YEC = NOPE

[Whateverman]

Once again, God - in His wisdom - has sent us evidence that Christian fundamentalists are wrong.

7 Billion-Year-Old Stardust Is Oldest Material Found on Earth

Scientists recently identified the oldest material on Earth: stardust that's 7 billion years old, tucked away in a massive, rocky meteorite that struck our planet half a century ago.

www.geologyin.com

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Notice how none of the orthodox and registered heathen ever ask God who was at Creation for Truth but rely on hand me down legends from Junior Darweenie elders.

Were you there? Flat earther personality style old earthers.

 

[Radioactive]

Once again, God - in His wisdom - has sent us evidence that Christian fundamentalists are wrong.

7 Billion-Year-Old Stardust Is Oldest Material Found on Earth

Scientists recently identified the oldest material on Earth: stardust that's 7 billion years old, tucked away in a massive, rocky meteorite that struck our planet half a century ago.

www.geologyin.com

This is the reason why to never ever trust a Pastor for your science class. Lol

 

[Kwiitsupaitu]

Notice how none of the orthodox and registered heathen ever ask God who was at Creation for Truth but rely on hand me down legends from Junior Darweenie elders.

Were you there? Flat earther personality style old earthers.

You weren't there, and you're certainly not all there either

 

[Woody50]

Hilarious. The inductive reasoning in this is remarkable.

 

[CrowCross]

Once again, God - in His wisdom - has sent us evidence that Christian fundamentalists are wrong.

7 Billion-Year-Old Stardust Is Oldest Material Found on Earth

Scientists recently identified the oldest material on Earth: stardust that's 7 billion years old, tucked away in a massive, rocky meteorite that struck our planet half a century ago.

www.geologyin.com

From the article...
"I compare this with putting out a bucket in a rainstorm. Assuming the rainfall is constant, the amount of water that accumulates in the bucket tells you how long it was exposed,"

Then again maybe they are that old....Russ Humphrieys has an interesting theory on that.

To say it is evidence that Christian fundamentalists are wrong....well, Nah. Try again.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

From the article...
"I compare this with putting out a bucket in a rainstorm. Assuming the rainfall is constant, the amount of water that accumulates in the bucket tells you how long it was exposed,"

Then again maybe they are that old....Russ Humphrieys has an interesting theory on that.

To say it is evidence that Christian fundamentalists are wrong....well, Nah. Try again.

Yes, of course it's evidence that Christian fundamentalists are wrong. Add it to the already huge pile.

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, of course it's evidence that Christian fundamentalists are wrong. Add it to the already huge pile.

Face palm.

 

[Whateverman]

Hilarious. The inductive reasoning in this is remarkable.

Is it? Is it "hilarious" and/or "remarkable"?

Wiki:

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[3]

Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4]

Sounds about right.

There has never been a single piece of evidence which proves that the theory of evolution is valid. There's mountains of evidence, and collectively, it's validated the theory many times over the last few centuries.

There has also never been a single piece of evidence that proves YEC is anywhere near "remotely plausible". Unfortunately, there's no mountain for YECs; all they have is faith in their tortured interpretation of their holy text.

 

[Woody50]

Inductive reasoning = "but not full assurance." Your quote.

It's irrational. Illogical.

I'm not arguing YEC. You are. Induction is irrational and cannot be relied upon to know anything.

Please stop using induction to argue with me. It won't end well.

Nice to meet you Whateverman.

 

[Nouveau]

Inductive reasoning = "but not full assurance." Your quote.

It's irrational. Illogical.

I'm not arguing YEC. You are. Induction is irrational and cannot be relied upon to know anything.

Please stop using induction to argue with me. It won't end well.

Nice to meet you Whateverman.

Induction is not irrational. Where did you get this unusual idea?

 

[Whateverman]

Inductive reasoning = "but not full assurance." Your quote.

It's irrational.

How so, Woody? Please explain further.

Induction is irrational and cannot be relied upon to know anything.

That's not true. It just can't be used to know anything with absolute certainty. The reality of life here on planet Earth is that EVERYONE lives with uncertainty, and they function just fine with it. They even thrive!

Please stop using induction to argue with me. It won't end well.

Nice to meet you Whateverman.

You're welcome to address anything in the article you disagree with, Woody, but until you do so, you have no basis (other than personal opinion) for dismissing the article's implication that YEC is wrong.

It's nice to meet you as well, Woody

 

[Woody50]

Unusual?

Interesting. How familiar are you with logic? I do not mean to offend, but that you ask such a question makes me think that you're not aware of it. A priori vs. a posteriori? Aristotle? Descartes?

Are you familiar with syllogisms? Perhaps that is the best way to explain this, as I can explain better with examples.

I don't have the time to explain now, as I need to get my kids to bed (and check their homework) now. I am happy to, though. Perhaps you can just read up on the fallacies of induction (the following is not an exhaustive list, but indicative)?

• Hasty Generalization
• Unrepresentative Sample
• False Analogy
• Slothful Induction
• Fallacy of Exclusion

To KNOW anything, is must be deduced. We can use induction to have an "idea" or "guess," but that's about it.

