounced /ˈɔrt/ ort, alternatively the Öpik-Oort cloud IPA: [ˈøpik]) is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.[1] This places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper belt and scattered disc, the other two reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth the Oort cloud's distance. The outer extent of the Oort cloud defines the gravitational boundary of our Solar System.

It’s a pretty interesting read as well, take a look;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_Cloud

As Orogenicman said Statler, this hasn’t just been dreamt up on the spot and no one is claiming it as an observed and validated fact as of yet. The evidence is however, strong. I hope you can now understand my original point i.e. that the Oort Cloud is a scientifically valid, natural theory.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yes comets do represent one unknown factor in the current old Universe model; however they represent just one among numerous unknown factors with that model. It looks to me like we need to adopt a new model.

Hence why you’re not and astronomer I guess. The presence of unknown variables does not invalidate a model by default. These are unknown features which still require investigation and quantification. They haven’t just been omitted or ignored because they don’t fit as you seem to think.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This really isn’t proper scientific reasoning either since it can be used to fit any model. I could just as easily say, “Well distant starlight and background radiation are just two unknowns in our young universe model, but just because we have unknowns does not make our model invalid.” However, Creation Scientists have far better explanations for these two things than the the ways old universe guys try and explain comets.

Hmmmm ...

So it isn’t proper scientific reasoning to establish an effective model based on the observations you have, then theorise about any unknown factors and then begin observations to validate these theories? That is what you’re saying.

You’re right; having those unknowns in your models would not invalidate it. I fail to see where you were going with that.

I’m sure in your opinion they are far greater explanations Statler. Which Journal did you say they were published in? Oh, wait . . .

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Now you are committing the very fallacy you claimed I committed. You said you believe it is plausible for the existence of an Oort cloud. This is obviously just your personal opinion since there is no observed evidence for the existence of any such structure.

Have you forgotten how scientific theories work? See Orogenicmans post, the theory was devised based on the observations we had and is not accepted as fact as of yet. Also you were making absolute statements I said it was a ‘plausible theory’ . . . different things I’m afraid.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are right, “Develop a model, and test the model”. However, you test through observation, and since we cannot observe an Oort Cloud, Dark Matter, or Dark energy these are not good components to have in your model.

Okay, So tell me Statler . . . How was the theory of gravity tested?

It was tested by observing its effects, which correlated with the theory. First off, your assertion that you can only test through direct observation is absolutely ludicrous. Secondly you say that having features we cannot observe in a model is ‘not good’ . . . any assumptions/unobservable/unknowable variable in ‘your’ model? Be honest . . .

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the atttributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.

As Orogenciman & Lethe said, before you can start to make validating arguments for your God, you first have to prove ‘it’ exists otherwise your just making a circular argument. To use a simplified syllogism like that is foolish Statler.

All you’re doing is trying to bolster a faulty argument (Prime Mover or Original Cause) with theological babble about the attributes of God.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sounds like a good book actually. Well you’ll notice that I was not saying, “The Bible is historically accurate so therefore all of it is true.” I was arguing against the claim that the Bible is not historically accurate, which of course it is. So I agree with you on this, however I do not believe I was trying to make that argument.

Actually, what you were doing was trying to argue that the bible was an ‘eyewitness account’ of historical events based on the premise that it is used in archaeology all the time . . . by your own admission this is not the case.
BTW ... That book idea is mine I’m watching all of you! *joke*

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well several studies have been done demonstrating this problem. Unfortunately Creation guys are the only guys who actually consider doing these tests, it’s kind of sad that the secular community would use methods without first cross checking their validity. The tests are always done by Secular labs who are blind to the groups predictions so the data is legitimate. I would encourage you to pick up the peer-reviewed work done by the RATE Group that came out in 2008 I do believe. It is pretty complicated, but if you have a background in Geology it should be no problem. Let me see if I can find some other articles for you to look at.
. . .Like I said earlier too, the RATE Group has work published too from 2001-2008 that shows many more cases of these erroneous ages.

I’m still trying to make my mind up about something here ... You see I looked up some of this RATE groups work.

I read it through, noted some of my criticisms, mainly concerning poor or inaccurate methodologies, misidentification of specimens, fraudulent alterations to previous works, invalid assumptions, the fact that the sample were processed by ICR not a ‘Secular Lab’. I started to write a critique actually but it was taking a long time and I have Uni work to do. Anyways here is a complete refutation by a Secular Scientist;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

And a Christian;

http://www.answersincreation.org/RATE_cr..._he-zr.htm

Oh, and before you say it Statler, I reviewed your sides rebuttals here;

http://creationwiki.org/Criticism_of_RAT...usion_data

I hope you’ll note the complete lack of any counter to the serious issues raised in the previous two articles. Most of it is just them saying . . . “Yes, thats right but it doesn’t really matter does it?” and then kind of shrugging it off. I actually find it intellectually offensive if I’m honest.

