My rock challenge

[EternalDragon]

I'ld like to expand your challenge.

Same scenario, but with a few tweaks:

- you are invisible, undetectable and not even part of the space-time continuum.
- you create 2 rocks ex-nihilo, one young and one old and leave no evidence of this creative process.
- you now set up a system that makes sure that all people who believe that one rock is older then the other are doomed for eternity.

In that scenario, I wouldn't even call you deceptive.

I'ld call you an immoral, brutal and cruel douchebag.
-

Me too. Fortunately no one did that.

 

[RickG]

I create two rocks ex nihilo. I create one with two million years of embedded age and the other with none.

When you study them, your analysis shows that one rock is new and the other rock is old, despite the fact they are both the same age.

Am I being deceptive in making it look like one rock is older than the other?

If your intent is to claim that the rocks were created at the same time, then yes. That is very deceptive.

 

[Kylie]

I'ld like to expand your challenge.

Same scenario, but with a few tweaks:

- you are invisible, undetectable and not even part of the space-time continuum.
- you create 2 rocks ex-nihilo, one young and one old and leave no evidence of this creative process.
- you now set up a system that makes sure that all people who believe that one rock is older then the other are doomed for eternity.

In that scenario, I wouldn't even call you deceptive.

I'ld call you an immoral, brutal and cruel douchebag.
-

And I'd agree with you.

 

[Kylie]

This is your thread. Do you carefully examine all the inputs? I think I have explained your question from the first one I replied.

One such question is the embedded age question. It is easily answered by having two time lines.

And this explanation is vague. I am asking for something specific.

And you never mentioned anything about your 5D two timeline stuff until very recently. Your first answer in this thread was a flawed analogy with a bunch of students where you conveniently left out the part where you as the teacher gave them incorrect information as fact, and then you got upset when I called you out on it.

 

[juvenissun]

And this explanation is vague. I am asking for something specific.

And you never mentioned anything about your 5D two timeline stuff until very recently. Your first answer in this thread was a flawed analogy with a bunch of students where you conveniently left out the part where you as the teacher gave them incorrect information as fact, and then you got upset when I called you out on it.

I will not talk to you again if you keep saying that I gave my students "incorrect information".

 

[RickG]

I will not talk to you again if you keep saying that I gave my students "incorrect information".

I'm curious. May I inquire as to what said incorrect information it was perceived to be?

 

[Delphiki]

Me too. Fortunately no one did that.

Do you believe in sin?
Do you believe in original sin?
Do you believe anyone died for all our sins?
Do you believe in any sort of repercussions for not believing someone died for our sins?

 

[theophilus777]

That is true, however it isn't relevant to a discussion on whether the earth is younger than it appears. Unless the earth is near a black hole, which it is not.

So like I said, not relevant to this discussion.

This reflects very immature thinking. There is either a lot of stuff we don't know, including details of time, or we know everything. Clearly we don't know everything, and on that much everyone here agrees. We should also know that science will operate on the assumption that what we know is accurate, otherwise progress stops dead. So a scientific claim of the age of the earth can be made, and yet may be refined in the future, or just plain wrong. Its just that we seem to be running out of ways to revise that estimate.

 

[theophilus777]

Sharp mind.

OK, my bottom-line: the point at the intersection of two time lines.
Don't ask me more. I don't know much about it.

A very interesting idea!

 

[RickG]

This reflects very immature thinking. There is either a lot of stuff we don't know, including details of time, or we know everything. Clearly we don't know everything, and on that much everyone here agrees. We should also know that science will operate on the assumption that what we know is accurate, otherwise progress stops dead. So a scientific claim of the age of the earth can be made, and yet may be refined in the future, or just plain wrong. Its just that we seem to be running out of ways to revise that estimate.

We see different estimates of the age of the earth since the development of radiometric dating because over time instruments, methods, and understanding have improved. In science, assumptions are based on evidence, evidence that gives repeated results. Conversely, your claim is completely unsupported with any evidence.

 

[theophilus777]

Show me what claim I made?

 

[RickG]

Show me what claim I made?

Running out of ways to revise that estimate?

 

[EternalDragon]

Do you believe in sin?
Do you believe in original sin?
Do you believe anyone died for all our sins?
Do you believe in any sort of repercussions for not believing someone died for our sins?

I believe what God guided men to write about what
happened in history. What is your point?

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe what God guided men to write about what
happened in history. What is your point?

How do you know that God guided men to write that?

 

[EternalDragon]

How do you know that God guided men to write that?

The same as you know anything about history. How do you know Genghis Khan existed and conquered most of Eurasia?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't get it. But what I got is more than you do.

You have a theory you don't even understand, and you think you have more than I do?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The same as you know anything about history. How do you know Genghis Khan existed and conquered most of Eurasia?

Because of multiple historical accounts, deaths, and the fact that about 1/20 men that live in Mongolia are his genetic direct descendants.

 

[theophilus777]

Running out of ways to revise that estimate?

Well, do you know of any good science on the radar that might cause a further revision of the age of the earth? I don't, and I don't think it will be revised further. I think we've got pretty wide corroboration on that one.

 

[EternalDragon]

Because of multiple historical accounts, deaths, and the fact that about 1/20 men that live in Mongolia are his genetic direct descendants.

The bible has multiple historical accounts, most people, places and events have been verified as true and I am sure there are many descendants of Jesus living today. Alas, there is no body to test as it came back to life and then ascended to heaven.

 

[RickG]

Well, do you know of any good science on the radar that might cause a further revision of the age of the earth? I don't, and I don't think it will be revised further. I think we've got pretty wide corroboration on that one.

Yes. More samples to test always narrows the margin of error as well as refining decay rates which are always being monitored and more precise data becomes available. Science is always looking for more accurate and verifiable information. Suppose you had made that comment in 1920, 1930, 1940, etc.?