|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God - a liar? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Yes, the person I quoted said "almost" - exactly as I quoted it. I suppose the juxtaposition of the charge of omission with this is an attempt to imply that I left out the "almost" - which of corse is completely false. I haven't edited post 87 Infact, No, not surprisingly - that is not what I am implying. All I am saying is that maybe you didn't notice the almost and how significant it was. Yes - the person points to a possible deception, but I wanted to show you the importance of the wording - that's all. Why you think this gives you victory I don't know. Maybe you are frustrated because you can't refute me and I deciphered your one-sided ilogic quite easily. I'd like you to show us how you think you are victorious, certainly you couldn't trick me into assuming a position I was infact not taking, like you intended to. And any attempts were soon put to bed. Infact, even when I tried to fix your illogical statement as to the position you were implying I was taking, in order to get it a tiny bit closer to the truth, you tried to put words in my mouth AGAIN, adding "false" and assuming I'd adjusted it to make it fit my position. All this can be clearly seen by any reader who goes through the thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
And no Mik, I win. Your false accusations over the quote are a moral victory for me. You never supported your own "analogies" - even implicitly denying their validity A moral victory? That's okay - I think I understand. If you think I was too harsh over the quote thing then ok - sorry. It seems you are the moral giant and I am on lower ground. I apologize for the quote - you did provide enough and my tongue was too quick. It seems your righteousness has outdone mine - What then can I do? If my righteousness does not exceed yours. Sorry Paul. If I never supported my own analogies it is because I thought we agreed early on that they proove nothing. If you want to meet the moral standard you have set for yourself, I would suggest you be honest - and admitt my analogies were far more logical - with the shown substitutions. Certainly I have shown the logic to my arguments in this topic, and shown the one-sidedness in your own, and sadly you have chose to ignore that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Mike, since you admit that the "almost" is present in the quote I produced then perhaps you can explain why you kept trying to link it to your false assertion that the quote I provided was incomplete ? It is quite clear that you were trying to give the impression that it was absent from my quote. THat is the moral victory - they you are reduced to such shaeful tactics.
Amd YES Mike I *did* see it. That is why I treated that quote seperately. That is why I explicitly stated that the author of that site found "appearance of age" to be questionable. That is why I quoted that section, when I did not quote any of the other sites. And any reader that goes through the thread can see that your final paragraph is full of lies. I did point out where your analogies were invalid - and you actually think I tried to "trick" you into saying that you beleived that they were ! It's beyond a joke. Your main line of argument was to invent "analogies" that even you won't claim to represent the real situation. Now the only "fixing" you refer to would be to make the statement more closely resemble your position. But you say that you didn;t do that - so the "fix" was just an arbitrary change that did nothing useful.And no, there was nothing at all wrong about adding "false" to your statement. "Appearance of Age' DOES refer to a FALSE appearance of age. That's the whole point of it - to claim that the APPEARANCE is false - that the Earth and he Universe only LOOK old, but are really young, Do you really, really, beleive that YEC's would say that the Earth looks old because it IS old ? So yes, "appearance of age" - in context - is precisely equivalent to "false appearance of age".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
What you neglect to say Mike is that YOU claimed that because I never supported my analogies (which illustrated points I had ALREADY made) I lost. But now you say the fact that you never supported your analogies (and won't even claim that they are valid) is irrelevant. That's a double standard Mike. If supporting analogies is a measure of victory it applies to you as much as it does to me.
Now there was nothing more logical about your analogies. In fact they were invalid - unless you are prepared to say that the evidence of age for the Earth is equivalent to that of your only-used-once football - which seems not to be the case - you are only illustrating an argument that you refuse to make. That *is* illogical. If you aren't prepared to make your argument openly and explicitly then trying to sneak it in by using an analogy is worthless and an improper use of analogies. When you say that my analogies were "one-sided" you mean that they illustrated MY points. Analogies are SUPPOSED to be one-sided in that way. So long as the analogy accurately represents my position all you can do is to argue against the points being illustrated (both the assumptions and the conclusions) - and you didn't even try that. Your "more logical" position was to use analogies that you yourself say did not accurately represent your position and to object when I argued against the assumptions embodied in them (i.e. the assertion that the evidence for an Old Earth is weak and superficial). So no I haven't ignored what you have shown. Because you didn't show much of relevance at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
When you say that my analogies were "one-sided" you mean that they illustrated MY points. Analogies are SUPPOSED to be one-sided in that way. So long as the analogy accurately represents my position all you can do is to argue against the points being illustrated But you represented someone elses position by saying that they believe in a "massive deception". And you couldn't explain why the note had to be forged, ALSO I shown that if you remove the payment the analogy is obsolete. If that is not correct SHOW US WHAT THE PAYMENT STANDS FOR.
