questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But I have not lied as well. Some Creationist can lie to save an atheist. But I have provided all facts: peer-reviewed paper, sufficient reasoning principle.you have shown no such caution.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But I have not lied as well. Some Creationist can lie to save an atheist. But I have provided all facts: peer-reviewed paper, sufficient reasoning principle.you have shown no such caution.
Cite another source please, not a link to a YouTube video. I can get a YouTube video proving mermaids are real in a few seconds, it is not a reliable or credible source.
Edit. 0:58 seconds into your video, "Elite scientists have stated "we are dealing with two very different dating techniques, that have produced significantly different results, when this happens caution is required before final conclusions are reached"
Now have you shown any caution here? You immediately leaped on the conclusion, even making the bizarre assumption it was proof for a deity.
Firstly this redirecting of the point is called whataboutism, as it has no actual relevance, if you are actually trying to suggest that your conclusions here, namely that the new date should be accepted prima facie, but worse that this date means it is proof of the supernatural claims assigned the relic in question, and a deity, are comparable to the scientific research you cited, then I don't believe you, as the physicist working on that research would never simply reach a conclusion based on nothing but assumptions as you have done here again, though they might use assumptions to direct research, which isn't remotely comparable. FWIW no scientist worthy of the name would make such an obvious false equivalence, and certainly not a genius.The ``five sigma rule'' used to discover the Higgs Boson is the
reliance on Sufficient Reasoning. Why? It is scientific to accept (beyond any doubt) the
existence of the Higgs Boson (or any effect or particle in Particle Physics)
if the probability of a mistake is less than the five sigma rule value.
You're going to have to explain why you've just offered me my own link back in response, and if you'd bothered to read the explanation of the law you'd see where I got its conclusion from.
The result of this new dating technique differs from another established technique, and your own video link pointed out that scientific experts advised caution before reaching a conclusion, you have shown no such caution. The date of the shroud is not evidence of anything supernatural per se, and nor is it evidence of a deity per se, you have simply assumed these conclusions, thus your conclusion is without ground or reasoning, as you haven't sufficient reason for those conclusions, ipso facto your conclusions violate the 4th law of logic that you yourself cited.
But I have not lied as well. Some Creationist can lie to save an atheist. But I have provided all facts: peer-reviewed paper, sufficient reasoning principle.
Yes I did watch the video, the commentator stated plainly that since this new technique disagreed with a previously peer reviewed dating procedure, they advised caution before reaching any conclusion about this new date.If you want to investigate further then go to the site of the youtube and click on the links in Resources, below the video.
No bias! Because it means, I must be banned again.I understand your eager bias
You are taken their words out of context. At the start of the paper was caution, then came arguments, and the paper concludes with 100 % certainty, that the age is first AD.experts during peer review said we should use caution
You are taken their words out of context. At the start of the paper was caution, then came arguments, and the paper concludes with 100 % certainty, that the age is first AD.
Wrong. The authors will never blaspheme own results. It is the job of trolls.So it's bull poop then, no scientific evaluation will ever claim 100% certainty
Wrong. The authors will never blaspheme own results. It is the job of trolls.
It doesn't make Jesus a god, how does one get to that conclusion, please? Right?There is 4-th law of Logic - "Sufficient Reasoning". The features of the S. of T. together with the discovery of its age make the God so much probable, that it is Sufficient to conclude, that God exists.
Is satan a god? No? What about USA church of satan?It doesn't make Jesus a god, how does one get to that conclusion, please? Right?
Regards
You've lost me sorry, your bias is self evident in may of the hubristic titles you give your threads, but I don't believe hubris or bias is violating any forum rules?No bias! Because it means, I must be banned again.
Sheldon said: ↑
experts during peer review said we should use caution
You are taken their words out of context. At the start of the paper was caution, then came arguments, and the paper concludes with 100 % certainty, that the age is first AD.
riedrich Nietzsche defines Nihilism as rejecting an obvious truth, like 2+2=4.
His claim was not part of the research, just his own ludicrous hyperbole.So it's bull poop then, no scientific evaluation will ever claim 100% certainty
Wrong. The authors will never blaspheme own results. It is the job of trolls.
In his books.Where does he say that?
I think it means that if anyone disagree with the result in this research, they become automatically trollsAnyone able to explain what this even means?
I will never say that it is not certain that I have made discovery. Why then to write paper?Anyone able to explain what this even means?
disagree without any reason.I think it means that if anyone disagree with the result in this research, they become automatically trolls