My Last Thursdayism Challenge

[jamielindas]

This thread went to heck in a hurry --- didn't it?

so...
1) how old do you think the universe is (no need to count the seconds, an order of magnitude will suffice)
2) There is only one definition of LTism that I was aware of and I looked over this thread again and am finding it difficult to piece together what the two definitions were.
3) I find any discussion where physical evidence is discarded in favor of testimony to head downhill quickly.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Instantly.

Thou didst beat me to it, my lord.

 

[Tomk80]

See, that's what normal, intelligent humans do when they get something wrong: they say "oh, sorry, I got that wrong". They don't blame everyone else for their own lack of understanding. Try it sometime.

But anyway, perhaps you'd now be good enough to tell us how old (at least a little more specifically than > 10k yrs) the earth is in your cosmology, and how an Earth older than 10k years fits with a literal reading of the Bible. Feel free to point to other posts or articles if this has been covered succinctly in the past. Thanks in advance.

Here we go again.

 

[FishFace]

I'm assuming from your many statements on physical evidence that you take a literal interpretation of the bible and thus believe it to be less than 10,000 years old.
I apologize if this isn't correct.

He thinks it's both 6000 years old and 4.5 billion years old - cool, huh?

 

[Freodin]

He thinks it's both 6000 years old and 4.5 billion years old - cool, huh?

For two different definitions of "old", of course.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

He thinks it's both 6000 years old and 4.5 billion years old - cool, huh?

I saw some reference to this earlier... I thought it was mockery... Um.



But, of course, we've all been "pwned" by AV's challenge because you can't reconcile two mutually exclusive statements... Um.



Hey, AVVET, given FF's and Tomk80's posts, please just give a link to where you explain this... interesting idea. Please don't repeat; I'm curious but I don't want to start anything. Thank you.

 

[jamielindas]

I saw some reference to this earlier... I thought it was mockery... Um.



But, of course, we've all been "pwned" by AV's challenge because you can't reconcile two mutually exclusive statements... Um.



Hey, AVVET, given FF's and Tomk80's posts, please just give a link to where you explain this... interesting idea. Please don't repeat; I'm curious but I don't want to start anything. Thank you.

I do believe we're talking about Double Think, aren't we!

I am very interested in what his response will be though. I was sure by the way he talks about reality(which I take to mean physical evidence) being second rate compared to scripture that he was going to go with the literal interpretation on the order of 10k. However, he states I am wrong, for which I apologized. Though if he admits to the universe being both 10k and billions, I'm technically still right. right? what's my prize?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here we go again.

Don't worry --- I'm not going there --- not in this thread.

I'm not jumping through hoops every time a newbie shows up.

Let them Google it.

 

[Tomk80]

Don't worry --- I'm not going there --- not in this thread.

I'm not jumping through hoops every time a newbie shows up.

Let them Google it.

You could at least provide a link for the guy. I thought you had all those things handy and bookmarked?

 

[jamielindas]

Don't worry --- I'm not going there --- not in this thread.

I'm not jumping through hoops every time a newbie shows up.

Let them Google it.

Just answer the question please. so we have a contiguous thread...

 

[AV1611VET]

You could at least provide a link for the guy. I thought you had all those things handy and bookmarked?

Just answer the question please. so we have a contiguous thread...

Fair enough ---

QV PLEASE

 

[jamielindas]

I simply agree with both the Bible, and the extra-biblical dating methods --- making the claim that God created this universe 6000 years ago, with age embedded in it.

Adam is the best example I can use.

• On the day he was created, he was 20 years old.

Although in existence less than a day, he's already 20 years old.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27944251&postcount=8


You realize that you just admitted that you agree with LTism. That's the whole concept, created with age embedded in it.

Deciding that the universe was created with age embedded in it reduces the discussion down to hearsay because you've eliminated the utility of physical evidence.

 

[jamielindas]

Are you familiar with the old robot saying, 'Does not compute'?

 

[AV1611VET]

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=27944251&postcount=8


You realize that you just admitted that you agree with LTism. That's the whole concept, created with age embedded in it.

Deciding that the universe was created with age embedded in it reduces the discussion down to hearsay because you've eliminated the utility of physical evidence.

Jamie, believe me, I've been through this a thousand times.

Omphalism, and its close cousin, Last Thursdayism, are embedded history, whereas I teach embedded age.

There's a difference --- and I really don't care to discuss it here.

You're welcome ---

 

[jamielindas]

Shall I start a new thread to discuss it?
I don't understand the difference as you've stated it. What do you think the difference is between embedded history and embedded age? I'm fairly certain that science doesn't distinguish since it uses the observable to understand its history, to arrive at an age. One being determined by the other, not really separate as you've stated.

by the way, I think its impolite to think you can end the discussion like that and I'm fairly certain others would like to see you address this on this thread since it is completely germane to the topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Shall I start a new thread to discuss it?
I don't understand the difference as you've stated it. What do you think the difference is between embedded history and embedded age? I'm fairly certain that science doesn't distinguish since it uses the observable to understand its history, to arrive at an age. One being determined by the other, not really separate as you've stated.

by the way, I think its impolite to think you can end the discussion like that and I'm fairly certain others would like to see you address this on this thread since it is completely germane to the topic.

This thread's dead anyway --- go ahead --- do you have a specific question?

• embedded history = maturity with history
• embedded age = maturity without history

QV PLEASE

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you familiar with the old robot saying, 'Does not compute'?

Yes --- I know all the characters on Lost in Space --- and can give you their show names and their real names --- from memory.

(I know --- whoop - t - do.)

 

[jamielindas]

You're going to need to explain more since you used the word in the definition of the word.
What is it you are calling history?
Are tree rings history? Is the fact that we know the speed of light and can derive distance to stars, thus can calculate how long it takes light to get to us count as age or history?
Is knowing the decay rate and current amount, thus calculating age count as history or age?

 

[jamielindas]

actually, that post is a quote from Futurama, which is of course itself quoting older futurist shows like Lost in Space

 

[Tomk80]

You're going to need to explain more since you used the word in the definition of the word.
What is it you are calling history?
Are tree rings history? Is the fact that we know the speed of light and can derive distance to stars, thus can calculate how long it takes light to get to us count as age or history?
Is knowing the decay rate and current amount, thus calculating age count as history or age?

It's very simple.

Age--> everything AV wants to selectively accept.
History --> everything AV wants to selectively ignore.