My Reconciliation Challenge

[Risu]

So wait, we dice the bible and we have the earth? Somehow it's not adding up to me. Also, I doubt chopping up books will get us anywhere.

 

[Maxwell511]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

The two statments are refering to two different rocks.

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the second item? Maybe a tricorder...?

I think it is called a veg-o-matic

Indeed --- it's a Veg-o-Matic.

 

[BrainHertz]

Indeed --- it's a Veg-o-Matic.

pffft. Close enough...

 

[Tiberius]

How would you reconcile these two statements w/o being disrespectful to either one:

1. This rock has been in existence for 6100 years.
2. This rock is 4.57 billion years old.

Your problem is that you assume from the outset that both of these statements MUST be true.

Fix this problem and the answer will become clear to you.

 

[FishFace]

Absolutely not --- it is 4.57 billion years old --- period.

<Queeny>Well then it isn't 6100 years old, is it!</Queeny>

 

[AV1611VET]

<Queeny>Well then it isn't 6100 years old, is it!</Queeny>

What does "queeny" mean? Or do I really want to know?

 

[FishFace]

What does "queeny" mean? Or do I really want to know?

It is the diminutive of "queen," meaning a female monarch. See: Blackadder.

Although I notice you've not responded to anyone who told you that if the earth is 4.5 billion years old it ain't 6100 years old, except for hand-waving and saying that it's "illogical." I mean, "supralogical" - but they mean the same thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know much about theology but have you looked into the Kabbalah and the interpretation of genesis within it? I don't know if it's all bruhaha but it's definately interesting.

Actually, the commentary by Nachmanides written in the 14th century (if memory serves) comes close to describing the Big Bang. I've always found that interesting.

 

[Loudmouth]

In that case, I'll stick with the fact that even from a Christian perspective the Big Bang can be traced to ex nihilo creation.

It can? I wasn't aware that anyone had come to the conclusion that there was nothing before the Big Bang. In fact, most current theories state that there was something (M-branes) that caused the Big Bang inflation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Although I notice you've not responded to anyone who told you that if the earth is 4.5 billion years old it ain't 6100 years old, except for hand-waving and saying that it's "illogical." I mean, "supralogical" - but they mean the same thing.

Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.

But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

And you guys have proven that time and time again.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.

But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

And you guys have proven that time and time again.

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought that you were going to attempt to reconcile your view with ours, or something of that nature. I thought, wow such an attempt would be a welcome change from your usual posture. Instead, you have just re-wrapped your "Apple Challenge" with different paper. Now you are playing the martyr again. How disappointing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

Well, you are quite wrong. Sadly for your pet "persecution syndrome" it isn't what you are that is annoying people here, it's what you say.

I know it harshes your mellow because presumably you can change what you say, but it is harder to change what you are, and people are merely asking you to coordinate with the rest of logic and language to come to the table and speak to us using both.

That's the real problem. No one cares what you are if you can bother to defend it. But when you make special pleading and gross arabesques of illogic an integral part of your "presentations" (challenges, whatever), then expect people to take on those points.

So, don't worry, you can still feel persecuted all you want, it ain't real. But what is real is that you are up against people who have clearly pointed out logic and linguistic problems with your challenges, so in point of fact it is what you say that people are going after, not what you are.

Unless you simply are illogical.

 

[thaumaturgy]

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought that you were going to attempt to reconcile your view with ours, or something of that nature. I thought, wow such an attempt would be a welcome change from your usual posture. Instead, you have just re-wrapped your "Apple Challenge" with different paper. Now you are playing the martyr again. How disappointing.

Playing the martyr often makes some people feel more holy. Here in the U.S. we have to hear ad nauseam how hard the Christians here have it, despite the fact that 9 state constitutions are or were openly prejudicial towards atheists and recent polls found atheists to be the least trusted minority in the U.S.

Then when they can't bother to robustly defend their stances they claim they are being persecuted.

Go figure.

 

[[serious]]

Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.

But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

And you guys have proven that time and time again.

Let's look at that. Anything suprarenal is not the kidney. Something can't be above itself. Likewise, supralogical is not logical; it is illogical.

 

[Molal]

But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

And you guys have proven that time and time again.

I don't think it is - we don't agree with what you say. Really, it's not you, it's your opinions.

I think everyone would agree here, we all have a lot of respect for you since you are one of the few that actually stick around to argue your point. That takes alot of guts - bravo!

 

[BrainHertz]

Well, I did think of a good point and went and hunted up some words that started with supra-, with the intent of saying something like, "So these aren't real, either?" But all I could find is medical words like supraventricular and stuff like that, so I just abandoned the cause. I always find it interesting when I get accused of twisting the English language, only to later read something like "illogical and supralogical" mean the same thing; and no one contests them.

But like I say: it's not what we say you guys don't like - it's what we are.

And you guys have proven that time and time again.

So you went and looked for some examples to support your contention that "supralogical" was not the same as "illogical", but failed to find anything that backed up that view. From this you conclude that everybody hates you?

By the way, there does appear to be an existing use of the word "supralogical" which is claimed by its users to be different from "illogical". If you want to discuss exactly what space that falls into, and how your use of it here fits that description, go for it...

 

[Soul Searcher]

According to wikipedia supra is Latin for above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supra

So by my reasoning to say something is supra-logic is to say that it is above or beyond logic. Which of course would be the same as saying that it defies logic or that one can never understand this using logic because logic does not apply here it is above logic.

 

[Split Rock]

Playing the martyr often makes some people feel more holy. Here in the U.S. we have to hear ad nauseam how hard the Christians here have it, despite the fact that 9 state constitutions are or were openly prejudicial towards atheists and recent polls found atheists to be the least trusted minority in the U.S.

Then when they can't bother to robustly defend their stances they claim they are being persecuted.

Go figure.

Yes, we see the "I am being persecuted" complex here very often among creationists. There are two aspects to this claim that I think appeal to creationists:
1. It fulfills the prediction that Jesus made that those who following him would be persecuted.
2. It makes them feel like Jesus, as he was persecuted.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

It can? I wasn't aware that anyone had come to the conclusion that there was nothing before the Big Bang. In fact, most current theories state that there was something (M-branes) that caused the Big Bang inflation.

I wonder if Chalnoth would publish a paper called "Insane in the M-brane" if I paid him.

Anyway, AV, unless you present us an example of "supralogic" that's distinctly different from both logic and non-logic, I have no choice but to assume that you have - again - only redefined a term to suit your needs.