Unintelligent Design

Originally posted by KellyJay
So did they always drift a part an inch a year was there ever a time when it
was faster or slower? You have a tiny bit of information and you are running
with it as if you did know all.
Kelly

how confident are you that when you throw a ball in the air that it will come back down?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So did they always drift a part an inch a year was there ever a time when it
was faster or slower? You have a tiny bit of information and you are running
with it as if you did know all.
Kelly

The drift has remained pretty much the same for the last million years. The measurements show that. You can see the pattern when you look. So did you look at the Grail image showing gravity levels on the moon?

Look at this animation, movements of the continents over the past 200 million years and millions of years of projection into the future:

http://www.suu.edu/faculty/colberg/hazards/platetectonics/18_Pangaea.html

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is basically about patterns, if you don't know the beginning you don't know
what it looked a billion years ago.

So it is your claim that if we know the beginning, we can correctly predict the future, but if we know the present, we cannot predict the past.
I think you will find that science and experience tell us the exact opposite, ie that it is easier to predict the past than the future.
Of course we have gone through this before and I have shown that you do in fact accept that accurate prediction of the past is possible (you recognised that the first war took place) unless it contradicts your religion, at which point you suddenly change your tune.
I also showed that your made several contradictory claims whilst trying to justify your stance, at which point you decided never to talk to me again.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So it is your claim that if we know the beginning, we can correctly predict the future, but if we know the present, we cannot predict the past.
I think you will find that science and experience tell us the exact opposite, ie that it is easier to predict the past than the future.
Of course we have gone through this before and I have shown that you do in ...[text shortened]... aims whilst trying to justify your stance, at which point you decided never to talk to me again.

That is a great illustration of the phrase 'cognitive dissonance'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Exactly where is the guesswork in seeing the continents drift apart an inch a year and seeing the entire field of a thousand miles of such drift? You have to have a total blind spot to disregard such findings. Of course we know about continental drift, there is no guesswork there, we have motion pictures of it spreading in real time. And the magnetic field ...[text shortened]... se bombardment you would say happened what, 5k years ago? Or can you even process such thoughts?

The information the scientist have only goes back as far as they have been a study, maybe 100 years. What about the result of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods (maybe even a worldwide flood). How do we know when and what caused the continents to start moving apart. Could they have moved apart fast at the beginning and now it is slowed to nearly a stop? Scientist are assuming to know, but they do not know. That is the point Mr. Sunhouse.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The information the scientist have only goes back as far as they have been a study, maybe 100 years.

Actually, no, there are not very many scientists that have been around for 100 years. There are scientific records going back a lot further than that though. I think you might want to have a look at Wikipedia and find out things like when the first telescope was made, or when Newton lived.
But you are like Kelly in that you trust the written word more than anything else. Why?
There are many forms of evidence for what happened in the past. And in fact, the written word is one of the least reliable. If an archaeologist unearths a 1000 year old city, and measures the walls to be 2km in circumference, and a citizen of the city wrote in a book that they were only 1km in circumference, you and Kelly will deny the archaeological evidence and conclude that the walls were really only 1km in length and the stones somehow expanded in the intervening centuries.
Actually its much worse than that. Remember that you have claimed that we have no information about the past unless it was recorded by a scientist. So you are discarding all archaeological evidence. In fact, all your claims about the shroud of Turin have just been declared a pile of nonsense by you, because you are now claiming that we cannot possibly know anything about its history if it is older than 100 years.

As sonhouse says: cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
how confident are you that when you throw a ball in the air that it will come back down?

Very as I said earlier, when we are looking at things in the here and now it is
much easier to see our starting and stopping, and reasons for it all, when we
attempt to look at things quite beyond us like the very large, the very small,
or the distant past we are left our imaginations to fill in the blanks.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
The drift has remained pretty much the same for the last million years. The measurements show that. You can see the pattern when you look. So did you look at the Grail image showing gravity levels on the moon?

