Humans are egotistical when it comes to god.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
We don't have the remains of every human that ever existed, so in that way, yes, there are missing links. However, the amount of evidence that we evolved from primates is strong.

Our biochemistry and physiology are nearly identical, we share 96% of our DNA code. Other primates have 48 chromosomes, we have 46. Since one pair of chromosomes can't ju ...[text shortened]... forms, see this website for details.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

It must be difficult for the poor Xtian dears to read such evidence which proves that God didn't create mankind at the begginning of time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your point, evidence is something we point to, a great story behind a
rate of decay does not mean that is true about that rate of decay now
was always so, but assumptions are made, it still is what it is. Is it
evidence when someone says the dog made a promise? The mounting
evidence isn't what I'm overly impressed with, you may like it all as
if fits y ...[text shortened]... liefs, and there a lot of beliefs when it comes
to evolution and Disney Land science.
Kelly

The only thing that scientists believe about evidence is that they
have collected it correctly. A scientist ought not to have any great
qualms about collecting evidence contrary to his/her initial hypothesis;
accurate knowledge is always a boon, inaccurate knowledge is always
a bane. A scientist as great as Stephen Hawking has recanted of
positions he believed to be true in light of evidence, and he did so
graciously, because being a scientist is not about being right but about
pursuing that which is right.

And, before you interject, individual scientists (and their rivals) strive to
confirm that their methods of collection are accurate, that they have
properly accounted for all variables by means of control groups.

Consider this: There are many radioactive isotopes. Confer:
http://ie.lbl.gov/education/isotopes.htm
Some of them have very short half-lifes (on the order of milliseconds),
some have longer ones (seconds, minutes, hours), some have moderate
ones (days, weeks, months), some have long and super long ones
(years, centuries, millenia).

Now, you, I or anyone can test the ones up until the months one. And
doing so will help you understand the formula used to deduce decay
rates and predict the amount of radioactive isotope is a reliable one.

That is, you can test literally hundreds of isotopes and find the formula
reliable. From there, you can extrapolate that the formula will be reliable
for ones you cannot directly test (the ones with half-lifes beyond a
reasonable test time).

Why is this not faith? Because you are taking something which
you have proven to be true and applied it in identical ways to something
similar. Just like you don't believe that gravity will make things 'fall
up' on another planet, you have no reason to believe that the formula
will suddenly fail when applied over a longer period of time (since you
can prove for your own self that it doesn't vary over very short, short,
and moderate periods of time as well).

It isn't faith to believe that a ball will fall down on Mercury or a planet
orbiting Alpha Centari, even though we've never dropped a ball there
and even though you or I will never drop a ball there. Similarly, it isn't
faith to believe that the formula predicting carbon-14's decay rate is
the same as the one predicting the rate of sodium-24.

Further, to believe that the rate of change was different 10 years ago
(or 100, or a 1000) would require the belief that the fundamental laws
of physics have changed, akin to believing that gravity once made things
fall up. To believe this would require one to devise a system of physics
in which the rules were totally different, like that positive charges repelled
negative ones or something like that. Why would anyone believe this,
especially given no evidence of such a thing?

So it comes down to this:
1) Do you disbelieve radioactive isotope dating because you think it all
rates changed at some point in history? If so, why do you think it
changed? What evidence do you have to support such a thing?

or

2) Do you disbelieve radioactive isotope dating because you think that
rates change over time? If so, why do you think they change over time?
What evidence do you have to support such a thing?

For my part, I believe radioactive isotope dating because we can test
literally hundreds of short- and moderate-lived isotopes and discern
certain predictable aspects of the behavior of their nuclei and and apply
this to otherwise identical isotopes with different half lives. I believe
the rate doesn't change because there is a lot of evidence with these
short- and moderate-lived isotopes to suggest that it doesn't and none
to suggest that it might. Futhermore,

I take these beliefs to be truths because of the covergence of evidence
which allows me to conclude them and the absence of evidence which
would encourage me to deny them.

Why do you deny them? Why don't you conclude them?

This is what you, I, and everyone else in the world does with any
other topic -- you conclude that the sun's rising and setting will
happen because of evidence (mathematical and experiential);
you conclude that a ball will drop on Mercury because of evidence
around you; you conclude that Earth orbits the Sun because of evidence;
and so on.

You make judgements and conclusions all the time in the face of
evidence which can be predicted, measured and replicated. This is
not faith.

So, I return to my question. Given that radioactive isotope dating is
accurate for the short- to moderate-lived isotopes -- that the formula
used to predict it is reliable -- for what reason do you believe that
it is inaccurate for other, longer-lived isotopes? What evidence to
you have to allow you to make such a conclusion?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The only thing that scientists believe about evidence is that they
have collected it correctly. A scientist ought not to have any great
qualms about collecting evidence contrary to his/her initial hypothesis;
accurate knowledge is always a boon, inaccurate knowledge is always
a bane. A scientist as great as Stephen Hawking has recanted of
pos ...[text shortened]... hat evidence to
you have to allow you to make such a conclusion?

