My Omphalos Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Ah, I see the problem. You are treating your interpretation of God's Word AS God's Word. That is very prideful of you.

[bible]1 Thessalonians 2:13[/bible]

Here is a more humble and modest approach for you to consider:

Where there is a seeming conflict between science and Scripture, then either the interpretation of Scripture is wrong, or the interpretation of the scientific evidence is wrong, or both. I will consider the strength of both interpretations and determine which is more likely to be at fault.

So this verse has no place in the Bible?

[bible]Romans 3:4[/bible]

Remember geocentrism.

We don't teach geocentrism, nor did we ever; so you cannot lay that at our feet.

 

[dlamberth]

You have never, ever seen me say this.

Than please, (sorry, but one more time) exactly what are you saying about the actual age of the earth. Is it really 6100 years old? Or is it 4.57 Billion years old? I get a sense that your saying it's both.

.

 

[FishFace]

I just get tired of repeating myself over and over, that's all. You want to talk about everything but Genesis 1, and it gets old after awhile.

Tough. You are claiming that something can be old without having existed for that length of time. The Bible is irrelevant to that claim - it is simply self contradictory, just as if I said, "This square has five sides."

You are quite happy to leave Genesis 1 when you think your twisting of the language will help - maturity without history for example.

But for some reason, when we follow your interpretation you suddenly get cold feet after it turns out that, whichever way you slice it, age implies existence.

You've got no comeback, as far as I can see - you just hope that we'll forget we've already refuted you a thousand times and repeat your "maturity without history," "embedded age," nonsense.
If the earth is old, it has existed for that length of time.
If the earth looks old but hasn't existed for that length of time, God is deceptive.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Than please, (sorry, but one more time) exactly what are you saying about the actual age of the earth. Is it really 6100 years old? Or is it 4.57 Billion years old? I get a sense that your saying it's both.

.

(Caveat: Thaumaturgy is not a licensed "AV1611VET Interpretter", nor does he have a degree in this area. He does, however, play one on TV. Any opinions expressed herein should be assumed to only represent those of Thaumaturgy)

From what I've been able to gather from AV's repeated claims is:

1. God can do anything.
2. God created the earth about 6100 years ago.
3. God created an earth that was 4.5billion years old 6,100 years ago because he is capable of doing anything.

NOW:
This is not an act of deception on the part of God because he documented it in the Bible.

Here's everyone else's complaints:

1. "Maturity" is not a module you can just "put in" or "embed". Maturity, age or history all are the result of having gone through the requisite time to achieve the age, maturity or history.

2. If AV were arguing for accelerated maturity he would still have to come down firmly that the earth simply is 6,100 years old. Instead he claims that it simply is whatever the scientists measure, only that it has been in existence ("gone around the sun" in his parlance) for 6,100 annual cycles (years).

This appears to be done for the simple expedient of his not having to debate the science (which says the earth is 4.5GA, and against which he is ill-prepared to debate, AND he wishes to remain wholly faithful to God's inerrant word in the Bible.

He's painted himself into a tight corner, he can't debate against the scientists and he doesn't want to make God think he is committing "thoughtcrime" against God, so he has come up with this clever word-game.

I am sure he honestly and earnestly believes every single word of it. He is being as absolutely honest as he is humanly capable of. It is, however, to the outside observer, an illogical claim.

It is certainly anti-scientific since it relies on one immovable data point that is presented as a priori "immovable".

He will further attempt to "scientifically" justify the singular value and nature of the Bible as an inerrant data point, but that gets off into prophecy counting. Surely one of the weakest links in this particular evidentiary chain.

But in a sense it is a great crutch for AV and those like him. If they fear that God is going to judge you on "thoughtcrime", then this is surely a rational approach to solving the conundrum of where science runs up against biblical inerrancy.

It is the "cake-and-eat-it-too" defense if you will.

But that is just my analysis. I'm sure I've missed some subtlety that AV will correct me on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Than please, (sorry, but one more time) exactly what are you saying about the actual age of the earth. Is it really 6100 years old? Or is it 4.57 Billion years old? I get a sense that your saying it's both.

.

No problem --- sorry for being so short ---

• The earth is 4.57 billion years old --- physically.
• The earth is 6100 years old --- existentially.

Here's a good analogy:

• Create a marble - (M1) - and have it go around the sun 4.57 billion times.
• Now create another marble - (M2) - as an exact copy of M1, right down to the quantum level.

 

[Vance]

So, AV, you really don't think you could ever get your interpretation of Scripture wrong?

