Best Post Ever On This Forum [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

David Sklansky

11-27-2006, 07:46 PM

Thus it should have been written by me. But it wasn't. It was written by Borodog. In the thread about how to explain to someone's mother why she shouldn't believe the Earth is 6000 years old. My guess is that all From MidGe to Not Ready will find it hard to find fault with it. So I couldn't let it languish possibly unread.

"Ask her if she believes God is a liar. In other words, if God created the Universe 6,000 years ago, why did he create it with every indication that it is approximately 15 billion years old? For example, why would he bother to create light in transit from stars and galaxies that did not exist at the time they appear to? The vast majority of astrophysical objects appear to be further away than 6,000 light years (6,000 lightyears is only around 1/16th the diameter of the Milky Way), so why create light "fossils" from objects that did not exist?

The same can be said of geological evidence. There are numerous dating techniques that overlap with each other and corroborate each other that agree that the Earth is billions of years old. Why would God "lie" to arrange for them all to agree and appear to indicate the Earth is 4.55 billion years old?

There are processes that are ongoing that can be measured that indicate the Earth is very old, for example plate tectonics (continental drift) can be measured via laser and satellite measurements which the ocean floor contains a record of millions of years of the same exact mechanism. Why would God lie and put that record there to make it appear that the Earth was millions of years old if it weren't?

Why would God bother to specially create all of life in a nested hierarchy that is exactly what you would expect to see if all life were related by common ancestry and descent? And why would he bother to make sure that you get the same "tree of life", the same nested hierarchy, if you look at molecular evidence (DNA) versus phenotypic evidence (anatomy & behavior)?

Is God supposed to be stupid? Who is the better Creator, a Creator who has to put every molecule of Creation into place by hand, or the Creator who can write a few simple equations out and have Creation erect itself? Is God a brute, or is he elegant?

If you want the Word of God, I suggest that you don't look in a 3,000 year old book written by men; I suggest you consult the Creation itself, because if God can be said to have any Words at all, he has written them all over His Creation, and His Message is quite clear.

Your mother does not need to abandon being a Christian to abandon a literal scientific interpretation of Genesis. The Bible is not a manual for repairing automatic transmissions, nor is it a treatise on economics, astronomy, physics, geology, biology, nor any other science. The people who seek to put the Bible ahead of the world itself as the primary source of scientific knowledge make fools of themselves and a joke of their faith."

Borodog

11-27-2006, 07:51 PM

Thanks. I think "On Capitalism" is better.

andyfox

11-27-2006, 08:30 PM

Great stuff, Boro.

"The Bible is not a manual for repairing automatic transmissions, nor is it a treatise on economics, astronomy, physics, geology, biology, nor any other science."

Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius as having said, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Perhaps pithier than your statement, but not more insightful. Bravo.

ConstantineX

11-27-2006, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If you want the Word of God, I suggest that you don't look in a 3,000 year old book written by men; I suggest you consult the Creation itself, because if God can be said to have any Words at all, he has written them all over His Creation, and His Message is quite clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the most powerful and beautiful statements I've read on this forum. Amazing post Borodog.

Borodog

11-27-2006, 08:49 PM

FWIW, these are the points I made to my current wife when we had this conversation, oh, about 6 years ago now. She was raised by devout Christians (missionaries, in fact; her father is a missionary surgeon who travels, on his own dime, to Godforsaken places like Papua New Guinea, Kenya, and Afghanistan to donate his medical skills; my wife spent 3 years growing up in Haiti) of mixed belief regarding evolution and creationism. Her father believes in evolution (he is a scientist, after all, and understands the enormous amount of evidence), but in evolution guided by God, which I have no problem with; I can't disprove it (however it is a complicating hypothesis that I find to be unnecessary and unprovable). Her mother, and indeed her entire mother's family, is unvarnished YEC, 6,000 year old Earth, the whole 9 yards. I've heard her 90+ year old grandmother (a wonderful and sharp-witted woman) laughing at people who believe "they came from monkeys."

In any event, I constructed this argument to explain to my wife why I believe that the Universe is old. A component that I left out of this post, because it was personally targetted, was the fact that since I'm an astrophysicist, God wouldn't have to be just lying about any old thing; he'd have to be lying about everything my entire career was based on. Almost every observation that I spent my time trying to understand (specifically of X-Ray binaries, of which most are farther than 6,000 lightyears away) would essentially have to be God's Frauds.

