The Return of My Apple Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I know AV will shoot back with a statement about how God left a "written record" of what he did, but that really doesn't hold since he didn't leave any proof that He wrote said record. And even so, why in his holy name would he make something one way other than what it is and tell us about it?

You've got it backward, Thaumaturgy.

He left us a written record so we wouldn't make the mistake of assuming 4.6 billion years of history.

You see, when you take God's Word out of the equation, you open yourself up to all sorts of error.

 

[Psudopod]

The earth, created 6000 years ago with 4.6 billion years of history, is called the Omphalos Hypothesis; which I don't subscribe to.

I contend that the earth was created 6000 years ago with 4.6 billion years of age.

But other than handwaving, you have yet to get rid of the history. I mean, we have a history of human civiliation going back around 10000 years, cave painting going back even further than that. We ahve varves and tree rings and ice layes, we have radiometric data, we have evidence of impacts, we have supernova remanent, we have magnetic field strengths.

We have history. Full stop. End of story. Until someone shows how all those things and everthing else is false, then we are left with two options:

a) the earth is 4.6 billion years old and has been around for 4.6 billion years, picking up the scars of its years as it goes.

b)the earth was created 6000 years ago (or last thursday) but God (or Eris, Loki, Susanoo or whoever else) went to a lot of effort to make it look like option a is correct.

We will never be able to tell which one of those two options is right. We can only look at what is there. Humanity cannot stop an omnipotent deity rearranging reality to make us believe whatever they want. But, we cannot learn anything from assuming the world is being reranged to suit said deity's whims. You will never find oil by assuming God did a massive cleanup job following his fit of pique and the flood. You will only make models which are based on evidence using science. So, the point is, even if God did it one way, if he left all the evidence pointing the otherway, it's useless to science even if it's acually "wrong".

 

[AV1611VET]

But other than handwaving, you have yet to get rid of the history. I mean, we have a history of human civiliation going back around 10000 years, cave painting going back even further than that.

Please feel free, as I have asked before, to show me an historical occurrence that happened 4.6 billion years ago.

 

[Psudopod]

4.6 billion years ago, the earth formed. That's a pretty historic event, don't you think You have ignored all the other things I have listed in my post that point to the history of the earth, as well, I notice.

 

[AV1611VET]

4.6 billion years ago, the earth formed. That's a pretty historic event, don't you think

No, actually I think that's circular logic:

• The earth shows 4.6 billion years of history because the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago.

You have ignored all the other things I have listed in my post that point to the history of the earth, as well, I notice.

If you can't answer how it all started, I'll continue to ignore them too.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, actually I think that's circular logic:

• The earth shows 4.6 billion years of history because the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago.

If you can't answer how it all started, I'll continue to ignore them too.

thats circular logic?

Gee, some of us would call it evidence based conclussion

 

[Psudopod]

No, actually I think that's circular logic:
The earth shows 4.6 billion years of history because the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago.

You asked me for a historic event from 4.6 billion years ago. I gave you one. The earth shows 4.6 billion years through the scars left by the various things I mentioned above.

If you can't answer how it all started, I'll continue to ignore them too.

Sorry, I didn't realise you wanted a cosmolgy lesson. It's been a while, so there are probably people who can give you a better answer than me, but I'll try and read up on it and get you something, or try wikipedia.

 

[UnknownUsername]

I think I know where this will go, but what about fossils, which we can reliably carbon-date within a few thousand years, that are billions of years old?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I think I know where this will go, but what about fossils, which we can reliably carbon-date within a few thousand years, that are billions of years old?

Actually you can't accurately carbon date anything prior to several thousand years.

There are radiometric dating techniques that DO allow accurate dating of truly ancient fossils, but C14 ain't it

 

[AV1611VET]

thats circular logic?

Gee, some of us would call it evidence based conclussion

Ya --- like most of your other redefined science.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ya --- like most of your other redefined science.

Observation-> conclusion

Is that a logical progression? agree/Disagree

 

[AV1611VET]

You asked me for a historic event from 4.6 billion years ago. I gave you one. The earth shows 4.6 billion years through the scars left by the various things I mentioned above.

You have a 4.6 billion-year-old 'scar' on an earth that is one day old; presented as evidence of history???

Okie-doke.

Sorry, I didn't realise you wanted a cosmolgy lesson.

No --- certainly not from some outdated-by-now "science" textbook. I'll get my cosmology from The Book.

It's been a while, so there are probably people who can give you a better answer than me...

Ya --- like my pastor --- who has two doctorates.

...but I'll try and read up on it and get you something, or try wikipedia.

No, thanks --- I'll probably read the first two sentences, then pass it off as rhetoric.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

thats circular logic?

Gee, some of us would call it evidence based conclussion

Ya --- like most of your other redefined science.

Agreed, redefined science is does use evidence to base the conclusions that the redefinitions are based on. Science improves itself by conforming to the facts instead of the other way around which is preferred by the antiquated pseudoreligious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Observation-> conclusion

Is that a logical progression? agree/Disagree

It's a very poor portrayal of what "scientists" actually do - (but good rhetoric).

Let me make it more accurate:

Observation > debates, argumentation, votes, corrections > new conclusions > observation ... ad infinitum.

And, by the way, who "observed" the earth being scarred 4.6 billion years ago?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Hey, AV, as a side note, some one told me the other day that the KJV mentions steel in the Old Testament, is that true?

1. 2 Samuel 22:35
   He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
   2 Samuel 22:34-36 (in Context) 2 Samuel 22 (Whole Chapter)
2. Job 20:24
   He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through.
   Job 20:23-25 (in Context) Job 20 (Whole Chapter)
3. Psalm 18:34
   He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
   Psalm 18:33-35 (in Context) Psalm 18 (Whole Chapter)
4. Jeremiah 15:12
   Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?
   Jeremiah 15:11-13 (in Context) Jeremiah 15 (Whole Chapter)

1. Isn't that a bit of an anachronism?

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed, redefined science is does use evidence to base the conclusions that the redefinitions are based on. Science improves itself by conforming to the facts instead of the other way around which is preferred by the antiquated pseudoreligious.

Try getting it right the first time, if that isn't too hard to ask.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It's a very poor portrayal of what "scientists" actually do - (but good rhetoric).

Let me make it more accurate:

Observation > debates, argumentation, votes, corrections > new conclusions > observation ... ad infinitum.

The problem isnt your portrayal of the scientific process, it's that you somehow think it's a flawed way of doing things.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Try getting it right the first time, if that isn't too hard to ask.

science doesn't work that way, it refines its answers every time, getting closer and closer... its a hyperbolic progression, you know what that means?

Imagine a frog hopping towards a pond, every time it jumps, it halvs its distance to the pond... science is like that... so its not that the first answer is "wrong" but rather that every subsequent answer is "more correct"

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Try getting it right the first time, if that isn't too hard to ask.

Hey if we had the answers in front of us we would. God forgot to give us the schematic to the universe. What he gave us several user guides (bible, koran, etc) that have suffered from poor translation and just plain inaccuracies.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It's a very poor portrayal of what "scientists" actually do - (but good rhetoric).

Let me make it more accurate:

Observation > debates, argumentation, votes, corrections > new conclusions > observation ... ad infinitum.

And, by the way, who "observed" the earth being scarred 4.6 billion years ago?

whos talking about the earth being scarred?

Anyway... geological evidence is the observation leading to the conclussion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old... one doesn't actually require someone to watch something to know it occured