Spirituality
11 Feb 12
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by menace71How do you know? If you trust science, then you will know that the earth is over 4 billion years old. If you don't trust science then you don't know how old the Sequoia is.
We know that some of the oldest Sequoias are over 4000 years old so we know the earth is older than that.
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by menace71It says over 3500 on the Wikipedia page you reference. It does not say over 4000.
We know that some of the oldest Sequoias are over 4000 years old so we know the earth is older than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron#Oldest
There are however other old trees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt wouldn't matter if living trees were found that were 30,000 years old, creationists would deny, deny, deny since all they can do is wallow in their own delusions. They would be happy if you could send them back in a time machine to year zero and watch the three wise men in person. Nobody back then would argue about such trivialities as evolution or the age of the Earth.
It says over 3500 on the Wikipedia page you reference. It does not say over 4000.
There are however other old trees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseIt isn't deny, it is the question how do you know that what your looking at means
It wouldn't matter if living trees were found that were 30,000 years old, creationists would deny, deny, deny since all they can do is wallow in their own delusions. They would be happy if you could send them back in a time machine to year zero and watch the three wise men in person. Nobody back then would argue about such trivialities as evolution or the age of the Earth.
what you say it does? Are there other reasons besides time that could account
for some of the rings and so on? Without full understanding of that at best you
can say it leads us to think this tree is this old. You want to claim knowledge
you don't have and get personal when people call you on it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayRobbie says: "...do try to learn something, anything would be better than this ill informed and blatantly ignorant projection of ignorance, its not an attempt to condescend to you in any way, but your lack of understanding is really incredulous. To project it on to others, immoral. ..."
It isn't deny, it is the question how do you know that what your looking at means
what you say it does? Are there other reasons besides time that could account
for some of the rings and so on? Without full understanding of that at best you
can say it leads us to think this tree is this old. You want to claim knowledge
you don't have and get personal when people call you on it.
Kelly
Listen to Robbie.
11 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is called observation and scientific method. But I guess the law of gravity is only a theory, and we will never know for sure and will never have full understanding and would be bad for us to claim knowledge that gravity exists.
It isn't deny, it is the question how do you know that what your looking at means
what you say it does? Are there other reasons besides time that could account
for some of the rings and so on? Without full understanding of that at best you
can say it leads us to think this tree is this old. You want to claim knowledge
you don't have and get personal when people call you on it.
Kelly
11 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWith that sort argument you might as well fight against the idea that 2+2=4.
It isn't deny, it is the question how do you know that what your looking at means
what you say it does? Are there other reasons besides time that could account
for some of the rings and so on? Without full understanding of that at best you
can say it leads us to think this tree is this old. You want to claim knowledge
you don't have and get personal when people call you on it.
Kelly
I mean, they sure look like 2's on the LHS, and a 4 on the RHS but what if our eyes deceive us and one of those 2's is actually a 5? 😲
If the sciences are wrong about the conclusions they draw from the evidence here, then they might as well be wrong about the basic principles of gravity also. Crikey, make sure you don't float off into space next time you get up!
12 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969Your of the opinion that the dates and gravity are on par with one another on
It is called observation and scientific method. But I guess the law of gravity is only a theory, and we will never know for sure and will never have full understanding and would be bad for us to claim knowledge that gravity exists.
what we know and can know? Seriously gravity is in the here and now, you can
look at it real time, but the distant past, you have never been there, and the
greater the distance in the past we go the less we know about it. For you that
does not seem to be an issue, what you can measure today and view today is
just as real and factual I guess than what you think occured billions of years
ago, and you think I'm the one with issues?
Kelly
12 Feb 12
Originally posted by AgergThis is so left wing of you, get in a discussion and let the insults fly.
With that sort argument you might as well fight against the idea that 2+2=4.
I mean, they sure look like 2's on the LHS, and a 4 on the RHS but what if our eyes deceive us and one of those 2's is actually a 5? 😲
If the sciences are wrong about the conclusions they draw from the evidence here, then they might as well be wrong about the basic principles of gravity also. Crikey, make sure you don't float off into space next time you get up!
Kelly
12 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly - what other argument should I bring here? your contention that numerous bodies of science just may be misunderstanding data which can reasonably point to only one conclusion is just an exercise in silliness.
This is so left wing of you, get in a discussion and let the insults fly.
Kelly
Indeed I really don't know how such a mindset is cultivated that one will degrade and humiliate himself so far to defend the 6000 year old earth "theory". Your argument here doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Feb 12
Originally posted by moon1969That is total nonsense.
It is called observation and scientific method. But I guess the law of gravity is only a theory, and we will never know for sure and will never have full understanding and would be bad for us to claim knowledge that gravity exists.
The existence of gravity is confirmed fact.
The exact strength of gravity and how it is generated and such is covered by the theory of gravity
which seeks to explain gravity and how it works and why it is.
But the fact of its existence is not open to question.
It obviously exists. It's observable, we observe it, we don't float off into space, it exists.
the existence of gravity is a fact.
The law of universal gravitation is a fact.
The theory of gravity (GR) is the current best explanation for and of gravity.
The theory might get altered and tweaked, but the existence of gravity is not in question.
If it's possible to claim anything as knowledge then it is possible to claim that gravity exists.
12 Feb 12
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgegooglefudge I think the object of the exercise in the post you quote and shoot down was to demonstrate how ridiculous is kelly's argument that even if all the evidence points to one conclusion we must be skeptical when it flies in the face of literal bible interpretation.
That is total nonsense.
The existence of gravity is confirmed fact.
The exact strength of gravity and how it is generated and such is covered by the theory of gravity
which seeks to explain gravity and how it works and why it is.
But the fact of its existence is not open to question.
It obviously exists. It's observable, we observe it, we d t's possible to claim anything as knowledge then it is possible to claim that gravity exists.
Moreover, as I've said in the past (more for debating utility than a notion I take seriously) - it could, hypothetically be the case that every single observation/perception of gravity is just a fluky special case of some phenomenon that behaves quite differently - there is no way to actually disprove this. Indeed such a departure from common sense to actually hold this view is equivalent to the same depature on the part of kelly and those who champion his arguments.