All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why should I take advice from you again, your proof is go read a book
make the agument yourself, you do think for yourself correct, you do
not have someone tell you what is true and you just accept it right?
I know you accuse me of that all the time, telling me that I'm just a
product of some pastor or who evers teaching. Explain it in layman's
terms, ...[text shortened]... it. If you cannot do such a basic thing
why should I bother listening to your advice?
Kelly

If you have opinion about things you don't know anything about, then your opinion isn't worth much.

But if you back it up with knowledge, then we can have a meaningfuls debate. If you don't bother to open a book about basic geology, then what's the point debating with you? This is the Science Forum and you don't know the basics about geology? But you still have a lot of opinions about biblical things. Fine with me. That's why there is a Spiritual Forum.

It's more interesting to study your twisted retorics. You tecach me a lot more about how fundamentalists think and reason than anything else.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If you have opinion about things you don't know anything about, then your opinion isn't worth much.

But if you back it up with knowledge, then we can have a meaningfuls debate. If you don't bother to open a book about basic geology, then what's the point debating with you? This is the Science Forum and you don't know the basics about geology? But you s ...[text shortened]... . You tecach me a lot more about how fundamentalists think and reason than anything else.

You do the same, the very thing you accuse others of you do, you
only spout what others tell you is truth, you do not reason for yourself.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do the same, the very thing you accuse others of you do, you
only spout what others tell you is truth, you do not reason for yourself.
Kelly

Then you haven't understood. I give you ref from any basic geology book. You don't give any ref, none at all.

My 'opinion' (as you state it) is the fruit of many scientists over hundreds of years. You lean of an old black book with thin pages, nothing else.

You don't read any book of geology, I read your bible. My 'opinion' is well founded, your's not.

What about your opinion (as you stated it), is that founded in any scientific evidence? No, it's not. Yet you value your opinion higher than mine?

Please, learn something, go read a geology book or something. What are you afraid of? To learn something? To lose your ignorance?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then you haven't understood. I give you ref from any basic geology book. You don't give any ref, none at all.

My 'opinion' (as you state it) is the fruit of many scientists over hundreds of years. You lean of an old black book with thin pages, nothing else.

You don't read any book of geology, I read your bible. My 'opinion' is well founded, your's n book or something. What are you afraid of? To learn something? To lose your ignorance?

That is my point; I can give you scripture would you accept that!
Why can't you reason things out on your own? You don't present an
argument and back it up with a link, you present a link as an
argument.


It appears debate for you would be dueling sources not dueling
ideas.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is my point; I can give you scripture would you accept that!

Of course not, your black book with thin pages has nothing to do with science. And now we're talking about science, aren't we?

What does your black book of yours say about the age of the Universe? Do you believe that blindly? Yes of course, it's your religion. But then we're *not* talking about science, are we?

But nevertheless, I read the bible more than you have ever read a basic book of geology. In this sence I know more about the bible than you knwo about geology. So who is most ignorant, you or me?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is my point; I can give you scripture would you accept that!
Why can't you reason things out on your own? You don't present an
argument and back it up with a link, you present a link as an
argument.


It appears debate for you would be dueling sources not dueling
ideas.
Kelly

….Why can't you reason things out on your own?
..…

How can he “reason things out on his own” about geology when he hasn't done actual research in geology? -that’s why he said: “…My 'opinion' (as you state it) is the fruit of MANY SCIENTISTS over hundreds of years….” (my emphasis) Those “MANY SCIENTISTS” knew a lot more than you or I do.

“reason things out on your own” on a subject is fine if there are NO other people that have done actual credible and exhaustive scientific research on the subject thus know a lot more than you do on the subject and I am all for independent thinking but when there ARE other people that have done actual credible and exhaustive research on the subject thus know a lot more than you do then it would be stupid to be so opinionated as to either just to dismiss or ignore their discoveries and collective wisdom on the subject and form an opinion about it that clearly contradicts the known evidence in that field of knowledge.

Do you claim to know more about geology than geologists? Answer, no.
Have you studied geology? Answer, no.
It would therefore be idiotic to form your own opinion about geology or the age of the Earth when that resulting opinion clearly contradicts known geological facts because you are being totally oblivious to the discoveries and collective wisdom of other people that know a lot more about it than you do just as it would be idiotic to form your own opinion about what is the best drag to take for an illness when you haven’t studied anything about medicine and when every doctor that knows a lot more about it than you do would disagree with that opinion.

