Originally posted by KellyJaySo you have an issue with inference through time, especially when the event cannot be reproduced currently.
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 whe ...[text shortened]... .' If you want to say it is
the truth, it is a fact, do so, you are a true believer.
Kelly
Would you be more comfortable with the statement: "All empirical evidence strongly suggests that the earth is approximately 3.2 billion years old?"
I also wonder a bit about what you would call fact. Would you call the existence of the ancient Egyptians a fact? We can't reproduce them since (if they lived) they are all dead now. There work and culture may have been fabricated by a more advanced civilization many years later after all the pyramids are notably hard to construct.
4 edits
Originally posted by telerionYou have to produce a test to show that the ancient Egptians existed?
So you have an issue with inference through time, especially when the event cannot be reproduced currently.
Would you be more comfortable with the statement: "All empirical evidence strongly suggests that the earth is approximately 3.2 billion years old?"
I also wonder a bit about what you would call fact. Would you call the existence of the ancien advanced civilization many years later after all the pyramids are notably hard to construct.
Have you ever tested anything to reproduced any civilization to prove
it was real? No, I would not comfortable with that statement about
all empirical evidence strongly suggests that the earth is approximately
3.2 billion years old, would you? I mean you don't think that 2.3 could
be true, or 3.4, or 6.8, or 1.2? You can produce all the empircal
evidence showing your statement is true?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe key is that multiple testing methods, each with independent groundings, place the Earth's age around 4.5 billion years*. To understand how it works you must know something about statistical methods, which I do not have the time or interest to teach you here. The key however is that using statistics one can place confidence intervals around an estimate. These regions put boundaries on the likelihood that your is correct. For example, a 95% confidence interval would be to ages, a low age and a high age, such that a test sample would return an age between those two numbers. 4.5 roughly sits in the middle then, making it the most likely value. So to answer your question, yes, the true age could be 1.2 billion, however the likelihood of that being true is extremely tiny.
You have to produce a test to show that the ancient Egptians existed?
Have you ever tested anything to reproduced any civilization to prove
it was real? No, I would not comfortable with that statement about
[b]all empirical evidence strongly suggests that the earth is approximately
3.2 billion years old, would you? I mean you don't think that 2.3 co ...[text shortened]... r 1.2? You can produce all the empircal
evidence showing your statement is true?
Kelly[/b]
* - I had mistakenly thought it was 3.2 of the top of my head. I did a little research to correct my error.
Originally posted by telerionThe bottom line is still you are correct it could be a lot of dates, but
The key is that multiple testing methods, each with independent groundings, place the Earth's age around 4.5 billion years*. To understand how it works you must know something about statistical methods, which I do not have the time or interest to teach you here. The key however is that using statistics one can place confidence intervals around an estimate ...[text shortened]... takenly thought it was 3.2 of the top of my head. I did a little research to correct my error.
it is only one, and nothing you have said has changed a single point
about the issues that I have already brought up.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, the car metaphor is simply irrelevant.
Really, you can see a car moving and know the rate and know where it
was an hour before?
Kelly
The "car experiment" you suggest is about determining the position of the car an hour ago based on its current trajectory - of course, without knowledge of its trajectory in the last hour it is impossible to determine based on those facts alone.
Light, however, travels in a straight line (in curved space, but that's not the issue) at the velocity of C (at vacuum, that is).
If we assume that starlight comes from stars (and is not created midway to fool us into believing that there are stars while they actually not exist...), the light from a star a 5 light years away will take 5 years to get here. And for a star a million light years away? A million years.
_____
Back to the car - let say I see a car some 300 meters away form me, moving at 75kph. I can't tell you where the car has been an hour ago.
I can, however, tell you where the car was millionith of a second ago - it was where I saw it. Yes, normal people would not bother with a millionith of a second, and will call it "Right now", but it's not. When you look at something distant in space, it is also distant at time. It doesn't become apparent in day to day life because it's so insignificant.
Remember the car? When I see it, I don't see where it is right now - I see where it was in the past (A millionith of a second ago is the past - is it not?). When I look at the sun I don't see it shining right now - I am seeing it as it was shining about 8.5 minutes ago.
And when I see a star that is 9,460,730,472,580 km (1 light year) away, I don't no where it is right now - but as it was a year ago.
And when the star is 9,460,730,472,580,000,000 km away?
I see it where it was and as it was a million years ago.
3 edits
Originally posted by Retrovirus"And when the star is 9,460,730,472,580,000,000 km away?
No, the car metaphor is simply irrelevant.
The "car experiment" you suggest is about determining the position of the car an hour ago based on its current trajectory - of course, without knowledge of its trajectory in the last hour it is impossible to determine based on those facts alone.
Light, however, travels in a straight line (in curved space, 0,472,580,000,000 km away?
