Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by telerion
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]

[/i]Since I was still trying to understand you incase you had a point I
asked you again what it was you were complaining about! I'm am
being asked to pay attention to what I write, I do, what are you
doing? I'm not a mind reader, you have a point about a word that
wasn't being used by anyone in the conversation and start complaining
about it as if it were used, you change words and ask if that makes
me happy, and now I should understand what it was you were upset
about when you started complaining "perfect", say what you mean,
quote words that were actually used in the context they were used in
and then maybe you can have a convesation where everyone knows
what you are talking about. There may be a few mind readers here
that will guess what you trying to say, you may even agree with one
of them, but that does not mean that everyone else has those
mind reading skills that are required to understand you when you
are complaining about things that were not being said.
Kelly

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You know, there doesn't have to be a "versus" in this debate. I'm a Christian evolutionist. And I'm sure there are many others.

If you wish agree with them do so, if I do not, well there you go.
Kelly

Originally posted by serigado
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?

If I test 10000 independent devices and plot each of them knowing
that they can either give me the results because of age or a stress
that may or may not have been applied to them, how are you going
to tell the difference between the aged and the stressed devices?
Since the results will be the same for both you are telling me that you
can still make any claim you want about the devices? Science must be
easy for you, identical readings due to two different causes is not a
mystery for you, you can still tell everyone which devices are aged
and which were stressed because you can put your knowledge of
statistics to use and look at your distribution. To me this sounds more
like you are going to say what you want looking at the data because
one outcome gives you what you want to see and promote. I
understand perfectly it is you that doesn’t seem to understand the
argument.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
So 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?

A stress can be anything that can alter a device if applied, you
may apply both voltage and vary temperatures to a device that
is a stress, you can apply extreme temperatures and pressure,
the cold and moister of ice-cream if it can affect the device while
applied it can be called a stress, you want to know what I mean
by a term ask me I’ll tell you, I only ask that when you quote
me trying to understand what I’m saying, you actually use the
words I’m using in context so I can give you a strait answer.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A stress can be anything that can alter a device if applied, you
may apply both voltage and vary temperatures to a device that
is a stress, you can apply extreme temperatures and pressure,
the cold and moister of ice-cream if it can affect the device while
applied it can be called a stress, you want to know what I mean
by a term ask me I’ll tell you, I ...[text shortened]... ying, you actually use the
words I’m using in context so I can give you a strait answer.
Kelly

Are the laws that affect how stresses affect things subject to "stress" themselves? If the laws that give us radiometric dating can break down, can this law of stress also break down?

Originally posted by KellyJay
After I asked you what you were complaining about you when you
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 y ...[text shortened]... omplaining and showing your distain yet
you have given me reason to know why?
Kelly

Sigh . . . KJ you're taxing my patience already. You were the one that claimed that God originally made things "without blemish." All I'm saying is that, in the absence of other descriptive qualifiers, the phrase "without blemish" is nebulous to the point of uselessness.

Originally posted by telerion
Are the laws that affect how stresses affect things subject to "stress" themselves? If the laws that give us radiometric dating can break down, can this law of stress also break down?

No one is suggesting that the laws break down, what I am suggesting
that there are several, or can be several things going on that are not
on our radar screen as far what is causing the readings. Not knowing
all the events that surround any given item and testing it does not
'prove' you know all there is to know about that item, it is only when
you know all there is from cradle to grave is that possible. You want
to make my argument about something other than what I have said,
you have tried to get me to defend words you put in my mouth, why
don't you just address those things I do say.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
Sigh . . . KJ you're taxing my patience already. You were the one that claimed that God originally made things "without blemish." All I'm saying is that, in the absence of other descriptive qualifiers, the phrase "without blemish" is nebulous to the point of uselessness.

