Evolutionists Appropriating ID?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem being that it would cost 50 times the price. Its simply cheaper to buy more RAM.

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 availa ...[text shortened]... Apple has tended to be more reliable - they simply have less 3rd party software (and hardware).

I wasn't the one complaining about Windows 7.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I get an Apple computer.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, if the universe were created your assumptions about what you are
looking at are worthless.

As I said before, if you accept last-Thursdayism, then yes, any assumptions about last Wednesday are necessarily false. But if I am genuinely looking at a star and not some fake history invented by some creator, then my assumptions are most definitely not worthless.

I think you really do need to know where it was before you observed it.
Why? Give some reasoning to that effect.

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
Seriously, you are making no sense at all.

I am starting to think you don't actually understand the whole star thing at all. Nobody is measuring the speed of stars and working out where they were before, or where they will be afterwards (at least not in this instance).
What we do, is work out how far away the star was when the light left it, and how long that light took to get to us. The star we see is the star as it was a million years ago. Not the star before that and not the star after that. Those do not enter the equation in any way.
For example, the sun you see in the sky, is the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. We do not need to know where the sun was yesterday in order to know that it was where we see it 8 minutes ago, and we don't need to know where it will be tomorrow.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So 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?

[b]As far as verfication I mean just that. You and I ha afely conclude that the car exists at all, then surely you can do the same with a star?

[/b]I'm honest in calling what I believe about the beginning a matter of faith, you on
the other hand act as if what you believe is some how beyond faith and are closer
to factual statements than a belief system. I'm saying that as soon as you start
telling me what you believe about billions of years ago you've left the facts behind
and have crossed over to the imagination of man. As soon as you start spouting off
about anything that cannot be proven wrong, you may as well start off by saying
once upon a time!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm honest in calling what I believe about the beginning a matter of faith, you on
the other hand act as if what you believe is some how beyond faith and are closer
to factual statements than a belief system. I'm saying that as soon as you start
telling me what you believe about billions of years ago you've left the facts behind
and have crossed over to ...[text shortened]... ng that cannot be proven wrong, you may as well start off by saying
once upon a time!
Kelly

Yet you are not being honest when you refuse to answer questions that might clarify your position. You are not being honest when you can't admit that there is no real difference between my beliefs about the past and your beliefs about the origins of fossils.
I am saying that my beliefs about the age of fossils and stars are as factual as your beliefs that fossils (bone shaped ones) come from bones. That you keep telling me that I have 'left the facts behind' makes no difference. You have not given any rational reason why you say this, instead you just keep repeating it in the hope that it will become true.
You keep talking about 'cannot be proven wrong' yet are not being honest when you refuse to go into details about what you really mean by this.

[edit]fixed typing error, changed 'is real difference' to 'is no real difference' in paragraph 1.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said before, if you accept last-Thursdayism, then yes, any assumptions about last Wednesday are necessarily false. But if I am genuinely looking at a star and not some fake history invented by some creator, then my assumptions are most definitely not worthless.

[b]I think you really do need to know where it was before you observed it.
Why? Gi ...[text shortened]... it was where we see it 8 minutes ago, and we don't need to know where it will be tomorrow.[/b]

Again, you've setup the math for star light, and I say again bravo great math,
that still does not mean that the star was there a million years ago if there was
not a universe here a million years ago for it to be in. You do not know how
everything got here, nor do you know how or when! You don't even have
an idea about that, you've nothing beyond we will start marking time here! The
why, where, how and so on are quiet beyond your mind so you ignore them as if
they were not important.

I think it amazing arrogant for someone (not you here) that they apply Occam’s
razor and come up with no need for God to create the universe as if they knew
what it took to create a universe. The universe's beginning and why it began for
us is a matter of faith, you suggesting you've some insight into that by looking
at stars is still no different than trying to predict where a car was an hour ago
by looking at its make model and speed as it moves down the highway.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, you've setup the math for star light, and I say again bravo great math,
that still does not mean that the star was there a million years ago if there was
not a universe here a million years ago for it to be in.

Yet I can see the stars. So either they were there a million years ago, or they are fake stars and we must accept a version of last-Thursdayism.

You do not know how everything got here, nor do you know how or when!
And it remains irrelevant.

You don't even have an idea about that, you've nothing beyond we will start marking time here! The
why, where, how and so on are quiet beyond your mind so you ignore them as if
they were not important.
They are not important when it comes to measuring the distance to a star. You have already admitted that one can know facts without knowing all origins. Therefore you must explain why knowing origins is so important to you when it comes to stars.

I think it amazing arrogant for someone (not you here) that they apply Occam’s
razor and come up with no need for God to create the universe as if they knew
what it took to create a universe.
And I think it very odd that you bring that up at all. I don't see the relevance.

The universe's beginning and why it began for us is a matter of faith, you suggesting you've some insight into that by looking
at stars
No, I am suggesting that I have some insight into how old the stars are. This is no more or less a 'matter of faith' than other historical events such as our shared belief that World War II took place or that fossils came from bones.

is still no different than trying to predict where a car was an hour ago
by looking at its make model and speed as it moves down the highway.
Kelly
It is completely different. The make model and speed as it moves down the highway tells us practically nothing about where it was an hour ago. The light coming from a star tells us a lot about stars, including its position when the light left it. If you dispute this then give reasoning. Stop using false analogies, its not working.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you are not being honest when you refuse to answer questions that might clarify your position. You are not being honest when you can't admit that there is real difference between my beliefs about the past and your beliefs about the origins of fossils.
I am saying that my beliefs about the age of fossils and stars are as factual as your beliefs that f ...[text shortened]... are not being honest when you refuse to go into details about what you really mean by this.

