SingleDad: I think it would be better to properly call the argument: Argument from ignorance, not “stupidity.” Just because somebody doesn’t understand the facts doesn’t mean they are stupid.
And, yes, that is exactly what Foolsguinea’s argument was – argument from ignorance. “If I can’t understand it, it must not have happened that way.”
Here’s an interesting link: a pro-literal-interpretation-of-the-Bible site, founded and operated by a physicist/astronomer. It includes a posting strongly rebutting Dr. Humphreys’ Starlight and Time, in [url=http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.html[The Unravelling of Starlight and Time.
“Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.”
jrf
I cant resist posting this quote from The Unravelling of Starlight and TIme:
"Nicodemus’ misunderstanding raises an important issue for Christian apologists and evangelists: how is one to describe spiritual reality to someone who has no personal experience of such a reality? … A particularly acute form of this problem faces the young-earth movement in its attempts to use revisionist young-earth “science” for this purpose. If the science is incredible or manifestly false, then, rather than pointing unbelievers to God, it may drive them further away. Jesus’ question to Nicodemus 2000 years ago suggests a set of challenges to Christian apologists today: if our claims about earthly, empirically testable things such as natural history are demonstrably untrue, how can we expect unbelievers to accept our testimony on subjects which are not empirically testable and which call for a faith response? The answer is clear: we cannot. If our testimony on scientific matters is demonstrably false, rather than giving unbelievers reasons to consider the Gospel, we will give them grounds to reject it. To put it another way, if the Church demonstrates itself to be unreliable in the interpretation of scientific matters which are subject to verification by unbelievers, it undermines, by association, the credibility of our claims that unbelievers need to pay attention to the Bible’s statements about spiritual matters which are not empirically verifiable by unbelievers. If Christians’ claims about physical reality cannot be trusted, what grounds do unbelievers have to trust our claims about spiritual realities? Demonstrably false “science” gives the lost “reasons to reject” the Gospel — “reasons to disbelieve” rather than “reasons to believe.”
This is a serious obstacle to the efforts of the young-earth movement to minister the Gospel to unbelievers, particularly to scientifically literate unbelievers. Much of the young-earth apologetic depends on the idea that the earth and the entire physical universe is no more than several thousand years old. This position appears to us as believers to be impossible to reconcile with any reasonable interpretation of the data of nature; it is also manifestly false from the perspective of unbelieving scientists. Young-earth claims on the age issue are so obviously mistaken, in fact, that many non-Christian scientists do not believe that young-earth apologists are honest people, which gives them yet another reason (or excuse) to reject the Gospel."
jrf
David B: Well, the term “argument from ignorance” already has a well-defined meaning (“theory X cannot predict phenomenon Y, therefore X is false”).
If you consider my term to be inappropriate, I would welcome suggestions for a new term. I wish to point out that I am calling the practice stupid, and not the person. If the shoe fits, though…
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
Actually, I’ve think I’ve heard “Argument from Incredulity” (slightly less insulting) used to refer to the “I don’t understand it, therefore it can’t be true” argument.
Ooooo…
So can I tell people that they are arguing from incredulity when they disagree with the Bible???
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
Ooh! Gaudere! I like it! Sounds much more faux-highbrow. 
And Navigator, no you can’t. 
I don’t argue that the Bible is false. I refute people when they make specific claims that the Bible offers empirical proof.
Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.
Aw, shit. Gaudere is right – I was thinking of “argument from incredulity.”
Sorry 'bout that.
Frankly, I’m incredulous that Navigator would come back here to argue about it.
“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.”
– Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine
Who’s arguing???
good to see ya David, want a root beer?
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
**Root beer?!
Did you say “root beer” in Great Debates?!**
:mad:
<sipping, and putting the can behind his back>
<looks both ways>
WHO would think of such a thing… HEATHENS!
Peace.
† Jon †
Phillipians 4:13
wonders if any Creationist from LBMB is going to take up this gauntlet
Psst…gator…want some sushi?
