God did not create from nothing

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 7:24 AM

AV1611VET said:
And you're a contextomy practitioner.

My apologies, AV. I was wrong about something.... :sorry:

Warden_of_the_Storm · Thursday at 7:24 AM

AV1611VET said:
And you're a contextomy practitioner.

I can't quote you out of context when you say, repeatedly, that the world was created 6000 years ago. It doesn't matter if you say it was made TO LOOK millions of years old, you still say that the act of creation was 6000 years. Simple logic with the facts given: you are a Young Earth Creationist.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 7:38 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
My apologies, AV. I was wrong about something....

I'm afraid to ask!

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 7:49 AM

AV1611VET said:
I'm afraid to ask!

Then I'll offer my confession as a helpful gesture.

As it turns out, and as it sometimes happens even to the best of philosophers, I made a mistake and stated that the Robert Pennock article that you can read, and in which you can then tell me where he's wrong, is actually over in another thread, one of your other threads.

So, here's a link to that specific post. Again, my apology for my error.

My Science Quiz Challenge

It's meant to show a disconnect between honesty and truthfulness in science over time. But that disconnect is something you've made up. Science doesn't deal in absolutes such as honesty and truthfulness; those aren't scientific. Scientific facts are just descriptors of knowledge as is known at...

www.christianforums.com

AV1611VET · Thursday at 7:50 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I can't quote you out of context when you say, repeatedly, that the world was created 6000 years ago.

That's true.

But then you stop there -- on purpose I suspect -- to truncate the rest of what I say.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It doesn't matter if you say it was made TO LOOK millions of years old,

I never have, except to clarify it LOOKS millions of years old because it IS millions of years old.

You should change your caption to "THE TRUNCATOR."

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... you still say that the act of creation was 6000 years.

There you go truncating again.

6000 years AGO.

The act of creation was 6000 years ago.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Simple logic with the facts given:

Minus a few critical words truncated.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... you are a Young Earth Creationist.

Well with all that manipulation of facts, what else could I be?

Next you'll say I'm a great ape.

Or a mammal.

Oh, wait ... !

AV1611VET · Thursday at 7:53 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
So, here's a link to that specific post. Again, my apology for my error.

No problem.

I'll have a look at it.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Thursday at 7:59 AM

AV1611VET said:
That's true.

But then you stop there -- on purpose I suspect -- to truncate the rest of what I say.

I don't need to truncate anything when your own words are enough.

AV1611VET said:
I never have, except to clarify it LOOKS millions of years old because it IS millions of years old.

You should change your caption to "THE TRUNCATOR."

Something can't BE millions of years old if it was created 6000 years ago.

AV1611VET said:
There you go truncating again.

6000 years AGO.

The act of creation was 6000 years ago.

There, see? You're just outright admitting that you're a YEC.

AV1611VET said:
Minus a few critical words truncated.

Despite the fact that no-one except for you takes embedded age as anything factual or half-way decently factual or even truthful or honest.

Again, I don't need to truncate anything when you outright state that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, which in every way shape and form makes you a Young Earth Creationist.

AV1611VET said:
Well with all that manipulation of facts, what else could I be?

Next you'll say I'm a great ape.

Or a mammal.

Oh, wait ... !

You accuse me of truncating things but you so dearly love to obfuscate things for the sake of obfuscation.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 8:16 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You accuse me of truncating things but you so dearly love to obfuscate things for the sake of obfuscation.

I hope you noticed I added a second error you make to the pot as well.

You do what scientists do.

You manipulate the facts until you get what your looking for.

And if you have to manipulate the facts of what I'm saying by truncating what I say to get me out to be a YEC, then I submit you're getting what you deserve:

Confused.

You even get thumbs ups from your comrades.

And this is just the sort of thing that causes scientific errors.

Truncate the safety checks ... truncate anything that disagrees ... truncate further testing ...

Then get others to agree, and voila -- disaster.

In the way of non-disasters though, the IAU truncated the planetary astronomers, then rigged a vote for those who agreed with them and voila -- Pluto is no longer our 9th planet.

And on and on it goes.

You're a credit to academia.

You've learned a lot from them.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Thursday at 8:19 AM

AV1611VET said:
I hope you noticed I added a second error you make to the pot as well.

