Originally posted by menace71I know you trust science (on points that don't contradict your religion), but you are arguing against people who clearly do not trust science, so quoting science at them will make no headway.
I do trust science. I allow for human error but overall I do trust science. I think my point is that the earth is more than 4000 years old without a doubt.
Manny
Originally posted by KellyJayActually the sub-discussion is about whether or not how old something is affects how accurately we can observe it. You claim that observations of older objects are necessarily less accurate than observations of younger objects. I dispute that. Since you are making the extraordinary claim you have to substantiate it.
This discussion is about how old everything is,
you are basing much of what you think you know on assumptions that things are just as you believe them
to be billions of years ago.
No, I am not.
Yet even while you are doing that you acknowledge that you don't know how or why everything got here.
1.Provided it started with a singularity.
2.Provided it started with a Big Bang so we can measure from then.
3.Provided everything behaved the way we think they did till now.
I make none of those assumptions. They are irrelevant. None of them are used when dating tree rings/ rocks/ ice cores/ fossils or in fact just about anything other than the after glow of the big bang itself.
You make a lot of assumptions and group think has colored your mindset to
the point that anyone who does not agree with your beliefs is thought unreasonable.
Yet you cannot point out these assumptions. The ones you listed are not ones that I make when dating. You are mistaken.
You thinking you cannot be wrong about the dates is still really mind boggling for
me, brainwashed is how I’d describe it.
Yet you are apparently equally brainwashed about World War I. I notice that you refuse to address this issue. You must know you are wrong or you would have no problem at all addressing it.
At least I say when asked how old the universe is my honest answer is I don’t know, I believe it to be a young universe,
but acknowledge without a doubt I can be wrong.
Kelly
Do you acknowledge that you could be wrong that World War I took place? Be honest now.
Originally posted by KellyJayLike they said, you have a very limited understanding of physics. Things moving effect space and time together, space and time are bendable, depending on the mass of an object and/or the velocity. If the velocity goes up close to c, the mass goes up too, it's like the energy of the propulsion system is no longer able to increase the velocity as before at lower velocities, now that energy is moving at right angles so to speak, ending up making the system, the spacecraft, the proton, whatever, gain mass and internal clocks slow down. You can't just make a blithe assumption if something is going off to the left of you at 3/4 c and something on the right going off at 3/4 c and assume therefore they are going apart from one another at 1.5c, it doesn't work like that. Don't worry, it wasn't understood by more than 5 people when the Relativity came out either, now more people understand but it is still a hard concept to visualize.
Say the speed of light for this discussion is X.
You have us moving X going left.
You have something else moving X going right.
Does that then mean we are moving away from each other faster then X? 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinYou don't see the difference between memories that didn't happen and those
It does indeed and I don't see any material difference there. Memories are just connections between brain cells after all. What difference does it make?
--- Penguin.
that did? I guess for you there are a lot of things that make a lot of material
difference.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm making the claim that the distant past is more out of our control than the
Actually the sub-discussion is about whether or not how old something is affects how accurately we can observe it. You claim that observations of older objects are necessarily less accurate than observations of younger objects. I dispute that. Since you are making the extraordinary claim you have to substantiate it.
[b]you are basing much of what you t ...[text shortened]... lly
Do you acknowledge that you could be wrong that World War I took place? Be honest now.[/b]
present. I'm saying that the more we cannot account for the more we run the
risk of overlooking something that could change everything in how we should
be viewing things.
The older we claim something is means just that if there was indeed that much
time that has gone by than there are more and more events that could effect
what we are testing. If there wasn't really that much time for anything to really
be that old, then we are without a doubt missing something, and we will not
grasp that due to the nature of what we are trying to say, which is this X is
billions of years old when there wasn't billions of years for it actually age in that
much.
Since there isn't anything we can do to confirm our processes for testing
ages except apply another test with the same limitations of verification we are
actually dealing with faith verses fact. On top of that, since you believe that
time can be effected by things like gravity; you've already come up with things
that could possibly alter your findings no matter what your readings suggest.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYour idea of faith V fact is so biased it is not even funny. For instance, you look at the Grand Canyon. Ok, we have photo's of it like 150 years ago. We have solid evidence, not disputable, about how long it has taken averaged over 150 years as to just how much erosion the river causes.
I'm making the claim that the distant past is more out of our control than the
present. I'm saying that the more we cannot account for the more we run the
risk of overlooking something that could change everything in how we should
be viewing things.
The older we claim something is means just that if there was indeed that much
time that has gone by th ings
that could possibly alter your findings no matter what your readings suggest.
Kelly
So we see X amount of erosion per year. Since we can feel safe thinking that rock now is the same as rock a million years ago, we can see that X amount of water flowing over X kind of rock exposing layer after layer of build up of rocks, sediment and so forth, we can feel secure saying the Grand Canyon took something like 12 million years to go from a little creek on top of the mesa to the great depth is is now.