Your "more logical" position was to use analogies that you yourself say did not accurately represent your position Logic is not connected with ones opinion, therefore - a neutral position of the real situation applies. You said that people who believed in a "massive deception". I have succesfully shown how that is infact not the position of those who believe in appearance of age. Unfortunately, you have conluded that I am a YEC despite my attempts to show you how my logic is very relevant if you are going to mis-represent believers in appearance of age. Also, you have confused false appearance of age with appearance of age.
false appearance of age: A woman who is thirty years of age and looks thirty years of age, puts on a wig and make up in order to look forty five years of age.
appearance of age: A woman who is thirty years of age and looks forty five years of age. I NEVER IMPLIED THE FORMER in this debate. I have only mentioned the latter. Therefore, they are not the same thing. Either you didn't think clearly or you indeed did know this difference, however - I am indifferent as I have now shown the logical difference.
And no, there was nothing at all wrong about adding "false" to your statement. You didn't add false to my statement, you added it to your statement which I revised to try and make it a bit more accurate if it was made to imply my position - which it was. Furthermore, I have completely denied that your statement is my position - vehemently. I have never used false appearance of age. Read post 29, concerning this.
So long as the analogy accurately represents my position all you can do is to argue against the points being illustrated (both the assumptions and the conclusions) - and you didn't even try that. Your "more logical" position was to use analogies that you yourself say did not accurately represent your position I sucessfullly shown how "massive deception" is infact ONLY appearance of age to the believer in appearance of age. Your analogy is only relevant to one-sidedness and assumes a "payment" and is therefore NOT logical. My analogy assumes nothing as I even tried to help by saying the blank note can "appear to be a 20" - which fully concurs with appearance of age. Your analogy has been proved as illogical because of assumptions of opinionated speculation - at best. And now you are saying "as long as it represents my position" - fine, as long as you realize that "payment" and "forged note" are irrelevant because of this.
Your main line of argument was to invent "analogies" that even you won't claim to represent the real situation. Again. more mis-representations of my position concluded with assumptions of illogical mediocre thought. My analogies cannot represent the real situation, only one possible scenario in which appearance of age NOT "false", is involved. The fact is this topic deals with God and if he is a liar. My analogies HAVE SUCCESFULLY shown that there is a possibility that AOA is JUST that - AOA. THE END [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-08-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Mike says:
quote:Okay. Using this analogy, we claim that your position is as follows. She's thirty years of age even though she looks forty-five, her birth certificate says she was born forty-five years ago, the hospital she was born in was demolished forty years ago, her mother died forty-two years ago, her picture was in a local paper when she won a kiddie talent contest forty years ago, etc. etc. All these independent dating methods would have to be false if she is thirty years old, for no other reason than that you claim that she's thirty. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I understand what you are saying but my only point is to show the difference between AOA and false AOA. >>She IS 30<< - that's my point. Ofcourse, what your analogy does is to make an example of a false AOA, it effectively changes my original analogy into an example of possible falseness. But what if she doesn't have birth certificates? What if she is a hill billy who doesn't want to tell us her age. The universe doesn't come with birth certificate or "dating method". We are making her birth certificate for her.
Adam would look about 30 but he would be one day old, in the same way a woman of thirty might look 40. My point is that these are not deceptions. These are just side-effects of life. She could well have had a lot of events in her lifetime,- a lot of (catastrophism) that makes her look older. Dating methods? - Well, does the universe come with dating methods? We must atleast be making the possible deception. If God made the dating method then I would agree, but it is humans who date things - God has not given a specific age. Nor did he give the universe a birth certificate. Do realize Sir, my defence is of God, in the faith and belief section. I don't intend to deny/confirm evidence in science, like Paul would have me do. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-08-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Mike,
It was your analogy, and I used it to illustrate my point. If we have good reason to believe that a woman is forty-five from many independent but mutually corroborating sources, then the assertion that she is thirty (especially in the absence of supporting evidence for the claim) is probably in error. I'd say the universe really does come with dating methods: light from faraway stars, decay of radioactive isotopes, geological formations, and plenty of other things that can give us a consistent idea of how many years we're dealing with. The fact that, in terms of the age of the Earth in particular, these methods correlate is enough of a birth certificate for most rational people. I'd say you're right, if there's 'deception' it's what we concoct on our own. If we choose not to believe these scientific methods of dating the Earth or the Universe, we're deceiving ourselves. regards,Esteban Hambre [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 04-08-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Mike the Wiz cryptically writes: What if she is a hill billy who doesn't want to tell us her age. er Mike...just out of interest, what is it about hill billies that they don't like people knowing their age? Is this a well-known thing? PE [This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-08-2004] "Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." - Emo Philips
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SRO2  Inactive Member |
It's because we don't typically don't know how old we are (yes I'm a hill billy).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Can't you count the seasons or something?
