17 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Think of it like this, you and I have a conversation.
It is entirely to do with what you believe or not. There is no real difference between our knowledge of the age of stars and our knowledge that fossils come from bones. The only difference is that you believe one and not the other. Thus you call one 'believing in fairy tales' and accept the other as fact.
[b] if someone is making it to 'fit' some data about the distance to stars and age of stars if incorrect could be be proven wrong.
Someone next to us hears what we say.
The words they claim we say are true, it is a fact, but as they tell everyone
else, they have to take them on faith even though it is a fact. If the words
are then changed over time they still must be taken on faith, but may not
be true.
Kelly
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by kbear1kNo, I do not see what you spoke of as important enough to declare one or the other not Christian in their beliefs. It is mainly what is believed about Christ that makes one Christian or not in my opinion. The Christian must believe that Christ is God manifest in the flesh as is stated by the following verse.
"but use reason and logic to determine what is most likely correct."
I agree but suppose folks still disagree. Does that make one Christian more Christian than the other? I don't think it does. For instance the Greek (Eastern)and Latin (Western) branches of Christianity basically split over wether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son or f ...[text shortened]... e Son. Hardly seems like it is worth fighting over but it was a big deal over 1600 years ago.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(1 Timothy 3:16 KJV)
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI see this as admitting that you would not invest your time in it. 😏
will you be commissioning the project then? i charge $55/hr. but first, for $1200, i'll begin analysis on cost and time projections. you'll probably need to hire a dozen or so other programmers if you want it done within 2 years.
18 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't understand what you are trying to say. This is not helped by your habit of always avoiding answering any question that might actually clarify your position.
Think of it like this, you and I have a conversation.
Someone next to us hears what we say.
The words they claim we say are true, it is a fact, but as they tell everyone
else, they have to take them on faith even though it is a fact. If the words
are then changed over time they still must be taken on faith, but may not
be true.
Kelly
What exactly is the difference between:
1. The belief that fossils came from bones.
2. The belief that a particular fossil has been dated to 1 million years old (+/- 100,000 years) (also consider here the distance to stars and speed of light as recorded in astronomy).
You consider 1. a fact, yet call 2. equivalent to believing in fairy tales. You think 1. is self evidently true, yet consider 2 to be made up by people. Yet I can see nothing in the claims that warrants this differentiation. Both are based on evidence that has been scientifically tested in various ways and so far not disproved.
Is it that 1. has more evidence in its favour? Is there something about 1. that makes it inherently more likely to be true? (if so what?). Or is it that we both agree on 1. but we disagree about 2.? Or is it that 1. does not conflict with your religion?
18 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou don't need to hire him. But you will have to start a company with as he says, a dozen or so programmers - fairly well paid ones. And it will take a few years. Not only must you invest as much time as Microsoft does on the coding, but you will have to also deal with any copy write or IP issues. I guess you could cut down the work considerably by starting with Linux (as Apple did).
I'll need some example of your previous work before I fork out any cash.
But at the end of the day, if what you want was really on high demand, then wouldn't some linux developer already have started a fork focusing on that? They already have done several that focus on low RAM usage or small install size, or fast bootup time, but always at the expense of other features. You want the features included.
19 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut I have it on good authority that we could develop a modern operating system that uses 1/50 the resources of Win 7. 😉
You don't need to hire him. But you will have to start a company with as he says, a dozen or so programmers - fairly well paid ones. And it will take a few years. Not only must you invest as much time as Microsoft does on the coding, but you will have to also deal with any copy write or IP issues. I guess you could cut down the work considerably by starti ...[text shortened]... fast bootup time, but always at the expense of other features. You want the features included.
19 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe problem being that it would cost 50 times the price. Its simply cheaper to buy more RAM.
But I have it on good authority that we could develop a modern operating system that uses 1/50 the resources of Win 7. 😉
I am actually not convinced that one can even make such an operating system. Sure, one can make an OS that uses less resources, but a large part of what makes Win 7 a resource hog is that it pre-loads a lot of services into RAM thus making them ready and available when you need them. I am not sure you can get them out of RAM and still provide the responsiveness you require. I guess if it was better at guessing what resources you really need it might make a big difference.
I must note however that a very large part of what makes most systems bloated and slow is 3rd party software and not the OS (remember that most drivers are 3rd party). This is one reason why Apple has tended to be more reliable - they simply have less 3rd party software (and hardware).
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know if you are being dense or what, NOT all fossils come from bones.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. This is not helped by your habit of always avoiding answering any question that might actually clarify your position.
What exactly is the difference between:
1. The belief that fossils came from bones.
2. The belief that a particular fossil has been dated to 1 million years old (+/- 100,000 years) (also co ...[text shortened]... th agree on 1. but we disagree about 2.? Or is it that 1. does not conflict with your religion?
I recall seeing a hat that was lost in a well and was found later that had become
a fossil so quite a few things can go through the process of fossilisation. If you
are asking that fossils only come from bones, no....if you are asking me why I
think a fossil that is shaped like a animal's jaw bone comes from the jaw bone of
an animal...well what are you asking?
The dating method is all beliefs much of it cannot be verified, it cannot be shown
to be wrong, and it assumes a great deal. If you want to tell me that you know
a star was there for at least a million years ago because its a million light years
away, then you can also believe every car on the highway going 70 mph was at
least 70 miles away an hour ago when you saw it. You don't know how or when
the stars got where they are any more than you know where a car was by looking
at its current rate of speed, you assume a great deal, your assumptions about
things you cannot be wrong about are not any more out of the realm of faith and
beliefs as anything else that cannot be proven wrong. You can however make the
same claim movies make, my beliefs are based on evidence as some movies do
when they claim the movie is based on true events. Typically that is just someone
trying to tell a story about what they think happened nothing more.
