03 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayThree words; multiple independent measurements.
That is the point isn't it, there is no way to know. To assume you
have all the necessary data points is just again faith, and blind
faith at that.
Kelly
All come up with the same answer. The chances of that happening randomly are hundreds of millions of billions to 1. I think it is you that is in error.
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy error, what would that be? Pointing out to you that without
Three words; multiple independent measurements.
All come up with the same answer. The chances of that happening randomly are hundreds of millions of billions to 1. I think it is you that is in error.
being able to know one measurement is right, you confirm your
measurements with another that you cannot confirm is right,
so you confirm it with another measurement you cannot confirm
is right...
Is that what I'm wrong about?
Kelly
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd once again you show that you don't understand how science works. If you think there is a mystery variable that changes things then you need to go out there and find it. Or is it that you'd rather just keep your eyes closed and pretend the world isn't out there?
That is the point isn't it, there is no way to know. To assume you
have all the necessary data points is just again faith, and blind
faith at that.
Kelly
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat have I avoided? You are the one claiming you have all the
And once again you show that you don't understand how science works. If you think there is a mystery variable that changes things then you need to go out there and find it. Or is it that you'd rather just keep your eyes closed and pretend the world isn't out there?
knowledge you need to know something for sure, seems like a
bold statement of faith to me. I acknowledge what I believe is
a matter of faith, you are the one attempting to rest in the belief
you have all you need to know to settle into calling your
conclusions facts. Quite a statement of bold blind faith in my
opinion, but true believers make claims like that all the time
don't they?
Kelly
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by frogstompYes, true...people have been making the claims on the age of the
nothing important enough to alter the findings back to 4 billion years or a degree of certainty of less than .00015 % would be quite noticable.
earth for years. I'm sure you could find science books years ago
that made different claims and those guys who wrote those books
were sure they had all they needed to know too. Such is the way
of life among true believers, they have all they need.
Kelly
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayIt doesn't rely on faith it relies on mathematics and other stuff, and really beats the poo outta begat counting.
What have I avoided? You are the one claiming you have all the
knowledge you need to know something for sure, seems like a
bold statement of faith to me. I acknowledge what I believe is
a matter of faith, you are the one attempting to rest in the belief
you have all you need to know to settle into calling your
conclusions facts. Quite a statement of bo ...[text shortened]... faith in my
opinion, but true believers make claims like that all the time
don't they?
Kelly
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayWe know much much more than what is needed to show that creationism is not possible.
What have I avoided? You are the one claiming you have all the
knowledge you need to know something for sure, seems like a
bold statement of faith to me. I acknowledge what I believe is
a matter of faith, you are the one attempting to rest in the belief
you have all you need to know to settle into calling your
conclusions facts. Quite a statement of bo ...[text shortened]... faith in my
opinion, but true believers make claims like that all the time
don't they?
Kelly
03 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompI see, so there is nothing, and I mean nothing that could be
It doesn't rely on faith it relies on mathematics and other stuff, and really beats the poo outta begat counting.
lurking out there that could make your conclusions wrong?
You are so sure this is true; you have no doubt what so ever
that no one has made a mistake about anything, or some piece
of data will not alter your findings into being something other
than what you think they are? I’m impressed with your faith
it is blind but strong! You have reality all figured out, it is
impressive!
Kelly
03 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayYou apparently cannot read either. Look it up in a dictionary "independant".
My error, what would that be? Pointing out to you that without
being able to know one measurement is right, you confirm your
measurements with another that you cannot confirm is right,
so you confirm it with another measurement you cannot confirm
is right...
Is that what I'm wrong about?
Kelly
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzDoes a test we cannot prove right or wrong change because we can
You apparently cannot read either. Look it up in a dictionary "independant".
also use another test we cannot prove right or wrong, independently?
It is more of the same, the conclusions may be right, they may be
wrong, it is still unknown and cannot be taken as completely true
since something new could change the results tomorrow. You are
quite welcome to believe what you will though, call it a fact if you
desire to.
Kelly
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't see KJ, because you have been blinded by the ony-eyed men that wrote the OT. You can not lower 'degree of certainty' to mere 'faith' no matter how hard you try.
I see, so there is nothing, and I mean nothing that could be
lurking out there that could make your conclusions wrong?
You are so sure this is true; you have no doubt what so ever
that no one has made a mistake about anything, or some piece
of data will not alter your findings into being something other
than what you think they are? I’m impressed with your faith
it is blind but strong! You have reality all figured out, it is
impressive!
Kelly