Hypothetical for Scientists

[AV1611VET]

If you see eight Fords sitting in a parking lot with ten other cars --- all ten different makes from ten other countries --- would you not conclude that the eight Fords all come from the same company?

Would you also conclude that the other ten cars are foreign cars?

In other words, you can easily spot the American-made cars.

(I know --- Fords have parts on them made from other countries, etc. You guys will pick this apart, then whine because I'm not making sense, or replying to your posts.)

So basically, you can spot which cars are which. Wonderful. Now, which one of these was made to run perfectly? How do you tell which car is better than the others and is the car for you?

Did I say I could? Didn't I ask if you could? I don't suppose answering my questions came to mind, did it?

No, I didn't think so.

You guys sure love to ask them though, don't you?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then let me say it again, for about the umpteenth time:

I never dispute the age of the earth with someone I'm talking to; whether he thinks the earth is 6100 years old, or whether he thinks the earth is 6100[sup]6100[/sup] years old, I will not dispute it --- since the point is moot with me.

Was it not you who claimed that Catal Höyük cannot be 7500 years old, since the Earth is only 6100 years old?

How you got that mixed up with me saying the earth is both 6100 and 4500000000 years old is beyond me.

(Actually I do understand --- your icon says it all.)

You claim that this planet was created 6100 years ago with 4.5 biollion years of age "imbedded" into it. If that doesn't amount to claiming it's both, I don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Was it not you who claimed that Catal Höyük cannot be 7500 years old, since the Earth is only 6100 years old?

Nope --- not I.

You claim that this planet was created 6100 years ago with 4.5 biollion years of age "imbedded" into it. If that doesn't amount to claiming it's both, I don't know.

Then you don't know - (and believe me, it shows).

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Nope --- not I.

So there were people in Catal Höyük a thousand years before this planet formed?

Then you don't know - (and believe me, it shows).

Please explain the difference.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Did I say I could? Didn't I ask if you could? I don't suppose answering my questions came to mind, did it?

No, I didn't think so.

You guys sure love to ask them though, don't you?

Maybe he just read the first five sentences of your post and then quit.

Motes and beams.

 

[AV1611VET]

So there were people in Catal Höyük a thousand years before this planet formed?

Absolutely not --- the earth has only been in operation for 6100 years.

You claim that this planet was created 6100 years ago with 4.5 biollion years of age "imbedded" into it. If that doesn't amount to claiming it's both, I don't know.

Please explain the difference.

Yes --- I claim that this planet was created 6100 years ago with 4.5 billions years imbedded in it. So how can I be claiming both?

Why is this so hard for you guys to grasp? Seriously --- even my niece understands.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe he just read the first five sentences of your post and then quit.

Motes and beams.

Well, Thaumaturgy (or MrGoodBytes - whoever I said that to), I'm sorry that bothered you; but every example I come up with, people add to it, then cry because they don't understand.

Believe me --- this is frustrating --- very frustrating.

I have nieces and nephews who understand perfectly --- without the examples.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Absolutely not --- the earth has only been in operation for 6100 years.



Yes --- I claim that this planet was created 6100 years ago with 4.5 billions years imbedded in it. So how can I be claiming both?

Why is this so hard for you guys to grasp? Seriously --- even my niece understands.

What is really hard to grasp is why you don't understand that this is equivalent to the Omphalos hypothesis and has all its philosophical problems. Everyone else certainly does.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is really hard to grasp is why you don't understand that this is equivalent to the Omphalos hypothesis and has all its philosophical problems. Everyone else certainly does.

Omphalos is embedded history --- not embedded age --- and "everyone else certainly does", because "everyone else" pouts about semantics.

I can usually tell when someone is making an effort to understand, and when someone isn't.

 

[FishFace]

How you got that mixed up with me saying the earth is both 6100 and 4500000000 years old is beyond me.

Actually, it should be quite obvious. You have said words similar to, "The earth is 4.5 billion years old, but has existed for 6100 years." Which is exactly the same as saying the earth is both 4.5 billion and 6100 years old, because "years old" and existed for ... years" mean the same thing.

(Actually I do understand --- your icon says it all.)

Nothing to do with his icon, rather to do with your semantic gymnastics.

 

[AV1611VET]

...because "years old" and existed for ... years" mean the same thing.

Not in Genesis 1, they didn't.

 

[us38]

Omphalos is embedded history --- not embedded age ---

What's the difference?

