Intelligent? Design

Originally posted by KellyJay
"In other words, it's all or nothing with you, there can never be partial truths. "

Partial truths are as dangerous or more than complete lies when attempting to discover
the reality of what we are looking at. Thinking we are right about something and having a
truth on our side only causes us to dig in.

So with that rationalization, religion can feel safe from the discoveries of science till the end of humankind.

But you say you don't believe when people say things are millions of years old but you look at a strata of a mountain say, and you see literally thousands of layers and each layer takes a thousand years to deposit because we know the rate at which stuff falls out of the ocean, why would you not conclude the possibility those layers took millions of years to deposit? Do you think that at some point a million years ago the deposition rate was all of a sudden sped up a thousand fold? The only reason you can't believe such is because of the false dates given by analyzers of the bible. Mary begat roger who begat billy who begat, etc., etc., etc. Why do you believe THOSE humans but at the same time refuse to believe real scientists who have devoted their lives to science and are after the truth, not to bend the truth to some religious agenda.

Of the ice core data of Greenland and Antarctica, we know how much gets added each year, we have now a hundred years of solid data and there is nothing in the data suggesting any kind of change in the snow depths per year and such, which of course is a variable within limits so when they dig through a mile deep layer of ice and see the depth of the snow a hundred thousand years ago they can analyze the isotopes to see what the atmosphere was made of and it all works out, no major changes except for the ice age cycles every 30 or 40 thousand years and they see it all quite clearly in the ice records but you cannot believe it even though you could see the record in the ice for yourself.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So with that rationalization, religion can feel safe from the discoveries of science till the end of humankind.

But you say you don't believe when people say things are millions of years old but you look at a strata of a mountain say, and you see literally thousands of layers and each layer takes a thousand years to deposit because we know the rate at wh ...[text shortened]... records but you cannot believe it even though you could see the record in the ice for yourself.

I have no problem with discoveries of science, why would I?

If something you believe in and you cannot be shown your wrong about it, does it change
into a fact because you have believed it a long time? Would it really even truthfully be
called a fact if everyone accepted it, without being able to prove it wrong?

Time and the amount of people who buy into something shouldn't change the rules on
how we view things as factual and matters of belief. I'm sure for some it does, but if they
go there they no different than people within religion who seem to get under your skin
on trusting in something without "sound science to back them" only faith.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have no problem with discoveries of science, why would I?

If something you believe in and you cannot be shown your wrong about it, does it change
into a fact because you have believed it a long time? Would it really even truthfully be
called a fact if everyone accepted it, without being able to prove it wrong?

Time and the amount of people who buy ...[text shortened]... o get under your skin
on trusting in something without "sound science to back them" only faith.

You don't have problems with discoveries in science except where the results compete with the bible. You talk constantly about 'I don't know how old the Earth is, etc.' only because you cannot process an age that conflicts with the bible. You obviously believe in most science being very involved with semiconductor technology but nowhere in that discipine is there a word that disputes anything in the bible so you can be involved in those sciences and semiconductor processes but if something in that field says Earth is billions of years old you would have a problem with that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't have problems with discoveries in science except where the results compete with the bible. You talk constantly about 'I don't know how old the Earth is, etc.' only because you cannot process an age that conflicts with the bible. You obviously believe in most science being very involved with semiconductor technology but nowhere in that discipine is ...[text shortened]... something in that field says Earth is billions of years old you would have a problem with that.

That is such Bull$hit, must you belittle me for things that are not true just to make you
feel good? Where in the hell have I shown you I have an issue with discoveries in
science where they complete with the Bible? When I talk about not accepting something
as factual because it cannot be proven wrong, what does that have to do with the Bible?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't have problems with discoveries in science except where the results compete with the bible. You talk constantly about 'I don't know how old the Earth is, etc.' only because you cannot process an age that conflicts with the bible. You obviously believe in most science being very involved with semiconductor technology but nowhere in that discipine is ...[text shortened]... something in that field says Earth is billions of years old you would have a problem with that.

I don't mind people using real language to describe any event or theory, as long as they
use proper words such as theoretical, or say it is believed to be true. Where I do draw the
line is if no one can show how this view or that can be proven wrong, than saying it
factual is not something I get behind. If you think such claims are true simply because
they disagree with the Bible that is on you, I think one has nothing to do with the other.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't mind people using real language to describe any event or theory, as long as they
use proper words such as theoretical, or say it is believed to be true. Where I do draw the
line is if no one can show how this view or that can be proven wrong, than saying it
factual is not something I get behind. If you think such claims are true simply because
they disagree with the Bible that is on you, I think one has nothing to do with the other.

