06 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are being like FMF now and misrepresenting what I have said.
You said that if a scientist produced proof that contradicted your beliefs, then you would not accept the proof and conclude that the scientist is stupid.
I asked for clarification and your response was that you will only accept proof from someone who is not stupid or does not have his head up his arse.
So must I now conclude that your objection was not ...[text shortened]... e, then you will not accept any proof that contradicts this.
So why did you bother even asking?
06 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI may have misunderstood what you said. Please feel free to rephrase it or clarify in some other way.
You are being like FMF now and misrepresenting what I have said.
If someone produced proof that the earth was 1 million years old, would you accept it?
If someone produced scientific proof that the Shroud of Turin was fake, would you accept it?
06 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf anyone, scientist or layperson, produced "convincing proof" that the earth was a million years old or the Shroud of Turin was faked, I would believe it.
I may have misunderstood what you said. Please feel free to rephrase it or clarify in some other way.
If someone produced proof that the earth was 1 million years old, would you accept it?
If someone produced scientific proof that the Shroud of Turin was fake, would you accept it?
P.S. That means one piece of proof is not enough to be convincing. There must be at least two pieces of strong evidence with no contradicting evidence that puts those pieces of proof in doubt.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
06 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsthey tested the threads they were given. they were not able to chose the cloth themselves. they would have selected threads with the image on if given the choice. it seems odd that the church have refused to give any more thread since.
I was referring to those stupid scientists that dated dyed cotton treads along with the linen threads of the shroud.
on another note. its not really up to science to prove its fake. its up to the church to prove its real. as they are the ones making the magical claims.
06 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you said it in a response to a question as to how you would respond if the scientists reran the tests and got a +6000 year date. In other words you were saying you would not accept the result of their tests. I still don't understand why you said that. Why did you conclude that the scientists must be stupid based solely on the result of their tests? Doesn't this imply that you will not accept any result that does not fit with your beliefs?
I was referring to those stupid scientists that dated dyed cotton treads along with the linen threads of the shroud.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
06 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadhe has denounced c-14 dating of rocks even though the tests have been done multiple times by various different scientists and the overwhelming majority come up with the same results.......yet rj still thinks the earth is 6000years old. he has effectively admitted that he will not accept facts that disagree with his beliefs.
But you said it in a response to a question as to how you would respond if the scientists reran the tests and got a +6000 year date. In other words you were saying you would not accept the result of their tests. I still don't understand why you said that. Why did you conclude that the scientists must be stupid based solely on the result of their tests? Doesn't this imply that you will not accept any result that does not fit with your beliefs?
06 Mar 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieC-14 is used to date organic materials less than 20 000 years old, not rocks.
he has denounced c-14 dating of rocks even though the tests have been done multiple times by various different scientists and the overwhelming majority come up with the same results.......yet rj still thinks the earth is 6000years old. he has effectively admitted that he will not accept facts that disagree with his beliefs.
07 Mar 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe result has to make sense, numbnuts.
But you said it in a response to a question as to how you would respond if the scientists reran the tests and got a +6000 year date. In other words you were saying you would not accept the result of their tests. I still don't understand why you said that. Why did you conclude that the scientists must be stupid based solely on the result of their tests? Doesn't this imply that you will not accept any result that does not fit with your beliefs?