You really think that of all the thousands of different interpretations on Scripture, your particular perspectives on every verse are guaranteed to be the correct ones, and that every other Christian (since NONE would have exactly the same perspective on every verse) is the one that must be wrong?

And, yes, the entire Church got the geocentrism one wrong. You may not have been born, but you can not possibly say that, were you around at the time, you would have been the ONE Christian who got it right. Or, maybe, given your statements above, you DO believe that.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, AV, you really don't think you could ever get your interpretation of Scripture wrong?

I've been wrong before; but I have also created some challenges challenging you guys to interpret it yourselves, and all you guys do is make jokes, so I can't help you.

You really think that of all the thousands of different interpretations on Scripture, your particular perspectives on every verse are guaranteed to be the correct ones, and that every other Christian (since NONE would have exactly the same perspective on every verse) is the one that must be wrong?

I don't own a copyright on my interpretations, and I don't guarantee my work; but I'll say this: until you guys come up with something better than

It didn't happen

I'll continue to believe what I believe.

 

[Vance]

No, but your answer above was to simply point at the Bible and say "see, this is what it says". Well, as a fellow Christian, I disagree and say it says something different, pointing out that the facts presented don't conflict with the Bible, per se, but with YOUR interpretation of the Bible, which may or may not be wrong. You responded by basically saying that it can not be your interpretation that is wrong.

Again, I ask you: is it possible that it is your interpretation that the Bible describes a flood in 2350 b.c. is simply wrong, and that another interpretation of the Bible could be correct?

We did not just state "it didn't happen", we provide solid evidence that it didn't happen, which is very different. I guess here is another question: what LEVEL of evidence would it take for you to admit that your interpretation of the Bible on that point is incorrect?

 

[milkyway]

I've been wrong before; but I have also created some challenges challenging you guys to interpret it yourselves, and all you guys do is make jokes, so I can't help you.



I don't own a copyright on my interpretations, and I don't guarantee my work; but I'll say this: until you guys come up with something better than I'll continue to believe what I believe.

Remember though...if science hadn't produced overwhelming evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, there would never have been a need to think up the 'embedded age' escape clause at all.

So the scientific method, as always, reigns supreme. Case closed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I've been wrong before; but I have also created some challenges challenging you guys to interpret it yourselves, and all you guys do is make jokes, so I can't help you.

You know what they say....if you don't want people to make fun of your challenges, don't make such funny challenges!

I don't own a copyright on my interpretations,

According to 17 USC 102 you can't copyright an idea, but you can probably get a copyright on your phrase "Maturity without History" or whatever version you want.

I am assuming that, in accordance with 17 USC 101 that this applies to your having recorded it on Christianforums:

A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.(SOURCE)

But if you want to bring a case in federal court you might wish to actually register the copyright. Currently it is only covered under common law, if I am recalling correctly.

(Caveat: Thaumaturgy is not a licensed attorney at law, but he is currently taking an extension course on intellectual property law and he does own a nice suit that makes him look like a lawyer and he has been known to use random latin phrases in conversation which drives his wife up the wall. But then she's not all lawyerly-like, like Thaumaturgy and she knows she will lose the argument. Thaumaturgy can cite case law, like:
Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Sterling Drug Inc (271 F. 2d 569)(2d Cir 1959) or,
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) or
Greyhound Corp v Both Worlds, Inc., 6USPQ 2d 1635 (TTAB 1988).)

and I don't guarantee my work; but I'll say this: until you guys come up with something better than I'll continue to believe what I believe.

And it's a free country. Do what ya want! Whatever makes you feel right with your god.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess here is another question: what LEVEL of evidence would it take for you to admit that your interpretation of the Bible on that point is incorrect?

Are you talking about the Flood here? If so, when you answer these questions without disrespecting a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, then I'll think about it:

1. Why was Noah aboard the Ark for more than a year?
2. Where did the Water Canopy go?

Like I always say, Vance, if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Remember though...if science hadn't produced overwhelming evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, there would never have been a need to think up the 'embedded age' escape clause at all.

Embedded Age isn't an "escape clause." It is an interpretation that reconciles science with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Let's turn this around --- you tell me how the Bible can portray a 6100 year existence, with a 4.57 billion-year-old earth; and tell me without being disrespectful to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. If you can't, then I'll stick with the Embedded Age explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know what they say....if you don't want people to make fun of your challenges, don't make such funny challenges!



According to 17 USC 102 you can't copyright an idea, but you can probably get a copyright on your phrase "Maturity without History" or whatever version you want.

