Calling out KellyJay

Originally posted by KellyJay
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 ...[text shortened]... , and the
shape of the teeth, those are the facts the rest is just a matter of
opinion.
Kelly

Again, you accept the existence of facts which have apparently not decayed over time. Now, suppose we find, in the stomach of the dinosaur, bones from another dinosaur species. Can we call it a fact that that particular dinosaur ate another dinosaur, or is it belief? After all, the other dinosaur might have crawled into the stomach of the other one after it died, we weren't there to see were we? What if there were tooth marks on the one in the stomach? At what point does something become 'fact'?

You have claimed that the size of the dinosaur teeth is fact. But what if space has been expanding throughout the universe over time, maybe the dinosaur teeth started off very small and grew over time as fossils, maybe what we think was a 20ft dinosaur was actually only 2 feet high. In fact that is more likely than your hypothesis that all dating methods have been affected by some as yet unknown effect causing them to be not only wrong, but all wrong to the exact same degree in spite of the fact that they have no known common dependencies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again, you accept the existence of facts which have apparently not decayed over time. Now, suppose we find, in the stomach of the dinosaur, bones from another dinosaur species. Can we call it a fact that that particular dinosaur ate another dinosaur, or is it belief? After all, the other dinosaur might have crawled into the stomach of the other one after ...[text shortened]... ng to the exact same degree in spite of the fact that they have no known common dependencies.

You know believe what you will. There are times when you can look
at something and get it, your beliefs about events and items in front
of you will give you a clear understanding of reality, other times not.
You want to think you have a grasp of time because of tree rings and
other pieces of evidence you are using, do so. If you want to build
your view of the universe around such assumptions, who am I to
tell you differently, if you think you are not wrong, that is completely
upon you.

With respect to the dinosaur, yes I would agree it would be a very
good chance it was a meat eater as I would have thought with the
shape of the teeth alone, is there a chance we could be wrong, sure
for the reason you gave. At what point does something become a
fact, you tell me? You have what you have, what you think about
them may or may not be true, if you what to think you have enough
to make the claim you have perfect understanding about an event or
piece of the universe, you may believe what you will, if it reflects
reality than I'd say it is factual, if it doesn't, it isn't, and if you cannot
tell one way or another, what do you have? Your gripe with me it
seems is that you want to make the claim you have enough to know
your beliefs are grounded in reality and you are not wrong about them,
while I question your assumptions it is I that must be wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
Your 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.

Under your assessment, it seems that 'faith' collapses into something of no practical importance because of its ...[text shortened]... duction that you would never so categorize. This signals a hypocrisy on your part.

You in other words are building up your beliefs about what you think
you know is true, it if is true or not your still building upon it. I accept
faith as a matter of 'this is what I believe it true' and I act upon it, I
don't see that as an issue, I cannot for example prove God yet I
believe God to be a reality and the cause of reality, I cannot prove
things I believe about certain people in my life, but I believe in them.
I cannot prove that very step I take on the ground will always be on
solid ground, I have events in my life that shows that to false. We are
creatures of faith, I believe it is unavoidable for us to act without it,
we trust something or someone to be our plum line for all things,
what we go to to divide truth from error.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You know believe what you will. There are times when you can look
at something and get it, your beliefs about events and items in front
of you will give you a clear understanding of reality, other times not.
You want to think you have a grasp of time because of tree rings and
other pieces of evidence you are using, do so. If you want to build
your view ...[text shortened]... e not wrong about them,
while I question your assumptions it is I that must be wrong.
Kelly

As usual you are being very vague and trying to avoid any real answers.
So, do you accept the following statements as true:
1. Our knowledge of facts is not reduced solely because of the age of the evidence (ie dinosaur bones tell us no less than 10 year old elephant bones.)
2. Everything is subject to dispute and could rightly be called 'faith' in your terminology including a set of car keys that you hold in your hand. We can never know whether something reflects reality or not so we can never know whether something is a fact.
3. You personally call things facts when you personally believe that the chances of you being wrong is so minute as to be ignored. If anyone else does that for something you do not agree with then you dispute their claims and say they only have 'faith'.
4. You do not actually know enough about dating methods or statistics to know how likely a dating method is to be correct and your only real reason for doubting them is that the results conflict with your other beliefs.