Look at this animation, movements of the continents over the past 200 million years and millions of years of projection into the future:

http://www.suu.edu/faculty/colberg/hazards/platetectonics/18_Pangaea.html

As if you have been around a million years to make such a statement.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As if you have been around a million years to make such a statement.
Kelly

Now THERE is an intelligent statement. We see a truck on a lonesome highway coming at us and it is a pretty good bet it didn't just materialize out of thin air, we can deduce that at some point in the past it was further away down the same road. Some things actually can be dealt with that way but you are just to stubborn in your cognitive dissonance to understand that.

BTW, the African continental plate and the American one sliding apart is like two conveyor belts right next to each other going in the opposite direction. So the result is right on the surface of that conveyor belt, it can be examined in great detail and the result is the past can be analysed very well, the parts of the belt further away can be positively correlated as having come from actions in the past. Why don't you actually read about it in detail and see for yourself? That would of course require an independent examination something your personal cognitive dissonance will not allow I suspect.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Now THERE is an intelligent statement. We see a truck on a lonesome highway coming at us and it is a pretty good bet it didn't just materialize out of thin air, we can deduce that at some point in the past it was further away down the same road. Some things actually can be dealt with that way but you are just to stubborn in your cognitive dissonance to unde ...[text shortened]... independent examination something your personal cognitive dissonance will not allow I suspect.

You are the one assuming "millions of years" so to say it as if it were factual
requires a little more than beliefs which is what you have, faith! I keep harping
on the fact you do not know how all of this started, you do not know what it
looked like when it did, so make claims about the past as if you had knowledge
isn't so clear cut as you want to make it seem.

Yes, I agree the truck would not just materialize out of thin air, we know where
and how trucks come to be, we cannot make that same claim about this
universe. We all have some beliefs on the topic, you think you can look at it as
it currently is and come up with some number for age. All the while missing
some key pieces of information like the how, or what it looked like when it did
begin. Without those, you don't have anything solid, you only have what dream
up.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
when we attempt to look at things quite beyond us like the very large, the very small,
or the distant past we are left our imaginations to fill in the blanks.
Kelly

So is the sun imaginary? Or only the galaxy?
I suppose atoms are imaginary too.
Oh well, silly scientists.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Very as I said earlier, when we are looking at things in the here and now it is
much easier to see our starting and stopping, and reasons for it all, when we
attempt to look at things quite beyond us like the very large, the very small,
or the distant past we are left our imaginations to fill in the blanks.
Kelly

you dont know if the ball will come back down using your logic.


'or the distant past we are left our imaginations to fill in the blanks.'

isnt it rather odd that the maths fits with whats been imagined by scientists, isnt it odd that scientists can predict what they are going to find using maths and then discover it. all rather lucky dont you think if its just their imagination filling in blanks.

you are another one who believes science when it suits you, you are happy to take their offerings when you want to use technology or medicine, you are happy with their maths and physics being taught in school, you trust them when they build a tall tower of long bridge, you put your faith in science thousands of times a day, no question 100% faith that they have made the right calculations..............but you draw the line when it conflicts with the bible, suddenly the men who you trust so much everyday of your life turn into a bumbling bunch of idiots who make things up, guess, use their imagination to fill in blanks, they become so stupid everyday run of the mill christians can shoot them down from the comfort of their lazy-boys.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, no, there are not very many scientists that have been around for 100 years. There are scientific records going back a lot further than that though. I think you might want to have a look at Wikipedia and find out things like when the first telescope was made, or when Newton lived.
But you are like Kelly in that you trust the written word more th ...[text shortened]... hing about its history if it is older than 100 years.

As sonhouse says: cognitive dissonance.

You know that is not what I said. What makes you atheists lie so much?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you dont know if the ball will come back down using your logic.


'or the distant past we are left our imaginations to fill in the blanks.'

isnt it rather odd that the maths fits with whats been imagined by scientists, isnt it odd that scientists can predict what they are going to find using maths and then discover it. all rather lucky dont you th ...[text shortened]... d everyday run of the mill christians can shoot them down from the comfort of their lazy-boys.

When the science is done correctly and it is right, things are good. However, when the science is screwed up and done poorly, it is bad. Evilutionary science is an example of screwed up and bad science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
When the science is done correctly and it is right, things are good. However, when the science is screwed up and done poorly, it is bad. Evilutionary science is an example of screwed up and bad science.

do you know any screwed up and bad science, thought of by the science world as fact, that have no conflict with your religious views?