28 May 05
Originally posted by PotatoErrorThere are fossils, you place the time on them, the fact is that there
but what happened a billion years ago is not based on faith.
There are fossil bacteria in 1 billion year rock for example. And there is evidence in iron beds that the atmosphere became more oxyidised.
So do these ideas really require the same amount of faith as say believing blue unicorns pranced around 1 billion years ago?
are fossils. They do not come with a little tag with the date on them
when we find them.
Kelly
28 May 05
Originally posted by nickybuttI believe it is young, only thousands of years old.
I have one question for you KJ. How old do you think the Universe is?
Of course I have an ulterior motive behind that question, which is:
If you believe the world to be young (e.g. anything under 3 billion years old) you are not only not accepting the science of evolution, but also a lot of other sciences, including geology, physics, astronomy, and indirectly medical science.
So how old is the Universe?
Kelly
28 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIn this case you shouldn't be using your computer since it is also based on the same sciences that you have just denounced. They are not right, and therefor your computer isn't right either. Your computer is in direct conflict with Creationism, it is heretical.
I [b]believe it is young, only thousands of years old.
Kelly[/b]
28 May 05
"You point to empirical evidence as someone else points to the Koran
or the Bible when we are talking about the beginning or billions of
years ago. All three cannot show you what took place billions of years
ago, they can only give you something to believe in."
Why stick to three? I could write a book tommorow telling people how magic invisible unicorns walked the Earth 1 billion years ago. Of course according to you this is just as valid as every other idea. It's all just faith right?
When someone is prosecuted for murder because forensics scientists found their fingerprints on the weapon, and the victims DNA on their clothes, then perhaps I can wander into the courtroom with my "book". I will remind the judge that according to my book magical invisible unicorns often commit murders and frame someone by planting their fingerprints on the weapons. The judge will have no choice but to throw the case out right? Because my book is just as valid as the empirical evidence the forensic scientists have. It's all just faith right?
28 May 05
1 edit
"There are fossils, you place the time on them, the fact is that there
are fossils. They do not come with a little tag with the date on them
when we find them."
Radiodating. And that is backed up by yet more empirical evidence. It all ends in maths. When we get there are you going to claim that 1+1 may not equal 2? (maths is faith right?)
28 May 05
Originally posted by DelmerDo you mean altruism in the ethology sense, or did you have some other meaning in mind? I imagine you mean in some non-ethology sense, so we'd need clarification before that question could be answered.
I applaud your faith and the fact that it provides an answer for every question I can ask. Just two more questions: 1. how did altruism evolve? 2. how did the god concept evolve?
Most TOE supporters give me the impression that they believe that the god concept is a negative and is interfering with the progress of the species. If so, why then would it have evolved and grown to such major status within the species?
In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Altruism_in_ethology_and_evolutionary_biology
Most TOE supporters give me the impression that they believe that the god concept is a negative and is interfering with the progress of the species. If so, why then would it have evolved and grown to such major status within the species?
I do not believe the god concept is a negative in the sense that it keeps our species from reproducing, which is what is relevant in an evolutionary sense. I personally dislike the effects Christianity is having on politics, but this is a much different thing.
28 May 05
Originally posted by PotatoErrorIt is all just faith, PE. Each man creates his own internal universe. When you write your blue unicorn book we'll patiently wait and see if it changes lives. We'll wait and see if it changes civilization.
"You point to empirical evidence as someone else points to the Koran
or the Bible when we are talking about the beginning or billions of
years ago. All three cannot show you what took place billions of years
ago, they can only give you something to believe in."
Why stick to three? I could write a book tommorow telling people how magic invisible u ...[text shortened]... as valid as the empirical evidence the forensic scientists have. It's all just faith right?
28 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, there is a difference, as I've pointed out in the past. Rational humans make decisions based on what we observe in the here and now. As I pointed out before, you do it every day; however, on occasion you choose not to when you don't feel like it. There is a difference between scientific investigation of the age of the Earth and blindly accepting what a book says just as there is a difference between eating food to suppress hunger instead of jumping out of an airplane to suppress hunger.
I'm not pushing (Bible) creation into the public school, but I am
pointing out to you there isn't much a difference between the faith
of someone reading the Bible and the faith of someone who thinks
they figured out what happened billions of years ago on their own
by looking at what they see in the here and now. Both people must
believe using assumpt ...[text shortened]... and beliefs
your science is no different, it is just another belief ssystem among
many.
Kelly
28 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI mean altruism in the ethology sense.
Do you mean altruism in the ethology sense, or did you have some other meaning in mind? I imagine you mean in some non-ethology sense, so we'd need clarification before that question could be answered.
