Originally posted by whodeyI hope you see what I am getting at here telerion. You love your team. You identify with your team. It really has little about them "proving" themselves, does it? No matter if that running game ever comes around, you will be there rooting them on anyhow.
Poor soul, he is delusional, simply delusional. You have far to much faith than reason in your team. Unfortunatly, I don't have enough faith to be a fan I guess. :'(
Originally posted by whodeySure, I see what you're saying, but KJ was the one talking proof and then he couldn't even back up his talk. I just wish he'd quit running away from difficult discussions.
I hope you see what I am getting at here telerion. You love your team. You identify with your team. It really has little about them "proving" themselves, does it? No matter if that running game ever comes around, you will be there rooting them on anyhow.
Originally posted by serigadoFrom Wikipedia:
Kelly Jay is a guy? Delusion again. Sorry, thought Kelly was a girl's name!
"The name Kelly is etymologically Irish in origin, and is the 2nd most common family name in Ireland (after Murphy). It has also become a first name (originally for males, then expanded to females)."
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlready learned something today, thanks!
From Wikipedia:
"The name Kelly is etymologically Irish in origin, and is the 2nd most common family name in Ireland (after Murphy). It has also become a first name (originally for males, then expanded to females)."
Next stuff, Quantum Electrodynamics.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat is your point?
Yet when confronted with actual 'readings' such as a dinosaur fossil, your are quite ready to totally contradict your above post and accept that we can know for a fact:
1. The fossil is a result of the fossilization of a dinosaurs bone.
2. The shape of a dinosaurs bone.
So why do you not apply your rules consistently? Why does your above post not app ...[text shortened]... dinosaur fossils? I have asked this over and over and you appear to be avoiding the question.
The result is the fossilization of a dinosaur bone you get the shape
of the bone. Fine, beyond that do you know without a doubt that the
dinosaur was a meat eater, that it had good hearing, that it had good
eye sight, that it died a sudden death, that it did this, that, or the other
thing? Looking at the fossils in hand is one thing, attempting to tell
me what you think is true about them by looking at the bone is
another, some things I said you could get, such as this one was 6
feet long or close to it when it died, beyond that you start to move
into guess work, such as it was three years old when it died, it was
green, and so on.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHere is your problem, Kelly, and I've pointed it out to you before. You take all evidence to be
Fine, beyond that do you know without a doubt that the
dinosaur was a meat eater, that it had good hearing, that it had good
eye sight, that it died a sudden death, that it did this, that, or the other
thing?
matters of opinion. If I look at a dinosaur skull and notice five hundred six-inch, sharp teeth,
without having seen the dinosaur eat, I can reasonably and strongly conclude that this dinosaur is
a meat eater. I can do this having looked at many other animals and skulls of animals that I have
seen eat that have similar teeth.
Now, do I know with a 100% certainty that it ate meat? No, I do not. But I can conclude it strongly.
And this is the key: some things have strong conclusions, some have moderate conclusions, some
have weak conclusions, and some are 'anyone's guess.' I suppose there is a super-slim chance
that this dinosaur ate some sort of hitherto undiscovered dense spongy plant, but why would we
posit something based on no empirical data?
Every single day, we make decisions based on the strong conclusions we draw from things:
You don't assume there are monsters in your pajama drawer or that your toilet will start talking
or that your dishwasher gets mad when you put knives in it. You can't be 100% sure of these
things, of course -- you've not seen every drawer, toilet, or dishwasher in the world and just
maybe someone has experienced this.
The reason you don't assume these things is because you rightly dismiss the infinitude of very,
very unlikely things from consideration. Now, there's always the possibility that you're wrong,
but the possibility is so remote, it isn't worth considering. Is this faith? Of course not. Faith
is belief in something that reasonably may or may not be true. It's not faith to believe that
your pajama drawer is free from monsters; it's not faith to believe that the dinosaur above
ate meat.
Either literally everything is faith (which makes it a useless term since there is nothing
outside subset 'faith'😉 or there are things that are not faith. Consequently, I think that it
would be helpful for you to define what it means to 'know' something and what it means to 'have
faith' in something.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is my point? My point is quite clear yet you choose to avoid it. I quoted one of your claim and will quote it again:
What is your point?
