The Flood (2)

[Nathan Poe]

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

five minutes. But you're on the record as saying it definately is both 4.5 billion years and 6,000 years old.

Omphalos.

 

[Nathan Poe]

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

Perhaps someday you will -- but today is not your day.

Tomorrow doesn't look too good either.

Guess you'll have to work a little longer for personal glory.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The goal here should be to discuss how the Biblical accounts of the flood relate to any scientific evidence that supports it or not,

That would make for a short discussion -- pretty much every iota of scientific evidence in existence points away from the Biblical account of a global flood.

As AV has adoitly proven, the only way to reconcile it all is to reverse-engineer the Omphalos argument so that it only vaguely resembles Omphalos, concoct an entirely new definiton of "time" out of whole cloth, and run around in a victory dance yelling "pwned!" while other run off for a bite to eat.

but ultimately, to win others to Christ, not "win" an argument or play a game of one up-man-ship.

Well, tying Christ to events which did not happen isn't going to work, and attempting to do so in the manner prescribed above is an automatic recipe for failure.

I cannot accept that a transcendent God is bound in the pages of a very limited book. I cannot force myself to believe that Omnipotence incarnate must hide His power in the literally-interpreted mythology of an ancient people. I cannot accept in my heart that which my mind rejects as nonsense.

Others can, but I shall not.

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

If Christianity were compatible with reason, I would happily embrace it. But while I accept that faith by its very nature transcends reason, I cannot accept a faith that rejects it outright.

Pwn that, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

five minutes. But you're on the record as saying it definately is both 4.5 billion years and 6,000 years old.

Second time, Nathan Poe:

What age range am I on record - (more than once) - as stating this earth definitely is not?

(Note: It's going to get harder from here, Nathan, as I haven't even touched on the navel issue, yet; but first-things-first.)
​

 

[Nathan Poe]

Second time, Nathan Poe:​

What age range am I on record - (more than once) - as stating this earth definitely is not?​

First time, AV1611VET:​

Who cares? Do you really think I or anyone else cares about your semantics and equivocations?

 

[AV1611VET]

First time, AV1611VET:​

Who cares? Do you really think I or anyone else cares about your semantics and equivocations?

Then don't tell me I'm Omphalos --- or I'll tell you you're a liar.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then don't tell me I'm Omphalos --- or I'll tell you you're a liar.

Since you're unable/unwilling to offer up a straight answer -- having forced yourself into horrid mental contortions to reconcile your own interpretation of Scripture and reality, beyond even your own understanding atthis point -- I can only say that you've lived up to the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of Omphalos.

Call me a liar if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it a lie -- merely an observation.

Pwn that, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

You, too, Bandersnatch.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So:

1: the Earth was created 6000 years ago.
2: The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
3: This is not, in any way, shape, or form, Omphalos.

Is this the short version of it, AV?


(Did anyone ever see that movie Scanners where the guy's head exploded?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Ya --- good job reporting me, whoever did it. I'd rather have an infraction and tell you liars what you are than spend the rest of my time here defending myself against Omphalos any day.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ya --- good job reporting me, whoever did it. I'd rather have an infraction and tell you liars what you are than spend the rest of my time here defending myself against Omphalos any day.

Why defend from it when you've reinvented it?

Omphalos: The Next Generation

"Make it so, Mr. AV..."

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You, too, Bandersnatch.

You are on record as saying the earth has only existed for 6,100 years. The age of something is the same as how long it has existed. It does not matter whatever other total nonsense you have spouted about the earth not being 6,100 years old you are on record as saying that it has existed for only 6,100 years which is the same as saying that it is 6,100 years old.

Your slightly modified Omphalos hypothesis about God creating a billions of years old earth 6,100 years ago is still a version of the Omphalos hypothesis (though an incredibly illogical version) whether you are willing to admit it or not.

 

[Contracelsus]

You are on record as saying the earth has only existed for 6,100 years. The age of something is the same as how long it has existed. It does not matter whatever other total nonsense you have spouted about the earth not being 6,100 years old you are on record as saying that it has existed for only 6,100 years which is the same as saying that it is 6,100 years old.

