Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I actually like this answer --- and was expecting it.
Well - do you have any answers to my question?
__________________ "Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway."
- Andy Schlafly, conservapedia.com To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No it doesn't --- God may have had a very good reason for doing it that way that we haven't discovered yet.
Also, please tell me how that's "deceitful" when He put what He did in writing?
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.
__________________ "God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy."
-- Billy Currington
Last edited by TheManeki; 26th July 2007 at 01:26 PM.
You hold in your hand a rock known as, let's call it, Dalite.
This Dalite emits one particle called a Dalon every year on January 1.
Analysis shows that the Dalite you're holding has 10 particles of Dalon embedded in it.
CHAPTER TWO
Absolutely without fail, observation shows that every time Dalite is formed (keyword: formed), it always forms with 100,000 Dalons embedded --- irregardless of the size of the rock.
CHAPTER THREE
Chris T. Ian claims that, according to The Book, this universe has only been in existence for 100 years, and the following converstion ensues:
YOU: Not so --- I have a Dalite rock with only 10 Dalons left. This is evidence that this rock is 999,990 years old.
CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.
QUESTION
Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?
CHAPTER ONE
There stands before you a plant known as, let's call it, a Tree.
This Tree forms one ring called a Treeon every year on January 1.
Analysis shows that the Tree standing before you has 100 Treeon rings embedded in it.
CHAPTER TWO
Absolutely without fail, observation shows that every time a Tree is formed (keyword: formed), it always forms with 0 Treeons embedded --- irregardless of the size of the plant.
CHAPTER THREE
Chris T. Ian claims that, according to The Book, this universe has only been in existence since last Thursday, and the following converstion ensues:
YOU: Not so --- I have a Tree plant with 100 Treeons in it. This is evidence that this plant is 100 years old.
CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) the Tree, He must have created it with 100 Treeons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 0 Treeons into it.
QUESTION
Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?
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.
Can God create a boulder so large that he cannot lift it?
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.
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.
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
Linear Mode
