18 Apr 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobNotice how he just rudely ignores/doesn't answer any question that cannot be answered without exposing big flaws/contradictions in he's beliefs -I had the same problem with him. As soon as you finally find the killer question for him that gets to the crux of the problem he just doesn't answer it and it will make no difference how many times you ask it again.
Let's go back to canine evolution and tie this all in. We now know that you believe the earth and all life on it is around 8,000yrs old, but you have also said that all canines have a common ancestor. So all wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and domestic dogs evolved from their shared ancestor within the last 8,000yrs or so.
I remember also in a previo ...[text shortened]... he shared common ancestor had to be on one continent how did they then spread across the world?
18 Apr 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI've been saying the same things over and over I've not changed the goal at all.
But i've just told you, you can make a prediction based on the evidence. As for your candle analogy we measure how much wax has been melted already then measure the rate at which the candle burns. Using these two measurements we can estimate how long the candle has been burning.
Your hostility to these dating techniques is because none of them fit your beliefs.
It does highlight how easy a mistake can be made assuming you know what was
going on and not knowing what really was now doesn't it?
Kelly
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI believe it is completely possible they all had a common ancestor, but it does not
Let's go back to canine evolution and tie this all in. We now know that you believe the earth and all life on it is around 8,000yrs old, but you have also said that all canines have a common ancestor. So all wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and domestic dogs evolved from their shared ancestor within the last 8,000yrs or so.
I remember also in a previo ...[text shortened]... he shared common ancestor had to be on one continent how did they then spread across the world?
mean that it was true! As I have pointed out before looking close to the same does
not mean they at any time had a common ancestor! Land masses had to at one
time have some connections, and then not for life to spread across the earth.
Kelly
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm telling you what I believe, if you wish to continure to call me dishonest we can
You are being grossly dishonest. Why do you keep denying what you yourself said, and claiming that I have made any statements about the age of the universe in the discussion?
Where have I 'read the tea leaves'?
[b]Yes, I'm saying as it was written it is, Adam was made as an adult and the universe was put together with all the parts in place to support ...[text shortened]... hat if B. then the star I think I see does not exist and never did exist, it is illusory.
end this.
Kelly
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by DowardWe are to the point we are doing nothing but repeating ourselves, I think we would
read my previous posts and you'll have your answer. If we see light that took 100 million years to get to us then the universe must be at least that old, in fact we see light that is much older. Why is that concept so hard for you? You do realize that not everything in the bible was meant to be taken literally don't you?
be better served just to agree to disagree.
Kelly
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayYou believe that I read tea leaves? I don't believe you. On that point, I continue to say you are being dishonest. You know perfectly well that I do not read tea leaves.
I'm telling you what I believe, if you wish to continure to call me dishonest we can
end this.
Kelly
But I suspect that you are just looking for an excuse to avoid admitting that your one belief implies something you don't believe ie you believe that light was created in transit but don't believe that it thus creates an illusion. You can't deal with that contradiction so you start trying to push it all back on me and accuse me of reading tea leaves.
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayLand masses had to at one time have some connections, and then not for life to spread across the earth.
I believe it is completely possible they all had a common ancestor, but it does not
mean that it was true! As I have pointed out before looking close to the same does
not mean they at any time had a common ancestor! Land masses had to at one
time have some connections, and then not for life to spread across the earth.
Kelly
So it gets even more fantastical. So all the Canids managed to evolve from a common ancestor within the last 8,000yrs, which in itself is an absurd rate of evolutionary change, and then somehow managed to spread across the entire globe on these land mass connections which then somehow disappeared and left no trace.
I do find it rather strange how certain aspects of your 'life scheme' your quite happy to pin your flag on without hesitation ie. dinosaurs living with humans, all dinosaurs were vegetarians etc etc. and other parts are only 'highly likely'?!
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadTea leaves are an allegory gheesh, I think you've had to much coffee or something.
You believe that I read tea leaves? I don't believe you. On that point, I continue to say you are being dishonest. You know perfectly well that I do not read tea leaves.
But I suspect that you are just looking for an excuse to avoid admitting that your one belief implies something you don't believe ie you believe that light was created in transit but don ...[text shortened]... radiction so you start trying to push it all back on me and accuse me of reading tea leaves.
Kelly
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergHe has stated that he knows how long everything has been here, because he can
Playing the same game as you KJ, how do you know he has facts about things he doesn't know for sure?...perhaps he does know for sure!
do the math on how far light can travel from one point to another. So the question
is how do you know those points have always been where you say they are? As
I have pointed out with the candle example, knowing the rate can give you an
upper limit, it does not tell you if someone had blown the thing out and restarted
it several times, so you cannot tell how long the thing has been burning by looking
at it. Without knowing when or how the universe started, he has assumptions he
is calling facts. If created the universe will not tell you how old it is by looking at
it or any part of it.
Kelly
20 Apr 11
10 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou determine your own age by counting the number of birthdays you've had since you were born (as they correspond to distinct and contiguous years) but don't you think this method is somewhat suspect? I mean...how were you to know how many birthdays you had when you had not matured enough to keep track yourself? You at some point had to rely on the information someone else provided you with - perhaps it's all a big conspiracy and you're actually 20 years older than you think you are! It also relies on the unjustified assumption that the duration of each rotation of the earth round the sun is largely constant so you can keep track of when one year ends and another starts, but then what if it sometimes this rotation of the earth is random, or influenced strongly and unpredictably by factors we don't know about when nobody's looking? What if sometimes a 'year' happens in a split second? You'd have to have some way of keeping track of the earth's orbit for any scale of measurement to have any confidence in the accuracy of your measurement of age!
He has stated that he knows how long everything has been here, because he can
do the math on how far light can travel from one point to another. So the question
is how do you know those points have always been where you say they are? As
I have pointed out with the candle example, knowing the rate can give you an
upper limit, it does not tell you if some ...[text shortened]... created the universe will not tell you how old it is by looking at
it or any part of it.
Kelly
Or how about evaluating the age of bread? One usually assigns a greater age of bread by way of how much mould is on it, or whether it's stale or not, but don't you think this is a bit suspect?? who's to say the particular bread you're evaluating at any given moment wasn't made like that - we can't just draw naive assumptions about the age of bread without having full and complete information about their production on a loaf by loaf basis!
Or how about evaluating how long a person has been dead due to the extent of decomposition of a human body? Surely this method is somewhat suspect?? I mean...what if some people just happen to decompose at rates we usually associate with dead people when they're alive? what if their bodies are very special and regenerate every 5 days like new so it can keep on cyclically decomposing? We must be careful not to draw unjustified inferences in this respect.
What about the problem of making forum posts? A hidden assumption of yours is that the keys you type on your keyboard and rendered to your screen are rendered the same on everybody else's screen! Has anyone proven that every time you type for example the word "the" everyone else in the world doesn't see the result as being "I hate green hats" or something? We can't just rely on our common sense or trust that science and technology works in this regard!
Think all these are daft? The same is true of your assertion that we cannot use the rules of inference to determine the speed of light or the age of the universe!