Piers

11-27-2006, 08:52 PM

Once you accept the existence of God, you have already left the realms of rational argument. So logical analysis of God’s motives and abilities are not productive.

He did what ever he did for his own reasons, so who are we to argue.

That is not to say Borodog’s argument might not convince someone’s mother, depending on the psychological profile of the mother. I suspect not too dim, but not too intelligent either.

[ QUOTE ]
The people who seek to put the Bible ahead of the world itself as the primary source of scientific knowledge make fools of themselves and a joke of their faith."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Its your religion, you can do what you want with it. If believing Genesis does it for you than that’s all the rational you need.

Prodigy54321

11-27-2006, 09:03 PM

that's all great, but it's not a matter of these people accepting the science, then rationalizing why this god would make it seem the way that science shows it to be, it's a matter of these people denying that the science itself is accurate

EDIT: that's not to take anything away from Boro's post...but for the purposes ofthis guy's debate with his mom, he would first have to have her admit that the older age is what the evidence as a whole points towards...

and for her, this evidence CAN also include scripture, or personal experience such as what she can "feel in her soul" and stuff like that

most YEC's are probably not going to welcome these exclusions.

chezlaw

11-27-2006, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. Its your religion, you can do what you want with it. If believing Genesis does it for you than that’s all the rational you need.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly right, it's your religon so believe whatever you fancy. It would only be problem if it was dependent on some reality.

chez

awesomebryan

11-27-2006, 09:26 PM

Did you ever hear the Bill Hicks joke? One guys says the Earth is 5,000 years old. The other asks, "What about fossils?" The first guys replies, "God put them here to test our faith." The second man says, "I think God put you here to test my faith!"

iron81

11-27-2006, 10:04 PM

http://www.globalschoolnet.org/about/images/applause.gif

surftheiop

11-27-2006, 10:22 PM

DS - I believe God created the Universe through the laws of physics that we see today so this isnt a real issue for me but....

I have a question, If you asked God to make a tree and he decided to do it, dont you think God would create the tree with rings in it?

Eihli

11-27-2006, 11:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever hear the Bill Hicks joke? One guys says the Earth is 5,000 years old. The other asks, "What about fossils?" The first guys replies, "God put them here to test our faith." The second man says, "I think God put you here to test my faith!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that bother anybody here? That God might be [censored] with our heads? Anyone have trouble sleeping restfully with that in their head? God's running around burying fossils "Aha ha ha, we'll so he believes in me now!"

You die and go to St. Peter.
"Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well yeah, there were fossils everywhere"
[boom to hell]
"Ahhhhhhhhhh"
"Ha! What are you an idiot? God was [censored] with you! Giant flying lizards... you moron. That's one of God's easiest jokes!"

Hopey

11-27-2006, 11:34 PM

A girl I dated (briefly) in high-school was from a very devout YEC family. When I discovered this fact, I had to ask her how she explained the existence of million+ year old fossils.

Her response was that "God put fossils in the ground in order to test our faith."

I broke up with her shortly thereafter.

David Sklansky

11-28-2006, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A girl I dated (briefly) in high-school was from a very devout YEC family. When I discovered this fact, I had to ask her how she explained the existence of million+ year old fossils.

Her response was that "God put fossils in the ground in order to test our faith."

I broke up with her shortly thereafter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get back together. She has a logically unassailable position. One that completely handcuffs Borodog et al. As opposed to the idiots who try to use things like Noah's ark to prove their point.

GBP04

11-28-2006, 02:14 AM

quick question - not sure where to put it so I will put it here:

according to the Bible didn't Adam and Eve have three kids: Cain, Abel, and Seth? Abel was killed so that leaves either Cain or Seth to knock up Eve? Isn't that in itself against Bible teachings? Am I missing something?

arahant

11-28-2006, 02:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
quick question - not sure where to put it so I will put it here:

according to the Bible didn't Adam and Eve have three kids: Cain, Abel, and Seth? Abel was killed so that leaves either Cain or Seth to knock up Eve? Isn't that in itself against Bible teachings? Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh-oh.
Does the bible really say you can't [censored] your mom?
[censored]!

soon2bepro

11-28-2006, 02:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Ask her if she believes God is a liar. In other words, if God created the Universe 6,000 years ago, why did he create it with every indication that it is approximately 15 billion years old?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster preaches. He's constantly changing the result of every scientific experiment, using His Noodly Appendage to play around with the data.