You do what scientists do.

You manipulate the facts until you get what your looking for.

And if you have to manipulate the facts of what I'm saying by truncating what I say to get me out to be a YEC, then I submit you're getting what you deserve:

Confused.

You even get thumbs ups from your comrades.

And this is just the sort of thing that causes scientific errors.

Truncate the safety checks ... truncate anything that disagrees ... truncate further testing ...

Then get others to agree, and voila -- disaster.

In the way of non-disasters though, the IAU truncated the planetary astronomers, then rigged a vote for those who agreed with them and voila -- Pluto is no longer our 9th planet.

And on and on it goes.

You're a credit to academia.

You've learned a lot from them.

If you think that directly and explicitly quoting you when you say that the Earth was created 6000 years ago is 'manipulating' anything... I have no positive or nice thing to say as the denouement for this sentence.

Buddy, you're a YEC whether you like it or not. Your statements and own words speak for themselves.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 8:35 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
If you think that directly and explicitly quoting you when you say that the Earth was created 6000 years ago is 'manipulating' anything...

I don't think that.

I hope you do directly and explicitly quote me when I say the earth was created 6000 years ago.

That's not manipulation at all.

That's simply repeating what I say.

The 'manipulation' comes from what you do after that:

Truncating the rest of what I say.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I have no positive or nice thing to say as the denouement for this sentence.

Just admit you're wrong.

Just admit I do say the earth was created 6000 years ago, but that's not all I admit to.

Then you can truncate your false accusations.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Buddy, you're a YEC whether you like it or not.

No.

I'm a YEC because YOU like it.

But YOU has to truncate and manipulate the facts to get his false accusation in.

Along with those who agree with you.

You get quite the following.

Just like the IAU did.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Your statements and own words speak for themselves.

What statements and own words?

You truncated them.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Thursday at 8:38 AM

AV1611VET said:
I don't think that.

I hope you do directly and explicitly quote me when I say the earth was created 6000 years ago.

That's not manipulation at all.

That's simply repeating what I say.

The 'manipulation' comes from what you do after that:

Truncating the rest of what I say.

Just admit you're wrong.

Just admit I do say the earth was created 6000 years ago, but that's not all I admit to.

Then you can truncate your false accusations.

No.

I'm a YEC because YOU like it.

But YOU has to truncate and manipulate the facts to get his false accusation in.

Along with those who agree with you.

You get quite the following.

Just like the IAU did.

What statements and own words?

You truncated them.

There's no need to truncate anything when your statement of "it looks and is millions of years old" is fallacious and just outright wrong in the context of you saying that the world was created 6000 years ago.

You're a YEC who wants the perceived theological benefits of a Biblical narrative and yet also refuses to move away from holding to OEC at the same time for reasons only known to you. It is literally the Golden Mean fallacy at work. Hence why no-one takes you seriously.

Ophiolite · Thursday at 8:57 AM

If @AV1611VET was an astute person, more capable of adapting his approach than seems to be the case, he would ask you @Warden_of_the_Storm this simple question. "How old was Adam when he appeared in the Garden of Eden." Set aside the fact that neither of us think Adam was real, based on what you can read in the Bible roughly how old was he? The nearest decade will do.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 9:00 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
There's no need to truncate anything ...

Then why do you do it so well?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... when your statement of "it looks and is millions of years old" is fallacious and just outright wrong in the context of you saying that the world was created 6000 years ago.

Okay.

In your opinion it is 'fallacious and outright wrong in the context of how I use it.'

That's no reason to truncate it.

Unless, of course, you have an ulterior reason.

Maybe just to get a following at my expense?

Or to look academic?

Or maybe it hurts inside to read it, because you can't make sense of it due to a mental block or something?

Who knows?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You're a YEC who wants the perceived theological benefits of a Biblical narrative and yet also refuses to move away from holding to OEC at the same time for reasons only known to you.

Again, that's no reason to manipulate the facts.

It makes you look academic.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It is literally the Golden Mean fallacy at work.

Good job.

Now you're putting a name to what I'm doing.

1. Take the facts of what you're hearing and seeing.
2. Filter out anything you can't or don't want to handle.
3. Give it name.
4. Go directly to the dean's list; do not pass dishonesty.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Hence why no-one takes you seriously.

