BerniePragle Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 2 hours ago, LJB said: healthy skepticism is your friend... it really is just that easy... Anybody know how well that works at Liberty University? Say, in Religious Studies classes... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJB Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 39 minutes ago, Nailbender said: I don't believe you. **nod in approval** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crotalus Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, El Luchador said: And I'm simply not willing to accept the assumptions used in the methods of calculating this are strong enough to make this claim of 4.5 billion years. I think students should be made aware that these assumptions usually represented as being highly likely are in fact not as solid of a foundation as they represent. Students of science first need to be taught how to view science. That is with skepticism. No, you're not willing to accept the conclusions because it conflicts with your view of humans riding T-rexs just a few thousand years ago. Coincidentally, I spent the morning searching for fossilized shark teeth from Miocene age deposits (~23-5 mya). Got a really nice Carcharodon hastalis (the genus is in debate) and a beast of a Hemipristis serra that was unfortunately missing most of the tip. Edited February 12, 2023 by Crotalus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Luchador Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 15 minutes ago, Crotalus said: No, you're not willing to accept the conclusions because it conflicts with your view of humans riding T-rexs just a few thousand years ago. Coincidentally, I spent the morning searching for fossilized shark teeth from Miocene age deposits (~23-5 mya). Got a really nice Carcharodon hastalis (the genus is in debate) and a beast of a Hemipristis serra that was unfortunately missing most of the tip. Or the science is lacking, what ever your bias allow to think. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerniePragle Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 2 hours ago, Crotalus said: No, you're not willing to accept the conclusions because it conflicts with your view of humans riding T-rexs just a few thousand years ago. Coincidentally, I spent the morning searching for fossilized shark teeth from Miocene age deposits (~23-5 mya). Got a really nice Carcharodon hastalis (the genus is in debate) and a beast of a Hemipristis serra that was unfortunately missing most of the tip. I just remembered more of a story I told you a couple months ago. Hyner View State Park not only has hang gliding, on the back side is an archeological dig site. As I remember, some of the first lifeforms that moved from water to land were found here. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-Hyner-Pennsylvania-on-a-palaeogeographical-map-of-the-latest-Devonian_fig10_213774166 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crotalus Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 48 minutes ago, BerniePragle said: I just remembered more of a story I told you a couple months ago. Hyner View State Park not only has hang gliding, on the back side is an archeological dig site. As I remember, some of the first lifeforms that moved from water to land were found here. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-Hyner-Pennsylvania-on-a-palaeogeographical-map-of-the-latest-Devonian_fig10_213774166 Crazy to think what the world must have looked like when that happened a few thousand years ago. Hahaha. Anyways, I'm going to have to check that place out. Sounds right up my alley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jross Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 How many people believe the world is 6k years old these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerniePragle Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Crotalus said: Crazy to think what the world must have looked like when that happened a few thousand years ago. Hahaha. Anyways, I'm going to have to check that place out. Sounds right up my alley. I guess the entire area was underwater X years ago. (X >> 6000) Then the area heaved up and during the ice age glaciers cut out everything you see except for the tops of the hills. When you're at the top it's 1900 ft above sea level and 1300 ft above the Susquehanna River West Branch below. When you look out from the top all the hills are the same height and flat on the top. This is toward the north part of the Allegheny Plateau. About 70-80 miles north of here in Gold, PA is what's called the Eastern Watershed. Water from here goes North to the St Lawrence River, West to the Mississippi, and SW to the Chesapeake. Lots of logging history, etc. If you ever go there, I can give you a lot of pointers aboutthe surrounding areas. We currently live about 2.5 hours NE of HynerView. Edited February 13, 2023 by BerniePragle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scourge165 Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 10 hours ago, El Luchador said: And I'm simply not willing to accept the assumptions used in the methods of calculating this are strong enough to make this claim of 4.5 billion years. I think students should be made aware that these assumptions usually represented as being highly likely are in fact not as solid of a foundation as they represent. Students of science first need to be taught how to view science. That is with skepticism. Yeah, I don't know how they come up with 4.5 billion years. People smarter than me come up with an approximate age...and when you're talking about ~4.5 BILLION, I understand the skepticism. I don't believe that the Earth is 5,500 years old and the Earth is billions of years old demands equal credence however. Teaching how they date isotopes and shit like that...that's probably what they should teach. But the idea that it's 5500 years and we were walking around in the Jurassic period is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scourge165 Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 58 minutes ago, jross said: How many people believe the world is 6k years old these days? I don't know exactly, but it's not an insignificant number. The last White House publicly stated 6,000(actually, 5,500 to be exact). I have several relatives who do. One who's in Naval Intelligence(and...he's pretty highly ranked) and he believes as much(though neither he nor any of the others would refer to it as a belief). That's anecdotal, but you can Google the polls. They seem to range from 38% to 45%. