they can dish it but...?

Originally posted by KellyJay
In the here and now we can have recorded events either with cameras,
hand written notes, video, and so on, but with the distant past as
many believe it to be in it no one was there not even God, all
speculation about what occurred there is just that, speculation, the
events that are used to describe the origin of the state of things
today are not factu ...[text shortened]... to give a reason not to accept something else, but
bottom line that is just a word play.
Kelly

I'll trust a rock over a parchment every time. Rocks don't lie, authors do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh I see billions or millions of years ago you know what happened
as far as the process is concern, because you have some data points
today, which means what you "believe" occurred isn't a matter of
belief. You have facts, you don't believe, I suppose that you have all
he bases covered, that you are error proof in your reasoning, because
you have all t ...[text shortened]... ut the end result is the same when it comes to the beliefs about
the distant past.
Kelly

Correct no faith required at all.

The existence of biological evolution is a fact that can be demonstrated in the present; and the historical evidence of its past occurrence is overwhelmingly convincing, not only due to the plethora of sources but also due to the independent gathering of this information. It has stood up to be critically analysed by unbiased sources for centuries and has established way beyond reasonable doubt that biological evolutionary occurrence is fact.

There is zero room for faith in this conclusion; faith is not even remotely required as the evidence is numerous. As you have said previously you can read that for yourself, so I will not provide you with a list of peer reviewed articles highlighting this evidence, also the list would be extremely large and I’m sure you would not have time to digest.

To repeat when there are thousands of individual pieces of evidence which have been independently gathered, analysed by unbiased scientists over numerous years……. Why is faith required here?

I find it hard to understand how you can believe in an entity that has absolutely zero evidence for its existence yet ignore an almost endless supply of credible evidence for biological evolutionary fact.

Is this ignorance, lack of understanding the literature, fear, bigotry or has ScottishinNZ hit the nail on the head and you are just one of those conspiracy theorists?

Are you capable of digesting / understanding evidence without bias?

Originally posted by KellyJay
In the here and now we can have recorded events either with cameras,
hand written notes, video, and so on, but with the distant past as
many believe it to be in it no one was there not even God, all
speculation about what occurred there is just that, speculation, the
events that are used to describe the origin of the state of things
today are not factu ...[text shortened]... t now is, or life simply starting from non-life in some
pool, pond, ocean, river, or whatever.

So please elaborate, are you saying:
1. an event doesn't take place if it is not recorded by a human being or a human beings tools (cameras etc)
or
2. unless a human being witnesses and event or has video footage then we can never know what happened.
So you are claiming that if I balance a pencil on its end, leave the room for 5 minutes and come back and find it on the ground, I can never know without video footage whether it fell over or whether it magically got translated into a new position. It may even be a different pencil! If I say it fell over then that is just a mere story made up by people.
Am I correct about your position or would you like to elaborate further? Please don't just make vague statements as you usually do but try to be specific.

Originally posted by timebombted
Correct no faith required at all.

The existence of biological evolution is a fact that can be demonstrated in the present; and the historical evidence of its past occurrence is overwhelmingly convincing, not only due to the plethora of sources but also due to the independent gathering of this information. It has stood up to be critically analysed by u ...[text shortened]... ose conspiracy theorists?

Are you capable of digesting / understanding evidence without bias?

"...and the historical evidence of its past occurrence is overwhelmingly convincing..."

You believe you have it nailed, so much so you are willing to over
look what is true, and that is, you are assuming this is true to the
point that it is factual to you. You are blinded by your own arrogance
if your conclusions are facts.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
So please elaborate, are you saying:
1. an event doesn't take place if it is not recorded by a human being or a human beings tools (cameras etc)
or
2. unless a human being witnesses and event or has video footage then we can never know what happened.
So you are claiming that if I balance a pencil on its end, leave the room for 5 minutes and come back ...[text shortened]... ate further? Please don't just make vague statements as you usually do but try to be specific.

I'm saying if you have it recorded we are not dealing with guess work
or assumptions as much, notes, records are better than putting the
pieces together and calling what we come up with a factual event,
when the event supposedly took place millions or billions of years
ago. If you cannot see the difference between the two, I doubt
anything I could say would sway you. The closer to 'now' the better we
are at getting it right, there is less guess work or other events or
pieces of data that would be missing, the father in the past we go the
worst it is for us to get it right.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Kelly,

I just wonder. Have you heard of the Cosmic background radiation?

