God

[desertbred 5,490]

 

 

either way even one million years is far, far greater than the four to six thousand years that creationist believe that figure itself has an error margin of thirty three point three,three percent recurring as opposed to the three percent in the stated big bang figures

 

But do creationists lay claim to facts ?......most believers ive spoken to have exactly that,a belief.......they dont claim anything as factual evidence as evolutionists do.....well apart from Brian that is

 

i have asked a few this question the last one was a relation sat in the mother in laws kitchen, why choose religion, always get a similar answer, the last one was "i am in a far better place now" i dont get that as the last time i saw him before then he was sitting in the same chair in the same kitchen

 

He has realised the religion issue really winds you up so he feels better

[WILF 46,811]

 

 

either way even one million years is far, far greater than the four to six thousand years that creationist believe that figure itself has an error margin of thirty three point three,three percent recurring as opposed to the three percent in the stated big bang figures

 

But do creationists lay claim to facts ?......most believers ive spoken to have exactly that,a belief.......they dont claim anything as factual evidence as evolutionists do.....well apart from Brian that is

i have asked a few this question the last one was a relation sat in the mother in laws kitchen, why choose religion, always get a similar answer, the last one was "i am in a far better place now" i dont get that as the last time i saw him before then he was sitting in the same chair in the same kitchen

Having faith ain't like going out and buying a new coat.....you have to be the type of person or come to a point in your life where you are receptive to having a faith.

You don't chose it, it choses you.

 

JMHO

[paulus 26]

 

 

 

either way even one million years is far, far greater than the four to six thousand years that creationist believe that figure itself has an error margin of thirty three point three,three percent recurring as opposed to the three percent in the stated big bang figures

 

But do creationists lay claim to facts ?......most believers ive spoken to have exactly that,a belief.......they dont claim anything as factual evidence as evolutionists do.....well apart from Brian that is

 

i have asked a few this question the last one was a relation sat in the mother in laws kitchen, why choose religion, always get a similar answer, the last one was "i am in a far better place now" i dont get that as the last time i saw him before then he was sitting in the same chair in the same kitchen

 

He has realised the religion issue really winds you up so he feels better

 

quite possibly, but the real reason was he was trying to get in the pants of some born again Christian women i reckon, he was even wearing the obligatory suite and highly polished shoes they all wear. didn't last long as he is back on the roofs now

[Hareydave 1,214]

rip brian im gona miss him lol

[Born Hunter 17,763]

I get that scientific theory is only based on probable facts.....i get that......but when its used in debates of this nature as being FACTS THAT CANNOT BE DENIED as some folk on this topic have preached.... it tells me theres a fine line between fact and guesswork................in this case that fine line being 300 million years !

 

The 2% error is like me telling you im 6 foot 2 when im only 6 foot......ok i accept one is a touch harder to measure than the other ....but again it would be glaringly obvious when you stood in front of me if i told you it was a FACT possibly throwing into doubt any other facts i told you.

 

I dont know why science isnt just viewed as research until such time as somethings proven as fact.

 

 

I think you've used a poor similarity with the error comparison. Sayin the universe is X years old within 2% in not the same as saying "I'm 6'2" when I'm actually 6'" that's simply a lie. It's like saying "I'm 6' with a 2% error on the measurement". For simplicity in everyday life we tend to ignore errors as they are generally inconsiquencial. In science errors are a significant part of measurements as they show the range of values something can take.

 

We're getting into the philosophy of what 'fact' is now. What is a fact? How do we prove something and so accept it as fact? I don't believe it is possible to absolutely 100% with no possibility of doubt prove anything as fact. The aim of science is to observe what is happening and then try to come up with an explanation for it. At this point there will usually be a number of explanations that are all valid and competing. The logical consiquences of these hypothesis (or theories, the terms are often used interchangeably especially at this stage) are investigated and predictions made based on them. These predictions are searched for giving weight to a hypothesis untill one becomes clearly dominant having stood the test of scientific scrutiny while all the others have failed. The more evidence gathered the more probable that theory is of being correct but there's no point at which a theory is proven to be absolutely 100% true. Even something like the Earth orbiting the sun, we all 'know' this is a fact we all 'know' this is true right? Everything in science supports this belief, it's as near as is possible to being absolute truth..................... and yet there remains a minute possibility that we have been wrong the whole time due to a unforseen naive understanding of reality or spacetime...... I can't believe I'm even saying that as a scientist but as a scientist we must face the realities of proof. Probability and statistics.......

[paulus 26]

rip brian im gona miss him lol

he will rise again as frazdog tonight

[paulus 26]

 

I get that scientific theory is only based on probable facts.....i get that......but when its used in debates of this nature as being FACTS THAT CANNOT BE DENIED as some folk on this topic have preached.... it tells me theres a fine line between fact and guesswork................in this case that fine line being 300 million years !

 

The 2% error is like me telling you im 6 foot 2 when im only 6 foot......ok i accept one is a touch harder to measure than the other ....but again it would be glaringly obvious when you stood in front of me if i told you it was a FACT possibly throwing into doubt any other facts i told you.