Originally posted by KellyJay
....I do not think any thoughts about what various and sundry readings mean about the past can ever be thought of as anything other than a belief or a matter of faith. The facts are the readings, if they are telling us what we think that is another thing all together.......
Yet you have clearly contradicted yourself with:
Originally posted by KellyJay
The result is the fossilization of a dinosaur bone you get the shape
of the bone.
You clearly believe that the shape of the bone is telling you something about the past and you are accepting that that something can be known with certainty and can thus be called a fact.
So, my point is that one of your claims is wrong. Which one is it?
Fine, beyond that do you know without a doubt that the
dinosaur was a meat eater, that it had good hearing, that it had good
eye sight, that it died a sudden death, that it did this, that, or the other
thing?
Looking at the fossils in hand is one thing, attempting to tell
me what you think is true about them by looking at the bone is
another, some things I said you could get, such as this one was 6
feet long or close to it when it died, beyond that you start to move
into guess work, such as it was three years old when it died, it was
green, and so on.
Kelly
I never said all those things about dinosaurs so I don't know where you are getting all that from.
Originally posted by telerionYou are a real piece of work, you ask questions without question
Forget it KJ.
marks and I'm suppose to see them! I'm carrying on several
conversations with more than just you in more than a few threads
and you get upset I miss your hidden question in one of them!
I think we can just part company if that is the way it is, I'll not respond
to you and feel free to not respond to me and you will not be so put
out. If you can get over it, let me know we will talk then.
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio"Here is your problem, Kelly, and I've pointed it out to you before. You take all evidence to be
Here is your problem, Kelly, and I've pointed it out to you before. You take all evidence to be
matters of opinion. If I look at a dinosaur skull and notice five hundred six-inch, sharp teeth,
without having seen the dinosaur eat, I can reasonably and strongly conclude that this dinosaur is
a meat eater. I can do this having looked at many other anima ...[text shortened]... know' something and what it means to 'have
faith' in something.
Nemesio
matters of opinion. If I look at a dinosaur skull and notice five hundred six-inch, sharp teeth,
without having seen the dinosaur eat, I can reasonably and strongly conclude that this dinosaur is
a meat eater. I can do this having looked at many other animals and skulls of animals that I have
seen eat that have similar teeth. "
Yes, I agree with you, your example is a perfect example. The fact
that we have is the dinosaur skull, that is a lot of teeth, but the fact
that they are sharp does not automatically mean meat eater though
I agree with you, the odds are good it was for the reason you have
said, you have seen other animals with similar teeth eat, BUT you
have never seen a dinosaur eat so you could also be comparing
apples to oranges here too. You assume they are the same, and
they very could be, the ONLY thing you know is the what we have
infront of us the size of the skull, the number of teeth, and the
shape of the teeth, those are the facts the rest is just a matter of
opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYour post doesn't really bear any relevance to the primary question I raised in my previous post. I'm still trying to understand what you mean when you talk about "proving" a belief true. Again, this seems criterial to your notion of faith.
If you want to debate I'm holding a rock in my hand when I'm holding
a rock in my hand as a matter of if is real or not, if it is a matter of
faith, belief, or a fact, I do not think any thoughts about what various
and sundry readings mean about the past can ever be thought of as
anything other than a belief or a matter of faith. The facts are the
read ...[text shortened]... ng told about billion years ago are factual to them, to me that
is inconsistent.
Kelly
Under your assessment, it seems that 'faith' collapses into something of no practical importance because of its ubiquity: every empirical claim becomes merely a matter of faith under your criteria. If you're looking for "proof" of empirical claims, you are going to be left wanting. "Proof" would have to be something like sound deduction. But scientific study deals more with abduction. That is, we start from some collection of accepted observations, and we make inference to the best explanation for them. Yes, there will always be some degree of uncertainty in this process. But you simply cannot be serious when you state that, in light of this, it all just becomes an article of 'faith'. At any rate, there are any number of conclusions you reach on abduction that you would never so categorize. This signals a hypocrisy on your part.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI doubt it has 'consostent' anywhere in it. Yes, go ahead and be "inconsostent" if you desire. Pay no attention to any allegiance you may otherwise have toward your rational nature.
And where is it stated in our Constitution that "one must be consostent" in anything, hmmmm??
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.
31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy: ) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.