I see it where it was and as it was a million years ago.
I see it where it was and as it was a million years ago."
You may know the distance of the star and rate of light, that does
not at all say you know where it was a million years ago, only that
you know the distance and the rate. You do not know how it got there
from where, or why, so all you really know is just what I said, the
distance and rate if you are getting those two points correct. You have
a belief on how it all began, you are making the pieces fit your belief,
but the way things are could have started by other means, looking at
them does not give you that type of insight!
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThe part where they kill someone and themselves thinking they are
Faith. The suicide bomber has tremendous faith. At what point do you think his/her faith is misguided?
doing a good thing. I'm under the impression you don't think you too
are a creature of faith, is that true?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe point is you have to make a judgement, as to the veracity of the faith. How is that done? In the case of the suicide bomber, their faith has a flaw (or perhaps not!?) that does not allow them to see that what they believe in is wrong. How is the judgement made? How did you arrive at the judgement that their faith was wrong?
The part where they kill someone and themselves thinking they are
doing a good thing. I'm under the impression you don't think you too
are a creature of faith, is that true?
Kelly
Originally posted by snowinscotlandYou can say the same thing about abortion, some people believe it
The point is you have to make a judgement, as to the veracity of the faith. How is that done? In the case of the suicide bomber, their faith has a flaw (or perhaps not!?) that does not allow them to see that what they believe in is wrong. How is the judgement made? How did you arrive at the judgement that their faith was wrong?
isn't a human life that is killed each time an abortion is done, some
do, judgment calls are done all the time, you have a point? Faith is
how we walk out our lives, if we are the only ones making judgments
than it is up to us to raise or lower the bar on what is and is not an
acceptable action or belief. If there is a standard that we are all held
to that goes beyond human tastes or judgments, we will be held to
that no matter what we believe or like or dislike.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayhow did you arrive at the judgement that their faith was wrong?
You can say the same thing about abortion, some people believe it
isn't a human life that is killed each time an abortion is done, some
do, judgment calls are done all the time, you have a point? Faith is
how we walk out our lives, if we are the only ones making judgments
than it is up to us to raise or lower the bar on what is and is not an
acceptable ...[text shortened]... tes or judgments, we will be held to
that no matter what we believe or like or dislike.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandTheir faith is wrong? There faith is simply their faith, it is like saying
how did you arrive at the judgement that their faith was wrong?
their blue eyes, or brown eyes are wrong! I don't think you yet grasp
what I have been telling you, but it could just be me not saying in
such a way you can see it.
Their judgment about right and wrong comes into play, just as all of
our judgments come into play, they buy into a belief system they get
all goes along with it, just as yours drags you into what yours carries
with it, and mine carries me with what it brings along with it.
I'm of the opinion that God creates life, it is His not mine to do with
as He wills, He gives it to us, He takes it away as He can do with all
that we have. I do not have the right to end another's life and I do
not have the right to end mine either, I belong to God.
Since I believe that God wants all of us saved, and that Jesus died for
all people not just me, I need to keep that in mind every time I deal
with another, Jesus died for that person. If I'm to do anything to them
I hope it reflects the effort that Christ applied towards that person's
well being. This in my opinion means that turning the other cheek is
a must, helping where I can is too, and it does not mean I worry about
they are worthy, since I'm not worthy myself.
So if you are asking me why I think the judgment of those that want
to kill those that disagree with them is wrong, because my Lord didn't
do that and there isn't any scripture to suggest that is what God
desires for us now. We will be judged by how we treat each other, and
murder is not the way I want to stand before God trying to justify to
Him why I killed someone Jesus died for.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou may know the distance of the star and rate of light, that does
"[b]And when the star is 9,460,730,472,580,000,000 km away?
I see it where it was and as it was a million years ago."
You may know the distance of the star and rate of light, that does
not at all say you know where it was a million years ago, only that
you know the distance and the rate. You do not know how it got there
from where, or why, so all ...[text shortened]... d have started by other means, looking at
them does not give you that type of insight!
Kelly[/b]
not at all say you know where it was a million years ago, only that
you know the distance and the rate.
Well that's simple high school physics. If you know the distance of the star and the rate (distance/time) of the light coming from that star, then you also know how much time the light took to travel the distance.
Its interesting that you seem happy to accept that we can know 2 of the 3 variables but refuse to accept that we can know the third.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm really disappointed in you, KJ. You used to at least try. There is a very big difference between saying that 4.5 billion years is the mean estimated date with most other dates having positive but tiny probability of being true and what you wrote.
The bottom line is still you are correct it could be a lot of dates, but
it is only one, and nothing you have said has changed a single point
about the issues that I have already brought up.
Kelly
It's clear that you do not understand basic statistics. That's okay. One can't know everything, and I certainly don't. But don't attempt to summarize what you don't comprehend.