My rock challenge

[Ophiolite]

Tell me AV1611, does your deep faith in the literal and truthful nature of the Bible stem from a revelation, or your upbringing, or some other factor?

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me AV1611, does your deep faith in the literal and truthful nature of the Bible stem from a revelation, or your upbringing, or some other factor?

First of all, the Bible Itself.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Second of all, I have a pastor who, in my opinion, is an example of:

Jeremiah 23:4a And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them:

Thirdly, I think God has sheltered me from the lure of the academic world, in order to bring out my faith more.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[Delphiki]

Ok, but where does your faith in the supposed truth of the bible come from?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ok, but where does your faith in the supposed truth of the bible come from?

Where it actually comes from is unconscious hypnosis. He has been hypnotized, although without awareness of what they were doing, by his faith community. Now he resists using reason to understand things such as evolution in the manner any hypnotized subject clings to the suggestion ordered by the hypnotist. That is why he resorts to such transparently clueless dodges as citing scripture to justify depending on scripture - patently circular reasoning. He is merely acting out the post-hypnotic suggestions from his faith community.

 

[Ellwood3]

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?

Your question is interesting primarily because of your motive. It seems the point is to suggest that if Young Earth creationism is right and God just made it look like rocks are old, then God is a deceiver, the argument then being essentially, therefore there either is no God or God is deceptive.


So as is often the case, it's flaws in your approach that are a big part of the problem.


Only a minority of Christians claim the earth is young. One of the egregious errors of their mistaken interpretation is what you suggest: Would their God then been a swindler? A deceiver? Why did He make the earth look old?


I encourage you to try creating just one rock ex nihilo (out of nothing).


Go ahead, KTS, try.


Anybody else think they can create like God? O. K.: Show me your one rock.







ahhhhhh ....




Couldn't do it could you?


So maybe ... you are not God, after all?





Since you are not God, and have demonstrated this, how about taking a different approach, and cease focusing on the Christians who've got the age of the earth wrong.



The far better question is: Do you have the answer to whether God exists--right?




I've got a Rock who created out of nothing.

 

[Delphiki]

Your question is interesting primarily because of your motive. It seems the point is to suggest that if Young Earth creationism is right and God just made it look like rocks are old, then God is a deceiver, the argument then being essentially, therefore there either is no God or God is deceptive.


So as is often the case, it's flaws in your approach that are a big part of the problem.

Let's take a look at flawed approaches with the rest of your post, shall we?

Only a minority of Christians claim the earth is young. One of the egregious errors of their mistaken interpretation is what you suggest: Would their God then been a swindler? A deceiver? Why did He make the earth look old?

(bolding mine)

You ask us this question, but not yourself. Why?

I encourage you to try creating just one rock ex nihilo (out of nothing).

Go ahead, KTS, try.

Not one person made a claim that they could "create like God". How you managed to equate a deceptive nature of creation (i.e. young, but looking old in every conceivable demonstrable way) is beyond me.

Anybody else think they can create like God? O. K.: Show me your one rock.

ahhhhhh ....




Couldn't do it could you?


So maybe ... you are not God, after all?

Congratulations. All you've done is illustrate the point that there is no evidence of anything ever being created ex nihilo. Now you can graduate from believing in creation mythology as if it were reality.

Since you are not God, and have demonstrated this, how about taking a different approach, and cease focusing on the Christians who've got the age of the earth wrong.

We'll stop focusing on them when they stop targeting the public education system.

The far better question is: Do you have the answer to whether God exists--right?

I don't and neither do you. In the meantime, while there is an utter lack of evidence for one, I will continue living a selfless, fruitful, and enjoyable life free from bondage to an almighty superficial and supernatural tyrant entity.

I've got a Rock who created out of nothing.

Not sure if this is a grammar fail or what, but if it isn't, then you're saying you have a rock that made something out of nothing. I hadn't realized rocks were capable of this.

Assuming it is a grammatical error, I can guess that you mean "I've got a rock that was created out of nothing."... To which I refuse to believe your claim until you provide some evidence that it was created out of nothing.

Oh, and by the way... when a God makes something, that's technically not really "ex nihilo", it's creatio ex deo. We have a regular forum member here who also constantly makes this error.

If you are saying that you believe anything is created ex nihilo, then I expect to never catch you accusing non-creationists of believing "something can come from nothing", unless you conceded to being a hypocrite.

 

[Dizredux]

Your question is interesting primarily because of your motive. It seems the point is to suggest that if Young Earth creationism is right and God just made it look like rocks are old, then God is a deceiver, the argument then being essentially, therefore there either is no God or God is deceptive.

The same criticism has been applied to the The Omphalos argument.

The Omphalos hypothesis is the argument that God created the world recently (in the last ten thousand years, in keeping with Flood geology), but complete with signs of great age. It was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Omphalos hypothesis has been often criticized for proposing a deceptive God.

So as is often the case, it's flaws in your approach that are a big part of the problem.

Only a minority of Christians claim the earth is young. One of the egregious errors of their mistaken interpretation is what you suggest: Would their God then been a swindler? A deceiver? Why did He make the earth look old?

