Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 >Here is some reasonable skepticism. > >I thought the story about the scientist who was given a piece live coral >reef and dating it 14,000 years a little worrying for a start. > It's a pity you don't apply that same skepticism to what you read on the internet, especially with articles such as this which do not cite any actual evidence. For anything to be credible it should be possible to scrutinise it - the fundies who produced the WWW page you cite do not give any references to newspapers, journal articles, or anything else which can be checked for veracity, not even the name of the alleged scientist or any details as to when or where this supposedly happened (and never mind the fact even if it were true (which I seriously doubt given the obvious bias and ignorance of the author) that one error does not discredit a whole branch of science Only the saddest, most gullible and most desperate will tend to put faith in unfounded assertions such as this ridiculous live coral story and ignore the vast weight of actual hard, verifiable evidence which is readily available. The human mind is like a parachute - it works best when open. You really need to try thinking outside the narrow and irrational confines of fundamentalist biblical dogma. And for the last time - the " Valley Vegan " has asked that noone disagree on anything on Vegan UK so will you please move this to Vegans Uncensored where free speech still prevails. I'm going on vacation now (Thanksgiving) so probably won't be responding for a few days. Thank you for your cooperation, Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 So you think there is no room for error with carbon-dating? I am instintively skeptical when putting dates on events when talking in millions and billions of years. Simon - " Paul Russell " <prussell Wednesday, November 26, 2003 6:03 PM Re: A Platform Problem > >Here is some reasonable skepticism. > > > >I thought the story about the scientist who was given a piece live coral > >reef and dating it 14,000 years a little worrying for a start. > > > > It's a pity you don't apply that same skepticism to what you read on > the internet, especially with articles such as this which do not cite > any actual evidence. For anything to be credible it should be > possible to scrutinise it - the fundies who produced the WWW page you > cite do not give any references to newspapers, journal articles, or > anything else which can be checked for veracity, not even the name of > the alleged scientist or any details as to when or where this > supposedly happened (and never mind the fact even if it were true > (which I seriously doubt given the obvious bias and ignorance of the > author) that one error does not discredit a whole branch of science > > Only the saddest, most gullible and most desperate will tend to put > faith in unfounded assertions such as this ridiculous live coral > story and ignore the vast weight of actual hard, verifiable evidence > which is readily available. > > The human mind is like a parachute - it works best when open. You > really need to try thinking outside the narrow and irrational > confines of fundamentalist biblical dogma. > > And for the last time - the " Valley Vegan " has asked that noone > disagree on anything on Vegan UK so will you please move this to > Vegans Uncensored where free speech still prevails. > > I'm going on vacation now (Thanksgiving) so probably won't be > responding for a few days. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > Paul > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 i don't think you know how carbon dating works ... and why it is reliable ... you sound like you haven't got a clue about it... is that the only reason that you can read an article about it and then 'instinctively' be sceptical about it ... it makes sense to be instinctively sceptical about ghosts and telepathy and the paranormal ... only because we cannot prove their existence by human reason alone ... whereas carbon dating is proven by human reason ... this is not to say that human reason is the only way we can look at the world ... there is of course your way ... which is human madness... simon [simonpjones] So you think there is no room for error with carbon-dating?I am instintively skeptical when putting dates on events when talking inmillions and billions of years. ** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 Paul Russell <prussell wrote: It doesn't say much for the quality of science education in schools that so many adults hold irrational religious and/or "new age" beliefs and seem unable to grasp the basics of scientific enquiry. I Don't have a problem with scientific enquiry, rather a perception that (a few/some) scientists have a problem with anything that doesn't fit in with their seemingly black & white view of the world. I think there are shades of grey. Case in point: Homeopathy. Scientists can't see how it works, so they say it doesn't. I know it does. I know of a case