You look at that same data and come to the conclusion, just based on your delusion of what people READ into the bible, not what the bible actually SAYS about the age of the Earth, just what people have "deduced".
So taking other people's word for it, you being totally deluded as you are, will in fact naturally say, well it all happened in a big world wide flood all at once what, 5000 years ago?
Obviously closer in time than the incredibly ancient 6000 years you and your kind in your delusions, think the Earth actually is in age. So I look at the same data, look at what we know for a FACT due to 150 year old photo's, thinking what to me is a reasonable thought, that one year 5000 years ago is the same amount of time as one year this year, and we see that in 150 years, say the GC got, say 5 feet deeper. So we look at the ration of years between 150 and 5000 and see it is only 33 times longer than the 150 years we KNOW what happened to the depth of the Colorado.
So 33 times 5 or even ten is only maximum 660 feet. Well we know for a fact, I don't think even you would dispute the fact the GC is almost a mile deep, lets say 5000 feet and to get that kind of action in 5000 years would mean an erosion rate that would have had to have been steady at one foot per year.
We KNOW that doesn't happen, not even close to that level of erosion. But you would look at that data and conclude WE are the stupid ones, who ignore the obvious word of the Lord, and conclude we could not possibly know what we are talking about BECAUSE we used our own reasoning power and the power of science to explain things.
That is the bottom line for you, the inability of you and your deluded buddies, to ever believe mere humans can actually think things through and arrive at some kind of rough idea of real truth.
All you can do is spout the same line over and over, not able to change. That is the sign of a deluded mind, an intelligent brain like I am sure you have, unable to change on such a fundamental level because of the delusional faith you have put into what OTHER people have simply calculated as to what IN THEIR OPINION, is the age of the Earth.
Once you have fallen into that trap, you are stuck forever, deluded to your grave. That is the big difference between faith and actual reasoning powers that even you have to accept was given to mankind by whatever means you ascribe it to, we have the ability to reason.
If that ability was not given to us, why would your lord deny us the use of that same reasoning ability? You would of course then talk about free will, that your god gives us free will in order for us to put aside all of our reasoning ability and just have faith again, where reasoning ability is a positive distraction at best and a tool of Satan at worse.
You lack the ability to look at things the way they are and instead, take the word of other people whose agenda is to control people and they are doing an extraordinary job of it with you.
You have no problem with ANY other science that doesn't collide with your biblical myths. A new genetically engineered potato, fine. A new telescope taking great pictures of Mars, fine. A new mathematical theorem that says something new about the ability to generate codes, fantastic.
A new date for the universe: 13.7 billion years. WAIT A MINUTE, NOW YOU ARE BEING STUPID, SINCE WE KNOW THE EARTH IS ONLY 6000 YEARS OLD.
You are obviously one of the members of that vast conspiracy to destroy religion.
Why don't you look at that kind of response right in the face of it and confront it directly and wonder what it is about yourself or your religion that would cause such foment in your own head when in fact all the dates given for the age of the Earth is based on OPINIONS of people trying to read between the lines of the bible.
Do you see ANYWHERE in the bible the Earth is 6000 years old? NO. What you see is people putting out BS tales, like for instance, the fear people feel over the number 666, which came about because some assshole a thousand years ago supposedly calculated it out to mean Satan. That is EXACTLY the same reasoning people used to come out with a date of 6000 years for the age of the Earth, something not even close to being mentioned in fact, in the bible.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou forget that we have only had one worldwide flood and that God says
Your idea of faith V fact is so biased it is not even funny. For instance, you look at the Grand Canyon. Ok, we have photo's of it like 150 years ago. We have solid evidence, not disputable, about how long it has taken averaged over 150 years as to just how much erosion the river causes. So we see X amount of erosion per year. Since we can feel safe thinkin ...[text shortened]... whose agenda is to control people and they are doing an extraordinary job of it with you.
it will never happen again. There was no scientists there to know what
happened that caused the Grand Canyon. I think the flood waters, the
breaking up of the waters under the earth that came up through the cracks,
and the formation of the continents after the flood, etc. could have caused
the formation of the Grand Canyon in a relatively short period of time.
Read the following article for more information.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n1/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI was being sacrcastic, by the way. And yes gravity is a scientific theory the same as evolution is a scientific theory. No sarcasm. Lastly, if the Bible said that gravity did not exist, then fundamentalists would argue that something other than gravity keeps us from floating/rising into the air.
I completely agree that Kelly's position is ridiculous for your stated reason... But claiming that gravity
might not exist because it's just a theory is just wrong.
And it's exactly the same kind of nonsense people spout about evolution.
So I felt obliged to correct it.
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is what I like about our friend moron creationist! He delivers a method of proving that things never happened: "There was no scientists there to know what happened".
