Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by twhitehead
Kelly,

I seem to be failing to explain my point properly.

To summarize:
1. Nothing can be known for sure, but some things we think we are sure of to the degree that we call them facts. However that is of course relative, so what is a fact to me might not be to you. You however seem to think that some things are facts for everyone and anything else ns are most definitely flawed and my computer is must only be working via the grace of God.

"2. You question the findings of science only when it disagrees with your beliefs. You do not sit in your house in constant fear that all the nuclear power stations will blow up at any time or that your computer will explode, because you have confidence that the scientists got it right. But whenever that same science (which has been proved to be accurate time and again and without which we would not have computers, electricity etc etc) says something that contradicts your religion you declare that it could be wrong and is therefore merely 'faith' or 'joining the dots' etc."

Excuse me, I call what I believe matters of faith, I call things I cannot
show or prove beliefs, that includes all matters as they relate to man.
Where do you get off saying I only apply this to science? What have
I ever said or implied my beliefs that I have come to in the universe
including how old it is were facts? I do say it is something I believe or
it is a matter of faith.

With regard to my computer I spend more than a little time thinking
about how it works, I do not nor do others that build the parts
'assume' things will work the way they are suppose to before they are
built and sold! They either do or do not, it isn't a matter of I hope this
is true, and the grand difference between putting together a PC and
your universal view of the age of the earth, we can test and see in real
time today what we claim should happen, YOU CANNOT verify any
million or billion year old date the same way, it isn't possible. You
like it, it fits what you believe, so it must be true, you have enough
to make that claim, but that is just between your ears.

I'll ask you this, what part of my religion have I pushed off on you
and called a fact simply, because I believed it? You do that to me
with your beliefs, it isn't something I have ever done to you, I do
admit I'm speaking about beliefs or faith; I don't come to point
where I feel comfortable saying I really, really believe this so it is
a fact.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Kelly,

I seem to be failing to explain my point properly.

To summarize:
1. Nothing can be known for sure, but some things we think we are sure of to the degree that we call them facts. However that is of course relative, so what is a fact to me might not be to you. You however seem to think that some things are facts for everyone and anything else ns are most definitely flawed and my computer is must only be working via the grace of God.

"3. If scientists are as wrong as you claim they might be then surely nothing technological that is based on that science should actually work. It must be just dumb luck that my computer works because the scientist who built it was just guessing. He did not have all the facts. He only interpreted the results of his experiment and that interpretation could have been flawed. In fact, if the earth is less than 1 million years old then his calculations are most definitely flawed and my computer is must only be working via the grace of God."

You want to point to a post of mine where I said they were wrong?
Interpretations of data can be flawed, for all the reasons we have
discussed before, not haveing enough data, getting the data wrong,
having something else be the real reason things are happening that
we do not see or yet understand!

The difference about computers and your beliefs we can check today
in the here and now, all that we believe to be true, we stress parts in
various temp and voltages, we can control the particals in the air
up to a point around them while we are creating them, we can test
over and over all the various test tapes and patterns we use to check
out the parts, we can stop the process and start over if something is
wrong with the part, all of this is done today! It isn't something we
have to hope is true, or assume is true, it either works or it does not.
Not so with the age of the universe, it still is what it is, but how you
view it by looking at some data points is still just between your ears,
you cannot be proven wrong or right.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why are you ready to believe the distance but not the time it took the light to travel? Why accept one and not the other? You are essentially calling one a fact and one faith. Why? If we are wrong about the speed of light then we would be equally wrong about the distance. However if we are wrong then the only possible conclusion to draw is that there is s cientists say they are and that the light took as long to get to us as scientists say it did.

I didn't say I believed the distance, I'm not even sure about the
speed of light, but it is a constant unit of measurement so like an
"inch" it does what we want even if we are wrong about it, simply being
a standard unit of measurement gives us something to work with.

