19 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you believe that Genesis is a factual account, maybe you can clear something up for me as to the order of Creation?
So tell me, how are you different than those creationist that tell you
things they believe are factsl?
Kelly
Man Created after animals:
Genesis 1:
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Man created before animals:
Genesis 2:
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Please feel free to explain
🙂
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchPoor record keeping
If you believe that Genesis is a factual account, maybe you can clear something up for me as to the order of Creation?
[b]Man Created after animals:
Genesis 1:
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it ...[text shortened]... called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Please feel free to explain
🙂[/b]
ISO9000 needed
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by SquelchbelchWhat version do you which to use when discuss this, and would you
If you believe that Genesis is a factual account, maybe you can clear something up for me as to the order of Creation?
[b]Man Created after animals:
Genesis 1:
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it ...[text shortened]... called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Please feel free to explain
🙂[/b]
also create a new thread for this if you really want to make this
a matter of discussion? It does help if we are using the same translation.
Kelly
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigado"Your argument is based on "all your data can be wrong, so you can be wrong". You don't support your opinion, you are only trying to put our points of view in the same level by saying there must be a leap of faith somewhere in both points of view. "
Can't you really understand the difference?
Your argument is based on "all your data can be wrong, so you can be wrong". You don't support your opinion, you are only trying to put our points of view in the same level by saying there must be a leap of faith somewhere in both points of view.
We argued that statistics sort out your "stress" and data points b ...[text shortened]... physics or geology.
More: only obstinate religious fanatics defend your point of view.
If you do not believe you can be wrong, enough said.
Kelly
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayCan you explain it using any version? If not then why not tell him before he chooses a "wrong" version.
What version do you which to use when discuss this, and would you
also create a new thread for this if you really want to make this
a matter of discussion? It does help if we are using the same translation.
Kelly
Or will you resort to the "original" Hebrew? If so then why not say so and not waste time with the English versions?
Is he allowed to use the Chinese version?
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayaaaaaaaaaaaaa
"Your argument is based on "all your data can be wrong, so you can be wrong". You don't support your opinion, you are only trying to put our points of view in the same level by saying there must be a leap of faith somewhere in both points of view. "
If you do not believe you can be wrong, enough said.
Kelly
you drive me crazy!
Belief, belief, belief!
I ADMIT I CAN BE WRONG!
Or better, I'm not wrong because I'm not affirming anything. But I admit the theory can be wrong. But most likely it isn't.
It's incredible how you distort everything, do you have that notion? Can you understand the points of the argument? Because you are always repeating yourself, although very strong points have been made against your position.
19 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou spend a lot of time reading into my posts those things you want
Can you explain it using any version? If not then why not tell him before he chooses a "wrong" version.
Or will you resort to the "original" Hebrew? If so then why not say so and not waste time with the English versions?
Is he allowed to use the Chinese version?
to see don't you? I wanted to use the same version so we are talking
about the same translation, I want to compare apples to apples. Did
you see me say do not choose the wrong version? Did you see me
say anything about the "original Hebrew"? Why do you waist my time
by accusing me of things that I have not done or said, if you have that
low an opinion of me, ignore me.
Kelly
19 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Squelchbelch
If you believe that Genesis is a factual account, maybe you can clear something up for me as to the order of Creation?
[b]Man Created after animals:
Genesis 1:
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
Man created before animals:
Genesis 2:
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
[/b]
You have been suggesting that Genesis can & should be taken literally. I say not, because Genesis itself has basic internal contradictions as quoted above.
I will accept the translation of those verses from any King James Bible.
Hope that helps.
20 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayOnce again, displaying your ignorance of statistics and your unwillingness to admit it. Statistical tests always assume that the hypothesis could be wrong. The whole point of the test is to capture the likelihood of that.
"Your argument is based on "all your data can be wrong, so you can be wrong". You don't support your opinion, you are only trying to put our points of view in the same level by saying there must be a leap of faith somewhere in both points of view. "
If you do not believe you can be wrong, enough said.
Kelly
But keep dancing and dodging, KJ. If you don't stand for anything, then you can never be shot down, right?
