God - a liar?

Yes! Which is why I mentioned the example of a 30 year old who looks 45. The only thing I would disagree with in the above quote is "false". I have never tried to defend purposefully placed "falseness" - like Sylas's example of a footprint which would be a fake footprint. I only am defending AOA itself. The necessary side-effects that would be needful. For example - Adam being an adult intends no deception.If it appears like a YEC argument that isn't my plan, as this topic is in the Faith and Belief section and people have implied God would be a liar, this is the implication I dislike. I am not denying any evidence of an old universe. I am showing the possibility that "deception" is only one possibility if we are going to speculate, and that I do not think God is a liar, like some would claim.
Regards, Mike.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-08-2004]

No Paul - what you describe is FALSE AOA.Listen, if you can't read properly that's not my fault. You've accused me of lying, going against forum rules etc, yet you continue to post boisterous babble in my direction, and blowing hot air.I never argued against "FALSE appearance of age" and I haven't even mentioned the evidence because that is not what my dispute is. For the umpteenth time, I am fighting those who call God a liar in the faith and belief section. I honored the fact that you claimed moral victory in mistakenly believing you when you said you would not mud sling. Yet despite my avoidance of your provocative statements you still accuse me of all kinds, and appear to be mud slinging.I invite you to quote where I have even had a dispute with FALSE appearance of age. IOW - I haven't argued against such things as I am not going to get into it. I have only mentioned appearance of age. You have realized your mistake and so cannot stop whining about it. If your moral victory meant anything you would have shut up long ago, instead of trying to accuse me.It's no good saying I didn't address the argument = big deal. If I never adressed it it's because I'm not against evidence for an old universe. I see what you are trying to do, in turning your failure to see my argument - onto me. But I am afraid I never said I was a YEC, and so I am not obliged to argue evidence in the belief section.You should have thought properly before adding "false", you've dug your own grave. That, together with mud slinging, means if this was at any time - your victory, you have give it to me.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]

Poppycock.I infact have tried to show that AOA is certainly not a deception. You are now saying that false appearance of age is the same thing or is seemingly what YOU are now arguing from message 2. Irrelevant - I have only argued against AOA and when I said "ridiculous" I was referring to implications of AOA being a deception. Appearance of age does not imply God is a liar - you imply it makes him a liar OR YOU have confused it with FALSE AOA. Yes I have. I never mentioned false EVER. YOU SAY that AOA has to be false. I have given an example of AOA which is not false and is a reality in this life: A 30 year old who looks 45 years of age. If you have confused this with "false" then that is your own fault. YOU have implied AOA as deception not AOA itself. YOU have added "false" to AOA, again your fault. Frankly I am finished with this argument, it is going nowhere and I am satisfied within myself that I have victory. Certainly you have shown no understanding of logic in this topic if you can't even see the difference between a woman who dresses to look older and a young woman who looks older. A woman who is 30 and looks 45 IS TRULY AN EXAMPLE OF APPEARANCE OF AGE WITHOUT DECEPTION.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]

BUT, I do not see this as a false appearance of age, just an appearance of age. She looks 45 but it is not "false" in that, you said "she appears to be". I have now added "falsely" in yellow, to show you that the word "false" implies deception. It now sounds like she "falsely appears to be". Why didn't you add the word "falsely"? It's obvious - because then it would imply she is somehow "making" this appearance of age. You do not need the word false to be added to appearance of age. if you simply mean that the age itself is "false age" then that is another thing, because she is not really that age = 45.It's either false age or appearance of age. false appearance of age means a false --> false age. like a wig and make-up. But then a wig and make up is itself just false age, so "false age" is more accurate when defining a wig and make up, rather than a 30 year old, hence AOA is more relevant to discussion, which is what we had in the first place.If you use false age it will not accurately describe the woman. Appearnce of age seems more acceptable because it simply would mean the AOA is there because of nature or events, not for any false purposes. It may still qualify as "false age" but that is simply because she is not 45. But there is already a distinction between a thing which appears to be old and is old. appears is the difference. We already know what we are talking about when we say AOA. Isn't "false age" more apropriate? The wording doesn't make sense to me, false is not required unless there is a false AOA - like a wig and make-up. Are you saying there is no difference between the woman who is genuinly 30 and looks 45, and a woman who is 30 and puts a wig and make-up on?False age is also someone who is 30 and looks 45, yet it is not a false false age, it is a genuine false age, like wrinkle etc. It is not necessary in this instance to call it a false appearance of age or a false,false age.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004][This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]