My real gripe with you is that you are inconsistent with your claims. At one point you say that everything is faith and then at the next moment to threaten to stop talking to me because I have suggested that your car keys are a matter of faith. Then you say that evidence is devalued over time but the next moment you are accepting as fact conclusions based on evidence that is very old and in fact of a disputed age. You wish to shed doubt on any science that conflicts with your religion but refuse to accept that such doubt logically leads to doubt in everything you think you know to be true and doubt in the science that runs the world because you realize that standing up and calling out science in general will only serve to make you look foolish.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usual you are being very vague and trying to avoid any real answers.
So, do you accept the following statements as true:
1. Our knowledge of facts is not reduced solely because of the age of the evidence (ie dinosaur bones tell us no less than 10 year old elephant bones.)
2. Everything is subject to dispute and could rightly be called 'faith' in you hat standing up and calling out science in general will only serve to make you look foolish.

You want to claim your factual knowledge is based upon assumptions
and guess work feel free. If you break down your dinosaur example
the facts were what you gave me to think about, you knew the size and
shape of various parts of the fossil, another fact is that other
creatures we see today with teeth like that do eat other creatures,
those were all the facts, so you having never seen one along with me
may deduce that the creature was in deed a meat eater, yet can we be
wrong? Having never seen one eat maybe we don't know something
about that creature and it really isn't a meat eater.

Yea, my car keys in my hand is a matter of faith for you, but you
know the age of the universe because of tree rings and other odds
and ends, I have been told that before by you. As if all tree's rings
are done the same way in each type of tree, in each year it is a
very reliable source of age, and there is no way we be be wrong about
ice, we are equally sure that about all other dating methods too, but
keys I'm holding in my hand, faith according to you, because you
know a magic trick.

I was always under the assumption that all things are subject to
dispute, within science, I guess with you that is only true if it does
not go along with your doctrine.

I have a limited version of facts compared to you yes, I call the keys
in my hand a fact, I'll call my sitting at this desk at the moment a
fact, I will not call what I cannot say for sure is correct a fact, but you
may, you can look at a tree that has X amount of rings in it and call
the age of the tree X years old, the only fact I would claim is there
is that the tree has X amount of rings on it, and 'according to theory'
it suggests its X years old.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have a limited version of facts compared to you yes, I call the keys
in my hand a fact, I'll call my sitting at this desk at the moment a
fact, I will not call what I cannot say for sure is correct a fact, but you
may, you can look at a tree that has X amount of rings in it and call
the age of the tree X years old, the only fact I would claim is there ...[text shortened]... e has X amount of rings on it, and 'according to theory'
it suggests its X years old.
Kelly

But suppose I can 'say for sure' that the earth is older than 20,000 years. I can, by your reasoning, validly call that a fact. Yet whenever I do, in any thread, you show up and spout 'but thats just faith'. Why is that? I am merely following the same principles as you who seems to have no problem with calling somethings facts (when you can 'say for sure'😉.

I have also noticed that you are still intentionally avoiding the issue of the dinosaur fossils. Whenever I point out that you have accepted them as evidence of facts you carefully avoid the question and invent your own unknowns such as whether or not they were meat eaters.
You accept as fact that:
1. A dinosaur lived and left some bones which became fossilized.
This is in contradiction to and directly disproves your previous claims that we cannot 'know for sure' anything about the past.

Admit it, you have been shown to be wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But suppose I can 'say for sure' that the earth is older than 20,000 years. I can, by your reasoning, validly call that a fact. Yet whenever I do, in any thread, you show up and spout 'but thats just faith'. Why is that? I am merely following the same principles as you who seems to have no problem with calling somethings facts (when you can 'say for sure' ...[text shortened]... t 'know for sure' anything about the past.

Admit it, you have been shown to be wrong.

