Hypothetical for Scientists

Wow, it worked.

__________________
“Dangerous? Perhaps. But evil? She acts according to her nature. Is that evil?”
--Dream of the Endless

Well - do you have any answers to my question?

It seems, AV, that your question has more to do with the nature of God, then, than creation and evolution. Your take is that God enjoys pranking creation (that whole Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil snafu was just the forerunner to Punk'd). I think God tends to abide by the rules he set up to govern this place, and these rules are elucidated by science. Other people here have some other valid views on the matter.

Maybe you should post your questions in a more appropriate forum than this one.

__________________
Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.
-- Eric Hoffer

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Have you ever written a word so many times that it begins to look completely bizarre?

tree, tree, tree. GAH!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pesto, couldn't you have just called them Tree Rings?

Not really, but before I explain, I like the example.

The reason being that Mr Ian hasn't provided any evidence for God, or that God creates Dalite differently than it forms naturally, or that God did, or that this Book of his is worth listening to.

In other words, you have two basic possibilities. Either one of the four things that Chris has claimed (three implicitly claimed, one explicitly) is wrong, or the original guy's claim - that the rock is 999,990 years old - is wrong.

Now, I said not really, instead of "no," and I don't want to mislead people; before I go on, I must stress that, in my opinion, no evidence is ever truly conclusive. When we say evidence is conclusive, I guess we really mean evidence is conclusive enough. Hope that's clear.

Anyway, we start from the position we know we have evidence for - that dalite naturally forms with 1,000,000 dalons. With this and only this belief, the logical conclusion is that the rock in question is very old. It is only when we add beliefs - about God, creation, the Book, etc, that we can logically come to a different conclusion.
So, if we add those beliefs, so that we believe:

1 - dalite forms with 1,000,000 dalons
2 - God creates dalite with 110 dalons
3 - God created this piece of dalite

(leaving out a few for simplicity) the evidence would be inconclusive - either God could have created it - in which case it's 100 years old - or it formed naturally, in which case it's 999,990 years old.

The question for me is not whether the evidence is inconclusive once you have those beliefs, but whether it actually makes sense to add them. And there is a certain lack of evidence for them that leads me to say "no."

First, your entire basis for adding these beliefs is The Book. But Mr Ian has provided no evidence that his Book is reliable. Internally fulfilled predictions aren't good enough.
That leaves belief in God and belief that God can create Dalite without evidence too.
But you also have no evidence that God created the piece of Dalite you are looking at, or that God creates Dalite with 110 Dalons. Indeed, if I may by so presumptuous as to guess at the contents and beliefs of Mr Ian, creating Dalite as such, would make him deceptive, since all he's left behind saying he might've done is a dusty old Book, which doesn't actually mention any specifics. It therefore looks as if the Dalite is older than it actually is, and anyone who's a bit skeptical of The Book being supremely correct, would consequently believe, incorrectly, that the rock is 999,990 years old.

Hrhr, aren't you clever? Come on, this is the atheist's equivalent of a PRATT. You should perhaps look at some philosophical/theological sources on the internet, since plenty of people have addressed the subject.

Starting point: the question makes as much sense, given the classical definition of God, as asking, "Can God do something he cannot do?" It's just gibberish.

It would stand as conclusive, unless Chris had more conclusive evidence supporting the book was truth.

PRATTs arise with respect to empirically testable topics. You cannot refute a philosophical argument in the same fashion as you would refute an argument based on data (or lack thereof).

__________________
“Dangerous? Perhaps. But evil? She acts according to her nature. Is that evil?”
--Dream of the Endless