Kelly... We can't know anything for sure as a fact. In this point you are right.
But we can investigate the world, and understand how it behaves, and based on this information, we can make extrapolations of what happened in the past or is happening somewhere very far away.
For example, we don't know if the physics in another galaxy is the same of the physics on planet Earth. But having NO other reason for it to be different, we go by the most plausible explanation: that there is no strange phenomena we can't detect and that in fact laws of gravity and relativity still apply in another galaxy. But with cosmology it's a lot more complicated then with history on our little planet.
It's true we can't know for sure what happened, but based on all our knowledge (that for almost sure is to a great degree accurate - because we have technology, a direct, complex application with practical effects of our knowledge) we can make reasonable assumptions. With very different techniques, these assumptions have shown to be coherent with each other. Techniques that are not correlated, but give us the same results and makes us a little confidants of our assumptions: in the end, all things check up - with science, with history, with all we know.
Yes, maybe we are wrong. But of all positions one can defend, saying the world is older then 6k yrs and that dinosaurs lived 100 million yrs ago is the MOST plausible. It's not based on faith. It's based on our current knowledge making the most likely assertions.
The position you have is by no means new. It has been shown to be greatly incoherent with our knowledge and it must somewhere corrupt the laws of physics. Yes, maybe the laws are wrong, that's a possibility, but MOST likely, you are wrong.
Our position is not one of faith. It's one of logic and good sense. Yours is purely based of faith. Because the only thing that corroborates your opinion in this world is the Bible and some theologists who try to bend science on their own way to make it fit their desire for the Bible to be an accurate description of the world.
Not even the pope believes that...
Originally posted by KellyJayThe result is the fossilization of a dinosaur bone you get the shape
What is your point?
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 ...[text shortened]...
into guess work, such as it was three years old when it died, it was
green, and so on.
Kelly
of the bone.
Why do you assume it was the fossilization of a dinosaur bone? Why don't you think aliens, the Devil, God, or leprechauns planted it to fake us out?
In fact, how do you know such fossilized bones even exist? Do you have one in front of you now? If you do, how do you know it's not an illusion? Maybe it's a hologram, or you are hallucinating.
How do you know a particular dinosaur was six feet long?
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, I agree with you, your example is a perfect example. The fact
"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 anim ...[text shortened]... nd the
shape of the teeth, those are the facts the rest is just a matter of
opinion.
Kelly
that we have is the dinosaur skull
No. We have an object which scientists and others claim was once a dinosaur skull. By your extremely liberal definition of 'faith', you have faith that the object is a dinosaur skull.
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.
We have the size of the object, the number of other objects which seem to be teeth, etc. Calling them skulls and teeth is faith, right Kelly? So is assuming they exist when you're not holding them in your hand.
Originally posted by KellyJayAt what point does something become a fact, you tell me?
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
No, please, you tell us, because you seem to be confident in declaring one thing fact and another faith. Asa for me, at the philosophical level of discussion we're having, I avoid both words since I feel they are vague and confusing.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes: Laws of electromagnetism with quantum mechanics and relativity. Mathematical nightmare. But it made the most accurate prediction of the history of science: the correction to the electron's spin.
I've never even heard of that. I suppose that is the study of electricity at the quantum level?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou might want to use question marks. I guess Kelly misses questions unless he sees the mark. He didn't answer you at least.
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 ...[text shortened]... hat standing up and calling out science in general will only serve to make you look foolish.
Originally posted by serigado"We can't know anything for sure as a fact. In this point you are right.
Kelly... We can't know anything for sure as a fact. In this point you are right.
But we can investigate the world, and understand how it behaves, and based on this information, we can make extrapolations of what happened in the past or is happening somewhere very far away.
For example, we don't know if the physics in another galaxy is the same of the phys Bible to be an accurate description of the world.
Not even the pope believes that...
"
"It's based on our current knowledge..."
This is different than what I have been saying, how?
Kelly
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOnly for electromagnetism. It doesn't incorporate gravity nor electro-weak forces nor anything else... Only electromagnetism in the eyes of modern mechanics. It exists for many years. Feynman made it accessible to almost everyone and is today in most graduate courses in physics.
Oooh. Sounds like the Theory of Everything. Is it?
Originally posted by KellyJayBecause you say we know it for faith. But:
"We can't know anything for sure as a fact. In this point you are right.
"
"It's based on our current knowledge..."
This is different than what I have been saying, how?
Kelly
1) it's not faith
2) we don't say we know it
we (at least I am) are aware of the validity of our assumptions. Knowing things as I do, I can say it doesn't make any sense to support 6k yrs old. That's our point. But you argue that we can not knowing anything for sure, so you prefer do rely on your own faith.
And we try to say there are different degrees for "don't knowing something for sure". The degree of assurance we have relies on the ability for science to constantly auto-criticize itself. It's small because we can at any time re-experiment things and arrive at the same conclusions.