You can say for sure the earth is however old you want to claim, I do
not care! You have reasons to believe what you want and with your
reasons you claim your beliefs are facts!

You are being very disingenuous with my position either through deceit
or you are have been reading the things I have been writing for some
time now and simply do not see the points I have been repeating. At no
time did I say we could not know anything, we know there was a
dinosaur as defined by the skeleton structure of the fossils, we know the
size and shape, we know where we found them, we know a great deal
and those are facts not matters of conjecture! You want to make the jump
that you know a great deal more than is actually before us feel free,
because throughout my conversation with you I have been acknowledging
factual statements, it is you that deny what we can have in our hand is
a fact not me!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
At no time did I say we could not know anything,

You have repeatedly made such a claim with regards to historical data. By denying that you are being dishonest.

we know there was a dinosaur as defined by the skeleton structure of the fossils, we know the size and shape, we know where we found them, we know a great deal and those are facts not matters of conjecture! You want to make the jump that you know a great deal more than is actually before us feel free, because throughout my conversation with you I have been acknowledging factual statements, it is you that deny what we can have in our hand is a fact not me!
Kelly
So please explain why one can know all those facts about the past but not the facts that conflict with your religious beliefs? What is different?
1. We know the size and shape of a fossil and conclude the existence of dinosaurs in the past and the size and shape of their bones.
2. We know the size and shape of some radioactive elements in a rock and conclude the original chemical content of the rock and the exact amount of time that the element has been radioactively decaying.
Why is 1. valid and not 2. ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have repeatedly made such a claim with regards to historical data. By denying that you are being dishonest.

[b]we know there was a dinosaur as defined by the skeleton structure of the fossils, we know the size and shape, we know where we found them, we know a great deal and those are facts not matters of conjecture! You want to make the jump that y ...[text shortened]... t amount of time that the element has been radioactively decaying.
Why is 1. valid and not 2. ?

[/b]You do not still see the difference, you see what you see in front of
now, you want to believe like you do with the dinosaur bones, it means
what you think it does about the past. I have not changed my views
or my stance on any part of this discussion, it is you that flake out on
me when you want to question what I'm holding in my hand in the
here and now that changes position each time facts are brought up.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not still see the difference, you see what you see in front of
now, you want to believe like you do with the dinosaur bones, it means
what you think it does about the past. I have not changed my views
or my stance on any part of this discussion, it is you that flake out on
me when you want to question what I'm holding in my hand in the
here and now that changes position each time facts are brought up.
Kelly[/b]

Why not just answer the question?

I did not say you had changed your views, I said your views are inconsistent.

You are being intentionally vague because you know you are wrong. So be a little clearer: do you, or do you not accept that we can know some facts about a dinosaur based on looking at fossils? You imply in the above post that you do not think so, yet you make it so vague so as to be able deny making any such claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why not just answer the question?

I did not say you had changed your views, I said your views are inconsistent.

You are being intentionally vague because you know you are wrong. So be a little clearer: do you, or do you not accept that we can know some facts about a dinosaur based on looking at fossils? You imply in the above post that you do not think so, yet you make it so vague so as to be able deny making any such claim.

You don't read my posts so it no longer matters what I say to you,
I have repeated said, yes we do know facts, you disagree with me
on all that we can call facts, not that I have said there isn't any.
I tired of repeatedly saying there are facts, telling you what they
are, and you on the very next post saying my claims are I don't
think there are facts. Good day.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You in other words are building up your beliefs about what you think
you know is true, it if is true or not your still building upon it. I accept
faith as a matter of 'this is what I believe it true' and I act upon it, I
don't see that as an issue, I cannot for example prove God yet I
believe God to be a reality and the cause of reality, I cannot prove ...[text shortened]... someone to be our plum line for all things,
what we go to to divide truth from error.
Kelly

I guess I will try to be more clear about how I think you are being disingenuous on this and related issues.

