1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompPeople see Mary in clouds too. Since fossils was part of the discussion
Sorry KJ, but we do have records dating back that far in time: they're called fossils.
it is circular logic on your part to suggest that dating fossils proves
billions of years, when dating the fossils was part of the question on
if is right or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI have answered questions about the age of our universe , our solar system and the earth many times.
People see Mary in clouds too. Since fossils was part of the discussion
it is circular logic on your part to suggest that dating fossils proves
billions of years, when dating the fossils was part of the question on
if is right or not.
Kelly
There is no question about the dates that is worthy of discussion. Fossils date back to at least 3 Billion years ago. And there's a far site more evidence backing evolution, even abiogenesis, than there is for creation. and thats the facts Jack.
Originally posted by frogstompI'm quite sure you believe that to be true, you can look at the
I have answered questions about the age of our universe , our solar system and the earth many times.
There is no question about the dates that is worthy of discussion. Fossils date back to at least 3 Billion years ago. And there's a far site more evidence backing evolution, even abiogenesis, than there is for creation. and thats the facts Jack.
universe and say what you will, your saying it does not make it
so. Dating the fossils as billions of years old cannot be shown to
be wrong, it can be accepted, and therefore believed to be true,
and that puts your foundational evidence into the realm of faith,
not fact. I don't believe you can give anything to support your
belief in abiogenesis outside of someone connecting the dots
somewhere, and again it isn't a matter of anything outside of
believing that they got the dots connected properly, with the
proper dates assigned, which again puts your foundational truth
backing your claims once again into the realm of faith. The
'fact Jack' is that your beliefs though claimed to be something
other than faith, reside in nothing but faith when it gets boiled
down to what is known true and what can only be claimed
to be.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo explain how dating methods could all be 6 or more magnitudes out in the same direction.
I'm quite sure you believe that to be true, you can look at the
universe and say what you will, your saying it does not make it
so. Dating the fossils as billions of years old cannot be shown to
be wrong, it can be accepted, and therefore believed to be true,
and that puts your foundational evidence into the realm of faith,
not fact. I don't believe yo ...[text shortened]... when it gets boiled
down to what is known true and what can only be claimed
to be.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySee my earlier post in response but I'll say it again because you're missing a fairly important point:
I'm quite sure you believe that to be true, you can look at the
universe and say what you will, your saying it does not make it
so. Dating the fossils as billions of years old cannot be shown to
be wrong, it can be accepted, and therefore believed to be true,
and that puts your foundational evidence into the realm of faith,
not fact. I don't believe yo ...[text shortened]... when it gets boiled
down to what is known true and what can only be claimed
to be.
Kelly
Religion is one way of viewing the world.
Science is another.
They are not alternatives.
You talk as if faith in God or faith in supernatural creation is just an alternative to accepting a particular scientific theory to be correct. It is not. Faith is faith. Once again I'm not denigrating it - I too have my own faith. If you have faith in something you have faith in it - full stop.
Science is completely different.
Dating fossils as billions of years old CAN BE SHOW TO BE WRONG - and that is where science is different. It is FALSIFIABLE. What I mean by that, since it seems you don't get this point, is that a scientific theory - any scientific theory - can be proved wrong. I'm not saying therefore that any scientific theory IS wrong, simply that you can prove it wrong. All you need to do is show how the theory produces results that are inconsistent with reality. If you can do that, it's wrong. This is how Einstein was able to show that Newton's theories of motion were wrong (at least as they applied to particular situations).
This is one of the key hallmarks of a scientific theory.
If you can't prove it wrong, then it isn't scientific.
Your belief in God, and my belief in no God fit into this category. Neither of us can prove that they are wrong, and since we can't they're not scientific.
So please, enough of the going on about science and faith as just two different beliefs. Enough of this 'connecting the dots' stuff - I don't even know what that means!
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayRadiodating as a science is based upon the rates of radioactive decay. If E=MC^2 is correct, and the first order kinetic decay of radioisotopes is correct (and there is a huge amount of evidence for both of those), then radiodating must be correct. You can prattle on with your "but it's all based on faith", and you may believe that truly, but you've got no substance to go on, unless, of course, you are able to re-write all of physics and chemistry, most of geology and biology to come into account with your ideas.
I'm quite sure you believe that to be true, you can look at the
universe and say what you will, your saying it does not make it
so. Dating the fossils as billions of years old cannot be shown to
be wrong, it can be accepted, and therefore believed to be true,
and that puts your foundational evidence into the realm of faith,
not fact. I don't believe yo when it gets boiled
down to what is known true and what can only be claimed
to be.
Kelly
Feel up to it Kelly?
[edit; oh, and we all connect the dots all the time in real life, as well as in experimental biology. You wake up in bed with a sore head, a 42" plasma screen tv, a credit card reciept bearing your signature, no memory and an empty bank account. All these things could be unrelated, but it's more indicative of a really good night on the beer! Now imagine that evidence multiplied up by the size of the scientific literature, billions of independant investigations, which gives one, clear, coherent story - that story is evolution.]
Originally posted by XanthosNZMake that 8 independant measurements of the age of the earth and the moon, all using different techniques, with different assumption, done independantly by different people in different labs, could all give the same [wrong] answer to within 2% of each other?
So explain how dating methods could all be 6 or more magnitudes out in the same direction.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDj2 says the Great Flood reset the decay clocks. Whatever that means.
Make that 8 independant measurements of the age of the earth and the moon, all using different techniques, with different assumption, done independantly by different people in different labs, could all give the same [wrong] answer to within 2% of each other?