In resume, we have constant evidence to support our claims. Yours, I presume that reside in the Bible, because no where else you can arrive at a conclusion that earth is 6k yrs old. And not only you don't have no more evidence, but everyday world shows evidence that you are wrong.
Now you can continue to support your faith and hope that simultaneously we are wrong and the 6k yrs theory is right, but you must know the bases to support such claims. And that's what we are debating. Even >90% of Christians don't support that position because they find it highly implausible. This is not by itself an argument, but it's a sign something is fishy, don't you think?
I can't you trust other people, in this case, scientists? Is it so important to have such a fidelity towards your Religion?
Originally posted by KellyJay
Now you are lying, tell me where I have not admitted scripture being
true isn't a matter of faith?
I was either unclear or you misread me (or both). I was trying to say that the only time that you
eschew clear, linear conclusions from abductive reasoning is when those conclusions are Scripturally
inconvenient. That is, when someone concludes from the strong evidence that a dinosaur bone is
millions of years old, you call this a 'matter of faith' as if the evidence for and against are roughly
equal, and it just comes down to opinion, like what flavor ice cream tastes better.
But you accept essentially the same sorts of conclusions -- that is, ones in which one should have
similar levels of confidence -- all the time, like whether gravity is the same today as it was
yesterday, or that your house will be located in the same place it was the last time you looked
for it.
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.
But, using your (inconsistently applied) standard of 'fact,' nothing can be proven with any
certainty -- that everything is faith. That is, even if I witness an animal eat meat right in front
of you in broad daylight in full view, one could still skeptically argue that my eyes could have
been fooling me, or my brain could have hallucinated, or an alien could have planted that
memory in my head. But this sort of skepticism is silly, and you recognize that, both
explicitly (you don't even consider these possibilities and reject them when they are suggested,
as well you should) and tacitly (again, every single day you draw reasonable conclusions from
the application of your natural abductive reasoning).
Let's put this into practice with two questions: 1) What do you figure are the odds that the laws
of gravity have changed since the beginning of time (whenever that may have been) -- would
you say it is highly likely, likely, 50/50, unlikely, or highly unlikely*? And, 2) Why do you think
so?
Nemesio
* I'm not asking you what actually happened. I'm asking what do you think happened, acknowledging
that you may be totally wrong.
Originally posted by Nemesio"But, using your (inconsistently applied) standard of 'fact,' nothing can
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Now you are lying, tell me where I have not admitted scripture being
true isn't a matter of faith?
I was either unclear or you misread me (or both). I was trying to say that the only time that you
eschew clear, linear conclusions from abductive reasoning is when those conclusions are Scripturally
inconvenie ...[text shortened]... ing what do you think happened, acknowledging
that you may be totally wrong.[/b]
be proven with any certainty -- that everything is faith. That is, even if
I witness an animal eat meat right in front of you in broad daylight in
full view, one could still skeptically argue that my eyes could have
been fooling me, or my brain could have hallucinated, or an alien
could have planted that memory in my head."
I believe I have not offered this type of reasoning up, I believe you
need to talk to twhitehead he is the one that suggests what we hold
in our hands isn't factual. I'm for believing what is right before me,
you may not believe my account of it, but that isn't a point I have
been making.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are also for believing deductions based on what is right before you so long as those deductions do not contradiction your beliefs based on the Bible. For example:
I believe I have not offered this type of reasoning up, I believe you
need to talk to twhitehead he is the one that suggests what we hold
in our hands isn't factual. I'm for believing what is right before me,
you may not believe my account of it, but that isn't a point I have
been making.
Kelly
1. You deduce that the fossil before you is the fossilized skull of a dinosaur that lived at some point in the past.
2. You refuse to deduce a deduction based on the ratio of radio isotopes of various elements found in the fossil which tells us the approximate age of the fossil.
You avoid difficult questions and try your best to be extremely vague at all times.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou haven't offered this type of reasoning up explicitly, but it's a consequence of your view.
I believe I have not offered this type of reasoning up, I believe you
need to talk to twhitehead he is the one that suggests what we hold
in our hands isn't factual. I'm for believing what is right before me,
you may not believe my account of it, but that isn't a point I have
been making.
That is, if we take the dinosaur skull with lots of sharp pointy teeth and can't say with great,
great certainty that it ate meat (because of all of the experiences we have with animals with
similar or identical morphology), then the line for 'factness' is so blurred, so indistinct, that not
trusting one's eyes or alien-inspired delusions is well within reach.
I'm trying to illustrate my point with the question above: 1) What do you figure are the odds
that the laws of gravity have changed since the beginning of time (whenever that may have
been) -- would you say it is highly likely, likely, 50/50, unlikely, or highly unlikely? And,
2) Why do you think so?
Nemesio