I'll call the whole ball of wax faith when it comes to something we
cannot be proven wrong over! That is the point! You cannot be shown
your wrong you cannot be sure you are right! Unlike building your
computer if it is claimed it will work for 5 years at a certain speed
while having a certain voltage applied, that can be shown to be wrong
or right! If I make the claim that you can get your PC to be faster
by using another voltage to it, that can be shown to be wrong or
right. Claims that cannot be verified are not the same as those that
can be!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you do not see your head on your shoulders I suggest you look
south and inside another of your body parts! My point has been if is
in my possession I do not look for it, neither do I wonder if I have it or
not, if you tell me something that cannot be shown wrong or true, is
the truth I can either accept or reject it, I can try to with hold
judgment, ...[text shortened]... true difference between us is I call what I believe faith, you
call your beliefs facts.
Kelly

Sorry LemonJello I was being an @ss to you here, instead of just
answering you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't say I believed the distance, I'm not even sure about the
speed of light, but it is a constant unit of measurement so like an
"inch" it does what we want even if we are wrong about it, simply being
a standard unit of measurement gives us something to work with.

I'll call the whole ball of wax faith when it comes to something we
cannot be prov ...[text shortened]... ng or
right. Claims that cannot be verified are not the same as those that
can be!
Kelly

I'll call the whole ball of wax faith when it comes to something we
cannot be proven wrong over!

And evolution, if it is wrong, could be proven to be wrong. Finding a fossilized rabbit in pre-cambrian strata would do it.

Therefore a belief in evolution is not faith in the same way as a belief in some divine being or supernatural power.

Claims that cannot be verified are not the same as those that
can be!

Philosophically speaking, there are no claims that can be verified (other than mathematical and pure logical ones). I think what you should have said is that claims that cannot be refuted are not the same as those that can be.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]I'll call the whole ball of wax faith when it comes to something we
cannot be proven wrong over!

And evolution, if it is wrong, could be proven to be wrong. Finding a fossilized rabbit in pre-cambrian strata would do it.

Therefore a belief in evolution is not faith in the same way as a belief in some divine being or supernatural power.

Cl ...[text shortened]... hat claims that cannot be refuted are not the same as those that can be.

--- Penguin.

[/b]Faith is simply faith, you put it in what you have to or choose too.
Reality is what it is, and does not require our beliefs to be real.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I'm holding my keys in my hand that is a fact, they are in my hand,
if I say they may be in the car, that isn't! You want to make your
conclusionis, your beliefs about subjects factual, simply knowing you
may be wrong should stop you, even science does not do that, why do
you?
Kelly

So a fact is something that Kelly is holding in his hand? What if it is me holding the keys? How can I be sure that they are keys? Do I know the complete history of the light rays from the keys to my eyes? What if they keys are in the car but I can still see them through the car window? As I walk away from the car at exactly what point does the existence of the keys in the car cease to become a fact?

....simply knowing you may be wrong ....
What if I know that I could not possibly be wrong? Unless my whole world view is wrong in which case even the keys being in my hand would be wrong too.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll call the whole ball of wax faith when it comes to something we
cannot be proven wrong over! That is the point! You cannot be shown
your wrong you cannot be sure you are right! Unlike building your
computer if it is claimed it will work for 5 years at a certain speed
while having a certain voltage applied, that can be shown to be wrong
or right! If ...[text shortened]... wrong or
right. Claims that cannot be verified are not the same as those that
can be!
Kelly

But these claims you talk of are only verified via what are essentially other claims.
1. I claim that by applying a higher voltage my computer will go faster.
2. I apply what I believe to be a higher voltage and I believe it is going faster.
3. That I applied a higher voltage cannot be known for sure, that it is going faster cannot be known for sure, that it wasn't caused by something else, cannot be known for sure.

For example, you say you do not know the speed of light and yet almost all modern science depends on knowing the speed of light very precisely. If scientists were wrong about it, your computer wouldn't work. So why can we not say that the speed of light as used to make your computer is a fact?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So a fact is something that Kelly is holding in his hand? What if it is me holding the keys? How can I be sure that they are keys? Do I know the complete history of the light rays from the keys to my eyes? What if they keys are in the car but I can still see them through the car window? As I walk away from the car at exactly what point does the existence ...[text shortened]... ss my whole world view is wrong in which case even the keys being in my hand would be wrong too.

