29 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayMy point is that we use data from the here and now to infer (is that the right word?) things about other times and other places. This is perfectly valid. If you choose to challenge the validity of this process, then you should accept the full implications of that choice.
I'm very aware of what people who work on the design of computers
components do and how. I again have not said we cannot know things,
but with the computer design everything from Ohms law and so on
are all testable in the here and now. ...[text shortened]... you just said, everything is faith, do you believe that?
Kelly
However, you only selectively apply your challenge to this process. What is different from assuming light always acted as it does now, and radioactive decay has always acted the way it does now, and making any of the other assumptions I've pointed out?
According to what you just said, everything is faith, do you believe that?
'Faith' is not a word I generally use because it's not useful for clear communication in my opinion, and I am very careful about using it explicitly or implicitly, especially when talking to you. I never know how you mean the word and you often blur the distinction between different definitions of it. So, I am not sure if I believe that or not. Probably I believe it according to some definitions and not according to some others.
EDIT - Please notice I clearly answered your question. I did not respond with questions of my own. Please do me the same courtesy in general.
29 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI have not said that we cannot glean anything from observations in
I have not said that we cannot glean anything from observations in
the present, I have said that there is a line between what we can call
facts and what is faith. You want to believe in billions of years, go
ahead, just know it is a bel ...[text shortened]... oncern. Can it happen
no matter how much time is avaiable?
Kelly
the present, I have said that there is a line between what we can call
facts and what is faith.
Can you clarify what that line is?
EDIT - I will help support your position a little bit by saying that things do seem to be more likely to vary the further you extrapolate. However in the absence of evidence suggesting there was a drastic change in a trend, the only reasonable thing is to assume the trend did not change drastically. This sort of reasoning is how we determined the value of 0 Kelvin (absolute zero temperature) for example.
30 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"However in the absence of evidence suggesting there was a drastic change in a trend, the only reasonable thing is to assume the trend did not change drastically."
[b]I have not said that we cannot glean anything from observations in
the present, I have said that there is a line between what we can call
facts and what is faith.
Can you clarify what that line is?
EDIT - I will help support your position a little bit by saying that things do seem to be more likely to vary the further you extrapolate. ...[text shortened]... of reasoning is how we determined the value of 0 Kelvin (absolute zero temperature) for example.[/b]
This is simply an assumption on your part isn't it, and a major one?
We don't know and that is the only thing we can honestly say.
Once we assume we leave the realm of facts and enter faith. It is
much easier to see errors when we work in the here and now, where
that which is in the here and now can affect what we are looking at.
When we start assuming things about that which can never be proven
wrong, it is faith and faith alone. You have a rate; it is constant as
long as we have had the ability to measure it, yet we are using
that rate just as if it has always behaved the same way under all
conditions at all times, and that nothing affected it during the times
we were unaware of the sample we are testing for the rate. A
reasonable assumption is still an assumption and more than likely
where more major mistakes are made, because that type always just
seemed so reasonable.
I've no trouble for anyone claiming that anything is true according to
this test or that, the truthfulness than rests on the test and the
conditions of the test, which would be the fact. Even reading a voltage
drop depending on how important the facts need to be, calibration
dates on the meters need to be kept and so on, just to be precise
and as accurate as possible. If that isn’t done, than those that have
their facts and treat the way they got them is something akin to
something holy the makings of a religious belief. Which is what
people make me think of when I question their methods; it is as if I
have done something bad to a Koran or some other religious item
people think is holy and above question.
Kelly
30 May 05
3 edits
The thing is there is no known way of significantly altering the decay rate. They have tried all manner of things from high pressures to chemicals.
More importantly if radiodecay had changed in the past we would expect to see evidence of this change. Rock strata for example would yeild exponentially increasing, or decreasing dates.
Also from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
30 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PotatoErrorNo, known way is the key part of your statement. We don't know
The thing is there is no known way of significantly altering the decay rate. They have tried all manner of things from high pressures to chemicals.
More importantly if radiodecay had changed in the past we would expect to see evidenc ...[text shortened]... almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).[/b]
if something is missing, if something was added, we don't know,
and that is the bottom line now isn't it? You want to make an
absolute statement of fact about billions of years you may I have
already said people do that all the time without any qualms about
if they are wrong.
