Anytime you want to go on a tour of what the World and Life is really about let me know. How do you know it is that old? I think it is built on a 4300 year old bed of marine fossils, which would be cool- not ironic. I have always been honest about where I get my information, never claimed to be getting it from talkorigins. It was not from the Creation Museum though, I have not been there. Kind of arrogant to assume you know where I get my material better than I do.

---

(October 19, 2010 at 9:41 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If a flood took place, then that pyramid would not date to being as old as you just claimed it was because the methods used to date that pyramid assume no flood took place. So to argue against the flood by using dating methods that assume no flood is inappropriate.

So, basically, your line of reasoning amounts to "you're wrong and I'm right" without actually giving any reason to doubt the veracity of Egyptian historiography than that.

Maybe I need to use smaller words. Egyptian Hystoriography is based on anti-flood assumptions, so it cannot be used to argue against a flood. It's not that hard to understand. Using this to argue against what it already assumes is untrue would be committing the "Assuming the Proof" fallaacy. If you want to be lillogical be my guest, but I will not play that game.

Quote:Anytime you want to go on a tour of what the World and Life is really about let me know. How do you know it is that old? I think it is built on a 4300 year old bed of marine fossils, which would be cool- not ironic. I have always been honest about where I get my information, never claimed to be getting it from talkorigins. It was not from the Creation Museum though, I have not been there. Kind of arrogant to assume you know where I get my material better than I do.

You have no idea what age those fossil beds are because you've never studied them. I have studied them for many years. Do you have any idea how the geologic time scale was devised? Any idea at all? You've not been honest where you get your information, and even in your post, above, you aren't being honest. I didn't say that you had been to the museum. I said that you got your information from Answers In Genesis. And in fact, more than one of your posts have been verbatum from their web site. And yet you make no citation. It doesn't taqke a rocket scientist to read your posts and compare them with already published articles from a creationist web site. Name the time, and I can meet you at ther Creation Museum and we can go on our little geology field trip. Bring anyone along who is also interested. The more, the merrier, I always say. And just for fun, let's see if our esteemed biocreationist can identify the critter in my avatar. Enjoy,

Quote:Maybe I need to use smaller words. Egyptian Hystoriography is based on anti-flood assumptions, so it cannot be used to argue against a flood. It's not that hard to understand. Using this to argue against what it already assumes is untrue would be committing the "Assuming the Proof" fallaacy. If you want to be lillogical be my guest, but I will not play that game.

So, in your view, the thousands of scientists and historians who have worked on Egyptian history for centuries are wrong, but you are right, because??? Do you have any idea how foolish you appear when you make such statements?

To complete oro's last statement, I will note that it is not an appeal to authority as he is asking for reasons for the statement at hand to be considered true or false.

(October 19, 2010 at 11:27 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Do you have any idea how foolish you appear when you make such statements?

It is too generous to grant him even the last residual of ability to admit to possibilities outside his tortured desert Bedouin creation myth, or to allow him even the slightest sense of shame and embarrassment in choosing what to says to defend his myth.

To him the desert Bedouin creation myth is received truth without error, anything that could be concocted to support it must therefore be the next best thing to received truth. To us it is complete garbage worthless even for the purpose of learning from its mistakes because its deviations from what we've found out to be true is effectively random. It is but white noise for the purpose of finding out what really happened to anything anywhere outside a few moments in the history of early iron age hebrew tribal politics. We have a tolerably good idea of why he thinks what he thinks; he has no idea whatsoever how we found out what we know.

This was exactly how it was when he come to these discussions, and it will be exactly this way when he leaves us for good.

(October 20, 2010 at 1:03 am)Chuck Wrote:

(October 19, 2010 at 11:27 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Do you have any idea how foolish you appear when you make such statements?

It is too generous to grant him even the last residual of ability to admit to possibilities outside his tortured desert Bedouin creation myth, or to allow him even the slightest sense of shame and embarrassment in choosing what to says to defend his myth.

To him the desert Bedouin creation myth is received truth without error, anything that could be concocted to support it must therefore be the next best thing to received truth. To us it is complete garbage worthless even for the purpose of learning from its mistakes because its deviations from what we've found out to be true is effectively random. It is but white noise for the purpose of finding out what really happened to anything anywhere outside a few moments in the history of early iron age hebrew tribal politics. We have a tolerably good idea of why he thinks what he thinks; he has no idea whatsoever how we found out what we know.

