The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[rjh4 is back]

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.

I must admit, Zen, that after the thread I started a while back on the speed of light that also dealt with the issue of observed time vs calculated time (based on the same article WS is referring to), I have thought a lot about the issue you raise here. I think it is a valid issue, especially in view of Exodus 20:11 which seems to imply that everything was created in six days (not much earlier in such a way that the light from the stars just got here on day 4). Consequently, at this point I personally do not think that relying solely on the "observed time" (in a phenominological sense) is a "stellar" position to hold (pun intended) as a Christian.

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.

Are you suggesting, Zen, that there is only one correct way to classify living things, the way biologists classify them currently, and the Bible must conform to that classification system or it is clearly wrong? Is it inconceivable to you that the Bible is merely referring to certain flying animals and not "birds" in the currently accepted biological classification system sense?

[orogenicman]

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.

And just to complete the symmetry, why should anyone believe creationists, who I dare say probably can't among the lot of them demonstrate having spent a single afternoon in the field, much less published anything of consequence, over the innumerable geologists, (of which I am one), mineralogists, paleontologists, geophysicists, oceanographers, chemists and physicists, who have been studying the Earth in minute detail for well over 300 years at the cost of much blood, sweat, and tears?

[rjh4 is back]

... the innumerable geologists, (of which I am one), mineralogists, paleontologists, geophysicists, oceanographers, chemists and physicists, who have been studying the Earth in minute detail for well over 300 years at the cost of much blood, sweat, and tears?

You've been studying the earth for more than 300 years? How old are you?

J/K...I just couldn't resist.

[orogenicman]

... the innumerable geologists, (of which I am one), mineralogists, paleontologists, geophysicists, oceanographers, chemists and physicists, who have been studying the Earth in minute detail for well over 300 years at the cost of much blood, sweat, and tears?

You've been studying the earth for more than 300 years? How old are you?

J/K...I just couldn't resist.

Yeah, well, I was operating on "observed time".

[Anomalocaris]

.....why should anyone believe creationists...

Why should anyone believe anyone who thinks all truth comes from one infallible book?

[orogenicman]

Particularly when that book is so demonstrably not infallible.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

Naturally, the Eqyptians themselves were also working on an "anti-flood" assumption when carving chronicles of each Pharoh's reigns, starting from 800 years after the tulip turnip's creation, into stone. How dare they to live through the flood without believing it actually happened?

It must fall to the hebrews, whose ancesters were screwing goals in rude skin tents when pyramids were going up and whose descendents were illiterate until at least 3000 years after the tulip turnip's genesis, to come up with an exact and unbiased count of years.

[Statler Waldorf]

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,

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?

I want everyone to stand back and take some time to exam this post. Did he really answer the question "How does he know those fossil beds are so old?". Did he really give us his methodology? Nope, he just said, "I know because I know". Then he goes off on some tangent about AIG. I challenge him to point out which posts he thinks I got from AIG and I can point out the actual website I got them from. I am sure he is aware that AIG has overlap with other websites, so you can get information from other websites that would be similiar to information on AIG. If he claims he got something from Ilovedarwin.com, and I find similiar information on talkorgins I am not going to call him a liar and say he really got it from talkorgins.

Well I am sure you are aware that the Egyptian Chronology is based on Sothic Theory. There is a growing number of historians who are calling for a revision of Egyptian Chronology because of the growing limitations of this theory. So to pull the old Ad Populum (fallacy) trick on me does not help your case any.

---

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.

Have you decided to act more "grown up"? I will answer your questions if you have.

Your last statement is funny, would be like me saying, "I don't wrestle grizzly bears because they are too weak" lol. Good joke mate.

---

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.

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.

You are starting to finally figure out what observed time means. If the stars appeared on day 4 on the Earth that was created on day 1, then the Biblical account would be completely accurate using observed time which it was of course because calculated time was not even used for another 5900 years.

I have a very good knowledge of the Bible actually, it is your's that appears to be lacking since you still failed to give me the verse. For all I know, you just made that up.

