My Omphalos Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Show me how the Omphalos Hypothesis is deceptive without disrespecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

• The intent of this thread is to show that one would have to deny a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to claim Omphalism.

 

[Washington]

Show me how the Omphalos Hypothesis is deceptive without disrespecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

• The intent of this thread is to show that one would have to deny a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to claim Omphalism.

So, instead of going to the trouble of showing that one would have to deny a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to claim Omphalism, you prefer to sit back and have others go to the trouble to show you how the Omphalos Hypothesis is deceptive without disrespecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Good luck. Ol' lazy one.

 

[Vance]

Yes, one would have to deny a strict literal historical narrative reading of Genesis to avoid God having created deceptively. But, rather than the word "deceptively", I think it would be better to say that:

one would have to deny a strict literal historical narrative reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to avoid God having created in a way that JUST LOOKS in every way as if the universe and everything in it was created billions of years ago, and that life developed on earth via evolution. And this would include more than just the appearance of age for maturity and functionality, but actual "scars" of events past that serve no functional purpose at all.

If you can argue how that would not be deceptive, I would be open to it, because I don't think God CAN be deceptive. To me, the answer is dramatically MORE LIKELY to be that God simply created in a way that fits with the evidence from His Creation itself, and it is the fundamentalist reading of Genesis that is where the error lies.

 

[gamespotter10]

because God would have created a false history. that is lying. therefore, we cant trust god

 

[MacCoyle]

But what if you read it from an Ex Nihilo Standpoint.

This might answer this: I refuse to answer until you solve my challenge!
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=42697701#post42697701

 

[AV1611VET]

because God would have created a false history. that is lying. therefore, we cant trust god

Indeed --- Omphalos = false history.

 

[Deadbolt]

Indeed --- Omphalos = false history.

However, since this "false history" has been proven to exist and clearly contradicts Genesis 1 the only viable conclusion is that Genesis 1 is obviously in error. Furthermore, the book in which it is found is little more than a collection of stripped down secondhand myths, family gossip and astrology, any contribution it is capable of making to science has long been made and in most cases, long discarded for a more plausible theory. Your arguments are nothing more than schoolchildren's wordgames, wholly unfit for consideration by a grown man.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, since this "false history" has been proven to exist and clearly contradicts Genesis 1 the only viable conclusion is that Genesis 1 is obviously in error.

I've seen "scientists" descriptions of our history, and I don't agree with their descriptions.

 

[FishFace]

Show me how the Omphalos Hypothesis is deceptive without disrespecting a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

• The intent of this thread is to show that one would have to deny a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in order to claim Omphalism.

It requires a false history.
Something which is also required by whatever you call your belief. If something looks old but isn't (that is to say, it looks old but hasn't existed for that length of time) then that appearance is not indicative of reality. Hence deception.

 

[Deadbolt]

I've seen "scientists" descriptions of our history, and I don't agree with their descriptions.

Weather or not you disagree with them, they are far closer to the truth than the ignorant writings of xenophobic bronze-age savages.

 

[milkyway]

I've seen "scientists" descriptions of our history, and I don't agree with their descriptions.

You can of course disagree, but you're still wrong.

Just have a look around you and you'll see why...

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

It requires a false history.

Indeed.

Something which is also required by whatever you call your belief.

And you're wrong --- I am on record as calling our belief maturity without history.

I have a feeling you know this, but in case you forgot, here it is again.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can of course disagree, but you're still wrong.

Just have a look around you and you'll see why...

I don't need to look around. I have you guys right here telling me the Egyptian Empire - (which came from Noah's grandson) - predated the Flood.

I don't need your junk interpretations of what went on long ago.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And you're wrong --- I am on record as calling our belief maturity without history.

I have a feeling you know this, but in case you forgot, here it is again.

AV, can I recommend you stop abusing words? I'm not saying you have to stop using words, or that you have to give up your "maturity without history" idea, but sadly all those words, be they "age", "history", "maturity" have been taken already. They have specific meanings that carry with them certain prerequisites.