[b][i]In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another indivi ...[text shortened]... ally dislike the effects Christianity is having on politics, but this is a much different thing.
28 May 05
Originally posted by DelmerWhat does changing lives and civilization have to do with anything?
It is all just faith, PE. Each man creates his own internal universe. When you write your blue unicorn book we'll patiently wait and see if it changes lives. We'll wait and see if it changes civilization.
And if that's a criterion, then the Origin of Species must be right.
Anyway, who says the Bible changed lives or civilization as you're implying? You're taking a lot of things on faith; how do you know what happened in the past? All you know is what happened in the here and now. Your memories might be false, after all. You only have faith that they are not.
28 May 05
Originally posted by DelmerNickybutt gave an excellent explanation on the last page. I am not well versed in the study of altruism, but I do know there are a number of possible explanations. The Wikipedia article on 'altruism' refers to some and has links to what are probably detailed explanations of each. However, as I am satisfied that Nickybutt's explanation is reasonable, I won't take the time right now to analyze all the possibilities.
I mean altruism in the ethology sense.
28 May 05
Originally posted by nickybuttWith computers design there cannot be such wild assumptions as are
In this case you shouldn't be using your computer since it is also based on the same sciences that you have just denounced. They are not right, and therefor your computer isn't right either. Your computer is in direct conflict with Creationism, it is heretical.
being presented when you say you know what must have occurred
billions of years ago, because you see a rate of decay taking place
today, it doesn't mean it has always been that way when our samples
we are testing were out of our control.
The math must be precise when you’re dealing with milli-volts, and
pico-seconds, you cannot assume with technology as you are doing
with billions of years. When assumptions are taken in the design of
the processor they must be confirmed through testing. Unlike billions
of years, in computer design we can and do look at what we think will
happen, and verify it in the here and now, which is quite beyond man
when it comes to billions of years ago.
Kelly
28 May 05
Originally posted by PotatoErrorWhen it comes to billions of years ago, yes it is faith. Unless you can
"You point to empirical evidence as someone else points to the Koran
or the Bible when we are talking about the beginning or billions of
years ago. All three cannot show you what took place billions of years
ago, they can only give you something to believe in."
Why stick to three? I could write a book tommorow telling people how magic invisible u ...[text shortened]... as valid as the empirical evidence the forensic scientists have. It's all just faith right?
produce someone who has recorded through a billion years the affects
of aging has on various things, it is faith.
Forensic scientists can verify their conclusion in the here and now, they
can test the decay through time now and record what is going on so
that they can get a clear picture with little room for error for what they
are claiming up to a point. Once we cannot take our samples and
verify our claims through recorded processes we are back into
assumptions again. This isn't saying that assumptions are going to
be wrong, but it does mean we are in an area when we cannot know
for sure, once there it is faith, correct.
Kelly
28 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not at all calling for us to not try and figure out what is around
Yes, there is a difference, as I've pointed out in the past. Rational humans make decisions based on what we observe in the here and now. As I pointed out before, you do it every day; however, on occasion you choose not to when you don't feel like it. There is a difference between scientific investigation of the age of the Earth and blindly accep ...[text shortened]... between eating food to suppress hunger instead of jumping out of an airplane to suppress hunger.
us. You seem to be assuming I'm asking for an either or type of
thing. When in fact, the only thing I'm asking for is to make sure
our labels are correct, when we are talking about billions of years it
is a matter of faith, because we are being asked to believe
something based on something that may or may not be true. We
cannot check our results except with something else that has the
same limitations, more assumtions, more faith, it doesn't mean that
it is true.
When I take a reading on a circuit board I'm looking at something in
the here and now. When I suggest if we do something with a circuit, we
can check to see if what I suggested takes place or not, because we
are dealing in the here and now.
Kelly
28 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat I am saying is, that it is the SAME scientific principles that makes your computer works, that supports evidence of an old Universe. Rejecting them one place and not the other doesn't make sense. If you accept that the Earth is young, then you reject radiometric dating methods which clearly states that the Earth is billions of years old. The science behind radiometric dating methods is also used in producing electricity in nuclear power plants, in building microprocessors for computers, in testing for cancer in hospitals, and a lot of other places. You can't just denounce science one place and accept it another.
With computers design there cannot be such wild assumptions as are
being presented when you say you know what must have occurred
billions of years ago, because you see a rate of decay taking place
today, it doesn't mean it has always been that way when our samples
we are testing were out of our control.
The math must be precise when you’re dealing w ...[text shortened]... in the here and now, which is quite beyond man
when it comes to billions of years ago.
Kelly