Nemesio

Excellent stuff. Of course, I offered Kelly and Kneightmeister the opportunity to re-write the theory of relativity in their own terms, consistent with observed data, but also allowing them to incorporate things such as non-constant constants, and such like.

Strangely, never a mathematical derivation was offerred.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What can I say, as far as being sarcastic, I do not ever recall you
jumping up to defend me when I am being attacked every which
way there is, but I get upset and it comes out, you are now the
judge of how I act? I'm guess you have some double standards
here, if I'm to be held to one standard by you, why are you holding
everyone else to something different? As far as my answering to God,
I'm His servant, not yours.
Kelly

You, personally, are not being attacked. You are not being persectued. We are debating with you. You seem to wish to refuse all our evidence, for no apparent good reason.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is something quite simple, in this discussion where have I done it,
if you are going to pull in every discussion I have ever been in to find
one I'm sure you will see that, because of the nature of some of the
discussions I have been in and started. You accused me of doing it
here so produce one, you may find more than a few out side of this
discuss ...[text shortened]... u will not change your mind
because is it very closed to anything but your world views.
Kelly

You just said it right in your own post, you are the servant of god. That says to me you will continue to attck scientific evidence no matter the cost, because you think whatever you have been propogandized with to be the absolute truth and any form of debate goes like this; We have evidence A,B,and C. Your "response":
No you don't. You provide no counter evidence and you never will. Why do you bother "debating" this way with heathens such as us anyway?

Originally posted by whodey
But you make some assumptions in your rant. You imply that humans are out of line in thinking that they are more important than other forms of life. You then futher attempt to distance yourself from talking about morality of such a scenerio. If you insist that morality not be apart of your position, then you should have no objections for people thinking th ...[text shortened]... ps the world is better off with such maniacs.......that is, as long as you don't get caught. 😉

Assuming there is no god ... there is no right or wrong.

How do you figure that one? Morality and ethics do not require religion or supernatural entities.

Originally posted by whodey
And you can prove this? Perhaps the Eygptians have the oldest surviving records for believing so but this in no way proves that the idea originated with them. Also of interest are ancient Sumarian writings which refer to a garden of Eden and a great flood. If such ancient stories have been recorded in antiquity as it also is in the Bible it stands to reaso ...[text shortened]... ing that we all come from the same background so their stories should have similarities in them.

So for you, plagerism is a sign of truth? If that were the case, why are there no such 7 day tales in the America's? Just about every Amerind tribe has a differant creation story. That is easy enough to verify. To me, the plagerized creation story is simply that: Plagerism, because the ones who bought into the tale seemed to think it fit in with their ideas of religion. Why does not your god produce similar tales in the America's?

Originally posted by Nemesio
The only thing that scientists believe about evidence is that they
have collected it correctly. A scientist ought not to have any great
qualms about collecting evidence contrary to his/her initial hypothesis;
accurate knowledge is always a boon, inaccurate knowledge is always
a bane. A scientist as great as Stephen Hawking has recanted of
pos ...[text shortened]... hat evidence to
you have to allow you to make such a conclusion?

Nemesio

What I have been saying is they have to be believed, they must
be taken upon faith; because, as anything new can change the
way we look at them, that is the way of science is it not? The way of
humans is that we accept upon faith that which we believe to be true
yet we can be wrong. I know enough to know that looking at some
thing in the short term does not mean that the same thing is true
in the long term, just as looking at something close up or far away
without my glasses changes how accurate I can see them. So seeing
something in the here and now being true, only means that we have
something that is true in the here and now, if you want to pick that
apart feel free, not having a reason to think otherwise only shows
that you want to accept something, not look at it as it could be wrong.

As far as the sun rising and so on, great! We know the sun rises
and hope it will never change; however, that being true does not
mean that is true with every star and planet since stars burn out
now correct, and I'm sure that there are other things that could
alter that.

Yes I make judgments and conclusions all the time as do we all,
but we all do not call our judgments and conclusions the samething
when we do, as I do not have issue one saying what I believe about
the beginning of everything is faith, and another thinks they have
the facts when they think the Big Bang is true. In my opinion both
are matters of faith, they both sets of beliefs take place between
the ears of the one believing in them, and both could be wrong or
only one right. I don't have issue one with people believing what they
will, just call it what it is when they do when it is a belief and cannot
be proven wrong.


"So, I return to my question. Given that radioactive isotope dating is
accurate for the short- to moderate-lived isotopes -- that the formula
used to predict it is reliable -- for what reason do you believe that
it is inaccurate for other, longer-lived isotopes? What evidence to
you have to allow you to make such a conclusion? "

As I stated above something in the short term being true does not
mean that in the long term the same thing will remain true!
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You, personally, are not being attacked. You are not being persectued. We are debating with you. You seem to wish to refuse all our evidence, for no apparent good reason.

