Religion and science - Page 109 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

I mean, that's pretty much the dictionary definition of "stupid", but we don't need to play with semantics. No stupid people, just stupid ideas etc.

I have a soft spot for lagtight, and I definitely don't think he's stupid, but that's pretty much going against my own definitions.

That's because your belief in definitions is massively too strong if not entirely misconceived.

If you ever do a philosophy course (and this applies in attempting to understand anything) you will quickly be told that you can't get anywhere by citing the authority of a definition. You have to analyse concepts and think about meanings at a much deeper level.

BTW this is not close to just being about semantics. It's about understanding. Semantics is important and often gets in the way but you have to work though it.

01-20-2021 , 07:57 AM

#2702

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by formula72

Thanks. Was there something in that article that was influential enough to convince you that the earth isn't billions of year old? If so, what was it? If not, why did you link it?

I read Lisle's book The Ultimate Proof of Creation prior to becoming aware of the linked article. Lisle made reference to the article in the book.

There are several scientific arguments that make the "billions of years" scenario problematic.

For example, many comets are observed in our solar system, and yet most astrophysicists now believe that a comet will eventually "burn out" after around 100,000 years. But, if the solar system is millions (billions?) of years old, where do "new" comets come from? Their "answer" is the so-called "Oort Cloud", which existence is more conjecture than fact.

01-20-2021 , 08:03 AM

#2703

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

There is plenty to object to in that article but perhaps the easiest to refute

That's not at all true. There is an entire branch of mathematics and physics that studies systems that are fundamentally unpredictable and produce wildly different results every time you run the experiment. Even some simple children's toys exhibit this behavior. Explaining why this system is unpredictable and others aren't is well within the scope of science and is often shown in an undergrad level classical mechanics or differential equations class.

Bringing christinanity in to bolster the incorrect claim as the author did is just bizarre, but irrelevant.

The claim is not that there are aren't any unpredictable systems. The claim is that without a general uniformity of nature, then nothing would be predictable.

01-20-2021 , 08:08 AM

#2704

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

Did u actually read it ?
At some point between today and the big band , physic did break down (changed) and he saying the universe is uniform ?
Nothing uniform between quantum mechanic and the theory of relativity .

Furthermore just some semantic text with no data, proof , etc .
That ain’t science that philosophy ....

Philosophy and Science are inseparable. In fact, what is now demarcated as "Science" was once referred to as "Natural Philosophy."

01-20-2021 , 08:11 AM

#2705

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

Did u actually read it ?
At some point between today and the big band , physic did break down (changed) and he saying the universe is uniform ?
Nothing uniform between quantum mechanic and the theory of relativity .

Furthermore just some semantic text with no data, proof , etc .
That ain’t science that philosophy ....

I blame Benny Goodman for the breakdown of physics.

01-20-2021 , 08:20 AM

#2706

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

Intelligibility and predictability are not the same thing.

Right. But, predictability requires/assumes intelligibility.

01-20-2021 , 08:24 AM

#2707

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds

But that's not actually what number 1 said. Is it ?

Obviously if humans can't know things then science is useless.
But that's a pretty low bar.

The logic and order are often revealed by scientific study.

I don't think it is assumed. Why would it be ? It will be observed easily enough.

Knowledge is possible only if certain preconditions of intelligibility are already present (e.g. induction, deduction, general uniformity of nature, general reliability of our senses, general reliability of our memories, etc.)

01-20-2021 , 08:34 AM

#2708

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Of course they are. I got rocks in my garden that is by available evidence evidence far, far older than what YEC allows.

YEC is the complete rejection of modern day physics, astronomy, geology, biology, geography, archeology, anthropology, linguistics and history. To name a few.

You might not want it to be that or refuse to accept it, but that is irrelevant.

The bolded is just plain stupid. MOST of the claims in the fields you mentioned above are accepted by YEC. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

01-20-2021 , 08:38 AM

#2709

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFlushDiamonds

Lagtight is at that place in his spiritual journey where he has it all figured out.

It will pass. (like all phases of everyone's spiritual journey)

I actually have very little "figured out." And have never claimed otherwise. But thank you for sharing.