So let me suggest you use some new words!

Perhaps in the future you could say the above sentence:

"I am on record as calling our belief blagnivlovim without gornifilormia."

That way no one is confused about your use of words. It is a sentence that indicates something without something else, but the words are all new and have no meaning that has already been mucked up by centuries of common usage in the language!

It's win-win for you, AV. I hope you'll go with this suggestion. Because it carries just about the same "information content".

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, can I recommend you stop abusing words? I'm not saying you have to stop using words, or that you have to give up your "maturity without history" idea, but sadly all those words, be they "age", "history", "maturity" have been taken already. They have specific meanings that carry with them certain prerequisites.

So let me suggest you use some new words!

Perhaps in the future you could say the above sentence:

"I am on record as calling our belief blagnivlovim without gornifilormia."

That way no one is confused about your use of words. It is a sentence that indicates something without something else, but the words are all new and have no meaning that has already been mucked up by centuries of common usage in the language!

It's win-win for you, AV. I hope you'll go with this suggestion. Because it carries just about the same "information content".

All words carry the standard dictionary definitions. Now you're going to accuse me of deception?

I'm one step away of calling you a liar.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't need to look around. I have you guys right here telling me the Egyptian Empire - (which came from Noah's grandson) - predated the Flood.

Are you insane??? Everyone knows it was Khnum who created mankind, and presumably the Egyptians, on his potters wheel!

Where do you get this Noah's grandson stuff???? That's just silly talk!

I don't need your junk interpretations of what went on long ago.

Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

All words carry the standard dictionary definitions. Now you're going to accuse me of deception?

I'm one step away of calling you a liar.

I didn't accuse you of deception. I merely pointed out you are abusing words that have standard common meanings.

From Merriam-Webster:

MATURE:
2 a (1): having completed natural growth and development : ripe (2): having undergone maturation b: having attained a final or desired state c: having achieved a low but stable growth rate d: of, relating to, or being an older adult : elderly (SOURCE)

HISTORY:
2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b: a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a patient's medical background d: an established record 3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events 4 a: events that form the subject matter of a history b: events of the past c: one that is finished or done for d: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)(SOURCE)

Of course those indicate that an action has gone before.

So don't go that extra step and call me a liar. Because then you'd have a bigger dude to contend with than li'l ol' me...
[bible]Exodus 20:16[/bible]

(In case you are confused on the word "liar" it is one who tells lies,

Lies: A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else. A liar is a person who is known to have a tendency to tell lies.(SOURCE) )

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you insane???

Peculiar ---

[bible]1 Peter 2:9[/bible]

Everyone knows it was Khnum who created mankind, and presumably the Egyptians, on his potters wheel!

You're a real piece of work.

Where do you get this Noah's grandson stuff????

From the Table of Nations --- the same place I've always gotten it. It's not like I haven't said this five times before.

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Mizraim (Hebrew: מִצְרַיִם / מִצְרָיִם, Mitzráyim Tiberian Miṣrāyim / Miṣráyim ; cf. Arabic مصر, Miṣr) is the Hebrew name for the land of Egypt, with the dual suffix -āyim, perhaps referring to the "two Egypts": Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt.

That's just silly talk!

Well, aren't we an armchair [SIZE=-1]floccinaucinihilipilificationist all of a sudden?
[/SIZE]

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't accuse you of deception. I merely pointed out you are abusing words that have standard common meanings.

From Merriam-Webster:

MATURE:
2 a (1): having completed natural growth and development : ripe (2): having undergone maturation b: having attained a final or desired state c: having achieved a low but stable growth rate d: of, relating to, or being an older adult : elderly (SOURCE)

HISTORY:
2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b: a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a patient's medical background d: an established record 3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events 4 a: events that form the subject matter of a history b: events of the past c: one that is finished or done for d: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)(SOURCE)

Of course those indicate that an action has gone before.

That's why I stipulated without history.

Is it deceptive to say I baked a cake without sugar?

• Maturity without history.
• Cake without sugar.

See the correlation?