where conventional medicine was prescribed for 5 years, the condition either stabilised or deteriorated at various times. After the first homeopathic treatment the condition ceased. completely. Don't get me wrong, I find science quite exciting; (Tomorrow's World was my favourite programme as a kid!), but I can't accept that our present scientific knowledge or investigative procedures are the be all and end all. GrahamGraham LucasThe Fabulous Fezheads, an Oasis in the Desert of the Webhttp://www.Fezheads.comEveryone makes mistakes; that's why they put rubbers on the ends of pencilsDownload Messenger now for a chance to WIN Robbie Williams " Live At Knebworth DVD " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 I attended a public talk by Professor Walter Veith a few years ago.. an archeologist. He shown some of his photographes..one of trees growing through rock strata (can't remember where this was now) and others of rock which had formed around a old glass bottle. This is at least reason to question the assumptions some scientist make when dating the earth and universe.? Have you looked into the down sides of carbon-dating..such as the assumptions which have to be made in order for the dating to be correct?.. ie the decaying rate mustn't change... Given all the different elements effecting each other in different ways..is there a constant change? avenging an estimate time of events when talking in billions of years has to be suspect. ---- Original Message ----- Oliver Slay Thursday, November 27, 2003 10:25 AM RE: A Platform Problem i don't think you know how carbon dating works ... > It works by dating carbon..how else would it work? whereas carbon dating is proven by human reason ...> Again have you looked up the down sides of carbon dating.. And is human reason something to be completely relied? If human reason was more objective and less subjective. Simon simon [simonpjones] So you think there is no room for error with carbon-dating?I am instintively skeptical when putting dates on events when talking inmillions and billions of years.**~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 > Anyway, the Valley Vegan who now seems to be the moderator of Vegan > UK has requested that disagreements not be aired here - it seems that > we are only allowed to agree with each other and " be nice " , so if you > want to explain why carbon dating is " not convincing " then please > move it to Vegans Uncensored. Has there been a coup? Cool. As far as I was aware I was still moderator, just a shocking awful one as I haven't had the time to pay that much attention to the messages and then find myself away from email for several days. If disagreements can't be aired what's the point of the list? This being the " nice list " means that you disagree and argue your case in a civil manner, not that you have to agree. This isn't Vegan Chat where one person's opinion is sacred and all who disagree are cast outside. It is only through discourse that we learn and evolve our own beliefs after all. Still looking for a moderator, is Valley Vegan (?) offering, and if so do we have to put up with the rule above, I don't like it. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 The Valley Vegan was saying he didn't like the unpleasantness in the way the communication was going, not that nobody should disagree. So basically he was in agreement with you, that disagreements should be done in a civil manner. On that basis the Valley Vegan would seem like a good choice of moderator if he has the time to take on such a role. I'm not sure why Paul had to take what VV said out of context, it was clear what he was saying, that comments like " are you on drugs or not taking enough " are not necessary. I wonder how Paul would feel if someone spoke to him like that? He could say that it's just a joke, but clearly this was a joke at someone elses expense. We're all vegans here, can't we give each other a little respect, regardless if we have differing opinions on some matters? And please don't think I want to be moderator now Paul, just because I gave my opinion as one of the list members. Blimey, can't someone just give an opinion without being taken completely out of context? : - ) Jak > > mavreela <ndisc > 2003/11/29 Sat AM 10:54:15 GMT > > Re: A Platform Problem > > > Anyway, the Valley Vegan who now seems to be the moderator of Vegan > UK has requested that disagreements not be aired here - it seems that > we are only allowed to agree with each other and " be nice " , so if you > want to explain why carbon dating is " not convincing " then please > move it to Vegans Uncensored. Has there been a coup? Cool. As far as I was aware I was still moderator, just a shocking awful one as I haven't had the time to pay that much attention to the messages and then find myself away from email for several days. If disagreements can't be aired what's the point of the list? This being the " nice list " means that you disagree and argue your case in a civil manner, not that you have to