NotReady

11-28-2006, 03:27 AM

I'm mostly done with this forum. I'm sick and tired of being labelled irrational when those who continute to do so are ignorant of history, theology, philosophy and the Bible, and refuse to engage in any reasonable debate.

But breifly, for what it's worth:

1. God is hiding nothing and lying about nothing. The Bible is the most widely printed, sold and read book of all time. How is He lying? Unless you can't read, of course.

2. The Bible itself tells you that all of nature reveals God. Again, how is He lying?

3. I've never taken a position on the age of the earth or the universe. The Bible doesn't say. Science will never be able to prove it. It only matters to those who need evolution to comfort themselves.

4. If God had created everything young and then waited for it to get old you would now be asking why He waited so long.

5. If the universe and/or the earth are actually young, God created them mature. If you had met Adam the day after he was created you would think he was 30 or more. If God then told you "I just created him. He's one day old" you would call God a liar for not creating him as an embryo first.

All of these points are simple and obvious. I'm really tired of beating a dead horse and yelling at brick walls.

Nielsio

11-28-2006, 03:39 AM

soon2bepro

11-28-2006, 03:42 AM

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.

Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

There are many more contradictions and impossible premises in the Bible, not that this matters much to the average theist.

One of my favourites is precisely the story about the Flood and how Noah grabbed a pair of each animal, plant, etc. Besides other implications about the superhuman task that Noah and company carried out, you have to wonder how life evolved thereafter.

How did life evolve without the current rates of carnivores to hervivores to plants, etc?

Think about it, one lion is hungry, so he eats a gazelle. whoops! No more gazelles. Ever. And now the lion eats a zebra. How long before most of the species die off and life has to "start over"?

And if life did "start over" on its own, there is no way we'd have such complex lifeforms by now. What was it?

3000 years since the flood? Whatever.

Duke

11-28-2006, 04:03 AM

@NotReady

You're right. It's pretty impossible to have productive discussions that will fundamentally change anyone's mind about this stuff. You'll only listen to the "other side" insofar as to determine what sort of new defense you need to formulate to support your existing view, and the other side will only listen to you enough to poke yet more holes in it. That cycle will continue indefinitely.

Whatever you, or I, say... we're incapable of taking the other viewpoint seriously. That's mainly because it's impossible for you to make a complete sentence in your own defense that doesn't have a base logical fallacy in it. I can't get a word in edgewise without you trying to question something that isn't realistically questionable. But to you, you make sense and are reasonable. To you, it's reasonable to question reality that happened more than 10 minutes ago because you can't really prove what happened (not in a way that you're comfortable enough with).

This isn't meant to be an actual insult to you, since I figure the feeling is mutual anyhow. I just want to point out the why behind the uselessness of the discussion. It's useful to others, though. They see what both sides think about everything, and they see precisely what it is that they should be consciously rejecting by choosing either side. I do believe this suits my goals more, since facts indeed have a way of proving themselves over time. What's accepted as truth may change, but in the end the reality of the world shines through. That's all I really care about, as being attached to the specifics makes no sense.

NotReady

11-28-2006, 04:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I can't get a word in edgewise without you trying to question something that isn't realistically questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just did a search of your username for the past year and found no exchanges between you and me for that time. If you have a specific thread in mind, plese give a link.

[ QUOTE ]

To you, it's reasonable to question reality that happened more than 10 minutes ago because you can't really prove what happened (not in a way that you're comfortable enough with).

[/ QUOTE ]

No clue why you think this.

And if you think I'm not open to criticism of my position you must have missed the thread involving the Ezra/Nehemiah "contradiction".

soon2bepro

11-28-2006, 04:47 AM

It's interesting how people congratulated Borodog only after Sklansky said it was the best post ever in this forum. If you look at the other thread, nothing, no comments at all.

It wasn't that great a post, really. It was merely ok. And he has produced others much better than this. So did other people. Even on almost the same subject.

To give an example, I consider Piers' post in this very thread is better (more focused on the actual issue).

