Finding buried pipe

J_J · Feb 2, 2010

This is not entertaining any more. Can someone lock it down.

JOHNTHOMAS · Feb 2, 2010

Tom_H said:
These things you are claiming to be speculation are not what most people would consider to be speculations once they see it. This is like saying that it is speculation that I am writing this on what is commonly accepted to be February 2, 2010 A.D. or that it is only speculation that there are currently 50 states in the union. I have only been to 48 of them, so should I just say that it is merely speculation that North Dakota and Alaska exist, simply because I haven't seen them? I know some do disagree that those are U.S. states. Some Russians do not recognize the purchase of Alaska and say that Alaska is not a valid part of the U.S. Some Native Americans do not recognize the U.S. as existing whatsoever. There are whole areas of philosophy devoted to such speculation. Are you real? Am I real? Maybe you or I is just a figment of the other's imagination. Maybe we are just Holideck characters who think we're real. Maybe we are characters who exist only in the imagination of God. Maybe you are the only living thing, but you are dreaming, while I and everyone else is just a part of your dream. In this line of thought, the existence of all things is called into question, the existence of any and all things is "speculative".

This leads into the aspect of philosophy dealing with language and semantics. We are expressing our thoughts through words. We cannot do a Vulcan mind meld. What individual words mean to one can differ from what they mean to another. The maner in which we syntactically structure sentances, paragraphs, and lines of thought, the manner in which we internalize and process thought differ from individual to individual, therefore how can we even know that we are talking or writing about the same ideas?

So, are these things I cite regarding evolution, extinct species, and so forth speculative? Well, to me they are speculative, speculative to the same extent that I speculate whether or not Alaska really exists. The same is true for virtually all who have bred Drosophila in a lab and sequenced genes in labs. The only ones whom I have ever heard of who do not accept it as fact are those who went into the inquiry having predetermined not to accept it.

As far as who will be "proven wrong" regarding the manner in which they teach the "word". Most believe they are teaching it the correct way. Differing faiths each believe that their own word is the correct word. It cannot be proven by anyone that the "Word" was dictated by a diety to any man. There extremely abrupt style changes in the Hebrew in Genesis (Not speculation-I have translated it myself) which I conclude to indicate differing portions penned by different writers. Portions of the Old Testament have the same events described in differing places, some saying that God caused certain things, while other accounts of the same events state that Satan caused them. The New Testament was written 70-110 or so years after Jesus lived. Not what one would consider primary documents. Why does the New Testament contain the exact books it does? There were others that many early Christions followed. Partly because those who wanted the other books included were killed by those who wanted this set to become canonized and not the others.

If we want to talk about what is "speculative", matters of faith are far far more speculative than matters of science.

Absolutly, I agree with your last statement 100%. I commit my life to my faith and find nothing contrary to my faith in true science. Now we may differ on what is science. Just because someone writing a Doctorial Thesis and writes a book that gets them their Phd and/or keeps them their job and their book claims something as scientific fact doesn't make it so. Scientific facts in print are discredited frequently which is a good thing because the claims do not pass scientific scrutiny therefore science is cleaning it's own house. Problem is those books are taught as fact before they are discredited and people go out showing them as proof. Carbon 14 dating is how we say we know how old something is. It assumes that carbons dissipate at the same rate in the past as they have for the past couple of thousand years. Do carbons dissipate at the same rate over 10000 years ago as they have for the past couple of years or hundred years? Will you stake you name on it? I don't know and no one does. It's just claimed that they do with no scientific proof. There have been proofs that carbons dissipate at different rates based on elevation and other factors so I will never say that it's an infallable truth. I accept my faith as truth for me and use the Word to guide my life/steps, not preachers, parents, family or friends. The Word as I interpret it. It guides me in relationships and a commitment to a higher power in my walk. Now, I question (don't deny or endorse) all other statements of fact made by anyone. I mean anyone until I can conclude from the evidence presented that I can accept that they are proven fact. I have no more faith in a Professor than I do a Preacher and I have no faith in a Preacher that tells stories and doesn't back up his teachings with the Word. I have been accused of having problems accepting authority figures. I don't, I have problems with people that assume authority that is not theirs or that they have not earned or been given by someone that does have the authority to give it.
In conclusion, having lived for a year in N Dakota I can testify it exists and 3 trips to Alaska is something I can also testify to Alaska existing. I can testify to the other 48 also having visited all of them even if some of the visits were just drive throughs. Signs said I was now entering those states. Having no reason not to believe them, I did. Sometimes pilots told me where I was and I believed them to.