agree. This isn't Vegan Chat where one person's opinion is sacred and all who disagree are cast outside. It is only through discourse that we learn and evolve our own beliefs after all. Still looking for a moderator, is Valley Vegan (?) offering, and if so do we have to put up with the rule above, I don't like it. Michael -------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/ > Anyway, the Valley Vegan who now seems to be the moderator of Vegan > UK has requested that disagreements not be aired here - it seems that > we are only allowed to agree with each other and " be nice " , so if you > want to explain why carbon dating is " not convincing " then please > move it to Vegans Uncensored. Has there been a coup? Cool. As far as I was aware I was still moderator, just a shocking awful one as I haven't had the time to pay that much attention to the messages and then find myself away from email for several days. If disagreements can't be aired what's the point of the list? This being the " nice list " means that you disagree and argue your case in a civil manner, not that you have to agree. This isn't Vegan Chat where one person's opinion is sacred and all who disagree are cast outside. It is only through discourse that we learn and evolve our own beliefs after all. Still looking for a moderator, is Valley Vegan (?) offering, and if so do we have to put up with the rule above, I don't like it. Michael ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard. --------------------------- Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 Hi Peace Love and Understanding from the valley vegan. If there has been a coup, It didnt originate from my valley. Dont fancy being moderator, because I am not a big fan of Big Brother sinarios ( cant spell either), dont like the hastle. I suppose I still believe in old fashioned values is all,....manners being one . Maybe its my age.........dropping off now,...must be nap time......zzzzzzzzzzzz The Valley Vegan..... > Peter H -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 >I suppose I still believe in old fashioned values is all,....manners being one . Oh dear! I hope manners aren't old fashioned, what hope would there be for us in the modern world!? ; - ) This world desperately needs more people being kinder to each other. Like Elizabeth said, gentleness. Hope you had a nice nap ; - ) smiles, Jak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 I think Paul maybe trys to be too rational/logical...which just doesn't make sense when you ask the big question 'why does, would, could or should anything exist in the first place. It might eventually explain how the mechical side of existence works but why it came to be at all..I doubt it...I don't think science has that capability. Simon jak.remec Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:28 AM Re: A Platform Problem The Valley Vegan was saying he didn't like the unpleasantness in the way the communication was going, not that nobody should disagree. So basically he was in agreement with you, that disagreements should be done in a civil manner. On that basis the Valley Vegan would seem like a good choice of moderator if he has the time to take on such a role. I'm not sure why Paul had to take what VV said out of context, it was clear what he was saying, that comments like "are you on drugs or not taking enough" are not necessary. I wonder how Paul would feel if someone spoke to him like that? He could say that it's just a joke, but clearly this was a joke at someone elses expense. We're all vegans here, can't we give each other a little respect, regardless if we have differing opinions on some matters?And please don't think I want to be moderator now Paul, just because I gave my opinion as one of the list members. Blimey, can't someone just give an opinion without being taken completely out of context? : - )Jak> > mavreela <ndisc> 2003/11/29 Sat AM 10:54:15 GMT> > Re: A Platform Problem> >> Anyway, the Valley Vegan who now seems to be the moderator of Vegan> UK has requested that disagreements not be aired here - it seems that> we are only allowed to agree with each other and "be nice", so if you> want to explain why carbon dating is "not convincing" then please> move it to Vegans Uncensored.Has there been a coup? Cool.As far as I was aware I was still moderator, just a shocking awful one as I haven't had the time to pay that much attention to the messages and then find myself away from email for several days.If disagreements can't be aired what's the point of the list? This being the "nice list" means that you disagree and argue your case in a civil manner, not that you have to agree. This isn't Vegan Chat where one person's opinion is sacred and all who disagree are cast outside. It is only through discourse that we learn and evolve our own beliefs after all.Still looking for a moderator, is Valley Vegan (?) offering, and if so do we have to put up with the rule above, I don't like it.Michael--------Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.