Okay, you don't know if you are holding keys in your hand or not,
I guess if that is the case, it really does not matter what you think
since you cannot tell what is in your hand, all other parts of your life
must be mystery too.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But these claims you talk of are only verified via what are essentially other claims.
1. I claim that by applying a higher voltage my computer will go faster.
2. I apply what I [b]believe to be a higher voltage and I believe it is going faster.
3. That I applied a higher voltage cannot be known for sure, that it is going faster cannot be kn ...[text shortened]... t work. So why can we not say that the speed of light as used to make your computer is a fact?[/b]

I believe we should just agree to disagree we will just go around and
around.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe we should just agree to disagree we will just go around and
around.
Kelly

I believe you are avoiding the issue. If you are confident about your position you should be able to explain it. You have not done so.

You wish to divide the world into 'known facts' and 'guesses'. It is simply not possible to do so. Every 'fact' that we know, we can only know with a certain degree of certainty. I am claiming that I can know the age of the earth with as much certainty as I can know that a dinosaur fossil is the fossilized bone of a previously living creature. You are claiming that only one of those 'facts' is knowable with a reasonable degree of certainty. You have failed to explain why and when I press you you give up and become sarcastic.

I am pressing you on this because you repeatedly enter threads and put forward your 'thats just faith' argument, but try to remain extremely vague about what you actually mean by it. I want you to be specific and explain your position.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe you are avoiding the issue. If you are confident about your position you should be able to explain it. You have not done so.

You wish to divide the world into 'known facts' and 'guesses'. It is simply not possible to do so. Every 'fact' that we know, we can only know with a certain degree of certainty. I am claiming that I can know the age of ...[text shortened]... out what you actually mean by it. I want you to be specific and explain your position.

You believe I'm avoiding the issue, you equate holding keys in your
hand with what might have happened millions or billions of years ago,
and I'm avoiding issues. No, I think I'm done, you want to make that
leap, fine between your ears holding keys in your hand is just like
you knowing what happened millions of years ago. You cannot grasp it
or they are the same, I no longer care.
Kelly

Originally posted by Sargent Carpface
Well what do you think? For you retarted evolutionists, Dust formed the big bang, Well where did the dust come from, Dust forms from dead skin. Got any answers? Post them here. If you can. 😛 :# EVOLUTION IS WRONG!

Why do you believe in a God, but not in the tooth fairy? I mean, the amount of evidence in each one's favour is roughly the same.

As for evolutionists being retarted, at least most of them can spell.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You believe I'm avoiding the issue, you equate holding keys in your
hand with what might have happened millions or billions of years ago,
and I'm avoiding issues. No, I think I'm done, you want to make that
leap, fine between your ears holding keys in your hand is just like
you knowing what happened millions of years ago. You cannot grasp it
or they are the same, I no longer care.
Kelly

KJ, twhitehead is not being obtuse. You really do need to address this issue clearly. I think you take a lot of things upon assumption and have never realized it.

You seem believe that at some point our ability to infer things from the data collected by our senses breaks down. Twhitehead and others suggest that you do not apply this belief uniformly, but rather only when the inference is distasteful to you. It is important that you establish a fair method by which one should trust/doubt an inference that is independent of the resulting inference. That is to say, with such a method one would know beforehand whether the inference would be flawed.

Originally posted by telerion
KJ, twhitehead is not being obtuse. You really do need to address this issue clearly. I think you take a lot of things upon assumption and have never realized it.

You seem believe that at some point our ability to infer things from the data collected by our senses breaks down. Twhitehead and others suggest that you do not apply this belief uniformly ...[text shortened]... t is to say, with such a method one would know beforehand whether the inference would be flawed.

There is always, always a level of belief in all results from tests for
all the reasons addressed before, not knowing what is being missed,
or not understanding something key. That said, when it is suggested
that holding keys in your hand is a fact as what he thinks occured
millions or billions or years ago, I don't care to go on. If you have
tests where the results, what they mean all play out in the here and
now, that is a much safer trust that than something where the
data shows something where claims are made that cannot be shown
wrong! You can verify all the tests and what is infered from them if
the results are played out in the here and now, the moment you
cannot be sure, is the moment you are no longer able to say your
results give you facts.

With regard to millions of years or billions of years being distasteful
to me it is not, it does not add to or take away from anything as far
as I'm concern. The only things that bothers me about that is that
people make claims that they have the truth about the age of the
earth when all they really have are 'beliefs.' If you want to say it is
the truth, it is a fact, do so, you are a true believer.
Kelly