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

There you go again, lying about what I have said and what I have not said. Please point out where I said my degree was in Biochemistry? Starting to get the impression that you are either a dishonest person or your so-called "B.S. -meter" does not apply to yourself.

---

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.

And just to complete the symmetry, why should anyone believe creationists, who I dare say probably can't among the lot of them demonstrate having spent a single afternoon in the field, much less published anything of consequence, over the innumerable geologists, (of which I am one), mineralogists, paleontologists, geophysicists, oceanographers, chemists and physicists, who have been studying the Earth in minute detail for well over 300 years at the cost of much blood, sweat, and tears?

If you knew anything about Creationists you would not have made your last statement. Apparently you are not aware, but you should be, that there are Creationists with Ph.Ds from Harvard, there are Creationists who have been published in both Science and Nature. There are Creationists who worked for NASA. Your statement is utterly ridiculous and demonstrates your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

---

---

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.

I must admit, Zen, that after the thread I started a while back on the speed of light that also dealt with the issue of observed time vs calculated time (based on the same article WS is referring to), I have thought a lot about the issue you raise here. I think it is a valid issue, especially in view of Exodus 20:11 which seems to imply that everything was created in six days (not much earlier in such a way that the light from the stars just got here on day 4). Consequently, at this point I personally do not think that relying solely on the "observed time" (in a phenominological sense) is a "stellar" position to hold (pun intended) as a Christian.

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.

Are you suggesting, Zen, that there is only one correct way to classify living things, the way biologists classify them currently, and the Bible must conform to that classification system or it is clearly wrong? Is it inconceivable to you that the Bible is merely referring to certain flying animals and not "birds" in the currently accepted biological classification system sense?

---

Yes I agree with you on the observed time model, but we both know it's only one of several working models. The other ones get more into astrophysics, so I tend to avoid them in discussion, I do find them interesting though and am still learning about them.

I think your argument for the "birds" in the Bible is accurate. With how fast current Biological classifications change I would never use them to argue against Biblical claims because my argument would be invalid in a week or two.

---

... the innumerable geologists, (of which I am one), mineralogists, paleontologists, geophysicists, oceanographers, chemists and physicists, who have been studying the Earth in minute detail for well over 300 years at the cost of much blood, sweat, and tears?

You've been studying the earth for more than 300 years? How old are you?

J/K...I just couldn't resist.

[LastPoet]

Oh yeah? Name them, please.

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

Naturally, the Eqyptians themselves were also working on an "anti-flood" assumption when carving chronicles of each Pharoh's reigns, starting from 800 years after the tulip turnip's creation, into stone. How dare they to live through the flood without believing it actually happened?

It must fall to the hebrews, whose ancesters were screwing goals in rude skin tents when pyramids were going up and whose descendents were illiterate until at least 3000 years after the tulip turnip's genesis, to come up with an exact and unbiased count of years.

I am sure you are aware, or you at least you should be, that Egyptians today call themselves Misr, which derives from the name Mizraim, who was Noah's grandson. They believe Noah's grandson started Egypt. I am sure you will say modern Egyptians are wrong and the more primitive Egyptians were right, but this is more of a "he said, she said" type argument.

---

Oh yeah? Name them, please.

I am glad you asked!

Dr. Jonahtan Sarfati (Ph.D in Physical Chemistry) was published in Nature when he was only 22 years old. He is actually a really interesting person. He has beaten a dozen peolple simaltaneously at chess while he was blind-folded. He is also more educated in the field of Science than Richard Dawkins (having actually earned his doctorate).

Dr. Kurt P. Wise- holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. (Taken from his biography)

Then one of my Professors was an Atmospheric Researcher for NASA for 15 years before becoming a professor, and he is a Creationist.

So when you sit there (not having even an undergraduate degree in Science) and call these guys "stupid" it actually makes you look.....well...stupid.

How about we discuss the issues and not resort to making ridiculous claims about the other side's education? Or is that too much to ask of you guys?