221–230 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's incorrect in that the Standard Model firmed up in the 1970s. But since then, fundamental physics has been nearly stagnant. More broadly, the era of exponentially growing knowledge of the basic foundations of the universe cannot last long. Historically it will be seen as highly anomalous. Most of history will be one of scientific stagnation.
Why not? You don't know how much knowledge the universe contains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not claiming that "an ablate spheroid" was correct usage. I'm pointing out that the response, "to 'ablate' is to erode", is a non sequitur. Which is still a wrong thing to say and a bad argument. You appear to be arguing something like "I couldn't mean ablate, since it doesn't fit the context, so why mention it". Well, whether you meant it or not, you did write it, and you could very well have done it because y…
> You appear to be arguing something like "I couldn't mean ablate, since it doesn't fit the context, so why mention it". Well, whether you meant it or not, you did write it, and you could very well have done it because you thought it meant "oblate". This is a pretty stunning thing to write after I've already had to point out to someone else that I didn't write the sentence in question. Did you read my comment before…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but YEC is theology. You were arguing theology from the beginning!
I was just arguing a distinction between physical and metaphysical truth. My “theology”, such that it exists, is merely that God is fundamentally beyond human understanding and that we can’t meaningfully use human motivations or morality to model God’s actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 6000 year claim does not appear in Genesis, I do not know enough history to say but it's possible that YEC-ism is based on a modern invention of interpretation.
Well, naturally it could not appear in Genesis, lacking any reasonable epoch point relative to which it could be defined. The 6000 year figure, at least in the Anglosphere, most likely derives from Archbishop James Ussher's genealogical calculations in the 17th century [1]. However, I don't think that has been any sort of common belief before the modern YEC movement. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronolog…
No, 6000 years had lots of belief before that. It's just that it had nothing to do with YEC, i.e. a 6000 year figure and YEC are not the same thing.
Prior to the modern YEC people believed that just like Adam was created as an adult, the earth was created already "old".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perpetuating known lies seems like lying. Is it ok because it's God's lie?
I think so. It can be said that it's not a lie, but a God's test of your faith.
In this moral framework, I wonder what the right ethical thing to do when another creationist is the customer? Do they both accept the lie^H^H^Htest of faith?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was just arguing a distinction between physical and metaphysical truth. My “theology”, such that it exists, is merely that God is fundamentally beyond human understanding and that we can’t meaningfully use human motivations or morality to model God’s actions.
If everything about God is beyond human understanding, then a belief in that god doesn't leave you with any more beliefs than you started with, which makes it atheism by a different name. I would argue that you would have to have at least one religious belief to be counted as religious (and no, "the belief that I have a religious belief" doesn't count.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting to read. The Sun is referred to as 'he' and people were just beginning to understand how heat energy and mechanical energy could be transformed into one another. "He has enlightened our globe from one generation to another without any apparent diminution of strength, and we have formed the instinctive belief that no limit in the past or any in the future can be assigned to his functions. No proof of progr…
> The Sun is referred to as 'he' I wonder if they picked pronouns for the planets in accordance with the associated gods of Greco-Roman mythology? IIRC, the Greco-Roman sun gods were all male (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios ). If I'm correct they'd use male pronouns for the sun, Mars, and Jupiter; and female pronouns for Earth, the Moon (Luna), and Venus.
"sun (n.) [...] Old English sunne was feminine (as generally in Germanic), and the fem. pronoun was used in English until 16c.; since then masc. has prevailed." [1]
"moon (n.) [...] A masculine noun in Old English." [2]
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=sun [2] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=moon
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think so. It can be said that it's not a lie, but a God's test of your faith.
Probably not the right venue for a deep theological discussion, but ya, don't you give the right answers in tests? Like if it was a test of faith about God's existence in an atheist society, the right thing to do would be to proclaim "God exists". But here, the test is to pretend that the lie is true to everyone else, but in your head, to know that this isn't the right answer? In this moral framework, I wonder what t…
It depends on how they interpret the results to the customer. They might show the data and say that "it seems that this rock is million years old". They don't have to believe it themselves.
If the customer is another creationist, they probably marvel the perfection of God's creation and how impeccably he has been able to fake the age of the universe. You know, they probably see it as an evidence of God's omnipotence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If nature did it 3 times (more, we now know), it’s a bit presumptuous to say humans won’t be able to.
Nature has created conscious beings. It would be a bit presumptuous to assume humans will be able to do so too