PE "Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." - Emo Philips
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SRO2  Inactive Member |
Somebody knocked over the only sun dial in the state back in '64, we haven't been sure ever since. (I was raised in Chattanooga when I was just a 'lil missle, some I'm not really a hill billy in the pure sense of the word)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Mike there are a LOT of things wrong with your post.
1) You misrepresent my position. I have always maintained that the "massive deception" is what is required for "appearance of age" to explain the ACTUAL evidence of age. Someone unaware of the evidence, unwilling to think about the issue or who rejects the evidence of other grounds would not draw that conclusion. 2) The point of the payment was to set up a situation where there was a reasonable expectation that the evidence could be trusted. 3) I did NOT conclude that you were a YEC. In fact I trusted your claim to the contrary. 4) You presented no logical argument. "My analogies are better than yours 'cos I say so" is not a logical argument. It is especially illogical - as is the case here - where the validity of your analogies rely on an assertion that you will not even endorse. 5) I have not confused "false appearance of age" with "appearance of age". I intentionally intorduced the word "false" to MAKE the distinction between a thing which appears to be old and is in fact old (as I and OECs beleive to be the case for the Earth and the Universe) and something which appears to be older than it is (the "false appearance of age" of the YEC argument). A woman who is 30 and appears to be 45 has a false appearance of age - she is younger than she appears to be. This is an important distinction to make and I have consistently used "false apparance of age" in just this fashion(Of course if we use a proportional comparison with the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth and the typical maximum age allowed by YECs of 10,000 years your woman who appears to be 45 years old would have to actually be less than an hour old.) 6) If the altered version of my statement - which can certainly be attributed to you since the alterations were your choice - did not represent your position then it served no purpose - unless your intent was to make me believe that it was your position and then attack me for misrepresenting you. Given that you have done so even when I gave you the opportunity to offer further corrections such a hypothesis may not be far from the truth. 7) Your analogies all use evidence that is weak at best to represent the evidence of age. None of them could stand up to serious investigation. Since the strength of the evidence is a key point - it was a major point in the argument I presented in post 2 - your analogies do NOT match the reality unless the evidence of age IS genuinely weak. Up to now you have refused to discuss or even explicitly endorse such a claim. Are you prepared to explicitly make it now ? Because if you do not then the only honest alternative is to retract your claim that your analogies represent reality. And even then to prove your point you need to make the case that the evidence really IS that weak. You cannot disprove my argument simply by imagining that one of the premises is false - which is all you are doing. You need to support that claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
PaulK, there is one little point that I think Mike is trying to make (and maybe not too clearly).
If there is any defence of a young earth with an appearance of age it seems to come down to something along the lines of the unknowableness of God. That is, the suggestion is that somehow or another the appearance, while false, is not intended by God to be deceptive. Somehow it is necessary. This is an argument that Buz has tried to make. The other defence seems to be that what we consider to be an appearance of age is simply a result of your pig headed stupidity. That we aren't getting the interpretation correct. I think those are the only two defenses I can see. The only way that I can see a YEC putting them forward is if they are spectacularly ignorant of the actual evidence (surprise, surprise). In the first case it comes down to simply saying that one doesn't understand why the appearance is necessary but that it somehow must be. A semi-rational explanation for varves, ice layers or any of the direct counting methods being necessary is not yet forthcoming. If someone attempts this I think that the utter ridiculousness of the arguement would be apparent. In the second case it requires ignorance of the details of the dating methods. To somehow suggest that counting (you know, a-one, a-two, a-three) is subject to wrong headed interpretation not just in one case but in several correlated cases is pretty quickly darned silly too. All this is why, IMNSO, why the YEC'ers stay far from these topics. They might say they don't have the knowledge for dealing with radiometric dating but somehow they also don't want to deal with counting (a-one, a-two, a-three, a-gosh-a-lot). I guess numbers over 6,000 are too big to deal with when counting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
No, I don't think that that is Mike's main point at all. He hasn't tried to argue that except in pa passing reference to Buz's post. What's more it's a point that can only be evaluated by dealing with the actual evidence. Something I've done in several posts - and Mike refuses to touch. Instead he starts with evasions and has now moved on to innuendo smears and lies.
So far as I can tell Mike's MAIN point is that he has somehow got the impression that I was saying that the YECs using the argument explicitly beleived that appearance of age is a deception. Which is a complete strawman since I never said any such thing. But of course Mike won't accept any correction I offer - what I actually *say* is just a "trick" - according to Mike. My position is whatever he imagines it to be - and what I SAY has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024