So, this was the ‘evidence’ for non-constant radioactive decay rates then? Colour me unimpressed. Obviously I haven’t read all their work but this paper presents a serious challenge to their credibility with regards anything else they might have to say.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We have to go back to the “nature of evidence” discussion again? You can’t support your assumptions by saying the evidence supports them when you used these very assumptions to interpret the evidence. If you look at ice cores for example you will find that only the first couple thousand years have obvious annuals, where after that the layers appear all “squished” and almost as one solid layer. Secular scientists just assume though, “Well this rate of annual accumulation has been constant so we will just keep counting using our assumed annual accumulation measurement.” Whereas the Creation Scientist says, “Well that’s exactly what we would expect because the huge amount of ice that all is devoid of annuals is a result of the ice age that post dates the global flood.” Using anti-biblical assumptions to interpret data, and then using this interpretation to argue against Scripture is assuming the proof. We see this done all the time with the fossil record, radiometric dating, and radio-carbon dating. That’s why I have said many times that this really comes down to Worldviews and not the useless platitude “well the evidence says”, evidence itself says nothing.

Well, that’s not how Ice Core analysis works. First of all, the layers are ‘squished’ as you so eloquently put it, due to the accumulation of ice above them. Furthermore, we don’t just ‘keep counting’. We use ice core analyses to see how much ice accumulated at a certain time (among other things), thus indicating the nature of the climate at that time. Also we use layers of ash, pollen and other things in combination with radiometric dating (which you have yet to prove is inaccurate) to assist in this.

So to say a constant accumulation rate is assumed actually makes you seem rather ill-informed. Hey, I suppose AIG haven’t recruited an ‘expert’ in this field yet though. Also we use layers of ash, pollen and other things in combination with radiometric dating (which you have yet to prove is inaccurate) to assist in this.
I’ll paraphrase from Tiberiuss signature (@AH: Hope you don’t mind);

All opinions and assumptions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic, observation and argument than others.
Can we seriously drop this BS, I’m sick of hearing;

“Yes, yes ... that is and has been validated by science for years but you’re assuming .................................. Which I think is false because of the bible”

From now on why don’t you state categorically the assumptions you have an issue with when you have them.
I’ll say it again, the assumptions we use have been validated (in many cases) by over a hundred years of scientific study, whereas you can’t even prove any of your base assumptions or support them in observation enough to get anyone to listen to you.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well then you have not been reading all the literature on the subject. You should pick up literature on the subject written by Creationists and see what they consider evidence for a global flood. I think you will find it very interesting and I think it is more intellectually honest than a lot of the secular geologic material printed today. I think the fossil record is some of the best evidence for a global flood available.

You’re right. I’ve been focussing my reading on the scientifically valid journals used by Academic & Professional organisations in my field of study. Considering I played to this once I fail to see why I should if you cannot even relates some of these ideas coherently.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well the Creation Peer Review system is fairly new (25 years or so) so yes Dr. Lisle is most likely correct, it is still working out some kinks. Though I don’t think I am giving them “blind” trust, I pointed out that I was trusting them on their track record, which to this point is very good.

Not from what I’ve seen. In fact if the group you presented are to be taken as representative I’d say it has a pretty poor track record. I have to note that no secular journal would allow some of the things that were done by Dr. Humphreys.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It was actually interesting; ICR actually did a statistical study on the book of Genesis and the usage of the Hebrew verbs to determine whether it was written as historical narrative or just figurative allegory. The study came out conclusively that it was intended as historical narrative.

And this proves?

It would seem that this kind of analysis could not distinguish between something written to imitate a historical narrative and an actual historical narrative. As for which Scholars; I’m relatively sure that both the Catholic Church & Church of England now refute that genesis is an accurate account of creation. I can’t be sure though.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I did read that article but I can’t say I agree with its author much. He strikes me more as someone who got caught on shaky logical ground so he is trying the old “Despite my bad logic you still need to address the issue! So meh!” This of course is not true. I was taught in formal debate that if someone addresses you with an logically invalid argument you are in no way obligated to respond to the argument, just point out the fallacious use of logic and you win. You will see this in formal debates all the time. In fact, it is inappropriate to not point out problems in the other side’s logic because you then give credence to their bad arguments. A person must first present a valid argument before they can present a sound argument. All sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound. So if I can demonstrate the argument is invalid, then I have also demonstrated the argument cannot be sound. This is a very effective way of debating and I am not surprised that Dr. Lisle has frustrated a few people by using it.

He wasn’t really on shaky logical ground though. Dr. Lisle was picking up on the ‘Question Begging Epithet’ which is not sufficient to discount an argument in a debate. He simply uses emotive language to emphasise his point which does not make the logic invalid.

Also, this technique is used in formal debates. It removes the argument from consideration by the judges. Obviously there are no judges here so all you achieve is dodging the question.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Lol, ah the old "Appeal to Common Sense" fallacy, nicely done. Well it's a good thing I don't have "half a brain", but rather I have a whole one. So to those of us who have whole brains it is not non-sense. Argument stands unrefuted, I win.

Please don’t start arbitrarily claiming ‘I win’ Statler ... It is pointless and puerile, in fact I suspect you are doing it just to annoy people. I would much rather you just fuck off if you’re going to start doing it.

Cheers

Sam