Originally posted by telerionThe rocks are rocks, how old they are may or may not be known
But if those laws were set in place in the beginning, how do you account for old rocks?
by the methods you trust in dating them. What we do know is
that when you apply your methods you date them according to
what you believe you should date them as. That doesn't change
the rocks, that doesn't make God out to be a liar as Scott suggests,
it simply is you applying your test, getting the result and trusting
the data to mean what you think it does.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou date them by a dozen methods and it gives the same result. If God made them a different age (i.e. less than 2 billion years old), then he must be a liar.
The rocks are rocks, how old they are may or may not be known
by the methods you trust in dating them. What we do know is
that when you apply your methods you date them according to
what you believe you should date them as. That doesn't change
the rocks, that doesn't make God out to be a liar as Scott suggests,
it simply is you applying your test, getting the result and trusting
the data to mean what you think it does.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThis thread is here because a number of posters in this forum need basic science education. The number of posts in this thread show that too.
Too questions:
1.) Why does a Forum on [b]"Spirituality" have such an active discussion on Evolution?
2.) Why are there so many comments on the subject of Evolution here than on any other subject? There are presently almost 2,000 replies.
Opinions anyone ?[/b]
EDIT: To/Too/Two you stupid bastard.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAgain the rocks are simply the rocks, would you bring your dozen
You date them by a dozen methods and it gives the same result. If God made them a different age (i.e. less than 2 billion years old), then he must be a liar.
methods that actually give the same result? Lets see 12 of them
and we can talk about them each. God did not tell you to test the
rocks, he didn't tell you to use your methods, if you get the wrong
impression about something it isn't God's fault, it is yours if you come
up with the wrong time while dating them.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut KJ those many tests are directly based on observable law. If God set this law down in the beginning why don't the rocks appear to be 6000 years old?
The rocks are rocks, how old they are may or may not be known
by the methods you trust in dating them. What we do know is
that when you apply your methods you date them according to
what you believe you should date them as. That doesn't change
the rocks, that doesn't make God out to be a liar as Scott suggests,
it simply is you applying your test, getting the result and trusting
the data to mean what you think it does.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionWe have been testing these things for what 100 years or so, the
But KJ those many tests are directly based on observable law. If God set this law down in the beginning why don't the rocks appear to be 6000 years old?
observable window. We see a lot of things and saying we know that
X means a billion years is a statement of faith since, AT NO TIME has
a billion years been observed and recorded. I’m not denying the
results are consistent I’m merely saying that consistent results do not
mean that our analysis of our findings are as accurate as we may
think.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're trying (like all other believers) to weasel your way out of a valid argument by questioning the accuracy of scientific observation whilst arguing the accuracy of your *faith*
We have been testing these things for what 100 years or so, the
observable window. We see a lot of things and saying we know that
X means a billion years is a statement of faith since, AT NO TIME has
a billion years been observed and recorded. I’m not denying the
results are consistent I’m merely saying that consistent results do not
mean that our analysis of our findings are as accurate as we may
think.
Kelly
Originally posted by AgergReally, where have I said anything about the accuracy of my faith?
You're trying (like all other believers) to weasel your way out of a valid argument by questioning the accuracy of scientific observation whilst arguing the accuracy of your *faith*
I have maintained I cannot prove what I believe, my point is that
what you want to believe is a higher standard of facts is nothing but
points of beliefs with assumptions too. You think because the sources
are different that automatically means one is more factual than the
other, I maintain if they are not facts they are not facts, if they are
beliefs they are beliefs. You want to call that weaseling around
something I'd like to know how in your opinion. As far as I'm concern
I'm stating nothing but what everyone already knows, except I do
not have the bias that accepts evolution from abiogenesis you may
have.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaylemme guess...In the multitude of threads where you have made a vast number of posts defending your religious belief I'm supposed to find a post where you directly stated the following words: "religion is accurate"!!! 😉 😀
Really, where have I said anything about the accuracy of my faith?
I have maintained I cannot prove what I believe, my point is that
what you want to believe is a higher standard of facts is nothing but
points of beliefs with assumptions too. You think because the sources
are different that automatically means one is more factual than the
other, I main ...[text shortened]... except I do
not have the bias that accepts evolution from abiogenesis you may
have.
Kelly
Originally posted by AgergI have defended my religious beliefs when others brought them up,
lemme guess...In the multitude of threads where you have made a vast number of posts defending your religious belief I'm supposed to find a post where you directly stated the following words: "religion is accurate"!!! 😉 😀
they are not something I bring to the table in discussion of evolution,
evolution beliefs must stand or fall on their truthfulness not because
they sound better than my religion. If truth is a matter of personal
taste than you might have an argument, but truth does not matter
what anyone believes or finds more agreeable.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut this law has not deviated in the slightest for 100 years. The only way to increase the decay rate a bit is to subject the specimens to earth melting pressures. If it has changed for over 100 years, then it cannot be decreasing at sufficient rate to make any difference 6000 years ago. If it were then we'd notice.
We have been testing these things for what 100 years or so, the
observable window. We see a lot of things and saying we know that
X means a billion years is a statement of faith since, AT NO TIME has
a billion years been observed and recorded. I’m not denying the
results are consistent I’m merely saying that consistent results do not
mean that our analysis of our findings are as accurate as we may
think.
Kelly
I'll add that predictions about decay rates are consistent even with data from the deep past (supernova for instance). I suppose though that the speed of light has been decreasing rapidly as well (it just stopped decreasing a few hundred years ago).
Originally posted by KellyJayAccording to you, he created each individual with full foreknowledge that they would test the rocks. He knew the results that they would get, and the conclusions they would make. He knew their conclusions would lead them to reject special creationism. He knew he'd then have to send them to hell. And yet he still specifically created them that way. Omniscience, total git, isn't it?
Again the rocks are simply the rocks, would you bring your dozen
methods that actually give the same result? Lets see 12 of them
and we can talk about them each. God did not tell you to test the
rocks, he didn't tell you to use your methods, if you get the wrong
impression about something it isn't God's fault, it is yours if you come
up with the wrong time while dating them.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhere did I say that? According to you maybe, but stop putting words
According to you, he created each individual with [b]full foreknowledge that they would test the rocks. He knew the results that they would get, and the conclusions they would make. He knew their conclusions would lead them to reject special creationism. He knew he'd then have to send them to hell. And yet he still specifically created them that way. Omniscience, total git, isn't it?[/b]
in my mouth. If you want to quote me, quote me, stop making claims
for me and acting like I've made those statments.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's just standard Christian doctorine. Please, tell me what you disagree with! Is God not omnipotent? Omnipresent? Omniscienct? Omnibenevolent? Does he not, according to standard Christian doctorine, make every soul unique?
Where did I say that? According to you maybe, but stop putting words
in my mouth. If you want to quote me, quote me, stop making claims
for me and acting like I've made those statments.
Kelly