Do you believe that two things that logically contradict each other can both be true?

Do you think for one second, that any piece of evidence in science is taken apart from anything else, and does not form a logically coherent idea, to such a level that it can be called ...[text shortened]... . Most of us lose our imaginary friends as we get older, but not you. Last of the faithful.

Your words again not mine.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That question doesn't make sense.

Thought so.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your words again not mine.
Kelly

Yes, because you never say anything of value.

Why not assert a position Kelly? You never have, you only ever try to undermine anyone else's.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying if you have it recorded we are not dealing with guess work
or assumptions as much, notes, records are better than putting the
pieces together and calling what we come up with a factual event,
when the event supposedly took place millions or billions of years
ago. If you cannot see the difference between the two, I doubt
anything I could say ...[text shortened]... ould be missing, the father in the past we go the
worst it is for us to get it right.
Kelly

So you are saying that if my pencil scenario happened yesterday then we have less evidence than if it happened today?
Do you consider human made records more accurate than naturally made records? If so, doesn't that contradict your earlier statements about human influence being the weak link?
Do you also consider a book to be less accurate the older it gets? Does this mean that the Bible for example is less accurate (because it is 2000 or more years old) than a modern day novel (less than 1 year old).
You say that pieces of data go missing over time. Can you provide anything to back up such a claim? What is the average rate of data loss?
Arent you also claiming (though you have avoided directly stating it) that the older data is the more inaccurate it is? So a 10,000 year old fossil can is a more accurate representation of the animal that died than a 1 million year old fossil?

If you cannot see the difference between the two, I doubt
anything I could say would sway you.
So in other words you are saying "its obvious and if you cant see it you never will". Well if it is so obvious why cant you explain it to me? I (and most scientists in the world today) just cant seem to see it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, because you never say anything of value.

Why not assert a position Kelly? You never have, you only ever try to undermine anyone else's.

It does not matter what I say when it comes to you many times since
you take the mind reading stance and tell me what I'm thinking much
more than deal with the exact words I do use.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are saying that if my pencil scenario happened yesterday then we have less evidence than if it happened today?
Do you consider human made records more accurate than naturally made records? If so, doesn't that contradict your earlier statements about human influence being the weak link?
Do you also consider a book to be less accurate the older it nt you explain it to me? I (and most scientists in the world today) just cant seem to see it.

I'm saying as long as you know the conditions you can get a better
feel for the reality of it, if you walk into a room for the first time and
see a pencil on the floor, is it there because if rolled off a table, a
child put it there, and adult threw it at someone one else and it ended
up there, or a small bang occured and the universe simply created
it out of nothing and that was how the pencil got there? 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are saying that if my pencil scenario happened yesterday then we have less evidence than if it happened today?
Do you consider human made records more accurate than naturally made records? If so, doesn't that contradict your earlier statements about human influence being the weak link?
Do you also consider a book to be less accurate the older it ...[text shortened]... nt you explain it to me? I (and most scientists in the world today) just cant seem to see it.

It depends again on the data and what we are looking at going back
into time. Simply seeing an item or a rate today does not
automatically mean that our conclusions about either of those are
going to be accurate, the more variables involved the less likely we
are at coming up with the proper conclusion, especially if we do not
even know how many variables could have been involved.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, because you never say anything of value.

Why not assert a position Kelly? You never have, you only ever try to undermine anyone else's.

I'm a creationist, I believe God created the heavens and earth and
all that is in all of them, I believe God created life at a single point
in time here too, and that all life through processes we see today have
changed over time. I didn't think I needed to tell you this since you
read my mind so well. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm a creationist, I believe God created the heavens and earth and
all that is in all of them, I believe God created life at a single point
in time here too, and that all life through processes we see today have
changed over time. I didn't think I needed to tell you this since you
read my mind so well. 🙂
Kelly

Finally.

Finally, a positive assertion. One that flies in the face of every single piece of data EVER collected, but one nevertheless.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Finally.

Finally, a positive assertion. One that flies in the face of every single piece of data EVER collected, but one nevertheless.

Finally a postive one, I have never hidden the fact I was a creationist.
Typically we are not addressing Biblical Christianity when it comes to
'evidence' or what people are claiming are facts when we talk, but
there you go nonetheless. If you wish to start addressing the holes
in the creation story I'm game.
Kelly