Honestly, I have never heard a plausible reason for why all these independent measures keep coming up wrong by billions of years. That's just another reason why I am glad not to be a fundie evangelical any longer. I no longer have the unenviable task of dreaming up wild conspiracies and outlandish hypothetical scenarios in an attempt to rationalize away all of the natural evidence against a young earth.
Originally posted by telerionWe can agree on that, at least.
That's just another reason why I am glad not to be a fundie evangelical any longer. I no longer have the unenviable task of dreaming up wild conspiracies and outlandish hypothetical scenarios in an attempt to rationalize away all of the natural evidence against a young earth.
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I have said, could you provide an alternative scientific theory which could explain the existence of fossils?
You are filling your truth with assumptions, science is about belief
you have to believe your reading the fossiles right, you really do
not know, you believe you are, you believe that the logic used is
'infallible' which would lead me to say someone is full of themself.
You believe in the prehistoric periods, which is faith, because no one
has records ...[text shortened]... ves when you talking about billions of years
you cannot be proven wrong, it is faith.
Kelly
Look, Kelly I am sympathetic with your arguments. I see that evolution does have anomalies in it. However, there are no other (valid?) thoeries which give a plausbile interpretation of the fossils.
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are always two possibilities:
I'm quite sure you believe that to be true, you can look at the
universe and say what you will, your saying it does not make it
so. Dating the fossils as billions of years old cannot be shown to
be wrong, it can be accepted, and therefore believed to be true,
and that puts your foundational evidence into the realm of faith,
not fact. I don't believe yo ...[text shortened]... when it gets boiled
down to what is known true and what can only be claimed
to be.
Kelly
1. Everything around us is an illusion and we could actually be just brains plugged into a 'matrix' like world or the earth could have been created yesterday by some 'God' or any other illusion to make things that seem real actualy not be real.
2. What we call real is actually real and can be investigated and learnt about through experience, observation, investigation and 'conecting the dots'.
Your choice between the above two possibilities is a matter of faith. However once you accept no 2. then you cannot genuinely deny that the evidence for a world at least millions of years old is so overwhelming as to be termed fact. The existance of me or you, the existance of the sun the moon and the earth is no more or less fact than the age of the earth being at least one million years.
If you choose 1. above then it is another step of faith to choose which illusion you think you are actually experiencing, because illusions by their very nature hide thier reality. Within this option nothing can be 'known true'.
If you hold with no 1 then please tell us and we will stop asking you to explain your hypotheses.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd I suppose Occam's Razor would exhort us not to choose option one (since this requires speculation of other realities beyond necessity). Although Occams razor doesn't exactly constitute a proof it gives a good guide on how to 'know what true'.
If you choose 1. above then it is another step of faith to choose which illusion you think you are actually experiencing, because illusions by their very nature hide thier reality. Within this option nothing can be 'known true'.
If you hold with no 1 then please tell us and we will stop asking you to explain your hypotheses.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI do not know, but what I know is that everything about those
So explain how dating methods could all be 6 or more magnitudes out in the same direction.
dating methods take place in the here and now, we cannot
monitor any of those tests to ensure there isn't something
missed that can give us bad results. It is a common weakness in
every one of your tests no matter how they are designed.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionReligion is one way of viewing the world.
See my earlier post in response but I'll say it again because you're missing a fairly important point:
Religion is one way of viewing the world.
Science is another.
They are not alternatives.
You talk as if faith in God or faith in supernatural creation is just an alternative to accepting a particular scientific theory to be correct. It is not. Fait ...[text shortened]... s. Enough of this 'connecting the dots' stuff - I don't even know what that means!
Science is another.
They are not alternatives.
Really?
I don't believe you understand my point if that is what your saying.
My understanding about God has nothing and I do mean nothing
to do with my accepting or rejecting any particular scientific theory,
that is your claim not mine. I have objections to evolution for the
reasons I have been giving, none of which refer to scripture and
my beliefs about God.
Science is what it is, people on the other hand can make a religion
out of piece of wood or stone, you seem to want to separate science
from the realm of reality where it touches the human ability to wrap
their beliefs into things or ideas. You cannot take a scientific theory
or test that has to do with billions of years and prove it wrong to
true believer of that test, you don't have the time to show anyone
this is what occurs over a billion of years under X conditions.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionNeither of us can prove that they are wrong, and since we can't they're not scientific.
See my earlier post in response but I'll say it again because you're missing a fairly important point:
Religion is one way of viewing the world.
Science is another.
They are not alternatives.
You talk as if faith in God or faith in supernatural creation is just an alternative to accepting a particular scientific theory to be correct. It is not. Fait s. Enough of this 'connecting the dots' stuff - I don't even know what that means!
So please, enough of the going on about science and faith as just two different beliefs. Enough of this 'connecting the dots' stuff - I don't even know what that means!
You don't know what connecting the dots means and you want to
say enough with it? If you wrap your belief in something where people
are telling you the order of things is "A,B,C" don't you think they are
connecting the dots, filling in the blanks, giving you the reasons for
why things ended up from where they 'believe' they started until now?
If a bunch of fossilized bones are found near each other, someone
puts them together in such a way they come up with what they call
a dinosaur, then some museum gets the bones and puts them up on
display, an artist draws what s/he thinks the thing must have looked
like, the little 4th graders come through and looks at the bones and at
the picture and think, this is what that dinosaur must have looked like,
do you think dots were connected and faith was born in those little 4th
graders? What if those bones were really two different dinosaurs, or
some other type of creature? You cannot prove wrong the distant past,
you can only argue over it, the dots are connected when they tell you
that this evolved from that, the dots are connected for you by so many
people now days you simply believe it, and because of the methods
they use, you accept it, which is faith.
Kelly