….You don't present an argument
..…

He stated:

“…My 'opinion' (as you state it) is the fruit of many scientists over hundreds of years….”

This is both his premise and my premise for the belief that the Earth is millions of years old; “the fruit of many scientists over hundreds of years” has revealed it to be so and, obviously, in the form of EVIDENCE. This is a statement of a very rational REASON to believe that the Earth is millions of years old and therefore pointing out this REASON for this belief can be seen as an 'argument' of sorts for the hypothesis that the Earth is millions of years old although, obviously, the geologists themselves would normally argue that the Earth is millions of yours old by DIRECTLY referencing the actual physical evidence rather than merely just pointing out that such evidence exists.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Why can't you reason things out on your own?
..…

How can he “reason things out on his own” about geology when he hasn't done actual research in geology? -that’s why he said: “…My 'opinion' (as you state it) is the fruit of MANY SCIENTISTS over hundreds of years….” (my emphasis) Those “MANY SCIENTISTS” knew a lot more than you or I do. ...[text shortened]... ctual physical evidence rather than merely just pointing out that such evidence exists.[/b]

So people cannot reason these things out, they must just accept
things people tell them who say they know. Sort of reminds me of the
complaints people have when they say people just accept what their
pastor tells them. "MANY SCIENTISTS", isn't a reason, evidence, proof,
or anything other than a claim, you don't see this as brain dead
reasoning do you? "MANY SCIENTISTS" don't buy into your beliefs
either, and if neither you or I have to name them or produce their
work, the term "MANY SCIENTISTS" has no weight. Why do you bother
to debate things you cannot reason out on your own, you just have to
accept what other people tell you? I guess that explains why your
debate style is present a link is your form of debate, go read a book
is an arguement.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So people cannot reason these things out, they must just accept
things people tell them who say they know. Sort of reminds me of the
complaints people have when they say people just accept what their
pastor tells them. "MANY SCIENTISTS", isn't a reason, evidence, proof,
or anything other than a claim, you don't see this as brain dead
reasoning do you? ...[text shortened]... style is present a link is your form of debate, go read a book
is an arguement.
Kelly

I could be wrong but I believe that presenting educated opinion as evidence is a valid technique in debate.
I would think that if there is good geological evidence that if presented and confirmed would indicate that the earth is no billion of years old then it would win the Nobel prize or at a minimum give significant benefit to the presenter. The fact that nobody has done so is a very good argument that nobody has such evidence.

I for one do not accept everything scientists tell me but that is not equivalent to refusing to accept as good evidence the fact that many scientists believe something.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I could be wrong but I believe that presenting educated opinion as evidence is a valid technique in debate.
I would think that if there is good geological evidence that if presented and confirmed would indicate that the earth is no billion of years old then it would win the Nobel prize or at a minimum give significant benefit to the presenter. The fact t ...[text shortened]... uivalent to refusing to accept as good evidence the fact that many scientists believe something.

My point here has been people are just accepting things, and when I
get slammed by more than a few people here the claims are made
I'm a product of just accepting things. Except those that teach in my
life do not touch upon the topics we discuss here, there isn't anything
to draw upon for those claims against me to be true; however, that is
not the case here with many. They do not understand the science they
claim is correct, to the point they cannot defend it, yet they attempt to
use it as a club against those that do not agree with them. Cheap
debate if you ask me, you may as well say God said so, so it must
be true as say, because someone in science believes this it must be
true, because the level of understanding of those making those claims
is the same, next to nothing.

All I'm asking for is produce the data or the argument and defend it,
if all you got is some people in science believe this, you got nothing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point here has been people are just accepting things, and when I
get slammed by more than a few people here the claims are made
I'm a product of just accepting things. Except those that teach in my
life do not touch upon the topics we discuss here, there isn't anything
to draw upon for those claims against me to be true; however, that is
not the cas ...[text shortened]... nd defend it,
if all you got is some people in science believe this, you got nothing.
Kelly

Would you then concede that since you do not understand the science either then you too cannot have a valid opinion on the matter? Do you also have nothing?

