Originally posted by serigadoYes, agreed you get a distribution; however, that does not touch what
If you test 10000 independent devices and plot each of the devices's age you'll get a distribution.
Unless you assume someone has been stressing them on purpose, you can get information about the average age of the devices. That's statistics. It's excellent exactly because we don't know the age of the devices.
If 99.9% of the results say the device is 1 m ...[text shortened]... and inferences are made and errors calculated. Can you understand this statistic concept?
I said, you don't know the stresses everything has gone through so
you do not know if it is the age of the earth or some stress that is
giving the numbers or something else completely. If you knew the
history than by historical knowledge not your test would tell you what
the true age is.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIt was just on the last page, posted less than 30 min before mine. Do you even pay attention to what you write?
Are you quoting something, if so, try to stick with the text.
Kelly
It was all very good, and it broke, the break occured when sin entered.
I look at the world and see it as cursed, but believe it had at one time
been a thing without blemish. So that some of the things that are
occuring in it now are wrong. It goes back to free will, and God giving
that to His creation.
You make up anything to avoid inconvenient truths. Maybe you're having a hard time keeping all your excuses straight.
Originally posted by telerionYes, and if we were writting about how you were attempting to quote
It was just on the last page, posted less than 30 min before mine. Do you even pay attention to what you write?
[i]It was all very good, and it broke, the break occured when sin entered.
I look at the world and see it as cursed, but believe it had at one time
been a thing [b]without blemish. So that some of the things that are
occuring in it ...[text shortened]... avoid inconvenient truths. Maybe you're having a hard time keeping all your excuses straight.[/b]
me that would make sense, I thought it was scripture you were concern
about.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut if you obtain this results statistically and they give these results scientists arrived, then you must affirm that someone or something "stressed" very intelligently the results, or other systematic and highly unlikely error of somekind.
Yes, agreed you get a distribution; however, that does not touch what
I said, you don't know the stresses everything has gone through so
you do not know if it is the age of the earth or some stress that is
giving the numbers or something else completely. If you knew the
history than by historical knowledge not your test would tell you what
the true age is.
Kelly
Of course this "stressing" you talk about doesn't make any sense. Things in nature don't get "stressed out" like that. Dating methods are accurate, so you must say God made things look older and trick us to think things are a lot older. Does it make sense to you?
Originally posted by serigadoStresses can be anything, even sitting outside in the rain can be
But if you obtain this results statistically and they give these results scientists arrived, then you must affirm that someone or something "stressed" very intelligently the results, or other systematic and highly unlikely error of somekind.
Of course this "stressing" you talk about doesn't make any sense. Things in nature don't get "stressed out" like th ...[text shortened]... ings look older and trick us to think things are a lot older. Does it make sense to you?
thought of as a stress; moreover, how do you think fossils are formed
anyway when it comes to living creatures? Certain conditions have to
be right or they simply decay and you don't see them. There are a lot
of things that could have or did occur many we don't know about that
is the bottom line. Again, I'm telling you getting a reading does not
mean you understand the results, statistics can give you a lot of
information but it is limited.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIn this case statistics say there's a 99.9999% chance you are wrong.
Stresses can be anything, even sitting outside in the rain can be
thought of as a stress; moreover, how do you think fossils are formed
anyway when it comes to living creatures? Certain conditions have to
be right or they simply decay and you don't see them. There are a lot
of things that could have or did occur many we don't know about that
is the bot ...[text shortened]... derstand the results, statistics can give you a lot of
information but it is limited.
Kelly
But how about Neanderthal men? They are +30k years old. Thousands of bones have been found, their anatomy is completely different then ours, how do you explain this?
In what part of history did they live? When do you think they died? Why are all readings (thousands) for their age wrong? I'm just trying to give a counterexample to make you see you are wrong.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo once again you're playing with completely vague terms. First it was 'perfection -' err I mean 'without blemish' - now it "stresses.' Can ice cream be thought of a stress? Probably not right now since the notion does not suit your needs, but perhaps you will use it later?
Stresses can be anything, even sitting outside in the rain can be
thought of as a stress; moreover, how do you think fossils are formed
anyway when it comes to living creatures? Certain conditions have to
be right or they simply decay and you don't see them. There are a lot
of things that could have or did occur many we don't know about that
is the bot ...[text shortened]... derstand the results, statistics can give you a lot of
information but it is limited.
Kelly
Originally posted by serigado'Wrong' can be anything. 'Wrong' can be 'right.' Do you know what 'wrong' is? It's all faith! Faith and magic and a healthy helping of equivocation.
In this case statistics say there's a 99.9999% chance you are wrong.
But how about Neanderthal men? They are +30k years old. Thousands of bones have been found, their anatomy is completely different then ours, how do you explain this?
In what part of history did they live? When do you think they died? Why are all readings (thousands) for their age wrong? I'm just trying to give a counterexample to make you see you are wrong.
Originally posted by telerionIn this of the first of your posts you quoted the word "perfect" yet
"Perfect," on its own, is a wonderfully vague adjective. Pangloss made a whole carreer off of it. After all, maybe the most perfect Creation is one that fails.
the word "perfect" wasn't used by anyone either in this post by
twhitehead or mine which he was responding to. I'm assuming you
had some reason to bring in the word "perfect" in quotes, the topic
as about the beginning and the scripture story surrounding it, yet
the word "perfect" isn't in there either. Which was why I questioned
your vague complaint, no way to know what you were getting at since
it looked like you were complaining about something someone
said.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionAfter I asked you what you were complaining about you when you
Okay then replace the word "perfect" with the phrase "without blemish." Happy now?
used the word "perfect", you change to "blemish" which is a word
I used, So now it looks like you had some reason to complain at
first with the word "perfect" yet you were the only one using that word.
Now, I'm suppose to be happy because you start to make yourself
a little clearer when you actually address words being used by people
you are talking too. Okay, now you want to complain about the words,
"without blemish" and you are complaining about them, why? You
have something in context you want to complain about? What about
the words "without blemish" bothers you? Not happy, still wondering
what your complaining about, since right now it only seems that the
only thing you are doing is complaining and showing your distain yet
you have given me reason to know why?
Kelly