 

I dont know why science isnt just viewed as research until such time as somethings proven as fact.

 

 

I think you've used a poor similarity with the error comparison. Sayin the universe is X years old within 2% in not the same as saying "I'm 6'2" when I'm actually 6'" that's simply a lie. It's like saying "I'm 6' with a 2% error on the measurement". For simplicity in everyday life we tend to ignore errors as they are generally inconsiquencial. In science errors are a significant part of measurements as they show the range of values something can take.

 

We're getting into the philosophy of what 'fact' is now. What is a fact? How do we prove something and so accept it as fact? I don't believe it is possible to absolutely 100% with no possibility of doubt prove anything as fact. The aim of science is to observe what is happening and then try to come up with an explanation for it. At this point there will usually be a number of explanations that are all valid and competing. The logical consiquences of these hypothesis (or theories, the terms are often used interchangeably especially at this stage) are investigated and predictions made based on them. These predictions are searched for giving weight to a hypothesis untill one becomes clearly dominant having stood the test of scientific scrutiny while all the others have failed. The more evidence gathered the more probable that theory is of being correct but there's no point at which a theory is proven to be absolutely 100% true. Even something like the Earth orbiting the sun, we all 'know' this is a fact we all 'know' this is true right? Everything in science supports this belief, it's as near as is possible to being absolute truth..................... and yet there remains a minute possibility that we have been wrong the whole time due to a unforseen naive understanding of reality or spacetime...... I can't believe I'm even saying that as a scientist but as a scientist we must face the realities of proof. Probability and statistics.......

 

even the rounding errors used in the calculation of that magnitude are massive

[Hareydave 1,214]

 

rip brian im gona miss him lol

he will rise again as frazdog tonight

 

lol

[walshie 2,804]

So to sum up, the world came about a long, long time ago and no-one's 100% sure how. Sorted.

[paulus 26]

So to sum up, the world came about a long, long time ago and no-one's 100% sure how. Sorted.

apart from Brian

[gnasher16 30,121]

 

 

I think you've used a poor similarity with the error comparison. Sayin the universe is X years old within 2% in not the same as saying "I'm 6'2" when I'm actually 6'" that's simply a lie. It's like saying "I'm 6' with a 2% error on the measurement". For simplicity in everyday life we tend to ignore errors as they are generally inconsiquencial. In science errors are a significant part of measurements as they show the range of values something can take.

 

We're getting into the philosophy of what 'fact' is now. What is a fact? How do we prove something and so accept it as fact? I don't believe it is possible to absolutely 100% with no possibility of doubt prove anything as fact. The aim of science is to observe what is happening and then try to come up with an explanation for it. At this point there will usually be a number of explanations that are all valid and competing. The logical consiquences of these hypothesis (or theories, the terms are often used interchangeably especially at this stage) are investigated and predictions made based on them. These predictions are searched for giving weight to a hypothesis untill one becomes clearly dominant having stood the test of scientific scrutiny while all the others have failed. The more evidence gathered the more probable that theory is of being correct but there's no point at which a theory is proven to be absolutely 100% true. Even something like the Earth orbiting the sun, we all 'know' this is a fact we all 'know' this is true right? Everything in science supports this belief, it's as near as is possible to being absolute truth..................... and yet there remains a minute possibility that we have been wrong the whole time due to a unforseen naive understanding of reality or spacetime...... I can't believe I'm even saying that as a scientist but as a scientist we must face the realities of proof. Probability and statistics.......

 

 

So with that in mind.......do you accept that people on this topic talking about scientific proof being factual evidence................is incorrect ?......thats my whole point....its my only point in fact.

 

In my opinion believers are morally no different to non believers......If i believe in creation based on personal belief...........but you believe in evolution based on facts you dont have.....take away the facts and like me you just believe........but in something different to me,no problem.

 

I dont see how the comparison error is a lie 2% of 10 or 2% of 10 billion whats the difference one just has a lot more noughts on the end........no ?

Edited August 22, 2014 by gnasher16

[Born Hunter 17,763]

 

 

 

I think you've used a poor similarity with the error comparison. Sayin the universe is X years old within 2% in not the same as saying "I'm 6'2" when I'm actually 6'" that's simply a lie. It's like saying "I'm 6' with a 2% error on the measurement". For simplicity in everyday life we tend to ignore errors as they are generally inconsiquencial. In science errors are a significant part of measurements as they show the range of values something can take.

 

We're getting into the philosophy of what 'fact' is now. What is a fact? How do we prove something and so accept it as fact? I don't believe it is possible to absolutely 100% with no possibility of doubt prove anything as fact. The aim of science is to observe what is happening and then try to come up with an explanation for it. At this point there will usually be a number of explanations that are all valid and competing. The logical consiquences of these hypothesis (or theories, the terms are often used interchangeably especially at this stage) are investigated and predictions made based on them. These predictions are searched for giving weight to a hypothesis untill one becomes clearly dominant having stood the test of scientific scrutiny while all the others have failed. The more evidence gathered the more probable that theory is of being correct but there's no point at which a theory is proven to be absolutely 100% true. Even something like the Earth orbiting the sun, we all 'know' this is a fact we all 'know' this is true right? Everything in science supports this belief, it's as near as is possible to being absolute truth..................... and yet there remains a minute possibility that we have been wrong the whole time due to a unforseen naive understanding of reality or spacetime...... I can't believe I'm even saying that as a scientist but as a scientist we must face the realities of proof. Probability and statistics.......

