Unintelligent Design

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've gone over this here a number of times, saying it is true just on the math is
like seeing a car on the highway doing 70 mph, and telling me due to the math
that car was 70 miles away from where we saw it an hour ago. Getting the
math right only means you have the math right.
Kelly

what? its nothing like that, your analogy sucks. if we had physical evidence of the car at every stage of the journey that would be similar to ice samples.

in your crappy analogy we know one thing 'the car is travelling at 70mph' we know nothing else. do you think that when we look at meteor strikes or ice samples we only have one bit of information and the rest is guessed???

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what? its nothing like that, your analogy sucks. if we had physical evidence of the car at every stage of the journey that would be similar to ice samples.

in your crappy analogy we know one thing 'the car is travelling at 70mph' we know nothing else. do you think that when we look at meteor strikes or ice samples we only have one bit of information and the rest is guessed???

You again don't know how all the ice got there, you don't squat about the
distant past outside of what someone's imagination tells you. You don't like
that car analogy because it shows you that you can be wrong, I get it, but
that is the way it is. Math can be spot on, it does not mean what you are
supposing is true, is!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You again don't know how all the ice got there, you don't squat about the
distant past outside of what someone's imagination tells you. You don't like
that car analogy because it shows you that you can be wrong, I get it, but
that is the way it is. Math can be spot on, it does not mean what you are
supposing is true, is!
Kelly

i dont like the care analogy because there is only one bit of data, it is impossible to figure anything from that other than the car is travelling at 70mph.

with the ice we have a physical recording of the ice in every stage of its life. you say maybe there was an unknown variable that made the ice grow much quicker for a period of time so it looks like the ice is older. if that were the case we would see that reflected in rocks, the mineral content and fossils found would reflect what we find in the ice. everything matches up at the moment, the mineral contents in the ice tell a story that matches what we find around the globe. we know when there have been ice ages, we know how long they lasted and we know how cold they got. there is nothing that suggests an unknown event that made ice form so quickly that it looks like hundreds of thousands of years passed in less than a few thousand.

do you see have silly your car analogy is now?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've gone over this here a number of times, saying it is true just on the math is
like seeing a car on the highway doing 70 mph, and telling me due to the math
that car was 70 miles away from where we saw it an hour ago. Getting the
math right only means you have the math right.
Kelly

Using your analogy;
On observing car on the highway doing 70 mph one could hypothesise
that the car was 70 miles away an hour ago. However with a single data point
it would be a very weak hypothesis and easily disproved as fact by using an
easy thought experiment.

However when further evidence is collected, like the car was 35 miles away 30
minutes ago and 140 miles away 2 hours ago the hypothesis begins to gain
credibility.

Of course there will still be competing hypotheses; like the car travels at 140
mph for 15 mins then stops for 15 mins while the driver gets instructions from
an invisible elf kept in the trunk.

Many of these will not be disprovable but highly improbable. Adherents to
these possible but highly improbable hypotheses will rant on and on saying
they believe they are right and asking to be proven wrong.

As new data is available (like where the car was 10 minutes ago
and 5 minutes agao) which supports the sensible hypothesis the
believers in the "Imp in the Trunk" theory come out with claims of
forged data, conspiracies and other nonsense as they try to hang on to
their increasingly ridiculous position.

Finally the Impists (as they now call themselves) form a club, have meetings
and reinforce their own nonsense by repeating it to eachother over and over again.

Sadly, arguments regarding the name of the invisibe imp, force the club to
split into many cliques ......

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Using your analogy;
On observing car on the highway doing 70 mph one could hypothesise
that the car was 70 miles away an hour ago. However with a single data point
it would be a very weak hypothesis and easily disproved as fact by using an
easy thought experiment.

However when further evidence is collected, like the car was 35 miles away ...[text shortened]... ents regarding the name of the invisibe imp, force the club to
split into many cliques ......

You are quite welcome to go on and believe what you will about the distant
past.
Kelly

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i dont like the care analogy because there is only one bit of data, it is impossible to figure anything from that other than the car is travelling at 70mph.

with the ice we have a physical recording of the ice in every stage of its life. you say maybe there was an unknown variable that made the ice grow much quicker for a period of time so it looks l ...[text shortened]... of years passed in less than a few thousand.

do you see have silly your car analogy is now?

