19 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole"Are you actually claiming instead that anti-Christian bias is so strong among the majority of Earth scientists that they are willfully misinterpreting the evidence as supporting an old Earth (unlike you, who sagely suspends judgment)?"
What makes your whole epistemological approach to the issue disingenuous is that you start from a dubious article of faith--that the Bible should be trusted as a source of knowledge about the age of the Earth. In the absence of this prior commitment, there is little reason to dispute that the Earth is indeed a few billion years old.
Isn't it just an ...[text shortened]... nterpreting the evidence as supporting an old Earth (unlike you, who sagely suspends judgment)?
You are full of it you know it? Where have seem me where say that
anyone here or else where was willfully misinterpreting the evidence?
I have never once said that! I believe that everyone here who does
believe in the billions of years universe does so in good faith, it is
what they believe to be the truth. You need to pull your head out of
your ass and actually read the things posted here.
Kelly
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayIn other words you refuse to defend your position because you know that you do not have a valid argument. Its a pity that we do not live near each other because I could show you a card trick where you believe that you are holding the 2 of spades in your hand but when you turn it over, you find out that you were mistaken. As another example, you are quite willing to accept as incontrovertible fact, that a fossil is the result of a dead animal/plant (correct me if I am wrong). So what is different between the information (shape / chemicals etc) that leads you to that conclusion and the information that leads us to conclude how old it is (chemical composition etc). Both types of information are equally old and thus should be equally inaccurate (if age is a factor in accuracy), yet you are willing to dismiss one as subject to interpretation / errors etc etc but are willing to accept the other as fact. And whenever I bring it up you avoid the question. That is how I know that you know that you are wrong.
You know the age of the earth is (insert age) as sure you know when
you are holding something in your hand, you are a true believer! No
reason to talk to me, I would not discuss if I'm holding keys in my
hand with someone who denies it when I am showing them to him. If
you deny you could be wrong, there is nothing I can say to you as
when I show the ke ...[text shortened]... person who refuses to see them, it ends
there. We can agree to disagree on this point.
Kelly
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't believe anything, my life is not based in beliefs whatsoever. I see the world and theories that can explain it. Some are close, some are not, I don't say any of them to be the truth.
You do not believe some of these theories are true?
Kelly
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoDid you try or able to verify each single theory yourself??
I don't believe anything, my life is not based in beliefs whatsoever. I see the world and theories that can explain it. Some are close, some are not, I don't say any of them to be the truth.
If yes, then you are right, but if no then it is really a matter of believe, that someone else who verified or proposed this theory was correct and accurate.
19 Oct 07
6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI’m avoiding what, that you do not think it is possible you could be in
In other words you refuse to defend your position because you know that you do not have a valid argument. Its a pity that we do not live near each other because I could show you a card trick where you believe that you are holding the 2 of spades in your hand but when you turn it over, you find out that you were mistaken. As another example, you are quite ...[text shortened]... never I bring it up you avoid the question. That is how I know that you know that you are wrong.
error that has been my point? You want me to compare and contrast
two things, the first if I’m holding something in my hand, to me it is
in my hand enough said, and compare that to something I have not
seen nor can I know if the methods I’m using are not a 100%
accurate without question. You believe you have enough to make the
assumption you cannot be mistaken or lead astray by something that
might cause your conclusions to be faulty. You then go on to tell me
that even those things in your hand can be misleading as if that were
to some how strengthens your case on being error free for something
you think occurred millions or billions of years ago. If you cannot be
sure about what is in front of you, how can you argue with me that you
may not be mistaken about the distant past?
Kelly
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, for the purposes of this message I will grant the argument that scientific theories are just beliefs (I, of course, do not actually believe this).
I’m avoiding what, that you do not think it is possible you could be in
error that has been my point? You want me to compare and contrast
two things, the first if I’m holding something in my hand, to me it is
in my hand enough said, and compare that to something I have not
seen nor can I know if the methods I’m using are not a 100%
accurate without que ...[text shortened]... t of you, how can you argue with me that you
may not be mistaken about the distant past?
Kelly
You and I (I think) can agree that not all beliefs are equally valid for instance:
Belief # 1 - if I flap my arms hard enough I can fly.
