14 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, you can look at the sky see stars very far away, but that does not answer
I say that how the stars got there is totally irrelevant. You say that it is essential for any knowledge at all. You have failed to substantiate your claim.
I say that we can see with our own eyes (through a telescope) over a billion stars in our galaxy and over a billion galaxies. Sure we cant count them ourselves, (due to time constraints) but if we lo ...[text shortened]... yes.
Kelly
But is it well founded faith, or no different from believing in fairy tales?[/b]
the question how everything got here and how long it has been here! With bones
we know where they came from, with stars not so much! So the processes you
are using to date may not apply, your math maybe correct, but does it really go
to the question? If the unverse was created intact so that it could support life from
the get go, they your star light travel would not give you the dates you think they
do.
Kelly
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you believe the stars all just formed and started about the same time....you are just going to be believing something you cannot prove.
I say that how the stars got there is totally irrelevant. You say that it is essential for any knowledge at all. You have failed to substantiate your claim.
I say that we can see with our own eyes (through a telescope) over a billion stars in our galaxy and over a billion galaxies. Sure we cant count them ourselves, (due to time constraints) but if we lo ...[text shortened]... yes.
Kelly
But is it well founded faith, or no different from believing in fairy tales?[/b]
And nobody believes that, so why bring it up? Why not at least discuss scenarios that someone believes.
Those that believe they were created think they were started at the same exact
time, those that think they were formed after some event has that process starting
at the same time, the wiggle room on what began where would have a larger
plus/minius but they would all be come off the same event.
Kelly
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhitehead"How do you know this? There is no written record to that effect. You have claimed that one cannot know something without either knowing the origin of the universe or having a written record. Or do you accept scientific evidence when it suits you and not when it doesn't suit you? "
I say that how the stars got there is totally irrelevant. You say that it is essential for any knowledge at all. You have failed to substantiate your claim.
I say that we can see with our own eyes (through a telescope) over a billion stars in our galaxy and over a billion galaxies. Sure we cant count them ourselves, (due to time constraints) but if we lo ...[text shortened]... yes.
Kelly
But is it well founded faith, or no different from believing in fairy tales?[/b]
There are plenty of records on fossils, now the timing on some are in question yes,
but little doubt as what happen.
Kelly
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhitehead"...or is it that it doesn't conflict with your religion? "
I say that how the stars got there is totally irrelevant. You say that it is essential for any knowledge at all. You have failed to substantiate your claim.
I say that we can see with our own eyes (through a telescope) over a billion stars in our galaxy and over a billion galaxies. Sure we cant count them ourselves, (due to time constraints) but if we lo ...[text shortened]... yes.
Kelly
But is it well founded faith, or no different from believing in fairy tales?[/b]
Your religion focus' beliefs as well.
Kelly
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhitehead"But is it well founded faith, or no different from believing in fairy tales?
I say that how the stars got there is totally irrelevant. You say that it is essential for any knowledge at all. You have failed to substantiate your claim.
I say that we can see with our own eyes (through a telescope) over a billion stars in our galaxy and over a billion galaxies. Sure we cant count them ourselves, (due to time constraints) but if we lo ...[text shortened]... yes.
Kelly
But is it well founded faith, or no different from believing in fairy tales?[/b]
Well that would depend on what is true would it not?
I'd like to remind you that I was pointing to the stories of what occured, they both
come from the mind of man fairy tales and descriptions of past events that we can
not possibly know what or how they occured.
Kelly
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJayYou cant seem to decide between two conflicting claims.
I'm just blown away you'd say that since how they got there is everything to understanding how long they have been there.
1. That knowledge of origin is required for any knowledge at all.
2. That you have knowledge of past events without knowledge of origin.
You cant have it both ways. Pick one and stick with it. Either you know nothing whatsoever, or you accept the fact that knowledge of origins is not a prerequisite for knowledge.
Without that data point you can look and measure anything you want and it will not answer how long they have been there!
Suppose I have a photo of someone taken in 1940. I now know that that person has been here on earth since 1940. I do not need to know how he was born, or where he was born, or even what his name is.