 

 

So with that in mind.......do you accept that people on this topic talking about scientific proof being factual evidence................is incorrect ?......thats my whole point....its my only point in fact.

 

In my opinion believers are morally no different to non believers......If i believe in creation based on personal belief...........but you believe in evolution based on facts you dont have.....take away the facts and like me you just believe........but in something different to me,no problem.

 

I dont see how the comparison error is a lie 2% of 10 or 2% of 10 billion whats the difference one just has a lot more noughts on the end........no ?

 

 

You said "The 2% error is like me telling you im 6 foot 2 when im only 6 foot" which makes the 6ft 2 statement a lie. It's nothing like cosmologists saying the universe is between 13.7 and 14 billion years old, they're not lieing. Errors are different to false statements. To use your analogy it would be more like you saying "I'm 6ft 2 to within 2% accuracy, so my true height lies between 6ft and 6ft 4". Which is perfectly acceptable.

 

Again philosophy of fact and proof. Things become accepted as fact when the probability of being correct is so high as make all other possibilites negligeable. And yet still possible.... That's the difference. I'm saying that IS what facts are. You want facts to be 100% probability which do not exist in reality. You're trivialising it too much. If we approach the belief in god scientifically then there is no evidence to suggest it to be true so the probability of being true remains well unknown at best.

[paulus 26]

take away all probabilities and what's left however illogical is probably correct

[gnasher16 30,121]

 

 

 

 

I think you've used a poor similarity with the error comparison. Sayin the universe is X years old within 2% in not the same as saying "I'm 6'2" when I'm actually 6'" that's simply a lie. It's like saying "I'm 6' with a 2% error on the measurement". For simplicity in everyday life we tend to ignore errors as they are generally inconsiquencial. In science errors are a significant part of measurements as they show the range of values something can take.

 

We're getting into the philosophy of what 'fact' is now. What is a fact? How do we prove something and so accept it as fact? I don't believe it is possible to absolutely 100% with no possibility of doubt prove anything as fact. The aim of science is to observe what is happening and then try to come up with an explanation for it. At this point there will usually be a number of explanations that are all valid and competing. The logical consiquences of these hypothesis (or theories, the terms are often used interchangeably especially at this stage) are investigated and predictions made based on them. These predictions are searched for giving weight to a hypothesis untill one becomes clearly dominant having stood the test of scientific scrutiny while all the others have failed. The more evidence gathered the more probable that theory is of being correct but there's no point at which a theory is proven to be absolutely 100% true. Even something like the Earth orbiting the sun, we all 'know' this is a fact we all 'know' this is true right? Everything in science supports this belief, it's as near as is possible to being absolute truth..................... and yet there remains a minute possibility that we have been wrong the whole time due to a unforseen naive understanding of reality or spacetime...... I can't believe I'm even saying that as a scientist but as a scientist we must face the realities of proof. Probability and statistics.......

 

 

So with that in mind.......do you accept that people on this topic talking about scientific proof being factual evidence................is incorrect ?......thats my whole point....its my only point in fact.

 

In my opinion believers are morally no different to non believers......If i believe in creation based on personal belief...........but you believe in evolution based on facts you dont have.....take away the facts and like me you just believe........but in something different to me,no problem.

 

I dont see how the comparison error is a lie 2% of 10 or 2% of 10 billion whats the difference one just has a lot more noughts on the end........no ?

 

 

You said "The 2% error is like me telling you im 6 foot 2 when im only 6 foot" which makes the 6ft 2 statement a lie. It's nothing like cosmologists saying the universe is between 13.7 and 14 billion years old, they're not lieing. Errors are different to false statements. To use your analogy it would be more like you saying "I'm 6ft 2 to within 2% accuracy, so my true height lies between 6ft and 6ft 4". Which is perfectly acceptable.

 

Again philosophy of fact and proof. Things become accepted as fact when the probability of being correct is so high as make all other possibilites negligeable. And yet still possible.... That's the difference. I'm saying that IS what facts are. You want facts to be 100% probability which do not exist in reality. You're trivialising it too much. If we approach the belief in god scientifically then there is no evidence to suggest it to be true so the probability of being true remains well unknown at best.

 

 

The 6 foot 2 thing i thought you would take in the context it was meant......ie,an estimated measure of height for sake of example.........sorry my example wasnt worded absolutely perfectly accurately.

 

It seems to me to go back to the same old logic that people basically take whatever they want to use to suit their own belief.......i ask you again,do you accept that people on this topic talking about scientific proof being complete factual evidence.....is incorrect ?..................while science seems to allow a bit of a play on numbers the English language doesnt i cant see how theres any more than 2 answers to choose from ?

Edited August 22, 2014 by gnasher16

[paulus 26]

well we do have Brian telling us that all the dinosaurs were actually dragons and he fully believes it