The only thing I have heard you object to is dating objects with the various technologies, C14, Thermo, radioactives, etc. You always say negative things about the techniques, nobody knows about the deep past and so forth. I could only come to the conclusion it is that way in your mind because of your religious affiliation. What other objection would you have besides religious ones? Surely you wouldn't question the work scientifically because you are not in any way an expert in those fields, your expertise is in semiconductor processing fields and the like, not anything to do with dating. So if you have scientific objections, then tell me what they are and why you think that and not based on religious views.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The only thing I have heard you object to is dating objects with the various technologies, C14, Thermo, radioactives, etc. You always say negative things about the techniques, nobody knows about the deep past and so forth. I could only come to the conclusion it is that way in your mind because of your religious affiliation. What other objection would you ha ...[text shortened]... objections, then tell me what they are and why you think that and not based on religious views.

So I can say that the only reason you accept those dates is that they disagree with the
Bible? Nothing about those dating methods is any more special than anything else, you
cannot disprove them, than you are accepting something on faith and believing the
outcome you WANT to believe. So you too according to your beliefs on the Bible, are
going to accept something as factual because it disagrees with the Bible.

I still believe one has nothing to do with the other, but I guess in your mind they are
always connected.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So I can say that the only reason you accept those dates is that they disagree with the
Bible? Nothing about those dating methods is any more special than anything else, you
cannot disprove them, than you are accepting something on faith and believing the
outcome you WANT to believe. So you too according to your beliefs on the Bible, are
going to accept ...[text shortened]... lieve one has nothing to do with the other, but I guess in your mind they are
always connected.

I don't accept those dates simply because they disagree with the bible, and you do realize there is not one word in the bible saying Earth is 6000 years old, only analysis by men concluding that date.
The reason I accept the dates is the various methods agree with one another within some window of error. If I see a date from tree rings showing a drought, say 5000 years ago and I see an ice core showing the same lack of rain in a core dated 5000 years ago there are two lines of evidence agreeing with each other, that 5000 years ago there was a drought, which I just brought up as an example, not implying that actually happened.

But C14 has been proven because we can date stuff that we know is new and wait a few years and see the dates provided agree with the actual calander so we can be assured within a window of error of other older dates.

The radiometric data is the same in that there are several dating techniques that show similar dates, in this case MUCH older than dates gotten by C14. Scientists know the limits of C14 and limits of radiometric dating.

If there is no carbon in a fossil, C14 dating is not possible so you have to infer from strata and then you have to prove that it was not newer stuff washed into older layers etc.
That is a laborious process but they can derive fairly accurate dating for such carbonless fossils.

When you have a dozen different techniques that agree with each other, you can feel assured the dating technique is accurate within some window.

I say the dating 'technique' used by biblical scholars saying Earth is 6000 years old is 100% totally bogus since back then there was no way to prove the Artie begat Bettie who begat Roger who begat Horus etc., those dates are totally made up.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I don't accept those dates simply because they disagree with the bible, and you do realize there is not one word in the bible saying Earth is 6000 years old, only analysis by men concluding that date.
The reason I accept the dates is the various methods agree with one another within some window of error. If I see a date from tree rings showing a drought, s ...[text shortened]... ve the Artie begat Bettie who begat Roger who begat Horus etc., those dates are totally made up.

I don't believe you! I know what your saying backs up your claim, but I am going to continue to accuse you anyway. You know just like your doing to me!

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe you! I know what your saying backs up your claim, but I am going to continue to accuse you anyway. You know just like your doing to me!

You don't believe me about the fact several methods of dating have been proven to support each other?

BTW, did you ever find my soundcloud stuff? I have 51 tracks there now.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You don't believe me about the fact several methods of dating have been proven to support each other?

BTW, did you ever find my soundcloud stuff? I have 51 tracks there now.

If course I believe you, I am simply pointing out you don't give me the same benefit of the doubt.

Yes on track but my new schedule doesn't leave me with a lot of free time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If course I believe you, I am simply pointing out you don't give me the same benefit of the doubt.

Yes on track but my new schedule doesn't leave me with a lot of free time.

Are you now saying it is not biblical objections you have to the ancient dating science has come up with?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you now saying it is not biblical objections you have to the ancient dating science has come up with?

If any test can't be proven wrong I will never give the results the label factual, and if you attempt to confirm with more tests with the same weakness my views will not change.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you now saying it is not biblical objections you have to the ancient dating science has come up with?

One more thing, there are no biblical objections that I'm aware of on time to go against
ancient dating science. As near as I can tell the door is wide open for the universe to be
billions of years old or thousands, either one could be true, and it would not alter one thing
about my religious beliefs and the universe.

Originally posted by KellyJay
One more thing, there are no biblical objections that I'm aware of on time to go against
ancient dating science. As near as I can tell the door is wide open for the universe to be
billions of years old or thousands, either one could be true, and it would not alter one thing
about my religious beliefs and the universe.

But it seems you still cling to the lower number as being more possible, are you sure you have not been influenced by the who begat who analysis saying the universe and Earth is 6000 years old? I get mixed messages from you, the universe could be 14 bil old or it could be 6 thou old, you don't care. Are you not interested enough in the sciences behind dating to see for yourself, sniff into the lit?