Phoenix
Sors immanis et inanis, rota tu volubilis, status malus, vana salus semper dissolubilis.
Carmina Burana: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi–O Fortuna. Carl Orff: 1937
Phoenix said:
Apparently, like the many times before when we’ve opened threads specifically for the creationists to provide their evidence and knock down evolution, the answer is: Nope.
Well, since David said we could wander around until someone says something…
Phoenix! Good to see you over here, hon!
Winner, SDMB’s Biggest FEMALE Chat Addict (Happy, Jophiel?)
“Only two things that’ll soothe my soul - cold beer and remote control.”
While were waiting, anybody care to discuss the Higgs-Bosun with me?
This is the creation particle isn’t it?
It was latched onto by creationists because at least one physicist referred to it as “The God Particle.” What the creationists didn’t know was that “God particle” was short for “Goddamn Particle!” over his frustration for not being able to find it.
What’s the significance of the theorized Higgs-Bosun?
I’ve no idea, but tell me: if a companion particle is discovered, will it be named “Higgs-Bo’sun’s Mate?”
Higgs boson, as in “the boson named after Peter Higgs”. Bosons are a particular class of particles (named after Satyendranath Bose, as in Bose-Einstein Condensate, which has been mentioned before on this board); fermions the other class of particles (named after Enrico Fermi). Leptons and quarks are all fermions. Leptons include electrons, muons, and neutrinos. Bosons are “force carriers” like the photon, gluon, W, Z, and gravitons … and Higgs Boson. Note that protons and neutrons don’t show up in either category; they are assemblages of quarks. See Bosons and Fermions.
I sure don’t know enough to discuss the Higgs boson worth a damn. It is the carrier of the Higgs field. The theory is that the interaction with the Higgs field is what gives rise to mass.
The existence of the Higgs boson would also be one way to explain why some bosons (e.g. the photon) appear to have zero rest mass and some fermions (e.g. W and Z) have relatively huge masses (approximately 80 times the mass of a proton).
So, if the Higgs field and Higgs boson do exist, then they explain why mass exists and why bosons vary in mass.
See What exactly is the Higgs boson?, Higgs Boson: One page explanation, and Point of Creation - The Higgs Boson.
jrf
Falcon said:
Hey, now. This isn’t MPSIMS! Let’s not get too comfortable.
JonF:
I ask an obscure and esoteric question.
You provide a full explanation.
You then support it with extensive links,and definitions, including the 5 best, one page, plain English essays, written by acknowledged experts in the field, answering that very question.
Who do you think your fooling? You’re going to have to do a lot better than that if you expect anybody to take your ridiculous assertions seriously.
C’mon man, get your act together would you?
Seriously. Thank you for the concise explanation and thoughtful links. I’ve been trying to read up on the particle since the last creation thread when you suggested that the problem of mass might be a better avenue for attacking cosmological theory than the missing mass argument that I was pursuing as devil’s advocate.
You may have been right. However, I didn’t think I was prepared to argue it that way.
I’m probably still not, but would be interested in discussing it further to promote my understanding.
If I understand correctly the Higgs-Bosun is pretty much the lynchpin for the standard model of physics. Dr. Leon Lederman said “If the Higgs-Bosun does not exist, we phycisicists might as well go back to shooting arrows at the moon.”
I picture the action of the Higgs Bosun like an elevator falling down a shaft faster and faster until the brakes kick in. A person standing in the elevator would gain weight as the elevator rapidly decellerated.
The man in the elevator is a fermion being retarded from hitting the floor (travelling at the speed of light,) by the action of the brakes (bosuns,) against the elevator shaft (Higgs field,) Thus gaining weight (mass.)
I understand (or think I do) the effects of the Higgs field, but not it’s nature. Is it an intangible, like Pi, 137, Planck’s constant, or is it an actual thing? Is it created by the Higgs Bosuns. If not, did it exist prior to the big-bang?
String theory is really an alternate explanation for the mass problem, with all of matter being made of Strings which are their own field but are essentially Higgs Bosuns.
Is that correct?