Why should they take me seriously, when you're doing such a fine job of making me look dishonest?

It's easier for they to wait and let you speak for them, then give you a thumbs up, rather than confront me themselves.

You're their official spokesman.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Thursday at 9:01 AM

Ophiolite said:
If @AV1611VET was an astute person, more capable of adapting his approach than seems to be the case, he would ask you @Warden_of_the_Storm this simple question. "How old was Adam when he appeared in the Garden of Eden." Set aside the fact that neither of us think Adam was real, based on what you can read in the Bible roughly how old was he? The nearest decade will do.

... Okay, now we're getting into the stickiness of eveything since age and what counts as a man depends heavily on society and history. But, being, I'll play along and say in his twenties.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Thursday at 9:01 AM

AV1611VET said:
Then why do you do it so well?

Okay.

In your opinion it is 'fallacious and outright wrong in the context of how I use it.'

That's no reason to truncate it.

Unless, of course, you have an ulterior reason.

Maybe just to get a following at my expense?

Or to look academic?

Or maybe it hurts inside to read it, because you can't make sense of it due to a mental block or something?

Who knows?

Again, that's no reason to manipulate the facts.

It makes you look academic.

Good job.

Now you're putting a name to what I'm doing.

1. Take the facts of what you're hearing and seeing.
2. Filter out anything you can't or don't want to handle.
3. Give it name.
4. Go directly to the dean's list; do not pass dishonesty.

Why should they take me seriously, when you're doing such a fine job of making me look dishonest?

It's easier for they to wait and let you speak for them, then give you a thumbs up, rather than confront me themselves.

You're their official spokesman.

Oh I do not care to read all of that all. You're a YEC, take the loss and move on.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 9:07 AM

Ophiolite said:
If @AV1611VET was an astute person, more capable of adapting his approach than seems to be the case, he would ask you @Warden_of_the_Storm this simple question. "How old was Adam when he appeared in the Garden of Eden." Set aside the fact that neither of us think Adam was real, based on what you can read in the Bible roughly how old was he? The nearest decade will do.

Good point, Ophiolite.

I did something to that effect already.

See Post 1668

AV1611VET · Thursday at 9:09 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Oh I do not care to read all of that all.

That's your prerogative.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You're a YEC, take the loss and move on.

I don't carry false accusations about myself around.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Thursday at 9:16 AM

AV1611VET said:
That's your prerogative.

I don't carry false accusations about myself around.

It's not a false accusation when you say everything else a YEC says and does and acts.

But I'd say this whole thing has run its course, agreed?

Ophiolite · Thursday at 9:22 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... Okay, now we're getting into the stickiness of eveything since age and what counts as a man depends heavily on society and history. But, being, I'll play along and say in his twenties.

Just the same as I would say. For the purpose of this discussion let's say he was 23. And, very clearly a year after he appeared in the Garden he was 24. But he was only created one year ago, though we are both agreed he was 23 when he was created. That's all that @AV1611VET is saying. That's AV's embedded age. Just as it would be foolish of us to describe this obviously mature human being as being one year old, so the Earth - even though it is 6000 years from its creation is still every bit as much 4.5 billion years old as Adam was 24.

I think AV cannot understand why we cannot see that. The problem is one of equivocation. We are defining age in a different way from AV. It is irrelevant which of us is correct, with different premises the issue cannot be resolved. Since I don't believe age can be embedded AV's argument carries not weight and he is, to me, necessarily a YEC.

AV1611VET · Thursday at 9:24 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It's not a false accusation when you say everything else a YEC says and does and acts.

But I'd say this whole thing has run its course, agreed?

Nope, I do not agree this whole thing has run its course.

Because now, after truncating what I said, you're now filling the void by adding another accusation in its place.

You are truly, truly a credit to academia -- and I mean that sincerely.

Now you're saying I say everything else a YEC says.

Do YECs say earth is over 6000 years old?

Do YECs say science can take a hike?

Do YECs ask if God can create a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

Do YECs believe things needed to be created with age for the sake of the Anthropic Principle?

Do YECs ...

God did not create from nothing

As I figure it, what comes around....

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

As I figure it, what comes around....

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads