Originally posted by ChurlantI am aware of the process, again if you get a method that suggests
If a new method were consistent in refuting the old method, an investigation would be launched to determine which method is more accurate. If the new method proved to be correct, it would be adopted as standard.
This is exactly how science works.
-JC
the universe is several billion years older or younger than the tests
that are current how would you know which is better? Would you pick
your favorite age of the universe and run with that one?
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeDidn't say it did, nor am I in agreement that it was completely
creation comes from an oral history...doesn't make it right
part of oral history either. God and Moses were talking to one
another, if Moses had any doubts about any of it, I'm sure God
helped fill in the blanks.
Kelly
Originally posted by frogstompFaith takes place between the ears, you are wanting to say that
THis here is my definition of faith:
noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
here's a few more:
faith [ fayth ] (plural faiths)
noun
Definition:
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
2. religion or religious ...[text shortened]... ce, however your attempt to equate #4 with #'s 1, 2 and 3 is a despicable four term fallacy.
faith 'without' religion is not the same thing as faith with religion,
I beg to differ, it is faith. The source is different, but it is still faith.
Not much different than driving to New Your city, you can take one
route or another you get to the same place.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayby applying different standards for your requirement for evidence.
How am I applying a double standard?
Kelly
Written and oral stories are notoriously unreliable yet from among a morass of conflicting evidence historians and archaeologists build up reliable histories and you accept them. Yet when paleontologists build up models and an explaination for fthe fossil record based on another large body of evidence you dismiss it out of hand.
Originally posted by KellyJayDid you even read my post?
I am aware of the process, again if you get a method that suggests
the universe is several billion years older or younger than the tests
that are current how would you know which is better? Would you pick
your favorite age of the universe and run with that one?
Kelly
I don't know the hypothetical method being used, so obviously I can't tell you exactly how we would know if it were "better", but the end result remains the same. There is a process used to find errors within research. Once it is determined which method is more accurate, I would have little choice but to accept it.
So in short - I would pick whichever methd and age is proven correct. If that means the Universe is far younger than previously measured, then so be it.
-JC
Good question, and thanks.
But I'd rather get a degree in systematic theology.
Yes, there's a process, but's it's not scientific.
Creation is God's work not ours.
No, I'm not missing your point. I'm trying to point you to the Bible.
Say you're reading Genesis, put yourself in that time period. What
seems logical to you?
I believe that Jesus walked in the garden with Adam, not God.
Why? Because God is in the throne room. He was in the throne room
before any galaxies existed. He will remain in the throne room. Jesus came
back to seek and save the lost. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide you. Whatever
you are doing: driving, making dinner, taking a picture or reading the Bible. He
is there to help you.
You may not recognize the Holy Spirit. I didn't. A good friend of mine
told me to read the book of Kings. I read both. But what stood out, about
the Holy Spirit, was: Listen For The Whisper.
It may be a whisper or in Job's case it may be a storm. I wouldn't want
to get yelled at by our Lord. That must have been something.
I like this tread, and I hope it continues for a long, long time.
I hope you come to Christ someday, if you haven't already. There's still time left.
Think about it.
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeNo, I've been saying all along what I have is faith, nothing changes
by applying different standards for your requirement for evidence.
Written and oral stories are notoriously unreliable yet from among a morass of conflicting evidence historians and archaeologists build up reliable histories and you accept them. Yet when paleontologists build up models and an explaination for fthe fossil record based on another large body of evidence you dismiss it out of hand.
there. I'm simply pointing out that much of what people call facts are
faith based at the foundations, it isn't a double standard. I believe it
to be the same standard being applied to both sets of ideas. When
the foundations of what people say they believe are based on things
that cannot be proven wrong, or on the so called the best theory until
something else comes along they like, it is faith when they settle on
how they believe the universe came into being and how it all started,
how it all works and so on. Science in that regard where nothing is
certain is like a foundation of shifting sands, there isn't much to
hang your hat on as far as reality is concern.
Kelly
Originally posted by ChurlantYou don't know what the age of the universe is, how can you tell me
Did you even read my post?
I don't know the hypothetical method being used, so obviously I can't tell you exactly how we would know if it were "better", but the end result remains the same. There is a process used to find errors within research. Once it is determined which method is more accurate, I would have little choice but to accept it.
So in sh ...[text shortened]... t. If that means the Universe is far younger than previously measured, then so be it.
-JC
with certainty that you can then judge what is the correct dating
method? I read your post, and found your logic flawed for that reason.
You do not have a base line with which to judge your measurements
all you have is what you think may be right, claiming anything beyond
that as far as certainty goes is pure faith on your part.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIn one sense all facts are faith based. I accept the fact that apple fall down when dropped as a matter of faith. Faith in facts is a commonplace....among idiots who are trying to obscure arguments rather than let some light shine onto the matter. Your insistance on applying the term faith to well established bodies of knowlege set you aside as an idiot.
No, I've been saying all along what I have is faith, nothing changes
there. I'm simply pointing out that much of what people call facts are
faith based at the foundations, it isn't a double standard. I believe it
to be the same standard being applied to both sets of ideas. When
the foundations of what people say they believe are based on things
that ca ...[text shortened]... f shifting sands, there isn't much to
hang your hat on as far as reality is concern.
Kelly
HJ
Originally posted by KellyJayBLAH BLAH BLAH
You don't know what the age of the universe is, how can you tell me
with certainty that you can then judge what is the correct dating
method? I read your post, and found your logic flawed for that reason.
You do not have a base line with which to judge your measurements
all you have is what you think may be right, claiming anything beyond
that as far as certainty goes is pure faith on your part.
Kelly
I don't like your opinion so I'm goning to reduce your expertise by equating it to the faith of a primitive uneducated man.
BLAH BLAH
Kelly (I have nothing but scorn and derision for your knowlege) Jay
Originally posted by KellyJayI know how old the universe is because I was there when it began. Everything I claim within this context is therefore correct. You were not there with me, therefore you are ignorant of whether I am in fact being truthful - thus you cannot prove me wrong and your likely disbelief is irrelevant to the truth of my knowledge.
You don't know what the age of the universe is, how can you tell me
with certainty that you can then judge what is the correct dating
method? I read your post, and found your logic flawed for that reason.
You do not have a base line with which to judge your measurements
all you have is what you think may be right, claiming anything beyond
that as far as certainty goes is pure faith on your part.
Kelly
The End.
-JC
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeName calling isn't a good point, but it seems your strong suit so far.
In one sense all facts are faith based. I accept the fact that apple fall down when dropped as a matter of faith. Faith in facts is a commonplace....among idiots who are trying to obscure arguments rather than let some light shine onto the matter. Your insistance on applying the term faith to well established bodies of knowlege set you aside as an idiot.
HJ
I can see a apple drop to the ground and it is simply an apple
dropping to the ground. If you walk up to a tree and see apples on
the ground you may assume they fell, it would be an assumption
and you could be wrong too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat if I am holding an apple in my hand? I have faith that if I were to let the apple go it would fall.
Name calling isn't a good point, but it seems your strong suit so far.
I can see a apple drop to the ground and it is simply an apple
dropping to the ground. If you walk up to a tree and see apples on
the ground you may assume they fell, it would be an assumption
and you could be wrong too.
Kelly