Your slightly modified Omphalos hypothesis about God creating a billions of years old earth 6,100 years ago is still a version of the Omphalos hypothesis (though an incredibly illogical version) whether you are willing to admit it or not.

I don't think AV1611VET is lying by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree with Frumious Bandersnatch here. This goofy differentiation between embedded age and embedded history is just semantic wrangling from a confused mind.

AV1611 obviously is scared of the science that he doesn't feel comfortable outright stating its "wrong" about the measured age of the earth, but he also doesn't want to make God think he's too scared to agree with Bishop Ussher, so he force fits these two things in his mind.

This is why religion is corrosive to rational thought in my opinion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't think AV1611VET is lying by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree with Frumious Bandersnatch here. This goofy differentiation between embedded age and embedded history is just semantic wrangling from a confused mind.

I would agree with this, except to specify "self-confused mind." Seeing as how this is all what AV has done to himself.

AV1611 obviously is scared of the science that he doesn't feel comfortable outright stating its "wrong" about the measured age of the earth, but he also doesn't want to make God think he's too scared to agree with Bishop Ussher, so he force fits these two things in his mind.

Indeed. He cannot claim that the measured age of the Earth is "wrong," because to support that would require a level of scientific knowledge which he has already freely admitted he does not have and is not willing to learn -- lest it take him out of his Biblical comfort zone.

But he knows enough about the science involved to know -- although he cannot bring himself to outright admit it -- that Ussher's calculations, while they may be Biblically accurate (assuming the Bible's geneologies and dates are complete and 100% accurate), they simply don't mesh with anything we see in the real world.

Alas, Reality has a secular bias.

This is why religion is corrosive to rational thought in my opinion.

I wouldn't go this far -- certainly religion can be and often is beneficial to personal well-being, but like most things, taken in excess...

 

[Contracelsus]

I wouldn't go this far -- certainly religion can be and often is beneficial to personal well-being, but like most things, taken in excess...

Yeah, you're probably right. I did overextend my point a bit. But it does seem that religion can in some extreme cases facilitate poor thinking.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't think AV1611VET is lying by any stretch of the imagination, but I agree with Frumious Bandersnatch here. This goofy differentiation between embedded age and embedded history is just semantic wrangling from a confused mind.

I never said AV was lying about this particular subject. He seems to really believe the delusion that a 4.5 billion year old earth could have been created 6000 years ago and he clearly does not understand that his absurdly illogical "embedded age" claim is as much Omphalos as appearance of age.

AV1611 obviously is scared of the science that he doesn't feel comfortable outright stating its "wrong" about the measured age of the earth, but he also doesn't want to make God think he's too scared to agree with Bishop Ussher, so he force fits these two things in his mind.

I don't want to speculate about his motivation but it is clear that all relevant science indicates that the earth is far older than Ussher's chronology and that the flood of Noah, if real, was local and not global.

This is why religion is corrosive to rational thought in my opinion.

I don't agree with this blanket statement but it is clear that AV is far from thinking rationally on this subject.

 

[FishFace]

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

Well, you use the phrase "the earth is X years old" inconsistently, so I can't really win here. Omphalos states the earth has been in existence for 6,000 years, and so do you. Omphalos states the earth appears much older, and so do you.

Don't take that as trying to dodge the question - your contortions of the English language are such that I have no real idea whether what I, and the rest of the English speaking world, think of as "x years old" is the same as you. Much safer to use the definitions, that way you don't have any semantic wriggle-room.

The Omphalos hypothesis does not make any mention of embedded age vs embedded history vs existential age vs historical existence vs whatever other things you pretend are different.
The only difference you seem able to make is "embedded age vs embedded history" a difference which you refuse to explain.

Everyone on this forum seems to agree that there is no difference.

 

[FishFace]

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

Oh we can all agree on that. That doesn't mean it's not consistent.

For example, it would be consistent to disregard all empirical evidence because it is not certain. But no-one actually does.

 

[Inan3]

Yeah, you're probably right. I did overextend my point a bit. But it does seem that religion can in some extreme cases facilitate poor thinking.

Religion is the cause of murders, sexual immorality, lies, etc.

 

[NailsII]

Religion is the cause of murders, sexual immorality, lies, etc.

Well, it did try to murder scientific thinking.....