Hope that explains my point.

Thanks for asking!

I'll be back in a couple of days--maybe sooner. Forgive me if I don't respond right away.

 

[Whateverman]

I'll be back in a couple of days--maybe sooner. Forgive me if I don't respond right away.

As a quick aside, I found out that you'd responded to my thread by getting lucky. Quoting a person (by clicking he REPLY button) is the best way to notify a person that you're talking directly to them.

Have fun living, doing what you do, or being wherever you're gonna be!

 

[Woody50]

That's not true. It just can't be used to know anything with absolute certainty. The reality of life here on planet Earth is that EVERYONE lives with uncertainty, and they function just fine with it. They even thrive!

That's my point. Inductive reasoning cannot lead to knowing anything. If you don't "know" it with absolute certainty, then you don't know it. It's like those people who say, "I'm fairly certain." No. You're either certain or not. There are no levels of certainty.

I don't live with uncertainty. I have a First Principle from which I deduce life, the universe, and everything. (Please tell me you get that humor.)

Seriously, though. I appreciate your response. You cannot explain anything from induction--you can only guess.

I don't guess. I know.

 

[Woody50]

As a quick aside, I found out that you'd responded to my thread by getting lucky. Quoting a person (by clicking he REPLY button) is the best way to notify a person that you're talking directly to them.

Have fun living, doing what you do, or being wherever you're gonna be!

Yes, I know. That's why I quote you. Sorry you didn't know that.

I don't respond to people without wanting a response. Given your "luck," are you saying that's what you do?

Whatever, man.

 

[Nouveau]

Unusual?

Interesting. How familiar are you with logic? I do not mean to offend, but that you ask such a question makes me think that you're not aware of it. A priori vs. a posteriori? Aristotle? Descartes?

Are you familiar with syllogisms? Perhaps that is the best way to explain this, as I can explain better with examples.

I don't have the time to explain now, as I need to get my kids to bed (and check their homework) now. I am happy to, though. Perhaps you can just read up on the fallacies of induction (the following is not an exhaustive list, but indicative)?

• Hasty Generalization
• Unrepresentative Sample
• False Analogy
• Slothful Induction
• Fallacy of Exclusion

To KNOW anything, is must be deduced. We can use induction to have an "idea" or "guess," but that's about it.

Hope that explains my point.

Thanks for asking!

I'll be back in a couple of days--maybe sooner. Forgive me if I don't respond right away.

I'd say I'm pretty familiar with philosophy, and I'm already aware of all that you list here. You haven't really answered my question though. That there are inductive fallacies, i.e. some poor ways of doing induction, doesn't mean that all induction is irrational. You appear to be engaging in the fallacy of poisoning the well.

And yes, viewing induction as irrational is a very unusual position, both in and outside of academic philosophy. Induction is not just a guess. It is an evidence-based inference, and when done right is perfectly rational. That it doesn't provide absolute certainty is irrelevant. Knowledge is justified true belief, not absolutely certain true belief.

 

[Whateverman]

That's my point. Inductive reasoning cannot lead to knowing anything.

It can, and it does. Hypotheses are formed using inductive reasoning, and hypotheses can-and-often-do lead to knowledge.

 

[Woody50]

I'd say I'm pretty familiar with philosophy, and I'm already aware of all that you list here. You haven't really answered my question though. That there are inductive fallacies, i.e. some poor ways of doing induction, doesn't mean that all in duction is irrational. You appear to be engaging in the fallacy of poisoning the well.

And yes, viewing induction as irrational is a very unusual position, both in and outside of academic philosophy. Induction is not just a guess. It is an evidence-based inference, and when done right is perfectly rational. That it doesn't provide absolute certainty is irrelevant. Knowledge is justified true belief, not absolutely certain true belief.

Yes, I have. You just don't like my answer.

You read, that's fine. You just don't think--just look at your "definition" of knowledge. Did you make that up?

I'm not here to debate YEC. Fools errand, as I have intimated here. Continue your discussion here. If you want to continue, you can start up another one in the Phil board, and I'm happy to oblige.

Again. It's nice to meet you, Nouveau.

 

[Nouveau]

Yes, I have. You just don't like my answer.

But your answer didn't really explain why you think induction is irrational. You just gave a list of fallacies, and one can reason inductively without engaging in any of those fallacies.

You read, that's fine. You just don't think--just look at your "definition" of knowledge. Did you make that up?

I don't know why you are accusing me of not thinking. That's kind of rude. No, I didn't make anything up. JTB is the standard account of knowledge. I don't know of any philosopher who defines knowledge as requiring certainty.

I'm not here to debate YEC. Fools errand, as I have intimated here. Continue your discussion here. If you want to continue, you can start up another one in the Phil board, and I'm happy to oblige.

I didn't mention YEC, and had already asked you the same questions in the Phil section. I have been waiting for you to respond.

Again. It's nice to meet you, Nouveau.

You too. Did you go by a different username previously?