But isn't that also the best word for this issue? When you included "false" - late in the debate, why wasn't AOA enough?If that the ONLY reason you use false---> is as an addage, because "appears" isn't enough to define it, then I can understand what you are saying. Confusion arises though when there is a difference, for example:The 30 year old with the wig and make-up, what would you call that? A false, false appearance of age?I think I can see your point and I understand your position in making it clear that it isn't actual age. Maybe AOA is in itself not an entirely useful statement. But what would you use to show the difference between the 30 year old woman, and the 30 year old lying woman, with the wig?The problem of this debate may well be in communication.

Would Adam qualify in your opinion?

I am not saying that "appearance" indicates untrue. The appearance is true, the actual age is false. (Help, nobody understands me)Ned and Paul I cannot justify this despite your input. The problem is, does a woman of 30 who looks 45 have a false appearance of age?
You see, that means to me that it is untrue that there is an AOA. BUT - she does genuinly have an AOA.Did I say an object cannot appear what it appears to be? Could you clarify this?It can be what it appears to be. But in this case, the woman cannot be 45 because she is 30, YET the AOA is genuine. She genuinly has an appearance of age. How can I say "she has an untrue appearance of age"? That would fit if the lady was infact wearing wig and make-up. But the fact is her appearance of age is true. Maybe she has "false age" but not false AOA, but is it logical to have false AOA if her wrinkles are aged and 45 year old - looking? What is false? The AGE is false, not the appearance of age.Please read this twice or so, especially the last paragraph, I want you to understand what I am saying.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]

Phew, I've got a brain ache. correct, we would have a real appearance of false age. For example, if we agree the earth is young like you say, and it appears old (because we all know it does), then there MUST be false age.Now let us substitute age for passage of time (I've gone logic mad)Let's say we find a rock on Mt St Helens, and we find strata throughout it. We will have an appearance of the passage of time. Yet it will only be false passage of time (age) - as no passage of time happened, or rather, a very small POT happened. So, it must be "false age" - I don't think it has a choice. Also, we can see this Theory of false age all around us. A person with that strange illness, who is a child, and they look like they are old-age. The "age" is NOT passage of time, it is literally a false ageing. Even if the universe is old (we all know it is), then we STILL have examples of false age, like the Mt St Helens example. Yes. the YEC's that don't conclude AOA must have evidence of a young earth. How do you mean though Ned, when you say that those YEC's would say the OEC would take a false AOA? Do you mean the YEC will say that it must be a false AOA, and the old earth evidence is false reading? Fair enough, you won't find me arguing against science anymore just to support a radical position. It can get complicated when discussing the appearance. Hopefully we would agree that there is an AOA and that that does NOT mean the age isn't real. IOW, the universe CAN be old and appear to be also.Surely this means though Paul, that AOA itself is not implying deception? Afterall, if we agree the universe is old and has AOA, where is the deception? Surely, if anything all this stuff proves somewhat, that AOA itself might just mean that - AOA.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]

I think I understand how you are thinking a bit better. If an appearance mis-leads then it is wrong. I think false as in, "untrue" leads me to think that the appearance itself is what you are calling false.Maybe the appearance is not false but it is wrong. For eg, the woman of 30 would have a true AOA, but that AOA is definitly wrong as she is 30, nevertheless, the AOA is true - in that there is a genuine AOA. The AOA is wrong, yet it is not false(untrue) - the age itself is false - yet the appearance must be true, or we would think she was 30. I hope I am speaking sense, I hope you see the point. The age of what we would conclude off of the appearance, is false, and the appearance is wrong in it's conclusion of the age. Yet AOA is not necessarily wrong unless the age it concludes is incorrect.