I'd like to point out I didn't claim I felt I was being personally
attacked now, nor did I say I was being persectured either, just read
the post and stop reading into it things that are not there.

When my faith and intelligence get attacked over and over again,
because the thought police here don't like people disagreeing their
views it very easily goes to personal. When I am reading posts I have
nothing to do with and my name gets brought up as some thing
pathetic it feels personal, I recall you doing that to me to if I’m not
mistaken.

Not agreeing with someone does not mean that it is open season
upon them, and having someone attempt to correct me for getting a
little testy when I don’t ever recall them ever standing up when people
jump on me with both feet was nauseating. I try not to return that in
kind, but I get drug down into the mud from time to time too,
meaning this isn't something I'm trying to say I'm good at either. I'm
not, and I know it. I just didn’t appreciate being corrected by someone
who I have never seen correct anyone else.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You, personally, are not being attacked. You are not being persectued. We are debating with you. You seem to wish to refuse all our evidence, for no apparent good reason.

I am refusing your conclusions as being factual! I did not reject your
evidence.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
You just said it right in your own post, you are the servant of god. That says to me you will continue to attck scientific evidence no matter the cost, because you think whatever you have been propogandized with to be the absolute truth and any form of debate goes like this; We have evidence A,B,and C. Your "response":
No you don't. You provide no counter ...[text shortened]... and you never will. Why do you bother "debating" this way with heathens such as us anyway?

Oh, now you remember! I think you were lying before than.
Franky as of right now I don't care what anything says to you,
any more. The one thing you are accusing me of, you are doing
and you don't see it, pity.
Kelly

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
But lets say you understand one aspect of the spaceship, even if you can't build the whole. We'll go with space toilets. Not a big part of the spaceship overall, but vital. In 99% of all spaceships the toilets are in the bathroom area. In one ship there is a toilet sandwiched between the rocket exhausts. You understand perfectly well how people ex ...[text shortened]... at particular toilet is useless, you just need to understand toilets and how they are used.

With regard to toilets and spaceships yes I'll give you that, but
I don't think life itself is as easy to figure out as a space ships.
As complex as they are I believe life is much more.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I stated above something in the short term being true does not
mean that in the long term the same thing will remain true!

1) Given that all of the isotopes that we can observe for ourselves follow the same pattern and utilize
the same formula with rigorous strictness, and 2) given that the portions of these longer term isotopes
that we can observe also follow this formula, and 3) given that the formula's consistency relies on
rules of physics, the violation of which is comparable to the gravity's falling upward, what reason
do you have to disbelieve this? You have provided your position (that you are skeptical that
it might not remain true for longer term isotopes) but you fail to explain what compels you to
believe this (the three reasons above constitute my reasons for believing that the formula does remain
consistent).

Nemesio

P.S., I will deal with the rest of your post later.

Originally posted by KellyJay
With regard to toilets and spaceships yes I'll give you that, but
I don't think life itself is as easy to figure out as a space ships.
As complex as they are I believe life is much more.
Kelly

I'll concede that life is more complicated than spaceships, unless some scifi stuff about living spaceships ever happens, but I don't think telomeres are a whole lot more complicated that toilets. Actually it might be better to compare them to genomic toilet paper. They are big long strands of the same nonsense sequence repeated over and over. They don't code for anything and removing them doesn't do anything to a cell short term. The problem is, we lose a bit of the information at the end of the chromosome after each replication. Telomeres provide a buffer. They are just copied over and over in gametes, so we have a big line of junk on the end that we can afford to lose instead of losing valuable things like actual genes or regulatory UTRs and the like.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So for you, plagerism is a sign of truth? If that were the case, why are there no such 7 day tales in the America's? Just about every Amerind tribe has a differant creation story. That is easy enough to verify. To me, the plagerized creation story is simply that: Plagerism, because the ones who bought into the tale seemed to think it fit in with their ideas of religion. Why does not your god produce similar tales in the America's?

Who said anything about plagerism? If God's word is inspired by God then there is no plagerism unless man writes down the inspired word and does not give God the credit. However, you could say that all the other stories are plagerized as they have been handed down from generation to generation or from culture to culture with minor variances along the way.

As far as why some traditions seem world apart from another I would say it reminds me of an experiment my teachers had us undergo to detour us from gossip. We would sit in a big circle and one child would be secretly told to say something like, "My dog is brown and he is coming home" and then he was to secretly whisper the same thing to another class mate. Well, by the time we passed the information along full circle the student was asked to share the information as well as the origianal student who was given the information. Inevitably, the bigger the circle the farther apart the information seemed to be. That is how I view such discrepencies.