radiometric dating vs. fundamentalist preacher

[No_Foolin'?]

You know, I could have pointed this out earlier, but chose instead to give you the benefit of the doubt. But now you've simply said one too many things in this regard.

Do you have anything of actual import to add to this discussion, or are you going to continue to use this thread as a platform for patronizing somone who is honestly trying
to find some real answers to important and legitimate questions?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, I could have pointed this out earlier, but chose instead to give you the benefit of the doubt. But now you've simply said one too many things in this regard.

Do you have anything of actual import to add to this discussion, or are you going to continue to use this thread as a platform for patronizing somone who is honestly trying
to find some real answers to important and legitimate questions?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think the fact that
[ QUOTE ]
reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers trust the validity of their findings / theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

rather cancels out the lead-in --

[ QUOTE ]
How reliable are these methods? And if they're so unreliable...

[/ QUOTE ]

I trying to come up with a universe where reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers base their finding on unreliable methods. One would suppose that if they did then they don't qualify as r t and s. no?

You honestly believe the conditions you've set up in the OP can co-exist? and that the question IS legitimate.
THAT is what I've been pointing out to you.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: I am of the opinion that my preacher friend is very, very likely to be 99.9% incorrect in all of his major conclusions, and most of his minor ones. However, the last thing I want to do is deny his ideas a fair hearing, because this is precisely the behavior that he is likely guilty of, which in turn has lead him to be and keeps him (tragically) quite ill-informed.

[/ QUOTE ]
are you off the opinion that the preacher is using this argument because he is ill-informed?

chez

[No_Foolin'?]

Is my position not clear? In several places and in several ways I've said I think he's wrong. And, yes, you're ABSOLUTELY CORRECT regarding the phrasing used in my OP that IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE that "reasonable, thoughtful, serious researchers" would put trust in inherently unreliable evidence.

But the point here is that MY FRIEND DOESN'T AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSITION. For you and I, simply knowing that the scientific consensus is that the earth is billions of years old is enough evidence that it actually is (For, as you keep correctly pointing out, we're talking about reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers after all).

But this standard is not shared by my preacher friend. Thus, we are left in the position of having to engange him
with direct evidence.

You're missing the point.

[No_Foolin'?]

Yes, I believe he is 99.9% likely to be ill-informed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I believe he is 99.9% likely to be ill-informed.

[/ QUOTE ]
at least but do you really believe that's the reason his using the argument?

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Is my position not clear? In several places and in several ways I've said I think he's wrong. And, yes, you're ABSOLUTELY CORRECT regarding the phrasing used in my OP that IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE that "reasonable, thoughtful, serious researchers" would put trust in inherently unreliable evidence.

But the point here is that MY FRIEND DOESN'T AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSITION. For you and I, simply knowing that the scientific consensus is that the earth is billions of years old is enough evidence that it actually is (For, as you keep correctly pointing out, we're talking about reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers after all).

But this standard is not shared by my preacher friend. Thus, we are left in the position of having to engange him
with direct evidence.

You're missing the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't been commenting on your friends claims or beliefs, I've been commenting on the YOUR question in the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
How reliable are these methods? And if they're so unreliable, how can reasonable, thoughtful, and serious researchers trust the validity of their findings / theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe that the answer to this question, ( your question), can be "yes, r,t,s researchers can trust their findings using unreliable methods."
or is the only possible answer, "no, if they are r,t,s researchers then their methods are reliable by definition".

Who cares what your plumber thinks ...you are the one asking the question, "an honest question" you say. So, you must believe that the various answers are possible, yet this post seems to put you in the 'how can it be otherwise' camp.

"For you and I..."

see the issue I've been raising? It's not an "honest question" it's a conceptually flawed one. AS my first response pointed out, you don't have to go outside the question to know the answer.

luckyme

[Justin A]

luckyme,

Give it up. He seems to be honestly looking for answers. You shouldn't keep harping on one question he phrased badly in the OP. He's shown in subsequent responses that he is trying to be intellectually honest.

[No_Foolin'?]

I see what you're getting at. Well, my guess is based on the general case. I guess that he's ill-informed and on some level knows he is, but is unwilling to admit it to himself. My guess is that in his mind there's too much at stake to ask too many questions and be open to too much discussion.

But, no, I don't think he is making these arguments in a consciously-manipulative way. I think he is simply unable and unwilling to face the truth.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're getting at. Well, my guess is based on the general case. I guess that he's ill-informed and on some level knows he is, but is unwilling to admit it to himself. My guess is that in his mind there's too much at stake to ask too many questions and be open to too much discussion.

But, no, I don't think he is making these arguments in a consciously-manipulative way. I think he is simply unable and unwilling to face the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
sure it may not be concious manipulation, sometimes is and sometimes isn't. Either way his not making the argument because of some misunderstanding about the science, his making the argument because it works quite well whether or not its sound.

chez