I think it is more complicated than you make out. If we both thought God was a reliable witness then I would certainly accept his opinion as evidence.
The same applies to scientists. If both of us accept the opinion of a large number of respectable scientists then their opinion should be valid material.
On the other hand in this case it appears that I do not believe in God, and you do not think that the opinion of scientists is of much worth.
So yes I agree with you that in this case it can hardly be taken by you to be good evidence, but it is not necessarily bad debating technique.
If you were having a theological argument with a Christian you would almost certainly consider quoting the Bible. To simply throw it out and say 'think for yourself' would not get you very far.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would you then concede that since you do not understand the science either then you too cannot have a valid opinion on the matter? Do you also have nothing?

I think it is more complicated than you make out. If we both thought God was a reliable witness then I would certainly accept his opinion as evidence.
The same applies to scientists. If both of us ...[text shortened]... ing the Bible. To simply throw it out and say 'think for yourself' would not get you very far.

No, I'd concede you either do not wish to discuss the details or are
unable too. It is you wanting to prove you point, so far you have not,
that goes to DDT or other things that have been brought up.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would you then concede that since you do not understand the science either then you too cannot have a valid opinion on the matter? Do you also have nothing?

I think it is more complicated than you make out. If we both thought God was a reliable witness then I would certainly accept his opinion as evidence.
The same applies to scientists. If both of us ...[text shortened]... ing the Bible. To simply throw it out and say 'think for yourself' would not get you very far.

If I were debating a theological matter my statement would never be
that many pastors believe this so it is must be true, which is what you
have done with science.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So people cannot reason these things out, they must just accept
things people tell them who say they know. Sort of reminds me of the
complaints people have when they say people just accept what their
pastor tells them. "MANY SCIENTISTS", isn't a reason, evidence, proof,
or anything other than a claim, you don't see this as brain dead
reasoning do you? style is present a link is your form of debate, go read a book
is an arguement.
Kelly

….So people CANNOT reason these things out, they MUST just accept
things people tell them who SAY they know.
..… (my emphasis)

Err, no; that’s not what I said. Read my post again -I obviously didn’t say nor imply that in any way.

I see the fact that there are people not being able (or perhaps merely unwilling?) to think for themselves and to blindly believe whatever they are brainwashed into believing since childhood by “just accept things people tell them who SAY they know” as one of the main reason why so many people (including yourself) are religious fanatics.
I am all for people thinking for themselves when what they are being told isn’t evidence/reason based but something they are just expected to believe just through blind faith.
Even when what they are being told IS evidence/reason based it is STILL just fine for people to think for themselves AS LONG AS they don’t just dismiss/ignore the evidence/reason and as long as they don’t dismiss the resoning just because they are not intelligent enough to understand it -but if they DO simply dismiss/ignore the evidence/reason from people who have done exhausted research in the subject and form their own opinion that is totally oblivious to this evidence/reason then that is an idiotic thing to do -how could you possibly disagree with that? -that is ALL what I basically said in my last post -read my post again.

…"MANY SCIENTISTS", isn't a reason, evidence, proof,
or anything other than a claim,
..…

That’s not quite what I said. Read my post again. You pretend to not notice that the particular "MANY SCIENTISTS" I am referring to are, specifically, the ones that make claims backed up with reason or evidence or proof as opposed to any so-called “scientist” that makes claims without reason or evidence or proof (which would make that so-called “scientist” a pseudoscientist).

Your claim that the Earth isn’t many millions of years old is not only NOT evidence/reason based, it is clearly contradicted by the known geological evidence collected by geologists who’s claims ARE evidence/reason based and know a lot more about geology than you do. That makes your claim totally unqualified and invalid while their claims on the subject of geology very well unqualified and justified. You cannot justifiably just refute their claims when, unlike them, you clearly know virtually nothing about geology yourself and you haven’t studied it and you ignore/dismiss the existence of the known geological evidence.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….So people CANNOT reason these things out, they MUST just accept
things people tell them who SAY they know.
..… (my emphasis)

Err, no; that’s not what I said. Read my post again -I obviously didn’t say nor imply that in any way.

I see the fact that there are people not being able (or perhaps merely unwilling?) to think for themsel ...[text shortened]... u haven’t studied it and you ignore/dismiss the existence of the known geological evidence.[/b]

Fine, display some data go over the meaning and we can talk.
Simply refering to people who agree with you isn't enough.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Fine, display some data go over the meaning and we can talk.
Simply refering to people who agree with you isn't enough.
Kelly

Would you understand the data if they were presented to you? I don't think so.