SpringHollow · Feb 2, 2010

Carbon 14 dating is only used for "recent" dating, maybe 50,000 years. Radiometric dating using other elements is used for the age of rocks etc.

Ken

Tom_H · Feb 2, 2010

JOHNTHOMAS said:
Absolutly, I agree with your last statement 100%. I commit my life to my faith and find nothing contrary to my faith in true science. Now we may differ on what is science. Just because someone writing a Doctorial Thesis and writes a book that gets them their Phd and/or keeps them their job and their book claims something as scientific fact doesn't make it so. Scientific facts in print are discredited frequently which is a good thing because the claims do not pass scientific scrutiny therefore science is cleaning it's own house. Problem is those books are taught as fact before they are discredited and people go out showing them as proof. Carbon 14 dating is how we say we know how old something is. It assumes that carbons dissipate at the same rate in the past as they have for the past couple of thousand years. Do carbons dissipate at the same rate over 10000 years ago as they have for the past couple of years or hundred years? Will you stake you name on it? I don't know and no one does. It's just claimed that they do with no scientific proof. There have been proofs that carbons dissipate at different rates based on elevation and other factors so I will never say that it's an infallable truth. I accept my faith as truth for me and use the Word to guide my life/steps, not preachers, parents, family or friends. The Word as I interpret it. It guides me in relationships and a commitment to a higher power in my walk. Now, I question (don't deny or endorse) all other statements of fact made by anyone. I mean anyone until I can conclude from the evidence presented that I can accept that they are proven fact. I have no more faith in a Professor than I do a Preacher and I have no faith in a Preacher that tells stories and doesn't back up his teachings with the Word. I have been accused of having problems accepting authority figures. I don't, I have problems with people that assume authority that is not theirs or that they have not earned or been given by someone that does have the authority to give it.
In conclusion, having lived for a year in N Dakota I can testify it exists and 3 trips to Alaska is something I can also testify to Alaska existing. I can testify to the other 48 also having visited all of them even if some of the visits were just drive throughs. Signs said I was now entering those states. Having no reason not to believe them, I did. Sometimes pilots told me where I was and I believed them to.

And just as different people live by differing faiths, you and I are differing in what we accept as evidence. It seems that, having been there, you accept the existence of all 50 states, but do you take as speculative the other places on the map to which you have not traveled? I haven't been to Antarctica, but what I accept as evidence, leads me to accept its existence as factual.

As I said in an earlier post, there are a number of ways that people use to state how they "know" something exists. Personal experience is one. Others include a holy text, a holy see, systems of rational thought. Science also is a philosophy. It is one of the several ways that people use to say, "This is how I know something." You are correct that science often does have to correct itself, but it is the only one that sets out to test as rigorously as possible whether it is right. There have been many times this has happened. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (I think that is correct name) documents many of these. I have cited a few of those occasions in these pages.

Just want to say that I have enjoyed our conversation greatly, and thank you for your civility.

JJ, I think lots of people felt it was off topic for the nature of this site, even when the discussion was only about the reality of water witching. An off topic discussion enjoyed by one may not be enjoyed by another, but the opposite may be true if the off topic topic is changed. (I'm sure that's clear as mud-but I did enjoy all your comments.)

I have to take a break for awhile. Too other things to attend to. For one, I have some TRACTOR WORK I need to get to soon!!! (Hope the principles of physics will still apply when the compression stroke squeezes that fuel mixture in the cylinder, TEE HEE, HEE).

veresjwv · Feb 2, 2010

Man! When I posted like ten pages ago I was trying to have a little fun, Me thinks some of you guys have too much time on your hands......... can't wait til spring!