Hypothetical for Scientists

[Hespera]

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, Oomphalos is not disprovable by science. The irony here is that is is disprovable by Christian theology.

Well, I'd have to disagree there. Christian theology is a mess of contradictions, and so the fact that Ophalos represents one more contradiction against widely-held Christian beliefs (e.g. God isn't a liar) isn't a huge problem. The thing is, Christian theology doesn't appear to have any problem with contradictions. Once you allow contradictions, there's no way of saying whether or not anything at all is right or wrong. This allows people to proudly believe whatever they please, independent of reason or evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

YOU: Not so --- I have a Dalite rock with only 10 Dalons left. This is evidence that this rock is 999,990 years old.​

CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.​

Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?​

I see you are back to Oomphalos again, but with a semantic quibble over "formed" vs "created".

It's the same theological problem, AV. There is no reason for God to make Dalite with only 110 Dalons in it. He could create it with 100,000 Dalons and there would be 999,900 Dalons left and the earth would be 100 years old. That way there would be no deception and no quibble over "formed" and "created", both terms would be the same.

Sorry, but you keep making a liar god. That does let you reconcile all the evidence for an old earth so you can keep young earth creationism and, supposedly, god. But the price is a god that we can neither worship nor trust.

We must trust God to keep His word about things like forgiveness, salvation, etc. If the god can lie about such trivial things as not putting 100,000 Dalons into Dalite, then that god would not find any problem lying about giving forgiveness, salvation, good rules to follow, etc.

Basically, in order to preserve young earth, you have it created by Satan.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, I'd have to disagree there. Christian theology is a mess of contradictions, and so the fact that Ophalos represents one more contradiction against widely-held Christian beliefs (e.g. God isn't a liar) isn't a huge problem.

Sure it is. HUGE problem. See the post right above. For Christian theology to work, God must be trustworthy.

The thing is, Christian theology doesn't appear to have any problem with contradictions.

You are going to have to list the "contradictions" in Christian theology you think are relevant here.

There are some "contradictions" that are irrelevant to the main point. for instance, when discussing the Battle of the Little Big Horn, we can have contradictions for the number of Sioux and Cheyenne. The contradictions don't contradict that Custer and the 7th were badly outnumbered. THAT is the important point: that there were more Amerindians that cavalry.

So, before you list the "contradictions", first test them yourself to see if they are relevant.

 

[Chalnoth]

Sure it is. HUGE problem. See the post right above. For Christian theology to work, God must be trustworthy.

Well, just see the theological arguments here revolving around the trinity. The claim is that the apparently contradictory language is not actually contradictory by some mysterious, unknown mechanism. By the line of reasoning used here, one can admit any sort of contradiction at all into theology. This prevents disproof from being possible.

Bear in mind that if you don't buy the line of reasoning used in this essay, that's fine. The problem is that others do, and they are taken seriously by others within theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see you are back to Oomphalos again, but with a semantic quibble over "formed" vs "created".

"Formed" and "created" are two concepts that are quite distinguishable in Genesis 1.

Knowing the difference between creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and formed helps to understand what happened (and what didn't happen).

 

[VirOptimus]

"Formed" and "created" are two concepts that are quite distinguishable in Genesis 1.

Knowing the difference between creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and formed helps to understand what happened (and what didn't happen).

Not really, what would help is a understanding what science is and what science is not. Science is just a method to help describe reality and how the universe works. When you debate against science you really debate against reality which is both foolish and nonproductive.

 

[Chalnoth]

mmm....delicious necromancy...

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really, what would help is a understanding what science is and what science is not.

Science has nothing to do with this.

I'm not the one who called the difference between 'formed' and 'created' a 'semantic quibble'.

 

[VirOptimus]

Science has nothing to do with this.

I'm not the one who called the difference between 'formed' and 'created' a 'semantic quibble'.

Heh, I think you dont really understand my point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Heh, I think you dont really understand my point.

Since you're itching so bad to change the subject:

When you debate against science you really debate against reality which is both foolish and nonproductive.

I thought that's what peer review is for; one man debating his reality against another's.

 

[Chalnoth]

I thought that's what peer review is for; one man debating his reality against another's.

Yeah, I don't think any scientist genuinely believes their reality is any different from anybody else's. If we did, there could be no possibility of using evidence to reach agreement.

 

[DarkProphet]

Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?​

No, because the observable universe matches the expectation. Also, what credence do you give to a book if it does NOT match the observable universe? Such a book would be more fiction or fable really.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

I thought that's what peer review is for; one man debating his reality against another's.

No, that is wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

"Formed" and "created" are two concepts that are quite distinguishable in Genesis 1.

Knowing the difference between creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and formed helps to understand what happened (and what didn't happen).

Trouble is, I suspect you made up the definitions to those to support what you;ve already decided is true!

 

[AV1611VET]

Trouble is, I suspect you made up the definitions to those to support what you;ve already decided is true!

I'd say the terms are pretty self-explanatory, wouldn't you?

 

[Greg1234]

I thought that's what peer review is for; one man debating his reality against another's.

Funny vid

YouTube - Evolution gets OWNED!!! LOL Hilarious 0:36 sec.

 

[Chalnoth]

He started out okay, but fell flat on his face when he said, "given enough time, you can turn anything into anything." That's just a false statement, as though evolution is very diverse, it is limited by the fact that everything that develops must be an incremental change on what came before.

However, all of the diversity we see in life today shows the hallmarks of being a result of a series of small, incremental changes from what came before.

Anyway, it's not like you can seriously claim that evolution is false because one person supporting it is a bit wrong. I can easily point to very good videos and books on evolution. See, for instance, this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

...which is an excerpt from this longer video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny vid

LOL -- muy bien -- gracias!

Thanks for sharing that!

 

[AV1611VET]

He started out okay, but fell flat on his face when he said, "given enough time, you can turn anything into anything." That's just a false statement, as though evolution is very diverse, it is limited by the fact that everything that develops must be an incremental change on what came before.

He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.

Talk about "god-of-the-gaps" -- evolution has more gaps than the White Cliffs of Dover has coccospheres.