I am assuming that, in accordance with 17 USC 101 that this applies to your having recorded it on Christianforums:



But if you want to bring a case in federal court you might wish to actually register the copyright. Currently it is only covered under common law, if I am recalling correctly.

(Caveat: Thaumaturgy is not a licensed attorney at law, but he is currently taking an extension course on intellectual property law and he does own a nice suit that makes him look like a lawyer and he has been known to use random latin phrases in conversation which drives his wife up the wall. But then she's not all lawyerly-like, like Thaumaturgy and she knows she will lose the argument. Thaumaturgy can cite case law, like:
Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Sterling Drug Inc (271 F. 2d 569)(2d Cir 1959) or,
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) or
Greyhound Corp v Both Worlds, Inc., 6USPQ 2d 1635 (TTAB 1988).)



And it's a free country. Do what ya want! Whatever makes you feel right with your god.

Ya --- make your jokes --- then you wonder why you don't understand anything.

Like I have said before, you guys want Creationism out of the classroom, then can't understand why no one understands it.

 

[FishFace]

No problem --- sorry for being so short ---

• The earth is 4.57 billion years old --- physically.
• The earth is 6100 years old --- existentially.

Here's a good analogy:

• Create a marble - (M1) - and have it go around the sun 4.57 billion times.
• Now create another marble - (M2) - as an exact copy of M1, right down to the quantum level.

So M1 is 4.57 billion years old, but M2 is only a few moments old. Fine. That doesn't help you though.

 

[FishFace]

Ya --- make your jokes --- then you wonder why you don't understand anything.

We understand perfectly - we just disagree with you when you claim you make any sense.

 

[shevar]

If that's what they say, then they're wrong; and there's nothing wrong with being wrong, is there? Or is that a crime?

Of course not, if there is proof for it then generally scientist are ecstatic if they are proven wrong since it improves the world view.

But ok thanks for explaining your viewpoint (that being said I do think current historians have a better idea what happened 6000 years ago then people did 2000 years ago).

 

[Vance]

Are you talking about the Flood here? If so, when you answer these questions without disrespecting a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, then I'll think about it:

1. Why was Noah aboard the Ark for more than a year?
2. Where did the Water Canopy go?

Like I always say, Vance, if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.

You are refusing to answer my questions, showing that you are intellectually dishonest. I will give you another chance:

Again, I ask you: is it possible that it is your interpretation that the Bible describes a flood in 2350 b.c. is simply wrong, and that another interpretation of the Bible could be correct?

I guess here is another question: what LEVEL of evidence would it take for you to admit that your interpretation of the Bible on that point is incorrect?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ya --- make your jokes --- then you wonder why you don't understand anything.

I don't understand anything. I'm here to learn. That's why I'm taking classes, reading, trying to understand. Unlike some folks the world didn't stop changing in 1611 for me. It is a huge thing to work on understanding the world.

The first step toward knowledge is to acquiesce that we don't know it all.

We must first part with our giant pride of place, pride of knowledge.

You can't go into a classroom thinking you know more than the instructor on the first day of class. And the world is, indeed, a classroom.

No cheat sheets, no "Cliffs Notes". Just raw data out there for you to take in.

If you shut your eyes tight enough, and push those fingers deeply into your ears you might be able to keep it out. You'll have to try pretty hard.

Like I have said before, you guys want Creationism out of the classroom, then can't understand why no one understands it.

We want Creationism out of the classroom because it is anti-intellectualism. It thrives where ignorance is valued. It stands against everything I hold dear. And, it simply isn't science.

Learning is impossible when one thing is decreed inerrant truth. Look at the scientists on this board who will remind you that everything is up for question.

Unfortunately Creationism uses that not only as its primary point of attack but strangely as the highest value item they have in their quivver.

Creationism leverages science's open and honest admission that we don't know anything 100%. There are always questions. Then Creationism says "Well, if you admit you don't know anything 100% then we might be right! Teach the controversy! Teach the controversy!"

Only things is, we can and do say we know somethings pretty well. And sadly for the creationists the "controversy" is largely of their own making.

The only people who claim 100% assurity of anything are Creationists. Strange that. One would think they would have bothered to read their own bible.

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

If there is a controversy to be dealt with, I suggest you firm up your own house before bringing controversy to us. We are quite aware our knowledge is provisional.

Are you?

 

[Split Rock]

Like I have said before, you guys want Creationism out of the classroom, then can't understand why no one understands it.

I thought that you didn't want creationism taught in public school classrooms?

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought that you didn't want creationism taught in public school classrooms?

I don't --- I wouldn't trust the public education system to teach my children anything about the Bible.