Belief # 2 - no matter how hard I flap my arms I will never leave the ground.
Can we agree that belief number 1 is more likely to be true than belief number 2? Why or why not?
Hopefully we agree so far because my next question hinges on it.
Is it your position that the belief in a ~6k year old earth is as valid as the "belief" (remember I consider scientific theories to be different from beliefs) in an old earth (4.6 billion years). Is the evidence for each equally valid?
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by TheSkipperGood analogy. I was getting tired of the "keys in hand" because i doesn't get to the point.
Okay, for the purposes of this message I will grant the argument that scientific theories are just beliefs (I, of course, do not actually believe this).
You and I (I think) can agree that not all beliefs are equally valid for instance:
Belief # 1 - if I flap my arms hard enough I can fly.
Belief # 2 - no matter how hard I flap my arms I will neve ...[text shortened]... nt from beliefs) in an old earth (4.6 billion years). Is the evidence for each equally valid?
This one might shed some light , I hope....
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThanks, KJ, for the considered response and for being a good sport here. I'm getting crushed at work this week, but I'll return to respond when I have more time. Cheers,
1. I hold a belief about the age of the universe; it isn’t something I
can prove I also feel no one else can prove their beliefs about it as
well. With regard to the age of it, I was actually taught early in my
Christian walk by gap theorist who believe the earth and universe is
millions or billions of years old, that there were multiple floods that
de ...[text shortened]... earth
for as long as it has been there, so we can still argue the point,
adnausem (sp).
Kelly
20 Oct 07
Originally posted by TheSkipperI absolutely agree with this, which has been why I have
Okay, for the purposes of this message I will grant the argument that scientific theories are just beliefs (I, of course, do not actually believe this).
You and I (I think) can agree that not all beliefs are equally valid for instance:
Belief # 1 - if I flap my arms hard enough I can fly.
Belief # 2 - no matter how hard I flap my arms I will neve ...[text shortened]... nt from beliefs) in an old earth (4.6 billion years). Is the evidence for each equally valid?
been maintaining that those that believe in a old universe
they could be right! The pain and suffering I think that people
here have been holding too has more to do with their
prejudice against the words faith and beliefs than anything
else, if you want to tell me that you don’t believe in a
theory that is fine with me. You don’t think that believing
in your abilities to rightfully discern what is reality or not
is too completely up to you. If you want to say what you
cannot prove beyond all doubt is still a fact, do so but know
you are absolutely wrong in doing so.
Kelly
20 Oct 07
Originally posted by telerionLets see if we had A+B=T and you did not know you had to also use
[b]If you want to say what you
cannot prove beyond all doubt is still a fact, do so but know
you are absolutely wrong in doing so.
Kelly
Can you prove that beyond all doubt? Man, you're so full inconsistencies.[/b]
(A/C) or (A*C) or what you thought was A was really Q, I would say
that what you thought you were looking at wasn't at all correct,
depending how what you were not looking at properly or what you
did not know, changes everything.
Kelly
21 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWas that an attempt at a proof? It didn't make any sense.
Lets see if we had A+B=T and you did not know you had to also use
(A/C) or (A*C) or what you thought was A was really Q, I would say
that what you thought you were looking at wasn't at all correct,
depending how what you were not looking at properly or what you
did not know, changes everything.
Kelly
Anyway can you prove your statement or not? Are you saying it's a fact? If not, then why should I care?
Here's your post again in case you forgot.
If you want to say what you
cannot prove beyond all doubt is still a fact, do so but know
you are absolutely wrong in doing so.
Kelly
21 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionThe only things we can prove are mathematical assertions. NOTHING else can't be proved.
[b]If you want to say what you
cannot prove beyond all doubt is still a fact, do so but know
you are absolutely wrong in doing so.
Kelly
Can you prove that beyond all doubt? Man, you're so full inconsistencies.[/b]
We can only say things in reality (physics theories, biological theories, etc) are highly plausible (when they check up), and in that sense we call them facts.
21 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoTell that to KJ not me.
The only things we can prove are mathematical assertions. NOTHING else can't be proved.
We can only say things in reality (physics theories, biological theories, etc) are highly plausible (when they check up), and in that sense we call them facts.