There was no scientists there to know what happened
With exact the same method pf proving we can prove that the creation never took place: Because noone was there to see it!
Congratulations, RJHinds, you just disprove the creation as described in the Genesis!
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou underestimate (mabe even fearful of) observation, deduction, and evidence, especially if such happens to contradict blind faith in the Bible. I understand your challenge regarding the present versus billions of years ago. Yet, it may not be as out there as you think. Lastly, gravity is a scientific theory the same as evolution is a scientific. Moreover, to conclude a scientific theory is much more stringent than the colloquial "theory".
Your of the opinion that the dates and gravity are on par with one another on
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 ...[text shortened]... an what you think occured billions of years
ago, and you think I'm the one with issues?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI have zero interest in controlling the past whether distant or not. I do not believe it can be done. So what are you really talking about? Are you trying to avoid the word "observation" now that you realise you are wrong?
I'm making the claim that the distant past is more out of our control than the
present.
I'm saying that the more we cannot account for the more we run the
risk of overlooking something that could change everything in how we should
be viewing things.
Maybe true. But I dispute that we can account for less things when something is older than when something is younger.
The older we claim something is means just that if there was indeed that much
time that has gone by than there are more and more events that could effect
what we are testing.
I disagree. Events by their nature leave traces of their actions, or they don't. If they don't, it is quite irrelevant how many events took place or may have taken place. If they do, we will see it whether or not a few events or many events took place. Also, the number of events that take place with relation to something being studied is not necessarily a function of time. A rock that has been in the ground for a million years could be more undisturbed than a rock that has been sitting on a riverbed or mountain top for a few days.
If there wasn't really that much time for anything to really
be that old, then we are without a doubt missing something,
We would be missing a whole lot, yes.
and we will not grasp that due to the nature of what we are trying to say, which is this X is
billions of years old when there wasn't billions of years for it actually age in that
much.
I disagree. We do not 'try to say' something without evidence. If the evidence is there, then it is there. If the object is not as old as the evidence suggests, then we are misreading the evidence. You need to explain how we are misreading the evidence.
Since there isn't anything we can do to confirm our processes for testing
ages except apply another test with the same limitations of verification we are
actually dealing with faith verses fact.
Every dating method has different limitations, not the same ones. And no, it is not fact vs faith. Only you have faith. I have evidence. When I find the evidence overwhelming I call it fact. You believe things despite the evidence - that is faith. That is why you could be wrong, and I could not.
On top of that, since you believe that time can be effected by things like gravity; you've already come up with things
that could possibly alter your findings no matter what your readings suggest.
Kelly
No, time being affected by gravity would not alter my findings. Not in the slightest.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe real question is why the presence of a scientist makes something more likely to have happened. We are talking about people who think almost all scientists are suffering from mass delusion or are part of some grand conspiracy. But even if we are talking about non-scientist witnesses, why are they more reliable than a well designed experiment?
This is what I like about our friend moron creationist! He delivers a method of proving that things never happened: "There was no scientists there to know what happened".
With exact the same method pf proving we can prove that the creation never took place: Because noone was there to see it!
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
You don't see the difference between memories that didn't happen and those
that did? I guess for you there are a lot of things that make a lot of material
difference.
Kelly
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/dec/04/science.research1
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/loftus.mem.html
and lots more, just do a Google on "False memory"
There is nothing fundamentally different between the memory of an event that did happen and the memory of an event that did not happen.
So in what way does your assertion (that the universe was created fully formed a few thousand years ago with the appearance of an age of billions of years) differ from Last Thursday-ism?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by twhiteheadRJHinds wrote: "There was no scientists there to know what happened"
The real question is why the presence of a scientist makes something more likely to have happened. We are talking about people who think almost all scientists are suffering from mass delusion or are part of some grand conspiracy. But even if we are talking about non-scientist witnesses, why are they more reliable than a well designed experiment?
I jturned his argument, a very common creationist argument, against himself, nothing more.
If a scientist, a creationist, or neither, or none, observes a phenomenon doesn't make the phenomenon happen or not happen. (Unless we are talking about quantum events, but creationists don't understand that anyway.)
RJHinds thinks wrongly that if noone has observed evolution, then creationism is right. The actual creation was never observed either, so he disproves the creation, according to his own rhetorics.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasMore importantly, he things 'observation' requires the physical presence of a person within minutes and meters of the event in question. This is why I gave an example of a star that is millions or billions of years old, yet we 'observe' it directly. This observation is no more or less observation than watching someone do something directly in front of you, or counting the rings in the trunk of a tree.
RJHinds thinks wrongly that if noone has observed evolution, then creationism is right.
'observation' is making a measurement of physical reality. And yes, we can observe the distant past, sometimes with as much or better accuracy than we can observe the present.
And we have observed evolution.