Kelly
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is you that is being deliberately dense, and it is clear that you are doing to to avoid answering questions or admitting you are wrong. Obviously I am only talking about fossils shaped like bones. Obviously I am asking why you believe they were originally bones.
I don't know if you are being dense or what, NOT all fossils come from bones.
I recall seeing a hat that was lost in a well and was found later that had become
a fossil so quite a few things can go through the process of fossilisation. If you
are asking that fossils only come from bones, no....if you are asking me why I
think a fossil that is shaped like a animal's jaw bone comes from the jaw bone of
an animal...well what are you asking?
The dating method is all beliefs much of it cannot be verified,
What do you take 'verification' to consist of? If by verification you mean 'an alternative measurement that gives the same result' then they can be verified.
it cannot be shown to be wrong,
Well presumably nothing can be shown to be wrong if you simply ignore all evidence to the contrary, but if you don't ignore evidence then surely evidence to the contrary would show the dates to be wrong?
and it assumes a great deal.
What is the 'great deal' that is being assumed? Can you specify?
What I want you to tell me specifically is why your claims about dating do not apply to your claims about fossils (shaped like bones). In what way did you:
1. Verify that fossils shaped like bones come from bones.
2. Show that it could be wrong that fossils shaped like bones come from bones.
3. Avoid assuming a great deal.
I want to know the difference between the two claims.
If you want to tell me that you know a star was there for at least a million years ago because its a million light years away, then you can also believe every car on the highway going 70 mph was at least 70 miles away an hour ago when you saw it.
Not a good analogy. Cars are not known to travel at constant speeds - light is. Cars are not known to travel in straight lines - light is.
To demonstrate how reliable the properties of light are, you are essentially claiming that if we see a car on a highway we should deny the existence of the car because there is no way of knowing that the light that we think came from the car actually travelled in a straight line into our eyes. Maybe the light is coming from a star and it just happens to look like light from a car.
You don't know how or when the stars got where they are any more than you know where a car was by looking at its current rate of speed,
I am not looking at the current rate of speed of the stars. I am looking at the star as it was a million years ago. I am observing it as directly as I am observing the car. I do not need to know where it was before or after I observe it.
you assume a great deal,
So do you when it comes to fossils. Yet you refuse to admit that your beliefs about them are equivalent to fairy tales.
So tell us what the difference is between the two beliefs.
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhitehead" Obviously I am only talking about fossils shaped like bones. Obviously I am asking why you believe they were originally bones. "
It is you that is being deliberately dense, and it is clear that you are doing to to avoid answering questions or admitting you are wrong. Obviously I am only talking about fossils shaped like bones. Obviously I am asking why you believe they were originally bones.
[b]The dating method is all beliefs much of it cannot be verified,
What do you take ...[text shortened]... e equivalent to fairy tales.
So tell us what the difference is between the two beliefs.[/b]
There is nothing obvious with you, I think they come from bones because
they are shaped like bones. I've not seen or heard of random events that
would cause something to "look like" a jaw bone other than something that
came from a jaw bone.
As far as verfication I mean just that. You and I have gone over this more
times than I can to think about. You present me a method that cannot be
shown wrong and back it up with a method that cannot be shown to be
wrong shows your consist yes, does that mean you are right no, but you are
consist. So you look at a car doing 70 and a truck doing 70 does that mean
that both were 70 miles away on the highway an hour ago, NO.
Kelly
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhitehead"I am not looking at the current rate of speed of the stars. I am looking at the star as it was a million years ago. I am observing it as directly as I am observing the car. I do not need to know where it was before or after I observe it."
It is you that is being deliberately dense, and it is clear that you are doing to to avoid answering questions or admitting you are wrong. Obviously I am only talking about fossils shaped like bones. Obviously I am asking why you believe they were originally bones.
[b]The dating method is all beliefs much of it cannot be verified,
What do you take ...[text shortened]... e equivalent to fairy tales.
So tell us what the difference is between the two beliefs.[/b]
Really, if the universe were created your assumptions about what you are
looking at are worthless. I think you really do need to know where it was
before you observed it. The fact that light travels in a line and the cars
don't wasn't what killed you knowing where it was an hour before you saw
it, you don't know how long the thing was on the road! What does matter is
you do not know how long either have been either on the highway or in
existence.
Kelly
20 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo when I say that I believe distant stars are distant stars because they look like stars and because I have never seen nor heard of random events that would cause something to "look like" a distant star, why do you say I am 'believing in fairy tales' but you do not apply that to your own beliefs?
There is nothing obvious with you, I think they come from bones because
they are shaped like bones. I've not seen or heard of random events that
would cause something to "look like" a jaw bone other than something that
came from a jaw bone.
As far as verfication I mean just that. You and I have gone over this more times than I can to think about.
And every single time you avoid answering the question. Simply saying 'I mean just that' does not answer the question.
If you can't give a definition then give examples eg how would you verify that fossils come from bones?
You present me a method that cannot be shown wrong and back it up with a method that cannot be shown to be wrong shows your consist yes, does that mean you are right no, but you are consist.
But apparently not verified. So what does verification mean if not 'confirmed by other methods'?
So you look at a car doing 70 and a truck doing 70 does that mean
that both were 70 miles away on the highway an hour ago, NO.
Kelly
Of course not. Nobody has claimed that they were.
But if you look at a car you are assuming the light that entered your eye came from a car, are you not? So you are assuming something about the past history of that light are you not? If you can safely conclude that the car exists at all, then surely you can do the same with a star?