Existential Age vs Physical Age

[AV1611VET]

Interesting thing to say for someone with "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE" as their title.

What do I mean by that?

 

[Nostromo]

Some say I'm Last Thursday, and some say I'm Omphalos.

Make up my mind, will you?

They're the same thing.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

What do I mean by that?

You're willing to believe what science says, and yet you're not. As I said earlier, you're performing doublethink - the ability to believe two conflicting and contradictory ideas at the same time. Simply put, your belief that the earth is both 4.5 billion years old and 6000 years old is doublethink. Not only this, but your title clearly stipulates that you don't believe anything science says. I think secretly you've brainwashed yourself because you know your literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. You claim to take a blasé attitude to science yet you must secretly acknowledge it to some degree in order to hold such a ridiculous hypothesis as the one you "detail" in this thread. I think you're afraid your Bible isn't true so you've made up a silly notion for yourself, giving a nod to some scientific scrutiny, in order to keep believing. Again I'll ask you to note that many Christians have no problem believing in an old earth and theistic evolution. Also, I noticed that you haven't yet countered the refutation of the reduced light speed theory I linked from Talk Origins on page 5 or 6 of this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're willing to believe what science says, and yet you're not. As I said earlier, you're performing doublethink - the ability to believe two conflicting and contradictory ideas at the same time.

Well, we certainly see where the problem lies, don't we? (Or at least I do.)

Simply put, your belief that the earth is both 4.5 billion years old and 6000 years old is doublethink.

You conveniently left two adjectives out of that sentence to make it sound legitimate, didn't you?

 

[mzungu]

Well, we certainly see where the problem lies, don't we? (Or at least I do.)

You conveniently left two adjectives out of that sentence to make it sound legitimate, didn't you?

Yer a hard "nut" (pardon the pun) to crack there AV but there is still hope!

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do I mean by that?

It means that you hope that scientists look after their health with regular exercise by hiking. That's really very kind of you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

Yer a hard "nut" (pardon the pun) to crack there AV but there is still hope!

That's because you guys are swinging an Arab hammer, and just confusing yourselves.

Did you notice how he had to leave off two [okay, they were] adverbs to make his false accusation sound legitimate?

He didn't say:

Simply put, your belief that the earth is both 4.5 billion years old physically and 6000 years old existentially is doublethink.

... did he?

 

[AV1611VET]

It means that you hope that scientists look after their health with regular exercise by hiking. That's really very kind of you.

If that's your answer, then I'll kindly take his accusation with a grain of salt.

(After all, he is a newbie, and ... ahem ... probably doesn't know what I mean by it.)

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

That's because you guys are swinging an Arab hammer, and just confusing yourselves.

Did you notice how he had to leave off two [okay, they were] adverbs to make his false accusation sound legitimate?

He didn't say:

... did he?

I'll stick by what I originally wrote as it is what I fully intended to say. Here's something for you; prove what you're saying. Prove the earth is physically 4.5 billion years old and existentially 6000 years old (note the emboldened and as you posit both positions). The first is easy to do because the science is already there, but the onus is on you to prove your second point. And by proof, I mean empirical proof - something we can test every time (like radiometric dating) and come up with answers that confirm your hypothesis (I almost wrote theory there).

 

[mzungu]

That's because you guys are swinging an Arab hammer, and just confusing yourselves.

Did you notice how he had to leave off two [okay, they were] adverbs to make his false accusation sound legitimate?

He didn't say:

... did he?

Hmmm! He does have a valid point though! Your claim is akin to having your cake and eating it too!

One can philosophise and justify almost any notion no matter how absurd it may be. Empirically speaking; What you claim is not possible without defining exactly what you mean by "Physically" and "Existentially". My English is not up to par with yours so please clarify.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll stick by what I originally wrote as it is what I fully intended to say. Here's something for you; prove what you're saying. Prove the earth is physically 4.5 billion years old and existentially 6000 years old (note the emboldened and as you posit both positions). The first is easy to do because the science is already there, but the onus is on you to prove your second point. And by proof, I mean empirical proof - something we can test every time (like radiometric dating) and come up with answers that confirm your hypothesis (I almost wrote theory there).

You seriously are confused, aren't you?

First you demand proof, which you ... um ... know science [boasts it] cannot provide; then you call it an hypothesis.

 

[mzungu]

You seriously are confused, aren't you?

First you demand proof, which you ... um ... know science [boasts it] cannot provide; then you call it an hypothesis.

I am sure he meant "Empirical Evidence". Yes you are right about the use of "PROOF"; That is a mathematical concept and something you will find on the label of every alcoholic beverage! Hic!!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Empirically speaking; What you claim is not possible without defining exactly what you mean by "Physically" and "Existentially". My English is not up to par with yours so please clarify.

73

 

[mzungu]

73

Ah but if we are to scrutinise your definitions:

Existential Age = the amount of time an object has been in existence.

Physical Age = the amount of age contained in an object; how old it actually is.

Then they (definitions) are both in want of clarification.

You say "the amount of time an object has been in existence". By object are you defining something in its entirety irrespective of the component's age that comprise that object?

As for "the amount of age contained in an object; how old it actually is", are you referring to the subatomic particles and their age that comprise the atoms that comprise the object?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

You seriously are confused, aren't you?

First you demand proof, which you ... um ... know science [boasts it] cannot provide; then you call it an hypothesis.

Stop twisting and squirming. There's proof from radiometric dating that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is a scientific fact, like gravity, the speed of light, the speed of sound, etc. Now kindly prove that your hypothesis is true - that the earth is physically 4.5 billion years (which, as I've said is already done for you) yet existentially 6000 years old. And please stop trying to dodge this by pointing out some flaw in my wording or some other such nonsense.

EDIT: Until you prove it, it is just a hypothesis, an idea lacking evidence. I'm asking for proof of your idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah but if we are to scrutinise your definitions:



Then they (definitions) are both in want of clarification.

You say "the amount of time an object has been in existence". By object are you defining something in its entirety irrespective of the component's age that comprise that object?

As for "the amount of age contained in an object; how old it actually is", are you referring to the subatomic particles and their age that comprise the atoms that comprise the object?

Goodbye --

 

[AV1611VET]

There's proof from radiometric dating that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

No, there is not.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

No, there is not.

So why do you believe it then? Are you just a troll? I'm starting to think you are.

 

[mzungu]

Goodbye --

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you just a troll? I'm starting to think you are.

Take a number and get in line.