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Luchador Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 22 minutes ago, scourge165 said: Yeah, I don't know how they come up with 4.5 billion years. People smarter than me come up with an approximate age...and when you're talking about ~4.5 BILLION, I understand the skepticism. I don't believe that the Earth is 5,500 years old and the Earth is billions of years old demands equal credence however. Teaching how they date isotopes and shit like that...that's probably what they should teach. But the idea that it's 5500 years and we were walking around in the Jurassic period is silly. You have been spoon fed, you clearly don't think for yourself. You clearly can't bring yourself to any other theories because in your mind it would strengthen the argument for the creationists. The only one bringing up a 6000 year old Earth are the ones who claim a monopoly on scientific knowledge. As you sit and maintain your position in the face of all it's flaws you only show your bias. The assumption used in all your scientific theories are clearly losing their validation. Particle physics is challenging all the foundations of the theories you cling to but that's better than having nothing, after all the stupid Christians need to be kept at bay, and that's more important. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scourge165 Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 (edited) 24 minutes ago, El Luchador said: You have been spoon fed, you clearly don't think for yourself. You clearly can't bring yourself to any other theories because in your mind it would strengthen the argument for the creationists. The only one bringing up a 6000 year old Earth are the ones who claim a monopoly on scientific knowledge. As you sit and maintain your position in the face of all it's flaws you only show your bias. The assumption used in all your scientific theories are clearly losing their validation. Particle physics is challenging all the foundations of the theories you cling to but that's better than having nothing, after all the stupid Christians need to be kept at bay, and that's more important. LOL...what are you talking about? "The only one bringing up a 6000 year old Earth are the ones who claim a monopoly on scientific knowledge." Really? So creationists? Most of the last White House? Pence, Carson...? And "in all your[my] scientific theories? Dude, you're a clown who's now letting his emotions from prior discussions spill over. I said I don't know how they come up with the age of the Earth and they should probably teach that. That's pretty much all I said. Are you telling me that there ISN'T a large portion of the population that believes in a creationism and a 6,000 year old Earth? Because, again, the last White House publicly stated that on numerous occasions? https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2016/11/10/vp-elect-mike-pence-does-not-accept-evolution-heres-why-that-matters/?sh=47686eac15a7 https://www.livescience.com/59972-why-scaramucci-is-wrong-about-earths-age.html https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/ben-carson-creationism-six-days/ Huh...you may actually be right; Quote The only one bringing up a 6000 year old Earth are the ones who claim a monopoly on scientific knowledge. Edited February 13, 2023 by scourge165 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Luchador Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 On this topic, not out of everyone on earth. Arguments of authority carry no weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le duke Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 How many people believe the world is 6k years old these days?I grew up in a town with thousands of people who believe exactly that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jross Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 I don’t believe you can read the Old Testament with an analytical mind and conclude it is to be taken as literal. That’s a sign of poor education and strong social pressure of ignorance and faith. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crotalus Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 25 minutes ago, jross said: I don’t believe you can read the Old Testament with an analytical mind and conclude it is to be taken as literal. That’s a sign of poor education and strong social pressure of ignorance and faith. I fully agree with you, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatWhiteNorth Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 13 hours ago, LJB said: i can't hold your hand on this one... OK, I'll help you out. The Food pyramid is based on science - but it's an interpretation of science to present guidelines that are intended for regular people to be able to understand and follow. Kind of like designing a car requires a huge amount of science, but teaching driving lessons requires very little. