The Flood (2)

[Skaloop]

Omphalos is embedded history --- I'm embedded age.

Which are, semantics aside, the same thing.

 

[Genre]

#2 makes perfect sense.

If you were going south down the highway, and your odometer read 1000 miles, and you make a right turn and drove 50 miles, then did a 180 and drove back to the highway and continued your journey; your odometer going southbound would go from 1000 to 1100.

Using TIME instead of DISTANCE, that would explain the earth being 4.57 billion years old, but having been in existence this side of time for only 6100 years.

Vast oversimplification. A second dimension of time would not age things. We don't have words to describe what it would do. Think of it in terms of spacial dimensions.

Lets say aging occurs when you move things forward. Moving things sideways, then will not age them.

2 Dimensions of time would function more like an x and a y axis, not 2 horizontal lines.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which are, semantics aside, the same thing.

Not hardly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Vast oversimplification. A second dimension of time would not age things. We don't have words to describe what it would do. Think of it in terms of spacial dimensions.

Lets say aging occurs when you move things forward. Moving things sideways, then will not age them.

2 Dimensions of time would function more like an x and a y axis, not 2 horizontal lines.

Two horizontal lines would indeed be parallel, but I'm talking another dimension of time --- just like another dimension of space.

The 2nd dimension of time would be perpendicular, not parallel, to the 1st, and time indeed would advance --- just like the odometer on the car would increase.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Two horizontal lines would indeed be parallel, but I'm talking another dimension of time --- just like another dimension of space.

The 2nd dimension of time would be perpendicular, not parallel, to the 1st, and time indeed would advance --- just like the odometer on the car would increase.

And... you actually believe this?

 

[FishFace]

I have never said this earth is 6100 years old. I always give it an age of 4.57 billion. It has only existed for 6100 years, though.

X years old = age of X years = existed for X years.

All you can say is that it is X years old but looks Y years old. But what do we call that, AV? That's right! Omphalos!

 

[FishFace]

#2 makes perfect sense.

If you were going south down the highway, and your odometer read 1000 miles, and you make a right turn and drove 50 miles, then did a 180 and drove back to the highway and continued your journey; your odometer going southbound would go from 1000 to 1100.

Using TIME instead of DISTANCE, that would explain the earth being 4.57 billion years old, but having been in existence this side of time for only 6100 years.

Tell me, AV, how do you have two dimensions of time? In your example, the car has travelled 1100 miles. The earth was in existence for 4.57 billion years. But you said it wasn't...

 

[FishFace]

Omphalos is embedded history --- I'm embedded age.

Same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me, AV, how do you have two dimensions of time? In your example, the car has travelled 1100 miles. The earth was in existence for 4.57 billion years. But you said it wasn't...

Are you starting to play games now? I've learned to mostly ignore you and Nathan Poe.

 

[FishFace]

Are you starting to play games now? I've learned to mostly ignore you and Nathan Poe.

What, because we ask questions you can't answer?

Whatever. No, I'm not playing games. In your car example, the car has traveled 1100 miles, correct? Well in the earth's case, the earth would have "traveled" 4.57 billion years. I'm not quite sure how it could have done that traveling if it hadn't been existing for 4.57 billion years as well.

So #2 is unviable, and #1, as we've established is Omphalos. Because #1 is embedded age, and embedded age is no different to embedded history, and embedded history is Omphalos.

You only disagree with one step in that argument, as far as I can see - I wonder, are you going to tell us why we're wrong to say that embedded age is the same as embedded history?

You complain about us repeating ourselves, but when you don't answer our questions, of course we will repeat them.

 

[AV1611VET]

So #2 is unviable, and #1, as we've established is Omphalos. Because #1 is embedded age, and embedded age is no different to embedded history, and embedded history is Omphalos.

According to the Omphalos Hypothesis, how old is the earth?

 

[Genre]

Two horizontal lines would indeed be parallel, but I'm talking another dimension of time --- just like another dimension of space.

The 2nd dimension of time would be perpendicular, not parallel, to the 1st, and time indeed would advance --- just like the odometer on the car would increase.

You are assuming that you know the nature of a second dimension of time.

Age occurs when you move things forwards through time. We have no idea what would happen if you were to move them side to side. Your idea of what would happen is VERY unlikely. You may think it makes sense to equate it to a highway, but time and space are very different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

While you're lurking there, Frumious, you can answer it too, since you're always accusing me of being Omphalos.

How old is the earth according to the Omphalos Hypothesis?

(I'll pwn you both at once.)

 

[Nathan Poe]

While you're lurking there, Frumious, you can answer it too, since you're always accusing me of being Omphalos.

How old is the earth according to the Omphalos Hypothesis?

(I'll pwn you both at once.)

As old as the Speaker needs it to be.

"The Earth was created 6,000 years ago..."

"But it looks 4.5 billion years old.."

"That's because God made it look 4.5 billion years old, when He created it 6,000 years ago..."

"So, it's not really 4.5 billion years old?"

"Don't be silly! That would make God deceptive! He really did make it 4.5 billion years old, when He created it 6,000 years ago! Pwned!"

Deja vu, AV?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you starting to play games now? I've learned to mostly ignore you and Nathan Poe.

Indeed. If I were you, I'd ignore me too.

 

[AV1611VET]

As old as the Speaker needs it to be.

"The Earth was created 6,000 years ago..."

"But it looks 4.5 billion years old.."

"That's because God made it look 4.5 billion years old, when He created it 6,000 years ago..."

"So, it's not really 4.5 billion years old?"

"Don't be silly! That would make God deceptive! He really did make it 4.5 billion years old, when He created it 6,000 years ago! Pwned!"

Deja vu, AV?

I may as well pwn all three of you.

Since the hypothesis is based on the idea that apparent age is an illusion, it is a consistent extension to then suggest that the world could have been created as recently as five minutes ago.

And what age range am I on record - (more than one) - as stating this earth definitely is not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed. If I were you, I'd ignore me too.

I'd rather pwn you than ignore you --- as I am about to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

chirp - chirp - chirp

 

[Servant222]

The goal here should be to discuss how the Biblical accounts of the flood relate to any scientific evidence that supports it or not, but ultimately, to win others to Christ, not "win" an argument or play a game of one up-man-ship.

Should we not always be asking ourselves in our comments: will this convince others to embrace Christianity, or turn to something else?

 

[Contracelsus]

The goal here should be to discuss how the Biblical accounts of the flood relate to any scientific evidence that supports it or not, but ultimately, to win others to Christ, not "win" an argument or play a game of one up-man-ship.

Should we not always be asking ourselves in our comments: will this convince others to embrace Christianity, or turn to something else?

Why does the BIble have to agree with science?

Why do scientists have to care who is won to Christ?

Why do some religious people feel the need to make their myth book correspond to reality but probably don't care about other religions' myth books?