 

[FishFace]

Well, Thaumaturgy (or MrGoodBytes - whoever I said that to), I'm sorry that bothered you; but every example I come up with, people add to it, then cry because they don't understand.

Believe me --- this is frustrating --- very frustrating.

Perhaps you should stop being frustrated for a moment and think - could there be another explanation? Could that explanation be that your examples all have HUGE PROBLEMS?
You can, apparently, tell the difference between Fords and other cars. That example doesn't show how you can tell the difference between God's word and Man's word written in the same book.
Another example of yours was this dalite stuff, where you apparently couldn't take "no" for an answer.
A third was the ex nihilo apple, when, again, you wouldn't take no for an answer.

The common theme is you giving an example, and everyone saying that it doesn't prove your point. Apparently you take this to mean that we've not understood, rather than that we just disagree. How patronizing.

I have nieces and nephews who understand perfectly --- without the examples.

Perhaps that's because your nieces and nephews don't have the capacity to understand the problems with your examples? It is quite easy to befuddle people who aren't expecting it, you know. Pulling the wool over the eyes of someone who is expecting it, however, is much more difficult.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Omphalos is embedded history --- not embedded age --- and "everyone else certainly does", because "everyone else" pouts about semantics.

I can usually tell when someone is making an effort to understand, and when someone isn't.

There is no actual difference between embedded history and embedded age. How do you determine the age of an object if not from its history? Either something has been around more than 6,000 years or it hasn't. Falsely creating age is no different from falsely creating the appearance of age. The only thing to try to understand here is how the religious beliefs of an obviously intelligent person such as yourself could lead you to such totally illogical conclusions. I guess cognitive dissonance conquers all.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the difference?

History has a progression of events behind it --- so does age (today).

In Genesis 1, age was embedded --- without a history behind it.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no actual difference between embedded history and embedded age.

Not today --- I agree.

How do you determine the age of an object if not from its history?

Again --- this applies to methods in use today.

Either something has been around more than 6,000 years or it hasn't.

I agree.

Falsely creating age is no different from falsely creating the appearance of age.

How about truly creating age? Is that option in your paradigms anywhere? (Don't answer --- I already know).

The only thing to try to understand here is how the religious beliefs of an obviously intelligent person such as yourself could lead you to such totally illogical conclusions. I guess cognitive dissonance conquers all.

Either that, or God's ways aren't our ways.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Again --- this applies to methods in use today.

How about truly creating age? Is that option in your paradigms anywhere? (Don't answer --- I already know).

Either that, or God's ways aren't our ways.

How do you know any of this? How do you know exactly what God MEANT to say in the Bible, but didn't say? Why do you need to defend glaring problems in the Bible with speculation? God definitely could have made it clearer. Instead, it's "probably" this this or "God did this without it being in the Bible" that.......

It gets tiring listening to a person who is just making up arguments that defy logic and saying "God probably did this."

 

[llDayo]

Did I say I could? Didn't I ask if you could? I don't suppose answering my questions came to mind, did it?

No, I didn't think so.

You guys sure love to ask them though, don't you?

I know I wouldn't be able to tell which one is perfect and which one has errors, unless I brought with a skilled mechanic who could point out what's works and what doesn't. But I wouldn't jump in to one of those based on faith. I'd have each one diagnostically checked and ones that don't work properly I would let go.

But, that's how I went away from christianity. I checked with many different "mechanics" much more learned than I in many different subjects. I found every car to be unsuitable and decided to just walk.

 

[TheBear]

I guess cognitive dissonance conquers all.

That, and willful ignorance, make for a powerful 1-2 punch against logic and reason. Give up now. Resistance is futile.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, Thaumaturgy (or MrGoodBytes - whoever I said that to), I'm sorry that bothered you; but every example I come up with, people add to it, then cry because they don't understand.

Believe me --- this is frustrating --- very frustrating.

I have nieces and nephews who understand perfectly --- without the examples.

AV, what annoyed me was that you offhandedly dismissed that I had even written anything worth your precious time. And it was directly in response to your example.

YOU were presented with a response which YOU ignored, willfully. At least when I rejected your example I had read it.

If that is how you defend your own points and the rejoinder to them, then your neices and nephews have been quite poorly equipped to understand much by your example.

I don't think I would hold them up as avatars for clear-sighted understanding if they have no problem with your stated example. But further, I hope they are not as blinded to other points of view in which one may simply refuse to even read them or consider them.