30 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayWith all due respect KJ my eyes are far more open than your own. At least my stance that evolution is fact is based on credible evidence, whereas your creationist stance is clearly a blinded decision.
"...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
To repeat this is exactly why religion requires faith and science requires none.
What is it creationists fear in seeing the truth?
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by timebombtedNo, with respect I don't think you understand what your doing if you
With all due respect KJ my eyes are far more open than your own. At least my stance that evolution is fact is based on credible evidence, whereas your creationist stance is clearly a blinded decision.
To repeat this is exactly why religion requires faith and science requires none.
What is it creationists fear in seeing the truth?
believe that! Seeing something in the here and now does not mean
that it "always" behaved that way throughout time since rates can
change given circumstances, and if you don’t have all circumstances
accounted for you simply are making assumptions upon assumptions.
Looking at a data point today also does not necessarily mean you
have a clean grasp of the starting position of whatever it is you are
looking at if there are or could be several variables unaccounted for
too, again your confidence in your knowledge of all the variables
only means you are now making assumptions upon assumptions
this isn’t a place where the word ‘fact’ should be used. If you
think that is not true I suggest you look at some highway where
cars are moving and guess where they was an hour before you saw
them, if they were traveling at 70 mph can you assume they were
70 miles down the road an hour before?
Kelly
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat would be the point? You've already shown that you don't care about evidence or the use of logic.
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
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayIf it was the only speed the car was capable of, yes.
No, with respect I don't think you understand what your doing if you
[b]believe that! Seeing something in the here and now does not mean
that it "always" behaved that way throughout time since rates can
change given circumstances, and if you don’t have all circumstances
accounted for you simply are making assumptions upon assumptions.
Looking at ...[text shortened]... e traveling at 70 mph can you assume they were
70 miles down the road an hour before?
Kelly[/b]
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI do care, simply because I don't accept some of your foundational
What would be the point? You've already shown that you don't care about evidence or the use of logic.
truth, what you base your beliefs on doesn't mean I reject logic, I
just reject your views about things nothing more, and even that only
a limited number of things, but important things nonetheless.
Kelly
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs long as we know all the variables, even a one speed car does not
If it was the only speed the car was capable of, yes.
mean that we knew how long the car was on the road. The rate is
just the rate, we can guess about what that means, but unless we
know all there is to know we assuming, and if we build upon that
it is a house of assumptions upon assumptions.
Kelly
30 Jun 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThere IS only one road. Nothing else exists.
As long as we know all the variables, even a one speed car does not
mean that we knew how long the car was on the road. The rate is
just the rate, we can guess about what that means, but unless we
know all there is to know we assuming, and if we build upon that
it is a house of assumptions upon assumptions.
Kelly
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJay1) the volume of gas in the tank sets an upper bound, and the volume the remains sets a lower limit.
The when the car started is still up in question and with regard to the
road, the conditions can alter things too.
Kelly
2) Not is the road is called "nuclear decay highway".
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayIf this is a metaphor for radioactive / radiometric dating then it’s a crap one. Clearly there are many variables which will influence where the car was 1 hour ago, so yes you are right there are many assumptions in "your" scenario. However the scientific method of dating does not have this plethora of unknown fluctuating variables that creationists seem to think. Radioactive dating is accurate KJ whether creationists like it or not.
No, with respect I don't think you understand what your doing if you
[b]believe that! Seeing something in the here and now does not mean
that it "always" behaved that way throughout time since rates can
change given circumstances, and if you don’t have all circumstances
accounted for you simply are making assumptions upon assumptions.
Looking at ...[text shortened]... e traveling at 70 mph can you assume they were
70 miles down the road an hour before?
Kelly[/b]
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by timebombtedMust be you say so.
If this is a metaphor for radioactive / radiometric dating then it’s a crap one. Clearly there are many variables which will influence where the car was 1 hour ago, so yes you are right there are many assumptions in "your" scenario. However the scientific method of dating does not have this plethora of unknown fluctuating variables that creationists seem to think. Radioactive dating is accurate KJ whether creationists like it or not.
Kelly
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzMy point applies to all rates if you just get a snap shot of time and
1) the volume of gas in the tank sets an upper bound, and the volume the remains sets a lower limit.
2) Not is the road is called "nuclear decay highway".
call it done, you simply don't know!
Kelly
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou previously claimed that the validity of data is based on its age. Are you still supporting that claim? Are you claiming that the older evidence is, the more variables it has?
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
What do you think of the following scenario:
There are two cultures, one measures time according to the moon cycles and another measures it according to the years (sun cycle). Both have recorded an important astronomical event (a very bright comet for example). When we use our modern knowledge of the movements of both the sun and moon we find that both cultures recorded the even as taking place on exactly the same day.
Now if one or other of the cultures had made a mistake then surely the two dates would disagree unless both cultures somehow made mistakes that somehow resulted in the same wrong number of days. What do you think the chances of that are? What if a third culture which uses a different system also agrees? What are the chances now?
Do you agree that even though we do not know what variables might affect their recording systems, the fact that they agree on the date confirms the accuracy of both systems?
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou couldn't re-write relativity any better in my thread of that name, and you can't do it now. If you've got nothing worthwhile to say, I suggest you say nothing.
My point applies to all rates if you just get a snap shot of time and
call it done, you simply don't know!
Kelly
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd say yes if all three agree it would be strong evidence pointing
You previously claimed that the validity of data is based on its age. Are you still supporting that claim? Are you claiming that the older evidence is, the more variables it has?
What do you think of the following scenario:
There are two cultures, one measures time according to the moon cycles and another measures it according to the years (sun cycle). ...[text shortened]... r recording systems, the fact that they agree on the date confirms the accuracy of both systems?
to the validity of their recorded history. Which is as I pointed out
when it comes to rates you got several, but you do not have the
start stop times as you do in human recorded history, which is why
I trust them better than I do a snap shot of just a rate being
collected.
Kelly