20 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionYea, except you assume you know the degree by which you can be
Once again, displaying your ignorance of statistics and your unwillingness to admit it. Statistical tests always assume that the hypothesis could be wrong. The whole point of the test is to capture the likelihood of that.
But keep dancing and dodging, KJ. If you don't stand for anything, then you can never be shot down, right?
wrong. Being wrong, is one thing to a degree, being flat out wrong
completely is another, and you don't know which you could be.
Kelly
20 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayActually, you calculate how wrong you can be. I've already explained how the assumption behind the errors works. You clearly didn't understand it.
Yea, except you assume you know the degree by which you can be
wrong. Being wrong, is one thing to a degree, being flat out wrong
completely is another, and you don't know which you could be.
Kelly
Now perhaps you want to argue that mathematics is wrong as well?
It's kind of sad just how many things have to be wrong in order to support your worldview. You've always asked how I could have gone from an on-fire Christian missionary to an atheist. Well, one major factor was realizing just how inconsistent my beliefs were with the empirical world, and I wasn't dishonest enough with myself (thankfully) to retreat so far into an intellectual turtle shell.
20 Oct 07
Originally posted by telerionOr I clearly think you believe you have have all the data required, and
Actually, you calculate how wrong you can be. I've already explained how the assumption behind the errors works. You clearly didn't understand it.
Now perhaps you want to argue that mathematics is wrong as well?
It's kind of sad just how many things have to be wrong in order to support your worldview. You've always asked how I could have gone fro ...[text shortened]... honest enough with myself (thankfully) to retreat so far into an intellectual turtle shell.
you still don't get what I have been telling you over and over! I find it
amazing that if someone does not agree with you over data you find
error in them not that you can disagree over the same numbers.
Kelly
20 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayIt doesn't work like that. If the data was flat wrong, the dispersion would be a lot greater. You can measure how sparse the data is. You can check for systematic errors, and do a lot of stuff.
Yea, except you assume you know the degree by which you can be
wrong. Being wrong, is one thing to a degree, being flat out wrong
completely is another, and you don't know which you could be.
Kelly
Forgetting about the earth being 4.6 bill yrs old.
Let's focus on Neanderthal men. 95% of samples indicating he's between 30k and 35k yrs old. The other 5% say he's between 25-30 and 35-40. Either someone messed up with it's age, because according to you he's under 6k yrs, or the whole statistic science is wrong...
And that has no explanation on anything you said. Maybe there's a systematic error, but there are millions of samples... Are you saying they are all strangely messed up?
20 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoSince the age and how to measure it is the subject in question what
It doesn't work like that. If the data was flat wrong, the dispersion would be a lot greater. You can measure how sparse the data is. You can check for systematic errors, and do a lot of stuff.
Forgetting about the earth being 4.6 bill yrs old.
Let's focus on Neanderthal men. 95% of samples indicating he's between 30k and 35k yrs old. The other 5% say he' ...[text shortened]... or, but there are millions of samples... Are you saying they are all strangely messed up?
makes your argument a good one by telling me dates you got by
the methods under discussion? If for example all dates beyond a
million years old are all wrong since the universe is a million years
old in reality, than the errors if they are recognized or not are still
there; however, you since you cannot know that for certain may
never know how wrong you were in your dating methods.
Kelly
20 Oct 07
Originally posted by KellyJayWe don't have all the data required for what? We have enough data to construct the likelihood that the age of the earth is actually 6,000 years given what we observe. As we get more data, these likelihoods get closer to the true value. Under the specification of "stresses" that you describe, the distribution of errors would approach the normal and so our estimates would converge at a rate of 1/sqrt(N) where N is the number of observations. You'll find that when you get a lot of data points (which we have) the difference in the estimate doesn't change much at all. At some point the more data isn't the issue at all.
Or I clearly think you believe you have have all the data required, and
you still don't get what I have been telling you over and over! I find it
amazing that if someone does not agree with you over data you find
error in them not that you can disagree over the same numbers.
Kelly
You can keep throwing out this desperate, meaningless criticism that we "don't have all the data points," but you clearly just don't know what you're talking about.