Borodog's does good at showing how ridiculous this "young age" belief is, but it wasn't what was asked in that thread. And to be honest, it doesn't say much that most rational, analitic people don't already know.

arahant

11-28-2006, 05:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting how people congratulated Borodog only after Sklansky said it was the best post ever in this forum. If you look at the other thread, nothing, no comments at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to take credit for NOT congratulating him. But to be fair, I view Sklansky's endorsement as a bit of a denigration.

And of course, I find many of Borodog's posts excellent. It's just that as an argument about creationism, this one is a softball. God is obviously testing us.

Scotch78

11-28-2006, 06:09 AM

David,

I'm sorry to say, from a logical standpoint, this is a horrible argument. Hell, it's not even creative.

First off, Borodog is equivocating "truth". He is using a strict definition for god, in order to support the liar claim, but then uses a much looser definition for science, in order to admit counter evidence against god.

Second, depending on how one diagrams the propositions of his argument, he repeatedly commits either the fallacy of affirming the consequent or that of denying the antecedent.

Third, all he has really done is reverse the argument by design and then pair it with a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the bible.

However, having said all that, I do agree with his conclusion. The conflict between faith and reason, religion and science, is an artificial one, imposed by the convictions of closed minds.

And on a related note, the seven day creation doesn't necessarily conflict with astronomy's age of the universe. First off, do the "days" in Genesis refer to the earth's revolutions or the universe's revolutions? I think the latter more likely. Second, what happens when a spinning ice skater pulls her arms close in to her body? She speeds up. Not only would a universal day be MUCH longer than an earth day, but each universal day would be MUCH longer than the previous day. The seven days of creation could easily translate into billions of earth years.

Scott

arahant

11-28-2006, 06:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it, one lion is hungry, so he eats a gazelle. whoops! No more gazelles. Ever. And now the lion eats a zebra.

[/ QUOTE ]

heh..."whoops!"...I plan to steal this material, and use it without credit in my offline social interactions...hope that's cool with you.

Meet Nibbler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqChSy3Gyzk)

David Sklansky

11-28-2006, 06:44 AM

Be more specific

tolbiny

11-28-2006, 07:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And on a related note, the seven day creation doesn't necessarily conflict with astronomy's age of the universe. First off, do the "days" in Genesis refer to the earth's revolutions or the universe's revolutions? I think the latter more likely. Second, what happens when a spinning ice skater pulls her arms close in to her body? She speeds up. Not only would a universal day be MUCH longer than an earth day, but each universal day would be MUCH longer than the previous day. The seven days of creation could easily translate into billions of earth years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even granting this random stretch the story of genesis deviates from the order that is pointed to by the record. First day and night are created before the sun and stars, and so is light, plants are alos created before the sun, and so is the earth. He also creates birds before fish and animals.

Scotch78

11-28-2006, 07:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Be more specific

[/ QUOTE ]

Great sarcasm.

Scott

Scotch78

11-28-2006, 07:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Even granting this random stretch the story of genesis deviates from the order that is pointed to by the record. First day and night are created before the sun and stars, and so is light, plants are alos created before the sun, and so is the earth. He also creates birds before fish and animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Random stretch"? I'm curious how you think that this isn't the most rational and likely interpretation of the Genesis timeline.

As to your particular counter examples, if I was a biblical scholar (I've never even read the whole of Genesis), I might be able to respond to them, but your objections will have to stand for now.

Scott

tolbiny

11-28-2006, 07:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]

"Random stretch"? I'm curious how you think that this isn't the most rational and likely interpretation of the Genesis timeline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because its just fitting someone's words to fit currently observed phenomena, a lot like Nostradomouses followers taking a prophacy and looking around for an event that fit that description. Secondly- what is a "cycle of the universe"? A day is very well defined, the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once about its access. A revolution of the universe is pretty meaningless without some kind of definition- otherwise its just a random attempt to make something sound plausible.

felson

11-28-2006, 07:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thus it should have been written by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you wanted another chance on your own forum? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

FWIW, I don't believe in a young earth.

Hopey

11-28-2006, 09:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A girl I dated (briefly) in high-school was from a very devout YEC family. When I discovered this fact, I had to ask her how she explained the existence of million+ year old fossils.

Her response was that "God put fossils in the ground in order to test our faith."

I broke up with her shortly thereafter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get back together. She has a logically unassailable position. One that completely handcuffs Borodog et al. As opposed to the idiots who try to use things like Noah's ark to prove their point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...maybe I was a bit too hasty in casting her adrift. However, it's been 16 years, so I think she'd be a little freaked out were I to suddenly show up on her doorstep. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

tolbiny

11-28-2006, 09:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A girl I dated (briefly) in high-school was from a very devout YEC family. When I discovered this fact, I had to ask her how she explained the existence of million+ year old fossils.