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmodium Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 Don't sweat it. Next QANON drop is scheduled for 8 days after JFK's birthday and 8 days before the actual POTUS's birthday. It is going clear up the age of the earth, the alien signalling devices and much more!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerniePragle Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 On 2/9/2023 at 9:47 AM, BerniePragle said: I try not to paint with too broad a brush, but the picture of this Daniel Emrich just reeks of the "holier than thou" hiding deep, dark secrets. A la Josh Duggar and many, many more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJB Posted February 13, 2023 Share Posted February 13, 2023 10 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said: OK, I'll help you out. The Food pyramid is based on science - but it's an interpretation of science to present guidelines that are intended for regular people to be able to understand and follow. Kind of like designing a car requires a huge amount of science, but teaching driving lessons requires very little. your lipstick budget must be substantial... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatWhiteNorth Posted February 14, 2023 Share Posted February 14, 2023 12 hours ago, LJB said: your lipstick budget must be substantial... We seem to be missing each other on this particular topic. The food pyramid isn't hard science, it just isn't. It's that middle message that is in between hard nutritional science people and everyday people. We need that, because they don't speak the same language. Without it, we'd mostly rely on infomercials and diet fads for our health advice. So how does hard science get reduced to simple messaging? Poorly in many cases. As solid as the science may be, it's complicated - and boiling it down to something that is simple is problematic. Try to make Calculus simple. How about explaining how computers and phones are actually purely only processing long strings of 0's and 1's in a simple way. Complicated things aren't any less complicated when they are simplified - the simplified versions always fall short in the eyes of somehow who understands the subject well. The food pyramid just isn't all that good from the perspective of someone who knows a lot about nutrition. But it is quite helpful for someone who knows less about nutrition - which is the exact point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJB Posted February 14, 2023 Share Posted February 14, 2023 who funded the research that got the food pyramid so incredibly wrong? who benefitted most from getting the food pyramid so incredibly wrong? who continues top benefit from all of the health issues in this country from getting the food pyramid so incredibly wrong? (these are rhetorical in nature because i know it won't matter) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatWhiteNorth Posted February 14, 2023 Share Posted February 14, 2023 25 minutes ago, LJB said: who funded the research that got the food pyramid so incredibly wrong? who benefitted most from getting the food pyramid so incredibly wrong? who continues top benefit from all of the health issues in this country from getting the food pyramid so incredibly wrong? (these are rhetorical in nature because i know it won't matter) We still seem to be missing each other. I'm not even remotely defending the food pyramid. Nor those that funded, benefitted, or continue to benefit. My point is (and was the entire time) that the food pyramid is not science. It is heavily simplified messaging. That's an important point because there is a huge difference between questioning science and questioning messaging like the food pyramid. Nutritional hard science is still very solid, even if the messaging being sent is questionable. When people question science and point out the food pyramid as an example - they are making a mistake. Not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJB Posted February 14, 2023 Share Posted February 14, 2023 so, just let us know in the future when you will be changing definitions to fit your needs... it should save us all a bunch of time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatWhiteNorth Posted February 14, 2023 Share Posted February 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, LJB said: so, just let us know in the future when you will be changing definitions to fit your needs... it should save us all a bunch of time... Re-read my posts - I've been consistent from the beginning. Another good example is masks at the beginning of Covid. The 'messaging' was that we don't need to wear masks. That was not science, that was messaging. That was based on the intention of stopping a massive panic buyout of masks which would be problematic for the medical personnel that needed them - and for the country that depended on those same medical personnel. Agree or not with that reasoning (personally, I don't) - that's what it was. The actual science was always that masks do work, to some degree or another, to help stop the spread of airborne viruses like Covid. It's important not to confuse the science with the messaging. As I've explained in detail previously, they are not the same. The most troubling portion is that folks now feel comfortable questioning science... when, in fact, they should be questioning the messaging. The science is sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Ramirez Walnut, California Class of 2025 Committed to Oklahoma State Projected Weight: 125, 133
Landon Robideau St. Michael-Albertville, Minnesota Class of 2025 Committed to Oklahoma State Projected Weight: 149, 157
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now