You don't know what piece of information you need before you shows
you how long they have been there, and if you don't care I would say you are not
interested in the question and are willing casting a blind eye to the debate.
Kelly
And I say you are simply not following the logic. I am not claiming to know when the stars first got there. I am claiming to know when their photograph was taken ie when the light that enters my eye left the star. Knowledge of events prior to the photograph are irrelevant.
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJayIt gives us a minimum age - and that is all I am claiming.
Yes, you can look at the sky see stars very far away, but that does not answer
the question how everything got here and how long it has been here!
With bones we know where they came from, with stars not so much!
Thats because you have studied more biology than astronomy. So don't use 'we'. I probably know about the same about both bones and stars.
So the processes you are using to date may not apply,
The processes I am using to date have nothing whatsoever to do with star formation. They have to do with only the speed of light and the distance travelled by that light.
If the unverse was created intact so that it could support life from
the get go, they your star light travel would not give you the dates you think they
do.
Why not? How would that in any way affect my dates?
There are really only three possibilities:
1. I am correct.
2. The light we see does not actually come from real stars and was created 'in transit' to make it look like it was coming from stars that don't actually exist.
3. We are totally wrong about the physics of light (and can basically throw away all our astronomy text books).
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't get what you are saying at all. But it seems that it is you that is "..... going to be believing something you cannot prove." so I wonder why you brought it up. I thought you were addressing me with that comment, yet it seems you were applying it to yourself.
Those that believe they were created think they were started at the same exact
time, those that think they were formed after some event has that process starting
at the same time, the wiggle room on what began where would have a larger
plus/minius but they would all be come off the same event.
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd there is little doubt about the dates involved or about stars and their distances from us. There only seems to be any doubt in your mind when there is a conflict with your religion.
There are plenty of records on fossils, now the timing on some are in question yes,
but little doubt as what happen.
Kelly
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo answer the question. Is believing that fossils are the result of bones equivalent to believing in fairy tales?
Well that would depend on what is true would it not?
I'd like to remind you that I was pointing to the stories of what occured, they both
come from the mind of man fairy tales and descriptions of past events that we can
not possibly know what or how they occured.
You claim we cannot possibly know, I claim that we can. So we are exploring how we know stuff and what it is or is not possible to know.
So can we or can we not possibly know that fossils came from bones? If we can, then why can we not know some of the other claims about the past that you dismiss as fairy tales.
If we cannot then is the belief that fossils came from bones equivalent to believing in fairy tales.
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadKnowledge is what you know, your beliefs are going to fill in the gaps, your faith
You cant seem to decide between two conflicting claims.
1. That knowledge of origin is required for any knowledge at all.
2. That you have knowledge of past events without knowledge of origin.
You cant have it both ways. Pick one and stick with it. Either you know nothing whatsoever, or you accept the fact that knowledge of origins is not a prerequisit ...[text shortened]... that enters my eye left the star. Knowledge of events prior to the photograph are irrelevant.
is going to cause you walk out your life the way you choose. There isn't two
different claims, I've already told you faith is wrapped up in what we see and what
we think....you are the one that is always going on about magic tricks that even
what you see can lead you the wrong way.
Kelly
14 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJaySo stop dodging the question and state clearly whether or not the claim that fossils come from bones is knowledge or whether it is equivalent to believing in fairy tales.
Knowledge is what you know, your beliefs are going to fill in the gaps, your faith
is going to cause you walk out your life the way you choose.
There isn't two different claims,
Yes there is. You claim on the one hand that we cannot know anything without knowing the origin of everything and on the other hand you admit the existence of knowledge. One of those two claims is necessarily false.
Originally posted by twhiteheadKnowing only that fossils come from bones does not tell you the age of the fossils. 😏
So stop dodging the question and state clearly whether or not the claim that fossils come from bones is knowledge or whether it is equivalent to believing in fairy tales.
[b]There isn't two different claims,
Yes there is. You claim on the one hand that we cannot know anything without knowing the origin of everything and on the other hand you admit the existence of knowledge. One of those two claims is necessarily false.[/b]
P.S. When someone tells you that a fossil is 26.5 million years old, he might as well be blowing smoke out his arse.