Her response was that "God put fossils in the ground in order to test our faith."

I broke up with her shortly thereafter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get back together. She has a logically unassailable position. One that completely handcuffs Borodog et al. As opposed to the idiots who try to use things like Noah's ark to prove their point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...maybe I was a bit too hasty in casting her adrift. However, it's been 16 years, so I think she'd be a little freaked out were I to suddenly show up on her doorstep. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No way- if she believes in a 6,000 year old earth then she definately would believe if you told her god wanted you to be together. And everytime you cheat on her, it's just god testing her faith.

David Sklansky

11-28-2006, 09:34 AM

I wasn't being sarcastic. Point out his fallacies.

xorbie

11-28-2006, 09:35 AM

Haven't read the thread, but this would so not fly at all. It's a test, duh.

Otherwise you could just start "why wouldn't God just let everyone in heaven".

madnak

11-28-2006, 09:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't that great a post, really. It was merely ok. And he has produced others much better than this. So did other people. Even on almost the same subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it was a great post, and the "star" of that thread. Best post ever? No, not even close. That's David being David. A good example of a better post is this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8197009&page=0&vc=1) one. Much better, I think, than the post in question.

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog's does good at showing how ridiculous this "young age" belief is, but it wasn't what was asked in that thread. And to be honest, it doesn't say much that most rational, analitic people don't already know.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? The thread was asking how best to convince a mother who believes in YEC. Rational, analytical people aren't the target audience, and the explicit purpose of the thread was to show how ridiculous this "young age" belief is. As you say, he did a good job.

madnak

11-28-2006, 09:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Third, all he has really done is reverse the argument by design and then pair it with a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems appropriate to me, given that he's trying to refute a fundamentalist, literal perspective...

madnak

11-28-2006, 10:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As to your particular counter examples, if I was a biblical scholar (I've never even read the whole of Genesis), I might be able to respond to them, but your objections will have to stand for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe that there's a book that contains the ultimate wisdom of God and the universe... And you've never even read the first chapter? Why is it that I so often find Christians have read less of the Bible than atheists?

If you really think that the Bible is the word of God, the most important work in the universe, then how can you justify never having read it? You should read it cover to cover at least once per year, if it is in fact holy scripture. Almost by definition you'd get something new out of it on each reading, and it would be more worthwhile to read than any other book. (And that's aside from the literary and cultural value that drives atheists to read it.) That you haven't read the Bible is absurd, and that you refuse to be concerned with contradictions within it is ludicrous.

tomdemaine

11-28-2006, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think "On Capitalism" is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scotch78

11-28-2006, 12:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A revolution of the universe is pretty meaningless without some kind of definition- otherwise its just a random attempt to make something sound plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you not aware that the universe spins along an axis, just like our galaxy, our planet, and pretty much every other celestial body?

Scott

thylacine

11-28-2006, 12:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
quick question - not sure where to put it so I will put it here:

according to the Bible didn't Adam and Eve have three kids: Cain, Abel, and Seth? Abel was killed so that leaves either Cain or Seth to knock up Eve? Isn't that in itself against Bible teachings? Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

No you are not missing anything. There is really no doubt that the bible says there was rampant incest in the early days.

daryn

11-28-2006, 12:42 PM

sirio11

11-28-2006, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you not aware that the universe spins along an axis, just like our galaxy, our planet, and pretty much every other celestial body?

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you need to be "outside" the universe to be aware of this?

ConstantineX

11-28-2006, 01:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A revolution of the universe is pretty meaningless without some kind of definition- otherwise its just a random attempt to make something sound plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you not aware that the universe spins along an axis, just like our galaxy, our planet, and pretty much every other celestial body?

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL. Could you please tell me where I could locate this axis? Are you claiming the universe is a three dimensional object with an "outside" where this is even meaningful?

And by the way, why Boro's post is not the "best post ever", I was sufficiently impressed enough to immediately log on to post (long-time lurker) but Sklansky already beat me with his response so many saw fit to respond to this thread. By the way, how do I access the archive forums? I'd like very much a link or search link to access this "On Capitalism".