You don't know how the ice got here, you don't know how long its been here,
you assume things are working out as you believe them to over time. Feel free
to believe what you will, right or wrong your choice.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are quite welcome to go on and believe what you will about the distant
past.
Kelly

And you are welcome to go on believing that when you throw a ball up, it will come back down. You are yet to show that your belief is any more reasonable than mine about the distant past.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To my knowledege, evilution is not thought of by the science world as fact. It is thought of as unproven theory. Why else would some keep trying to prove it, if it were already thought of as fact instead of fiction?

Why else? Because of you creationists attacking it, that is why. There is no disagreement among scientists about the validity of evolution. The only disagreement is among the religious brainwashed set. Another example of your cognitive dissonance in action.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't know how the ice got here, you don't know how long its been here,
you assume things are working out as you believe them to over time. Feel free
to believe what you will, right or wrong your choice.
Kelly

do you believe you can age a tree by counting its rings?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't know how the ice got here, you don't know how long its been here,
you assume things are working out as you believe them to over time. Feel free
to believe what you will, right or wrong your choice.
Kelly

What kind of a stupid statement is that "you don't know how the ice got there'.

Just exactly how did you THINK ice is going to get where it is wherever that is, say Antarctica?

Did you think maybe it all began with a a huge rain of milkshakes or frogs? What a mind bogglingly stupid statement.

Last time I checked, ice came about when water got REAL cold. Maybe I'm wrong but that has been my working assumption.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you believe you can age a tree by counting its rings?

The "Methuselah Tree" is considered the oldest living thing on earth. It's age of over 4,800 years is determined by counting annual tree rings. However, experiments show the trees can grow more than one ring in unusual seasons.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/photos/the-worlds-10-oldest-living-trees/methuselah

Aardsma, Dr. Gerald E., "Tree-Rings Dating and Multiple Growth Ring Per Year." Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 29, March 1993, pp. 184-189.

Some experiments have even suggested that many periods of time could have been characterized by the growth of one extra ring every one to four years, with evidence in controlled laboratory situations showing extra ring growth tied to short drought periods.

Lammerts, Walter E., "Are the Bristlecone Pine Trees Really So Old?" Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 20, September 1983, pp. 108-115.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What kind of a stupid statement is that "you don't know how the ice got there'.

Just exactly how did you THINK ice is going to get where it is wherever that is, say Antarctica?

Did you think maybe it all began with a a huge rain of milkshakes or frogs? What a mind bogglingly stupid statement.

Last time I checked, ice came about when water got REAL cold. Maybe I'm wrong but that has been my working assumption.

From Biblical accounts, we believe the ice did not get there until it started to rain on the earth as revealed in Genesis of the Holy Bible. We believe the whole earth was kept at a warm temperature by these waters above the firmament until the time of the flood. You, on the other hand, are only guessing as to when and what cause the ice to form based on your limited knowldege of how things work today. You have absolutely no precise knowledge of what happened in the distant past. We, on the other hand, have written knowledge revealed by the creator Himself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
From Biblical accounts, we believe the ice did not get there until it started to rain on the earth as revealed in Genesis of the Holy Bible. We believe the whole earth was kept at a warm temperature by these waters above the firmament until the time of the flood. You, on the other hand, are only guessing as to when and what cause the ice to form based on y ...[text shortened]... he distant past. We, on the other hand, have written knowledge revealed by the creator Himself.

That's a laugh. What about this: do you believe it is possible for geologists to deduce what is under the Earth with seismic wave analysis?:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/access/id/349344/description/_

Are seismologists also deluded?

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]The "Methuselah Tree" is considered the oldest living thing on earth. It's age of over 4,800 years is determined by counting annual tree rings. However, experiments show the trees can grow more than one ring in unusual seasons.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/photos/the-worlds-10-oldest-living-trees/methuselah

Aardsma, Dr lly So Old?" Creation Research Society Quarterly, volume 20, September 1983, pp. 108-115.[/b]

exactly, in 'unusual seasons' extra rings can grow. the word unusual is key, meaning rare. the oldest ice samples have 750,000 rings, in unusual seasons extra rings may appear. for the earth to be 6,000 years old it would mean there would be 694,000 rare rings, which wouldnt make them very rare.

this would mean at some point in the last 6000 years there needed to be an event that had the same effect of 694,000 years passing in less than say 3000. can you imagine what a major event this would be, much bigger than a flood. yet no mention of it in the bible or anywhere else. how strange.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are quite welcome to go on and believe what you will about the distant
past.
Kelly

Why do you think I would recquire validation from a fool as to what I believe?
This is not the first time you or another pompous arse Christian has given your
blessing and allowed an atheist their opinion. What little kick do you get out of that?
Are you having a little childish snigger? Better go pray for some more humility,
afterall you have a lot to be humble about.