Originally posted by PenguinIt just hasn't dawned on him yet. When it does, he'll refuse them as well, assuming that it's convenient for him of course.
[b]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.
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 ho ...[text shortened]... e can know 2 of the 3 variables but refuse to accept that we can know the third.
--- Penguin[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayOk, Kelly, let's do it another way.
"[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]
There is as star a million light years away.
Suggest how the light gets here under an arbitrary number of years that is smaller then million (let's say 5768 years).
Originally posted by RetrovirusGod speeded up the light so that it would get here faster in such a way as to make it exactly consistent with a much older universe. And no, God is not in the business of deception, it just happened that way by chance.
Ok, Kelly, let's do it another way.
There is as star a million light years away.
Suggest how the light gets here under an arbitrary number of years that is smaller then million (let's say 5768 years).
When asked for specifics, Kelly 'gives up' and claims it is obvious.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you read what is written you'll see that when they were created, it
God speeded up the light so that it would get here faster in such a way as to make it exactly consistent with a much older universe. And no, God is not in the business of deception, it just happened that way by chance.
When asked for specifics, Kelly 'gives up' and claims it is obvious.
was done so that the light from the stars automatically was seen, they
were put there for a sign. Now I personally, I don't see the reason why
that sign would take millions of years to be seen, but if creation is
true, than the star light hitting the earth is as old as the stars are
now no matter how far away they are. Can the difference be known by
looking at them, no. You want to assume the universe is billions of
years old, then you have to assume certain things to be true, you
can not be proven wrong, but than as I have been pointing out to you
that is faith since you cannot be proven right either. You have to know
how they got where they are, how long they have been there to say
that we can use them as means to measure age.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat I am claiming is that the light we see from the stars has certain very specific characteristics which is consistent with some stars being millions or billions of light years away. These characteristics are so so so specific, that no other reasonable explanation is possible. So unless you are admitting that God did it in order to deceive us, the age of the universe is as much a fact as the existence of dinosaurs or a car key in your hand.
If you read what is written you'll see that when they were created, it
was done so that the light from the stars automatically was seen, they
were put there for a sign. Now I personally, I don't see the reason why
that sign would take millions of years to be seen, but if creation is
true, than the star light hitting the earth is as old as the stars are ...[text shortened]... e, how long they have been there to say
that we can use them as means to measure age.
Kelly
So my answer is most emphatically yes we can know how far away stars are by looking at them and we can know it a surely as you can know by looking at a dinosaur bone that it came from a dinosaur. Yes some intelligence and deduction may be required but you cannot honestly claim that one is more factual than the other. You can only say that you personally understand one and not the other but that does not make one fact and one faith. They are either both fact or both faith. You were ready to accept the existence of dinosaurs as fact. You must either withdraw that and accept it was just faith, or you must accept the age of the universe is fact too.
Originally posted by KellyJayMe: At what point do you think his/her faith is misguided?
Their faith is wrong? There faith is simply their faith, it is like saying
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 ...[text shortened]... o stand before God trying to justify to
Him why I killed someone Jesus died for.
Kelly
You: The part where they kill someone and themselves thinking they are
doing a good thing.
You make a judgement based on your faith. They made a judgement based on their faith. Who is right, and who is wrong?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not admitting God did anything to deceive, I am however
What I am claiming is that the light we see from the stars has certain very specific characteristics which is consistent with some stars being millions or billions of light years away. These characteristics are so so so specific, that no other reasonable explanation is possible. So unless you are admitting that God did it in order to deceive us, the age o ...[text shortened]... hdraw that and accept it was just faith, or you must accept the age of the universe is fact too.
suggesting you think you grasp what is going on to the point that
you think you know with certainty what occurred millions/billions
of years ago, to the point it is as much a fact to you as when you are
holding your keys in your hand. You are a true believer, since you
honestly think there is nothing out there that can give you the same
results as what you believe occurred; there is nothing out there you
missed, there is nothing in all you look at you don't completely
understand, that to me smacks more of arrogance than it does
wisdom, you reject the possibility of possibly being wrong and call
what you cannot possibly know is true, a fact.
As I have been telling you all along, it may be very well true your
conclusions are right, for me I believe the unknown is too great to
call it a fact; it is a belief no more on the age of the universe.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadWith regard to their characteristics, no matter how they began wouldn't
What I am claiming is that the light we see from the stars has certain very specific characteristics which is consistent with some stars being millions or billions of light years away. These characteristics are so so so specific, that no other reasonable explanation is possible. So unless you are admitting that God did it in order to deceive us, the age o ...[text shortened]... hdraw that and accept it was just faith, or you must accept the age of the universe is fact too.
they share the same characteristics? Point being, by looking at them
you cannot tell how they got there, or how long they have been there.