Get you story strait, I was trying to understand you, you jumped in
and went off on words that only you were using, as I tried to
understand what you were attempting to get at you change up on the
topic and go after other things that were being said. If all you want to
do is jump on me for things that (A you make up) then (B things I do
say) forgive me if I have a hard time getting it right off the bat what it
is your getting at. Taxing your patience, please, get what you want to
talk about strait in your mind and then open you mouth we will both
have an easier time at it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No one is suggesting that the laws break down, what I am suggesting
that there are several, or can be several things going on that are not
on our radar screen as far what is causing the readings. Not knowing
all the events that surround any given item and testing it does not
'prove' you know all there is to know about that item, it is only when
you kno ...[text shortened]... o defend words you put in my mouth, why
don't you just address those things I do say.
Kelly

There must be some logical fallacy that describes this. Appeal to ignorance sounds good, but it's not quite what I want. Anyone know?

Or is Kelly in fact being logical?

Actually, I think this is a case of argument from ignorance, now that I think about it.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

KJ seems to be arguing that the premise is false because it has not been proven true.

Originally posted by telerion
Sigh . . . KJ you're taxing my patience already. You were the one that claimed that God originally made things "without blemish." All I'm saying is that, in the absence of other descriptive qualifiers, the phrase "without blemish" is nebulous to the point of uselessness.

Fine you find when I say "without blemish" nebulous and useless.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There must be some logical fallacy that describes this. Appeal to ignorance sounds good, but it's not quite what I want. Anyone know?

Or is Kelly in fact being logical?

Actually, I think this is a case of argument from ignorance, now that I think about it.

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to i ...[text shortened]...

KJ seems to be arguing that the premise is false because it has not been proven true.

No, I'm not at all suggesting that anything is false! I am suggesting it
can not be called a fact without all the necessary data points known.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No one is suggesting that the laws break down, what I am suggesting
that there are several, or can be several things going on that are not
on our radar screen as far what is causing the readings. Not knowing
all the events that surround any given item and testing it does not
'prove' you know all there is to know about that item, it is only when
you kno ...[text shortened]... o defend words you put in my mouth, why
don't you just address those things I do say.
Kelly

Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance of statistical methods. In order for your hypothesis to hold, either the exact same events or events with roughly the exact same effects would have had to have affected every one of the thousands of subjects tested. Moreover since there are multiple methods that rely upon completely different mechanisms these "stresses" would have had to have exactly or nearly exactly the same effect on every one of the mechanisms. The likelihood of such a thing must be 1 in X^(very large order). Now I'm not a Creationists so I'm intelligent enough to realize that even 1 in X^(very large order) is still possible. But again, since I'm not a Creationist, I don't have to hang my whole life on it having occurred.

Finally, even if such universal stresses occurred, you need to tell us how such events could cause the effects you need to debunk dating methods.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Get you story strait, I was trying to understand you, you jumped in
and went off on words that only you were using, as I tried to
understand what you were attempting to get at you change up on the
topic and go after other things that were being said. If all you want to
do is jump on me for things that (A you make up) then (B things I do
say) forgive me ...[text shortened]... bout strait in your mind and then open you mouth we will both
have an easier time at it.
Kelly

Okay, I've been patient enough with this. It's spelled S-T-R-A-I-G-H-T! Get it right for once.

Originally posted by telerion
Once again you demonstrate your total ignorance of statistical methods. In order for your hypothesis to hold, either the exact same events or events with roughly the exact same effects would have had to have affected every one of the thousands of subjects tested. Moreover since there are multiple methods that rely upon completely different mechanisms thes ...[text shortened]... need to tell us how such events could cause the effects you need to debunk dating methods.

“No one is suggesting that the laws break down, what I am suggesting
that there are several, or can be several things going on that are not
on our radar screen as far what is causing the readings.” Notice that
I’m giving you possible events, the fact that you have large pockets
of the unknown suggests you could be missing a great deal! The whole
of this discussion has not been to make the claim that any one method
is wrong and how, but that if there are data points missing, all readings
no matter how consistent cannot give us the ability to glean all there
is to know about any given item tested, for the reasons I have already
stated.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
Okay, I've been patient enough with this. It's spelled S-T-R-A-I-G-H-T! Get it right for once.

Opps your right suzzie spell checker, I missed spelling a word,
I'm so very glad you have been patient with me for so long.
Kelly