16 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJay1. Evidence Exists
Is it a matter of faith on your part or reality?
Kelly
2. This Evidence tells us that the Earth is X billion years old and that we evolved from more primative creatures.
3. Evolution is reality.
You admit the first, the third follows directly from the second and you are claiming that the second isn't true. Explain how exactly hundreds of independent readings of numerous radioactive dates all agree with each other and yet don't show an old Earth. Explain how the Grand Canyon formed if it didn't form over millions of years. Explain something, anything.
You claim that the evidence doesn't allow us to draw the conclusions that scientists have drawn from it. Why not? You can't claim something isn't scientifically true without actually providing a reason.
16 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZ1. Evidence exists, yes
1. Evidence Exists
2. This Evidence tells us that the Earth is X billion years old and that we evolved from more primative creatures.
3. Evolution is reality.
You admit the first, the third follows directly from the second and you are claiming that the second isn't true. Explain how exactly hundreds of independent readings of numerous radioactive date ? You can't claim something isn't scientifically true without actually providing a reason.
2. The evidence tell you .., no, unless you want to say the universe
talks to you it does not. It may lead you to believe something, but
it isn't talking to you. Your views about billions of years and that
you came from primative creatures is a belief you hold, it does not
mean it is true or a reality.
3. Evolution is a reality, okay...depending on how you define it and
what you give it credit for is another thing altogether. Example, you
can see small changes in the size of something, how far those
changes go is a different subject than the fact that you see them.
The fact that hundreds of radioactive dates all appear to line up does
not mean that the reason for the readings are what you think they are.
The Grand Canyon, what about the mountains, oceans, rivers, and so
on, you know how they came about too? You have a pet theory on the
Grand Canyon, it does not mean that your "billions of years" is true. If
you want a story to come up with as far as why, there are plenty out
there.
Kelly
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayOnce again, if you want to claim that the evidence shows something other than what rational scientists claim it does you'll need to actually provide a reason.
1. Evidence exists, yes
2. The evidence tell you .., no, unless you want to say the universe
talks to you it does not. It may lead you to believe something, but
it isn't talking to you. Your views about billions of years and that
you came from primative creatures is a belief you hold, it does not
mean it is true or a reality.
3. Evolution is a reality ...[text shortened]... true. If
you want a story to come up with as far as why, there are plenty out
there.
Kelly
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZI've said that tests that say something is 'billions of years old' cannot
Once again, if you want to claim that the evidence shows something other than what rational scientists claim it does you'll need to actually provide a reason.
be proven right or wrong, you cannot verify it accept with another test
that also cannot be proven right or wrong.
Kelly
18 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayPlease learn the difference between accept and except.
I've said that tests that say something is 'billions of years old' cannot
be proven right or wrong, you cannot verify it accept with another test
that also cannot be proven right or wrong.
Kelly
And read http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html if you want an explanation of how radioactive dating works, how we know it works and how it can be verified to be correct.
Don't bother posting any more about radioactive dating and the age of the Earth until you read the above. I'll just tell you to shut the hell up.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayEffectively you are saying that you can not be sure that you exist and that everything is just belief. Even the existence of the evidence cannot be proven as your eyes might be at fault.
I've said that tests that say something is 'billions of years old' cannot
be proven right or wrong, you cannot verify it accept with another test
that also cannot be proven right or wrong.
Kelly
But what you are actually trying to do is subtly imply that the evidence for something that existed before you were born is less sufficient than the evidence for something that you can see and touch. This is false.
The evidence for the age of the earth and for evolution is no different in sufficiency from the evidence for gravity. So you must either accept it as fact or admit that gravity is not fact but merely a belief.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat if every object is doubling in size every microsecond? That would look like gravity!
Effectively you are saying that you can not be sure that you exist and that everything is just belief. Even the existence of the evidence cannot be proven as your eyes might be at fault.
But what you are actually trying to do is subtly imply that the evidence for something that existed before you were born is less sufficient than the evidence for somethi ...[text shortened]... ity. So you must either accept it as fact or admit that gravity is not fact but merely a belief.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZWould it? Is it indistinguishable? Maybe that is an explanation for the effect of gravity, but gravity itself whether caused by doubling or some other explanation is nevertheless fact and I am sure that Kelly accepts it as fact and not belief. I am sure that he has never seen gravity with his own eyes nor seen the earth 1 billion years ago but the evidence for both is equally compelling. He is claiming that all evidence however compelling cannot be used to deduce facts but may only be used to make guesses and whatever you think may be the facts are just beliefs based on unprovable guesses.
What if every object is doubling in size every microsecond? That would look like gravity!
The problem is that although he is using what seems like a convincing argument he is then proceeding to imply something totally different which is that his argument only applies to things that happened a long time ago.
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if it is in my
Effectively you are saying that you can not be sure that you exist and that everything is just belief. Even the existence of the evidence cannot be proven as your eyes might be at fault.
But what you are actually trying to do is subtly imply that the evidence for something that existed before you were born is less sufficient than the evidence for somethi ...[text shortened]... ity. So you must either accept it as fact or admit that gravity is not fact but merely a belief.
hand, it is, what it is. If I have to trust it, it is as reliable as it is, if
I have to trust it, and I cannot ever know for sure it is or was ever
right, that takes it to a whole new level of faith. If I have to use that
faith as a foundation to my worldview, than everything I have is built
upon faith.
Kelly
19 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are limitations in this life, the past is one of them.
Would it? Is it indistinguishable? Maybe that is an explanation for the effect of gravity, but gravity itself whether caused by doubling or some other explanation is nevertheless fact and I am sure that Kelly accepts it as fact and not belief. I am sure that he has never seen gravity with his own eyes nor seen the earth 1 billion years ago but the evidenc ...[text shortened]... tally different which is that his argument only applies to things that happened a long time ago.
Kelly
20 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you are claiming that the past is more limiting than other forms of observation. That is false. The evidence that the sun rose yesterday is no less than the evidence that it is rising now.
There are limitations in this life, the past is one of them.
Kelly
I personally do not believe in "proof" when applied to the real world. But I do believe that evidence can be solid enough that you can stake you life on it or even your 'world view'. The evidence that cars tend to stick to roads lets me walk along the sidewalk without fear for my life. The evidence that most of the important laws of physics are well characterized allows people to build computers.
You try to shed doubt on things like the speed of light forgetting that when you get in an airplane these days, your life depends on the accuracy of GPS which is dependent on not only the speed of light but also the effects of relativity.
The evidence for the age of the earth is as solid as the evidence that the earth is round. Maybe you are not comfortable with the round earth theory and would rather base your 'world view' on a flat earth? If the Bible said the world was flat would you accept that since the evidence that it is round is mere belief?