| Re: Hello T.O. |
http://groups.google.com |
| H,R.Gruemm (psychotech@xpoint.at) |
2003/12/19 13:05 |
Apologies for piggybacking .....
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:17:38 +0000 (UTC), "Piorokrat"
> <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
<snip>
> >> Fine. That's a perfectly consistent viewpoint. It's known as the
> >> omphalos theory, and is akin to Last Thursdayism, the belief that the
> >> world was created last Thursday with the appearance of age. Both these
> >> theories have the advantage of being impossible to refute with any
> >> conceivable set of observations, and the disadvantage that they are
> >> impossible to confirm with any conceivable set of observations. Your
> >> position is hence outside of, and irrelevant to, science. You are free
> >> to hold it, but you can't at the same time claim that there is
> >> scientific evidence for your position or against the standard scientific
> >> position.
> >>
> >
> >And this, my friend is pretty much where you and I meet and look at each
> >other from opposite sides of a thick pane of glass.
> >
> >Because I ascribe to the mature creation theory which you call Omphalism.
>
> Have you ever heard of Philip Henry Gosse? You might take a look here:
>
> <http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1154.htm>
> <http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1864.htm>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Henry_Gosse>
>
> >
> >My view of the world, and the observations I make about nature, including
> >those which started before I came anywhere near the Bible, are consistent
> >with an Earth which I age at ten thousand years for no better reason than
> >'it's a nice round number' - and I'm an accountant.
*Everything* is consistent with an Earth, universe etc. which has been
created by your God 10,000 years ago, including evidence of a past
which had never existed. But it is also consistent with creation by my
cat, last Thursday. So why not go the whole hog ?
Of course, Christians generally claim that their God is not a
deceiving trickster *). But you know how cats are .... ;)
*) So why did he put in unmistakeable evidence of a supernova which
happened 167,000 years ago, and Greenland ice cores which go back over
100,000 years ?
Regards,
HRG.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 |
| 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 |
|
|