"Do I think even what I believe about fossils is also faith, yes.
Kelly"

I said that quite a few pages ago, I've admitted my beliefs on fossils were a matter
of faith and I've no issue saying the same thing about star light too. You may think
you have been avoiding Thursdayism by suggesting there are billions of years of
history, but seriously if there were not, you are just as guilty as the guy who does
think there is no history and evey memory was false beyond Thursday, you just
error in the other direction.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I said that quite a few pages ago, I've admitted my beliefs on fossils were a matter
of faith and I've no issue saying the same thing about star light too.

But you have refused to call your belief in fossils equivalent to 'believing in fairy tales'.

You may think you have been avoiding Thursdayism by suggesting there are billions of years of
history, but seriously if there were not, you are just as guilty as the guy who does
think there is no history and evey memory was false beyond Thursday, you just
error in the other direction.
Kelly
I fully admit the possibility of Thursdayism, but you do not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet I can see the stars. So either they were there a million years ago, or they are fake stars and we must accept a version of last-Thursdayism.

[b]You do not know how everything got here, nor do you know how or when!
And it remains irrelevant.

You don't even have an idea about that, you've nothing beyond we will start marking time here! The it. If you dispute this then give reasoning. Stop using false analogies, its not working.

[/b]I've told you this several times and think I'll just drop off this conversation if I have
to repeat it again.

YOU DO NOT KNOW if this universe was created to support life at its beginning any
more than you know it wasn't. You do not know if the stars, the light, and all things
that we see around us were put together as we see them pretty much today to
support life at the beginning any more than it was put together not able to support
life. So you again take your assumptions about distance, rates, and time are just
say what you believe is true and claim it isn't a matter of faith for you, but you do
push your beliefs about the past with same conviction as any Pastor does his
message.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you have refused to call your belief in fossils equivalent to 'believing in fairy tales'.

[b]You may think you have been avoiding Thursdayism by suggesting there are billions of years of
history, but seriously if there were not, you are just as guilty as the guy who does
think there is no history and evey memory was false beyond Thursday, you jus ...[text shortened]... the other direction.
Kelly
I fully admit the possibility of Thursdayism, but you do not.[/b]

If I started making up stories about them I'd enter into fairy tales.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet I can see the stars. So either they were there a million years ago, or they are fake stars and we must accept a version of last-Thursdayism.

[b]You do not know how everything got here, nor do you know how or when!
And it remains irrelevant.

You don't even have an idea about that, you've nothing beyond we will start marking time here! The it. If you dispute this then give reasoning. Stop using false analogies, its not working.

[/b]You assume the light we see came from the star millions of years ago correct?
If there were not true, then your math no matter how fine would have not given
you any insight into how old the universe really is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
YOU DO NOT KNOW if this universe was created to support life at its beginning any
more than you know it wasn't.

And I will say this again: how is that even remotely relevant? Simply repeating something over and over does not make it more true nor make it make more sense.

You do not know if the stars, the light, and all things that we see around us were put together as we see them pretty much today to support life at the beginning any more than it was put together not able to support life.
And as I said, either the stars exist as we see them or we must accept a version of last Thursdayism. Either there are stars that existed a million years ago, or what we think are stars are fakes. Sure they may be fakes put there to support life as you say.

So you again take your assumptions about distance, rates, and time are just
say what you believe is true and claim it isn't a matter of faith for you, but you do
push your beliefs about the past with same conviction as any Pastor does his
message.
Kelly
And I fully admit that I could be wrong, just as you could be wrong about fossils. But you won't admit that your beliefs about fossils are equivalent to fairy tales despite said beliefs being no different from mine.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I started making up stories about them I'd enter into fairy tales.
Kelly

When did I 'make up stories' about them? I am merely stating the facts as I see them. Sure I could be mistaken about the facts, but I am not making them up any more than you are making up your beliefs about fossils.
You saw a bone shaped fossil and decided it must have come from a bone. Did you 'make up' that story?
I saw some starlight and decided it must have come from a star. Why am I 'making up stories' and you are not?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You assume the light we see came from the star millions of years ago correct?
If there were not true, then your math no matter how fine would have not given
you any insight into how old the universe really is.
Kelly

No, I do not assume any such thing. I believe, based on the large quantities of evidence, that the light we see came from stars and that those stars are millions of light years away and that the light left them millions of years ago.
Do you assume that fossils come from bones, or did you base that belief on the evidence? I must note that you didn't even use any math for that belief.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You assume the light we see came from the star millions of years ago correct?
If there were not true, then your math no matter how fine would have not given
you any insight into how old the universe really is.
Kelly[/b]

What an arrogant position you Christians have. You think humans are so far up the evolutionary god scale as to warrant an entire universe brought about in such a way as to fool humans into thinking it is billions of years old when in your mind, a fact, that the universe is 6000 years old. What absolute arrogance. A real god would be laughing his asss off at such arrogance. In fact *I* am laughing my asss off at such arrogance and I am only a human.

Then of course you would come back with some biblical reference, thus proving your point, a rumor in your own mind.