We can do that with those things in the here and now with much
greater certainty, but even during a short time into the past we can
can get it wrong from time to time.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are a true believer, since you
I'm not admitting God did anything to deceive, I am however
suggesting you think you grasp what is going on to the point that
you think you know with certainty what occurred millions/billions
of years ago, to the point it is as much a fact to you as when you are
holding your keys in your hand. You are a true believer, since you
honestly think there is ...[text shortened]... own is too great to
call it a fact; it is a belief no more on the age of the universe.
Kelly
honestly think there is nothing out there that can give you the same
results as what you believe occurred; there is nothing out there you
missed, there is nothing in all you look at you don't completely
understand, that to me smacks more of arrogance than it does
wisdom,
I don't think that is the real scientific position. Its more that what we believe occurred explains the results that we see, and also explains new results that come in. If the results were different, they would not be explained by our model. Until someone comes up with legitimate observations that are not explained by our model, we will put provisional trust in the model. This strikes me as far less arrogant than the supernaturalist view.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo when you tell me that you have your car keys in your hand then "that to me smacks more of arrogance than it does wisdom you reject the possibility of possibly being wrong and call what you cannot possibly know is true, a fact."
You are a true believer, since you honestly think there is nothing out there that can give you the same results as what you believe occurred; there is nothing out there you missed, there is nothing in all you look at you don't completely understand, that to me smacks more of arrogance than it does wisdom, you reject the possibility of possibly being wrong and call what you cannot possibly know is true, a fact.
My point is, as before, that you are quite willing to call some things facts eg a the presence of a car key or the existence of dinosaurs, but reject anything that goes against your beliefs. In other words you feel that you personally have the right to decide what are facts and what are not based on your own beliefs, and that anyone who disagrees with you is exhibiting arrogance.
When I say that I am less sure about the car keys than I am about the age of the universe you give up and claim that it is so obvious that you don't want to continue the discussion. If it is so obvious why cant you explain it? Is it because you know you are wrong?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWith regard to their characteristics, no matter how they began wouldn't they share the same characteristics?
With regard to their characteristics, no matter how they began wouldn't
they share the same characteristics?
I am not talking about how they began, I am talking about where they were when the light left them.
Point being, by looking at them you cannot tell how they got there, or how long they have been there.
I never claimed you could. That is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is only, how far away were they when the light left them and how long did it take the light to reach us.
We can do that with those things in the here and now with much
greater certainty, but even during a short time into the past we can
can get it wrong from time to time.
Kelly
Can you provide any reasoning to back up that claim? Why is time a factor? Do you have a formula? What is the increase in error per minute? per year?
Why were you ready to accept the existence of dinosaurs? Surely something that old is so error prone as to be impossible to know? Are the inner rings of a tree trunk less likely to be a result of tree growth than the outer rings? Surely, being older, we cant really know how they got there? And that 2000+ year old Bible you read could actually have been written 100 years ago because anything older than that is so prone to error that we cant really know anything about it.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]I think you dismiss me for rejecting those things I don't believe in,
So when you tell me that you have your car keys in your hand then "that to me smacks more of arrogance than it does wisdom you reject the possibility of possibly being wrong and call what you cannot possibly know is true, a fact."
My point is, as before, that you are quite willing to call some things facts eg a the presence of a car key or the existenc iscussion. If it is so obvious why cant you explain it? Is it because you know you are wrong?
and may I ask you, do you reject those things you don't believe in?
I have not rejected anything as much as I have pointed out that there
is a great deal of faith being applied here, I do not equate something
as rejected if I say it is a matter of faith, you may, but I do not.
I limit those things that I call facts which does not require my belief,
such as having my car keys, they are either with me or they are not.
What you think occured millions and or billions of years ago, are not
on the same scale in my opinion, you may believe you have it all
figured out, but that is you.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe are talking about when they began, that has been the topic
[b]With regard to their characteristics, no matter how they began wouldn't they share the same characteristics?
I am not talking about how they began, I am talking about where they were when the light left them.
Point being, by looking at them you cannot tell how they got there, or how long they have been there.
I never claimed you could. ...[text shortened]... cause anything older than that is so prone to error that we cant really know anything about it.[/b]
for how long? You want to tell me how long they are there by looking
at them, I say you cannot know, you may guess, that is the best you
can do, even an educated guess, but that is it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI never said anything about when they began. I merely pointed out that if they are millions of light years away then the light took millions of years to reach us therefore they existed millions of light years ago. Therefore the universe is millions of years old. For the purposes of my argument, where and when they began is totally irrelevant.
We are talking about when they began, that has been the topic
for how long? You want to tell me how long they are there by looking
at them, I say you cannot know, you may guess, that is the best you
can do, even an educated guess, but that is it.
Kelly
You on the other hand are claiming that it is conceivably possible that the light from the stars may have reached us by some other means but in a way that is consistent with observation. I find that as ridiculous as the idea that the light from the car key in my hand is getting to my hand via some means that is consistent with observation but does not necessitate a real car key.