nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: − + + + + + +
I didn't give up; evidence for a young Earth.
No. See the article on falsifiability at my talk page.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No. See the article on falsifiability at my talk page.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:Very disingenuous. Of course I saw it—[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG/Archive_1 I refuted much of it]. But you removed my refutation to an archive, and ignored (assuming you saw it) my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmesG&diff=62237&oldid=62179 edit comment] pointing out you had ignored the refutation and simply repeated the incorrect information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:Very disingenuous. Of course I saw it—[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG/Archive_1#Creationism I refuted much of it]. But you removed my refutation to an archive, and ignored (assuming you saw it) my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmesG&diff=62237&oldid=62179 edit comment] pointing out you had ignored the refutation and simply repeated the incorrect information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::Care to refute it again? I must have missed it. Feel free to post your refutation on my talk page in a new section. It should be... interesting.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 02:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::Care to refute it again? I must have missed it. Feel free to post your refutation on my talk page in a new section. It should be... interesting.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 02:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's still there in your archive, as per the link I gave, so I don't feel inclined to repeat it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's still there in your archive, as per the link I gave, so I don't feel inclined to repeat it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It looks like you gave up on the argument after PalMD001 explained it to you, so I'm not going to say that you refuted anything. But most of the problems you raise seem to be the basic misunderstandings of how science adapts to deal with new evidence, and how that's different from falsifiability. As you said, a stegosaurus bone with a human bitemark would change a lot about dinosaurs. But it wouldn't change evolution, necessarily. It wouldn't disprove the 4.5bn year old earth. What "evidence" do you guys even have for an "old earth"? And if you say, "the Bible, that's it," I might scream.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It looks like you gave up on the argument after PalMD001 explained it to you, so I'm not going to say that you refuted anything. But most of the problems you raise seem to be the basic misunderstandings of how science adapts to deal with new evidence, and how that's different from falsifiability. As you said, a stegosaurus bone with a human bitemark would change a lot about dinosaurs. But it wouldn't change evolution, necessarily. It wouldn't disprove the 4.5bn year old earth. What "evidence" do you guys even have for an "old earth"? And if you say, "the Bible, that's it," I might scream.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then you didn't look very closely, because I responded to every reply he made in that section (by the way, I just realised that my intended link to the section wasn't to the section, sorry, but I've fixed it now).
:::::Thank you for agreeing that human bite marks on a dinosaur bone wouldn't refute evolution; that was my point—that evolution itself (as distinct from specific details) is not falsifiable, just like you blokes accuse creation of being. So if evolution itself is not falsifiable (note that I asked for something that would falsify evolution, and that question was never answered), why the double standard in insisting that creation must be?
:::::I figure you meant to ask what evidence we have for a ''young'' Earth? Apart from the Bible (which we consider reliable ''historical'' evidence, not ''scientific'' evidence), there are various dating methods that, whilst not guaranteeing to give an accurate age, are inconsistent with the old Earth idea. One is the amount of salt in the ocean, which gives an upper limit on the age of the oceans of (if I remember correctly) around 65 million years. Another is the size of human population, which could not have been increasing (as it does) for the million years or so that humans have been about.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
== Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views ==
== Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views ==