Borodog

11-28-2006, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm mostly done with this forum. I'm sick and tired of being labelled irrational when those who continute to do so are ignorant of history, theology, philosophy and the Bible, and refuse to engage in any reasonable debate.

But breifly, for what it's worth:

1. God is hiding nothing and lying about nothing. The Bible is the most widely printed, sold and read book of all time. How is He lying? Unless you can't read, of course.

2. The Bible itself tells you that all of nature reveals God. Again, how is He lying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the post in question again. My premise is that God would not lie about anything.

[ QUOTE ]
3. I've never taken a position on the age of the earth or the universe. The Bible doesn't say. Science will never be able to prove it. It only matters to those who need evolution to comfort themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed you had any position on the age of the Earth and Universe. Claiming that "it only matters to those who need evolution to comfort themselves" is disingenuous. The Universe appears to be 15 billion years old. The Earth appears to be 4.55 billion years old. Human beings appear to share a common ancestor with chimpanzees some 6 million years ago. Mountains of interlocking pieces evidence, from many thousands of independently repeatable controlled experiments, from multiple different fields, appear to support these dates and a vast number of other vastly old dates. The point of my argument is that if the world is not old, is has been carefully constructed to appear old in every conceivable way. I.e. it would have to be constructed to "fool" millions of highly intelligent scientists into drawing the wrong conclusion. My contention is that this would require God to be a prankster, a trickster God like Loki. I assume that God is not a prankster, trickster, or liar, and hence reject the old-appearing-earth-created-recently hypothesis in favor of the simpler, more parsimonious hypothesis: the Earth looks old because it is old.

[ QUOTE ]
4. If God had created everything young and then waited for it to get old you would now be asking why He waited so long.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wouldn't. I don't really get the point of this statement. All I've said is that the Earth is probably old because it appears to be old, and that all life is related because it appears to be related.

[ QUOTE ]
5. If the universe and/or the earth are actually young, God created them mature. If you had met Adam the day after he was created you would think he was 30 or more. If God then told you "I just created him. He's one day old" you would call God a liar for not creating him as an embryo first.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but that's qualitatively different. I asked someone in the other thread, if God created Adam at an apparent age of 30, would he have created him with scars? Would he have created Adam with the memory of an entire life up to the age of 30, including remembering people and events that never existed? Would he remember breaking his leg at the age of 18? The Earth and the Universe have these "memories", they have these scars of prior events.

cambraceres

11-28-2006, 01:15 PM

The logical fallacies and factual inconsistencies in the holy bible and the theocratic system that follows are well documented and have been discussed ad nauseum here and everywhere else. But the truth is, to say that god made the earth the way he did for reasons we may not understand is a logically unassailable position. To say that he was trying to confuse or mislead us is a perfectly valid and viable idea.

I still struggle to see how these philosophical novelties give DS such pleasure to contemplate, over ,and over, and over, but whatever, he be da man in this hood. But why do all you timorous college philosophers allow him to abide in this muck and drag the content signal of the forum down?

Simple situation, this is an elegant post, it's prose itself displays a cadence and flow. It sounds wondeful, brings pleasure to the ear and heart, it ends most poetically. That's it, a pretty song about a non-subject. How on earth is this better than "On capitalism"?

View it logically, and quit screwing with those of religious belief. Dont oppress others with your ideas when you have no more honest validity than they do.

I may not agree with NotReady, then maybe I do, some of you intelligent atheist are off the mark.

Cam

Borodog

11-28-2006, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't being sarcastic. Point out his fallacies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to see these, because there are no fallacies in my post.

Scotch78

11-28-2006, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
what does the universe spin relative to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't fault someone for not studying astronomy, but isn't English your native language? You could at least work on your reading comprehension.

Scott

Scotch78

11-28-2006, 01:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you need to be "outside" the universe to be aware of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since astronomers have already shown that the universe revolves, it's pretty safe to say "no". Also, we were aware of the earth's rotation long before the space age, so I'm not really even sure what point you are trying to make with this question.

Scott

NotReady

11-28-2006, 01:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

My premise is that God would not lie about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good premise. And I admit I only scanned the post. I was responding more to DS than you and to the general idea that if the universe is actually young then God is a liar.