Kelly
30 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, you are so skeptical in this one case, but you don't apply that same skepticism to other things. Why are you so inconsistent? Do you admit that you are inconsistent, Kelly?
No, known way is the key part of your statement. We don't know
if something is missing, if something was added, we don't know,
and that is the bottom line now isn't it? You want to make an
absolute statement of fact about billions of years you may I have
already said people do that all the time without any qualms about
if they are wrong.
Kelly
30 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy stop at evolution for your " something might be missing argument"?
No, known way is the key part of your statement. We don't know
if something is missing, if something was added, we don't know,
and that is the bottom line now isn't it? You want to make an
absolute statement of fact about billions of years you may I have
already said people do that all the time without any qualms about
if they are wrong.
Kelly
We know the sun is large and hot and by looking at the sun, we can surmise stars are similar in composition. But we are extending our knowledge based on observation and logic - which you place no faith in.
So if I claim stars are big enough to fall down to the ground and are stuck to a firmanent, that would be valid until we get close enough to directly observe each and every star?
30 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow is that, I admit what I believe is faith. Where do you see me
Again, you are so skeptical in this one case, but you don't apply that same skepticism to other things. Why are you so inconsistent? Do you admit that you are inconsistent, Kelly?
doing something different else where? I am not suggesting that
I'm not inconsistent, I believe that is completely possible. Just
be clear is all I ask.
Kelly
30 May 05
Originally posted by steerpikeI do not know, why stop?
Why stop at evolution for your " something might be missing argument"?
We know the sun is large and hot and by looking at the sun, we can surmise stars are similar in composition. But we are extending our knowledge based on observation and logic - which you place no faith in.
So if I claim stars are big enough to fall down to the ground and are s ...[text shortened]... nent, that would be valid until we get close enough to directly observe each and every star?
I have never once said at any time I have no faith in our logic, you
are not representing my position at all. I would have assumed you
would at least grasp what I have been saying, but I believe your
bias has blinded you somewhat. You seem to see what you want
to see and neatly warp the rest. My point was, and is, if it isn't a
fact, it isn't a fact, if it cannot be proven, it must be taken on faith.
If you are going to tell me that your testing makes you take those
results as facts, you are putting your faith in that test's results.
If the test cannot be proven wrong, it is without a doubt a matter of
faith, nothing more. The father away from the here and now we
are looking either in the past or the future we will be using our faith
because of our limitations. If you believe any realm of science that
looks far into either the past or the future is an exact science I do
believe you are a great person of faith if you just take for granted
what you are being told is a fact, is indeed a fact.
Kelly
30 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is really no reason not to believe the moon is made of cheese either ?
I do not know, why stop?
I have never once said at any time I have no faith in our logic, you
are not representing my position at all. I would have assumed you
would at least grasp what I have been saying, but I believe your
bias has blinded you somewhat. You seem to see what you want
to see and neatly warp the rest. My point was, and is, if it isn' ...[text shortened]... faith if you just take for granted
what you are being told is a fact, is indeed a fact.
Kelly
Sure those dreadful scientists mock the belief and people claim to have gone there but how can that be proven?
30 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOkay, please forgive me. I am talking to several people in this
My point is that we use data from the here and now to infer (is that the right word?) things about other times and other places. This is perfectly valid. If you choose to challenge the validity of this process, then you should acce ...[text shortened]... h questions of my own. Please do me the same courtesy in general.
thread. I read a few posts and try to make it back to the ones
I missed earlier.
I am challenging the validity of everything everywhere that cannot
be shown true in the here and now. If it cannot be revealed now,
it must have an element of unknown to it. The father anything is
from the here and now, the greater the amount of what cannot
be trusted in my opinion.
Looking at two examples of things brought up here earlier, a
voltage drop and the planet Pluto traveling around the sun.
I cannot say simply because no one has watched, or monitored a
voltage drop across a single resistor in a circuit that is always
holds to Ohm’s Law, but I can say that every time we test it
under any conditions we get the same result in real time. The
same thing can be said of Pluto; we may not be watching it
24/7 but every time we do look at it, it is where we except to
see it.
That is quite different from saying that because I see Pluto
making its trip around the sun that I know how long it was
doing it, or how long it will be making that trip. It does depend
on what is being looked at and what we are saying we can
know from the data.
Kelly