A Parable about Age

[dlamberth]

How's come I know it then?

There are also some who know that there are blood sucking alien lizards who are controlling the world. David Icke has a large following who believe it.

.

 

[British Bulldog]

There are also some who know that there blood sucking alien lizards who are controlling the world. David Icke has a large following who believe it.

.

This is true. David Icke does quite well on lecture tours of America, so I understand.

David Icke- Humans transform to Reptiles! - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

There are also some who know that there are blood sucking alien lizards who are controlling the world. David Icke has a large following who believe it.

.

Apparently then, this David Icke has you questioning everyones' beliefs?

 

[British Bulldog]

Apparently then, this David Icke has you questioning everyones' beliefs?

Er, no. I remember when he appeared on The Wogan show back in the 80s. Dressed in a bright turquoise tracksuit and with a peculiar gleam in his eyes the ex-snooker commentator - yes, you heard right - announced to a startled teatime audience that he was the son of God. Of course, you're all used to that sort of thing in America, but in England we howled with laughter. He's been something of a joke ever since.

 

[dlamberth]

Apparently then, this David Icke has you questioning everyones' beliefs?

Actually, he has me questioning my own beliefs. There is perceived truths...and there are Truths. When we make up our own truths...I find that's something to be aware of and to stay away from. Why? Because I'd be lying to myself than.


.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Actually, he has me questioning my own beliefs. There is perceived truths...and there are Truths. When we make up our own truths...I find that's something to be aware of and to stay away from. Why? Because I'd be lying to myself than.
.

The only "Truths" we can be certain of are scientific ones. Look at Christianity - a divided religion split among thousands of denominations, each one claiming they have the "truth". Then, in each of those denominations, there are Christians, all of whom have their own interpretation of God's Word. Whilst there are some things that Christians will agree on (the Divinity of Jesus, his resurrection, etc) there are many more issues they disagree on. How, therefore, do they honestly expect us sceptics to come to the "Truth", when they are fighting about what this truth is among themselves?

If you think you have the Truth, test it. If it keeps working then you've found it. If it fails your test, start again. This is science.

 

[Freodin]

I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I clearly called this a parable.

If that's "deceptive" to you, then I would say the problem lies on your end.

You are "clearly calling" a lot of things. That does not mean you are correct.

You are using terms in a way that no one else uses. You make analogies that no one else but you finds correct. You are balking at defining your concepts. You drop out of threads when called at that.... this is your "clearly calling".


In this case, the number on the bank account does not mean anything. It is purely virtual. It has on its own no connection with the age of the account.

This is your base problem. You have been repeatedly asked how you would determine the "age" of things... but you cannot answer this question. You have no idea of how to answer this question beyond "Oh, but science says... I just agree with it."

So how does science determine the age of this account? They don't do it by looking at the big number of the bank statement.

They count! What do they count?

Two possible things: the first you mentioned yourself: "Let's say an account exists that has 1 dollar deposited into it once a year."

How do they know that? How can they know that?

They know that, because there exists evidence that each year, a dollar is deposited into the account. Records exist. Physcial evidence exists. Else they could not know.

And some of that evidence, some of these records show them that a dollar coin was deposited each year, even before the starting date that is claimed.

Second possible thing: they count the account itself. It does not consist of virtual numbers, but of real coins. Hard shiny silver dollar coins. And while counting them they find that they are marked. "2009" an commemorary Abraham Lincoln silver dollar says. "1804" is written on a slighly tarnished liberty dollar. And there is a "1066" dollar, coined by President William Norman, depicting his victory over the Saxons. And one rare "-4006 BC" dollar coin, commemorating the impending creation of the world. And a "-65 million BC" dollar coin, showing the death of the dinosaurs.

There are millions and millions of coins, marked with events and coined by people that never existed, if we can trust the "6000 years ago" bank record.

If the record was true, all these coins would be deceptive.

 

[Belk]

Oh look, another analogy in a desperate bid to convince others to ignore all the data.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Continuous creation" theology actually states the account was reopened just this very instant, and every prior instant.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Does that suggest that God is micromanaging creation?

 

[razeontherock]

If you think you have the Truth, test it. If it keeps working then you've found it. If it fails your test, start again. This is science.

You just called my Faith scientific. (FWIW, I do not agree, but the same principles do pertain)

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

You just called my Faith scientific. (FWIW, I do not agree, but the same principles do pertain)

On the subject of faith itself, those tests would fail. Take prayer for instance. It has already been tested scientifically and failed. Prayer does not heal the sick, study finds - Times Online

The current situation in Texas is also proof of this. Rick Perry led the State in prayer for rain. God sent them fire instead.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Maybe yours doesn't, but it's my parable --

And for the record, I already showed the fallacy of saying #2 saying '4.57 billion years ago'.

Do you even know what a fallacy is?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you even know what a fallacy is?

Anything I say?

 

[dlamberth]

On the subject of faith itself, those tests would fail.

That kind of shows why sacred text like the Bible are not science books, but are guidelines in bringing one to the awareness of God in their lives. Those who use the Bible as a science book, I feel, are totally miss-using the text for it's intended purpose.

.

 

[Nostromo]

Anything I say?

I wouldn't say 'anything', but you're not far wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

I wouldn't ... I would have to go by faith in the bank's records.

If that were the case, there wouldn't be any disagreement between the evo and the creo. Your analogy doesn't reflect reality.

Then my OP should be amended to:

Evolutionists say both are correct.

YECs say both are wrong.

Embedded Agers say #1 is correct and #2 is wrong.

This, of course, renders my OP useless, as there's not enough information in your Arabed version.

YECs, for example, say both are wrong -- but it doesn't say what is right.

My OP supplies all the information needed to make my point.

Yes, your OP is useless. As I said, the analogy does not reflect reality. LHM's version does reflect reality, but you dismiss it as useless because it doesn't support your preconceived ideas.

 

[Tiberius]

How's come I know it then?

There are people who know they are napoleon. There's a difference between knowing and merely being convinced.

You are convinced. But conviction does not equate to truth.

 

[Tiberius]

If you think you have the Truth, test it. If it keeps working then you've found it. If it fails your test, start again. This is science.

I'm gonna quote you on that! I love it!

 

[MoonLancer]

Let's say an account exists that has 1 dollar deposited into it once a year.

Bank records show two things:

1. The account shows a balance of $4,570,000,000.00.
2. The account was opened 6000 years ago.

Evolutionists say #1 is correct and #2 must be in error.

YECs say #1 must be in error and #2 is correct.

Embedded Agers say both are correct, because the account must have been opened with an initial deposit of 4.57 billion dollars (-6000).

So God created the world and embedded it with fossils? or are you going to argue the science of that as well?