[ QUOTE ]

The point of my argument is that if the world is not old, is has been carefully constructed to appear old in every conceivable way. I.e. it would have to be constructed to "fool" millions of highly intelligent scientists into drawing the wrong conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's obvious that God's purpose in creating the universe as He did was to fool people. If someone is fooled, perhaps it's self-deception. For instance, if He wanted to create a universe 15 billion light years across and He wanted us to see the stars, why would He have to wait 15 billion years for the light to reach us?

[ QUOTE ]

All I've said is that the Earth is probably old because it appears to be old, and that all life is related because it appears to be related.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this up to a point. My "you" was directed more at DS and others.

[ QUOTE ]

I asked someone in the other thread, if God created Adam at an apparent age of 30, would he have created him with scars? Would he have created Adam with the memory of an entire life up to the age of 30, including remembering people and events that never existed? Would he remember breaking his leg at the age of 18? The Earth and the Universe have these "memories", they have these scars of prior events.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. I don't think God created Adam with scars. I also don't think he created the universe with scars, though I'm not sure which you have in mind. And again, I have no vested interest in young earth or universe. My main concern isn't the age of creation or even the possibility of theistic evolution, but the existence and nature of God and the non-existence of pure, absolute randomness.

Borodog

11-28-2006, 01:45 PM

Then I won't argue it any further, because I think we're in as much agreement as we can be.

Kimbell175113

11-28-2006, 08:06 PM

I'm not the first in this thread to ask, but I'd love a link to "On Capitalism."

hmkpoker

11-28-2006, 08:09 PM

On Capitalism (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=5472902&an=0&page=0# Post5472902)

Kimbell175113

11-28-2006, 08:12 PM

Thanks!

Duke

11-28-2006, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I can't get a word in edgewise without you trying to question something that isn't realistically questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just did a search of your username for the past year and found no exchanges between you and me for that time. If you have a specific thread in mind, plese give a link.

[ QUOTE ]

To you, it's reasonable to question reality that happened more than 10 minutes ago because you can't really prove what happened (not in a way that you're comfortable enough with).

[/ QUOTE ]

No clue why you think this.

And if you think I'm not open to criticism of my position you must have missed the thread involving the Ezra/Nehemiah "contradiction".

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant in general, and was basing my idea of your side on the content of the post I was indirectly referencing. I don't bother reading this forum usually, but since you're mentioned a few times before entering, I assume you participate a lot. Based on you having a lot of experience in these arguments, and still presenting things as you did, I got the idea for the specifics in my post.

Sorry if I implied that we argued a lot.

tolbiny

11-28-2006, 09:50 PM

arahant

11-28-2006, 10:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you need to be "outside" the universe to be aware of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since astronomers have already shown that the universe revolves, it's pretty safe to say "no". Also, we were aware of the earth's rotation long before the space age, so I'm not really even sure what point you are trying to make with this question.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]
I studied astrophysics on an undergraduate level, admittedly 10 years ago, and i was under the impression this conjecture had actually been disproved within experimental error. (a dearth of anisotropy in cosmic background radiation, perhaps?). Could you please link me to something that demonstrates what you say? I googled, but the experimental evidence I could find conflicted with rotation.
Thanks...

Edit: Or Tolbiny...sounds like you accept the premise and might be aware of this evidence? I assume you know the subject, what with your avatar and all! /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

J_V

11-28-2006, 10:23 PM

It's very eloquent, but it seems strange that the last gap isn't closed - that there needn't be a God at all for the universe to be what it is.

Using a similar Occams' Razor argument, why were there not mathematical equations already in place, rather than some mythical creature who set them in place?

I don't follow these discussions very often, but what evidence would lead Borodog to suggest that it was God who set the equations of the universe in motion. (Its possible that Borodog doesn't believe that God was the elegant Creator, that he was simply illustrating a point to the mother and using the capital letters for sake of argument - FYI capitalize my letters every now and then just in case it scores me points should I find myself at the pearly gates.)

[ QUOTE ]
Your mother does not need to abandon being a Christian to abandon a literal scientific interpretation of Genesis. The Bible is not a manual for repairing automatic transmissions, nor is it a treatise on economics, astronomy, physics, geology, biology, nor any other science.

[/ QUOTE ]

For Christians who rationally concede this, what logic would keep them from believing that any part of the Bible is accurate and not just a work of fiction? It seems like a slippery slope of faith and if you are going to ignore many obvious clues to the universe and its creation, you might as well ignore them all.