This was exactly how it was when he come to these discussions, and it will be exactly this way when he leaves us for good.

Actually, I believe that Genesis was written during the Bronze age, but I see your point. I would add that using his logic, as light takes just 12,022 years to traverse Creation, the Biblically Correct Universe is a mere 1.7375 Trillion Cubic Light-years in volume, leaving the stars just billions of miles apart. No one will be Left Behind with Interstellar Travel a Done Deal!

Every space probe launched since Star Trek The Movie must by now have left hundreds of stars astern, and Voyager should arrive at the Andromeda galaxy any year now. Providence clearly smiles on NASA's 'Faster, Better, Cheaper' program now that the creationists have shrunk the universe for us all.

Isn't it amazing that in order to prop up thieir fairy tales they must try to rewrite all the laws of physics and Chemistry? It just blows my mind.

That said, my offer to lead a real geology field trip to the land surrounding the magical Creation Myth Museum in Northern Kentucky still stands for anyone who is interested.

(October 20, 2010 at 2:17 am)orogenicman Wrote: Actually, I believe that Genesis was written during the Bronze age, but I see your point. I would add that using his logic, as light takes just 12,022 years to traverse Creation, the Biblically Correct Universe is a mere 1.7375 Trillion Cubic Light-years in volume, leaving the stars just billions of miles apart. No one will be Left Behind with Interstellar Travel a Done Deal!

I doubt Genesis was written down before the more civilized parts of the Mediterranean world was already 4-5 centuries into the iron age. Iron age in Eastern Mediterranean started in Anatolia in 13th century BC.

Extrapolating what further absurdities follows from the original absurdity is useless for enlightening one who would use high decibel white noise to defend original absurdity. Invincible ignorance can not be enlightened. White noise can not be reasoned with.

Strange how he says he decides to ignore my posts after I posed a difficult question. What is the purpose for god to have glory? I was also ready to ask him another, what is the purpose for god's existence?
What is god's purpose? Is he de-void of purpose?

Ah well. No loss. See people, this is why I don't debate with creationists. They're just too stupid to debate with.

Quote:God created everything in six literal days using observed time. Pretty simple. The stars were observed to be created on day four. Just like that supernova was observed to happen in 1987.

Ah I get it now, "observed time" is the weasel words you use to admit that the universe was not actually created in six days, it just happens to look like it from earth. So in fact god had created the rest of the universe( stars, galaxies etc) much, much earlier.

But hang on a sec, Genesis is very specific that god made the earth on the first day and the stars on the fouth day. Bit of a conundrum there I think.

Quote:Depends on how God defines birds now doesn't it? Not even sure what passage you are referring to, you should let me know.
{

Oh dear, yet another christian who's knowledge of the book he defends so vigorously turns out to be slim at best. We get a lot of them here.

In the passage concerned god proscribes various birds, the vulture, raven, pelican, swan, cormorant, heron etc. And the bat.

So how do you think he defines birds? Since his knowledge of basic biology appears to be rather lacking.

Quote:So how do you think he defines birds? Since his knowledge of basic biology appears to be rather lacking.

Obviously his own knowledge of basic biology is rather lacking as well despite his alleged degree in biochemistry.

---

(October 20, 2010 at 3:20 am)Chuck Wrote:

(October 20, 2010 at 2:17 am)orogenicman Wrote: Actually, I believe that Genesis was written during the Bronze age, but I see your point. I would add that using his logic, as light takes just 12,022 years to traverse Creation, the Biblically Correct Universe is a mere 1.7375 Trillion Cubic Light-years in volume, leaving the stars just billions of miles apart. No one will be Left Behind with Interstellar Travel a Done Deal!

I doubt Genesis was written down before the more civilized parts of the Mediterranean world was already 4-5 centuries into the iron age. Iron age in Eastern Mediterranean started in Anatolia in 13th century BC.

Extrapolating what further absurdities follows from the original absurdity is useless for enlightening one who would use high decibel white noise to defend original absurdity. Invincible ignorance can not be enlightened. White noise can not be reasoned with.

I stand corrected.

(October 20, 2010 at 12:25 am)Synackaon Wrote: To complete oro's last statement, I will note that it is not an appeal to authority as he is asking for reasons for the statement at hand to be considered true or false.

And just to make things absolutely clear: Why should we believe you over the thousands of Egyptologists who have been studying the era for over 180 years? This is not a rhetorical question, we want answers. I'm willing to put all that we know about Egypt into question if you can back up your claims sufficiently.