It seems that whenever someone on this forum presents you with what they claim is countervailing evidence (evidence that they think goes against your claim of a young earth for example), you come back with the same tired response each time. You start with a piece of tautology (such 'It is what it is' or 'The facts are the facts' or 'What you see is what you see', or some such), and then you go on to say that -- however -- the inferences that they are drawing from these facts or observations are just simply matters of opinion, matters of faith. The only reasonable way I can interpret this is that you have a fundamental gripe with abductive reasoning and the inherent possibilities of error thereof. But it's very clear that your reservations are applied only selectively and inconsistently because, seriously, you use abductive reasoning all the time and in the most mundane of circumstances. It only seems to be of concern to you when the evidence bears in a countervailing manner on propositions that you hold dear.

I'm only sort of repeating here what others are saying as well. Particularly, I like Nemesio's post on page 4.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Particularly, I like Nemesio's post on page 4.

I'm feelin' the love.

However, I think you emphasize the crucial part that I'm not sure I made clear, that the inclination
to call inferences from facts as 'opinions' is very selectively employed. Further, the use of the
term 'opinion' suggests that probability is irrelevant; that is, one opinion is equally valid or probable
as another. When the proposition 'This dinosaur has sharp teeth and thus very, very probably ate
meat,' is reduced to 'opinion,' it allows counterclaims to have the same status as 'opinion' and,
thus, validity.

But, as you rightly point out, he employs abductive reasoning every single day -- we all do --
when making normal decisions. The only time he deviates from employing a healthy methodology
of abductive reasoning is when discussing things that pertain to the Bible. This in itself should
serve as a warning flag.

I think what would be helpful for unraveling this will be the clarification between facts/data and
'truth.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by LemonJello
I guess I will try to be more clear about how I think you are being disingenuous on this and related issues.

It seems that whenever someone on this forum presents you with what they claim is countervailing evidence (evidence that they think goes against your claim of a young earth for example), you come back with the same tired response each time. Y ...[text shortened]... ng here what others are saying as well. Particularly, I like Nemesio's post on page 4.

Am I supposed to think than that you believe you are without error
and cannot be wrong about your views? I should just simply
acquiesce, since obviously in your opinion the interpretation is with out
a doubt flawless, there is nothing that has been over looked or
misunderstood, I mean that is what you’re telling me! You are in error
too when you suggest I’m the only one here that is being selective on
what and how we define facts yet I’m the only one here getting called
on it! I admit even in where I agree with an assessment it is still a
matter of faith such as the dinosaurs with the sharp teeth being meat
eaters, since none of us have ever actually seen it to confirm that is
true it is just based on what we have seen with other living creatures
and their sharp teeth. You and others have gone on about how we can
be wrong about the things we are holding in our hands too, how we
can be mislead about that, yet when it comes to observation about
the distant past there you think you have a better grasp on the
matter. You are being inconsistent when you make such arguments,
yet you give yourselves passes on that!
Kelly

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm feelin' the love.

However, I think you emphasize the crucial part that I'm not sure I made clear, that the inclination
to call inferences from facts as 'opinions' is very selectively employed. Further, the use of the
term 'opinion' suggests that probability is irrelevant; that is, one opinion is equally valid or probable
as another. When the prop ...[text shortened]... ling this will be the clarification between facts/data and
'truth.'

Nemesio

"The only time he deviates from employing a healthy methodology
of abductive reasoning is when discussing things that pertain to the
Bible. This in itself should serve as a warning flag."

Now you are lying, tell me where I have not admitted scripture being
true isn't a matter of faith? If I cannot prove something right or wrong
what I believe about it isn't than a fact! If I have strong evidence to
suggest I'm right, fine I can claim based upon this evidence I believe
I'm right, but I have to acknowledge my views about the evidence
can be wrong, I have to acknowledge I might be missing something
which would then completely alter how I am viewing the evidence
before me. If I have a method that I’m required to trust to give me the
truth I have to acknowledge to be consistent, based upon this method
what I am claiming is true, but it still faith, because if my method is
in error so am I. This isn’t the first time you have held me to different
standards you hold others too your inconsistency is nauseating.
Kelly