01-20-2021 , 08:43 AM

#2710

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte

You keep retreating to a vacuous claim like this when challenged, but again you made far stricter claims like

Forget something complicated like evolution, lets just talk about dropping an ice cube in a cup of water at room temperature. 100% of the time you will eventually get no ice and slightly colder water . You never get a bigger piece of ice and slightly hotter water, even though this is technically not impossible. The standard view in physics is that "random" processes (molecular collisions) cause the ice to melt and water to cool and furthermore fully explain why you never see the technically possible more ice hotter water result. Is it your position that this must be wrong because "random" processes can never be a good explanation for a "uniform" result?

"Randomness" implies unpredictability. If someone created a RNG, and you were able to reliability determine in advance what numbers that RNG would generate, then the RNG obviously wasn't producing "random" numbers.

01-20-2021 , 08:44 AM

#2711

Rococo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,193

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Right. But, predictability requires/assumes intelligibility.

lagtight,

Why are you responding to a post I made a week ago (in the same way you responded a week ago) rather than answering the more recent questions?

01-20-2021 , 08:51 AM

#2712

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

The bigger problem from you afacis is that it means god provides evidence for things that didnt happen.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. All evidence is filtered through a worldview.

01-20-2021 , 08:54 AM

#2713

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

lagtight,

Why are you responding to a post I made a week ago (in the same way you responded a week ago) rather than answering the more recent questions?

Hi, Rococo.

I'm trying to catch up. Sorry, I forgot I responded to that post already. I will eventually catch up (I hope)!

Thanks y'all for your patience.

01-20-2021 , 08:58 AM

#2714

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Should the following proposition be summarily rejected?

The decimal determination of pi contains at least one sequence of six consecutive 7's?

Since the above proposition is NOT falsifiable, it SHOULD be summarily rejected if falsifiability is a necessary condition for a claim being "scientific."

01-20-2021 , 09:08 AM

#2715

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgiggity

Lagtight's refusal to engage in good-faith discussion has been even more pathetic than expected.

Thank you for sharing.

01-20-2021 , 09:14 AM

#2716

Willd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 16,237

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of randomness; random does not mean arbitrary. Pretty much the entirety of physics is based on the predictability of random events that occur in large numbers. A specific random event can't be predicted with certainty, but as the number of random events increases the overall result can be predicted with increasing accuracy to the point of certainty for practical purposes.

01-20-2021 , 09:20 AM

#2717

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

How come you won’t answer any of Rocco’s questions?

Wow, TrollyLiar at it again.

Please see the following posts in this thread:

#2649
#2650
#2666
#2667

All detailed responses.

Since I enjoy exposing liars such as yourself, I will resume responding to your posts as a public service to expose your lack of integrity.

01-20-2021 , 09:25 AM

#2718

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willd

Well said. I agree with all of the above.

01-20-2021 , 09:30 AM

#2719

lagtight

banned

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 10,279

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Hi, Rococo.

I'm trying to catch up. Sorry, I forgot I responded to that post already. I will eventually catch up (I hope)!

Thanks y'all for your patience.

I'm pooped. (Where's the "I'm falling asleep" smiley?)

I'll get to the rest of your questions later.

Thank you for thoughtfully and respectfully engaging me in this thread.

01-20-2021 , 11:27 AM

#2720

Willd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 16,237

Quote:

Originally Posted by lagtight

Well said. I agree with all of the above.

You realise that your reply to ecriture was completely nonsensical then? Randomness very clearly doesn't imply unpredictability and uniform results being obtained from random events is not only possible but a fundamental property of nature.

01-20-2021 , 11:39 AM

#2721

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,772

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willd

Sometimes I have to check to make sure this actually is a gambling forum.

01-20-2021 , 11:57 AM

#2722

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Thread is temporarily locked for now, while we decide its fate in the mod thread. Do not continue debates from this thread there.

Some name-calling has been cleaned up as well.

Page 109 of 109

First

9 59 89 99 104 105 106 107 108 109

Last

Closed Thread Subscribe

...

Page 109 of 109

First

9 59 89 99 104 105 106 107 108 109

Last