Wouldn't you have to ask of those making the claim that the earth only appears old but is really young?


I encourage you to try creating just one rock ex nihilo (out of nothing).

Where did that come from? I think KTS was proposing this as a hypothetical question, a thought experiment if you would.

Go ahead, KTS, try.

Anybody else think they can create like God? O. K.: Show me your one rock.







ahhhhhh ....




Couldn't do it could you?


So maybe ... you are not God, after all?





Since you are not God, and have demonstrated this, how about taking a different approach, and cease focusing on the Christians who've got the age of the earth wrong.



The far better question is: Do you have the answer to whether God exists--right?




I've got a Rock who created out of nothing.

Errr OK if you say so.

BTW large fonts could be considered as shouting.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? "Age is what we measure"? I thought "they" measured isotope ratios.

Yes, which is a direct product of the age of the rock.

Age is something that is assumed based on starting ratios that are also assumed.

Isochron dating does not assume any starting ratio. You have been told this time after time after time.

 

[Ellwood3]

"God is my Rock and my Savior" is one of the Psalms. "Rock" is one of the many names of God. Here is a link:

http://biblehub.com/psalms/18-2.htm


Yes, the claim to be making a rock from nothing, I did take as being a "thought experiment"; the issue being that if asked directly the point made would be that those creationists who claim the earth is young have a deceptive "god." I'm not arguing against that, and I am not a Young Earth Creationist.

Those atheists who dwell on evolution as a means of supporting their faith that there is no God are asking the wrong questions, often with the wrong approach, was my argument.

Could be why they keep coming up with the wrong answer to the still more important issue of whether God exists (He does).


Here is my blog post on evolution, including one of the better resources, the book The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton.


http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u341229/

 

[Delphiki]

Those atheists who dwell on evolution as a means of supporting their faith that there is no God ....

There is no such thing. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god... which is the absence of a faith based belief... an absence of faith in a claim.

Nobody uses evolution to support atheism. If you think that's the case, then you are clearly failing to understand something.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god...

Do you lack a belief in Sagan's dragon?

If so, do you believe Sagan's dragon exists?

If not, is it okay if I assume you believe Sagan's dragon doesn't exist?

 

[Delphiki]

Do you lack a belief in Sagan's dragon?

Yes.

If so, do you believe Sagan's dragon exists?

No.

If not, is it okay if I assume you believe Sagan's dragon doesn't exist?

You can assume, but you would be wrong.

Your last question is asking for a positive claim: That it doesn't exist.

This is not the same as not believing it exists.

There are populations on the earth that have never been introduced the concept of religion or gods. They have no belief in god. They don't believe there is no god and They lack belief in god.

Are you familiar with the stamp collecting analogy?

If I don't collect stamps, I simply don't have a stamp collecting hobby. "Not collecting stamps" isn't a hobby.

 

[Dizredux]

Yes.

No.



You can assume, but you would be wrong.

Your last question is asking for a positive claim: That it doesn't exist.

This is not the same as not believing it exists.

There are populations on the earth that have never been introduced the concept of religion or gods. They have no belief in god. They don't believe there is no god and They lack belief in god.

Are you familiar with the stamp collecting analogy?

If I don't collect stamps, I simply don't have a stamp collecting hobby. "Not collecting stamps" isn't a hobby.

Nor is bald a hair color.

Dizredux

 

[Queller]

Can God create a shirt tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

Yes, and therefore it would be much younger than it looks.

"Look like" is where you're getting confused.

Adam "looked like" he was 30 years old, because Adam "was" 30 years old.

You're saying he would have an embedded age of 30 because he "looks like" he's 30, and that's not what embedded age is.

That's EXACTLY what embedded age is.

Again, Adam looks like he is 30 because he is 30.

Wrong. An hour after Adam was created, he was one hour old. He only looked like he was 30.

You would know by subtracting his physical age (30) by his existential age (0) and the difference (30) would be his embedded age.

There is no such thing as existential age.

That would be Last Thursdaysim.

Which is no different than what you are describing. The only difference is the time period involved.

 

[Queller]

Yes, mistake.

This 4.57 billion year old earth has orbited the sun about 6000 times.

That is impossible.

 

[Queller]

Your question is interesting primarily because of your motive. It seems the point is to suggest that if Young Earth creationism is right and God just made it look like rocks are old, then God is a deceiver, the argument then being essentially, therefore there either is no God or God is deceptive.

Sorry, there other possibilities than just those two.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can assume, but you would be wrong.

... So then you do believe Sagan's dragon exists?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's EXACTLY what embedded age is.

Now, all of a sudden, you're an expert on Embedded Age, are you?

You've certainly got me fooled.

 

[Queller]

Not sure if this is a grammar fail or what, but if it isn't, then you're saying you have a rock that made something out of nothing.

I think he is referring to the idea of God as the Rock (of salvation for instance). Odd phrasing though.

 

[Queller]

Now, all of a sudden, you're an expert on Embedded Age, are you?

No, I'm just going by all the things you post.

You've certainly got me fooled.

I can fool babies anytime, it's easy.