11 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou are wrong about so many things, it would probably take a library of books to point out all of your errors. So perhaps you should pinpoint it down to one specific point at a time. 😏
I am more than prepared to admit I am wrong.
I do it all the time.
But you actually have to demonstrate that I'm wrong not just assert it.
This whole conversation has been me asking ToO to provide an explanation of why he thinks I'm wrong.
I want to hear arguments as to why I might be wrong because if I am right my arguments should be better. ...[text shortened]... provide his own.
Till then he's just boring.
Although not nearly so boring as you.
Originally posted by googlefudgeMust go to bed now. Will come back tomorrow. You are being too hard on yourself, though.
Ack. That's not good.
I am more than willing to try again if my first post was unclear...
Could you give me a hint as to where it was I lost you?
It would help to know where to start in reformulating the argument.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell Given that we were discussing the question raised in the OP of this thread...
You are wrong about so many things, it would probably take a library of books to point out all of your errors. So perhaps you should pinpoint it down to one specific point at a time. 😏
My position on that would seem to be a sensible place to start don't you think...
Oh no sorry... I forgot you don't do thinking.
11 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI already covered that. Check my previous posts. 😏
Well Given that we were discussing the question raised in the OP of this thread...
My position on that would seem to be a sensible place to start don't you think...
Oh no sorry... I forgot you don't do thinking.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo you didn't "cover that".
I already covered that. Check my previous posts. 😏
All you did was say that you thought I was wrong... Well mainly what you did was insult me but that's by the by...
You did nothing to say why you thought I was wrong.
You said nothing about what was wrong with my argument.
You said nothing about why your view might be correct, or even stated clearly what your view was.
So you didn't cover anything.
11 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou must have read someone else's posts. I covered it. 😏
No you didn't "cover that".
All you did was say that you thought I was wrong... Well mainly what you did was insult me but that's by the by...
You did nothing to say why you thought I was wrong.
You said nothing about what was wrong with my argument.
You said nothing about why your view might be correct, or even stated clearly what your view was.
So you didn't cover anything.
Originally posted by RJHindsThese are all your posts that are replies to me in this thread prior to the current page....
You must have read someone else's posts. I covered it. 😏
Please indicate which of these you think deals with my first post in this thread with anything other than a statement that you think I am wrong (and insults).
Originally posted by RJHinds
The universe that I have personally observed does not seem very old to me. I can not even imagine what a universe would look like that was billions of years old. Sounds crazy to me.
Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't wonder. I think it is because you are ignorant. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds
What you think you know about the age of the universe and how it was created is a result of your distorted mind of ignorance. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds
But God knows everything!!!
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by RJHinds
He probably didn't have a vision like that, but I doubt you could prove he didn't, unless he admiited to faking it. I saw no proof of that in your post. 😏
P.S. How can I get a grammer & spelll checker for RHP, so I can look good like you?
Originally posted by RJHinds
That ole google some fudge will not admit he is wrong and wants everyone else to think he is right, so to disagree with him is unthinkable unless he believes you are a redneck moron like me. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds
You are wrong about so many things, it would probably take a library of books to point out all of your errors. So perhaps you should pinpoint it down to one specific point at a time. 😏
Originally posted by wolfgang59This made me lol... Which is bad cos everyone else has gone to sleep.
[b]Rock solid logic backed up with observation.
I imagine the cretin looking up at the sun and saying
"mmm that doesn't look so old"[/b]
Incidentally it does make one wonder what he thinks an 'old' universe would look like... Should it have more wrinkles?
[EDIT: Of course knowing whether something "looks" old requires an understanding of how it functions and what
it's life cycle looks like. A hundred foot tall giant sequoia tree is probably 50 to 100 years old... A similar Eucalyptus
tree might be less than 20. To look at something and gauge it's age requires understanding how it works and was formed.
As RJHinds has no clue how anything works or was formed it is not in the least surprising he can't look at things and accurately
gauge their age.]
From the perspective of the universe it's really quite young atm, the heat death is not for quadrillions of quadrillions of years,
so scaling to a human lifespan its not even crawling yet... Let alone potty trained.
12 Feb 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIf I had responded directly to the post containing GF's "proof", a charge of hypocrisy might have made sense. But, as I've explained, that isn't the case.
I think your hypocrisy is splendid at times.
And I don't think you believe I am a troll. If you did, you would have jumped in on me on the Health Risks of Gay Sex thread. But I think you were quite happy with my line there.
So, if I was not being a troll there, why would you think I am being one here?
I think you are confusing troll with someone who doesn't agree with you and draws attention to your lack of grace and good manners.
Note I didn't say that you are a 'troll', I said that you were 'trolling'. It's clear that your only reason for your discussion with me has been to make personal attack after personal attack, none of which have you been unable to substantiate. So, you have been trolling on this thread.
That you were unable to "understand a word of what googlefudge posted" helps to explain your inability to understand much of anything else. As I recall, that was a recurring theme on the 'spanking' thread as well.
12 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere is no way that I would believe our Sun has been burning with fire for billions of years and has been providing us with heat and light for that long. That is a crazy evil-lution idea that a "big bang" brought everything into existence when there was nothing to explode. So even a 10 thousand year old sun would be old to me, but much too young for the evil-lutionists to accept because they need billions of years for their theory to even have a chance at happening. You evil-lutionists need to accept the fact that evil-lution did not happen. 😏
This made me lol... Which is bad cos everyone else has gone to sleep.
Incidentally it does make one wonder what he thinks an 'old' universe would look like... Should it have more wrinkles?
[i][EDIT: Of course knowing whether something "looks" old requires an understanding of how it functions and what
it's life cycle looks like. A hundred foot tal ...[text shortened]... ,
so scaling to a human lifespan its not even crawling yet... Let alone potty trained.
Originally posted by googlefudge[/b]I obviously did not give you the kind of answer you were looking for during this thread, so I will add this:
These are all your posts that are replies to me in this thread prior to the current page....
Please indicate which of these you think deals with my first post in this thread with anything other than a statement that you think I am wrong (and insults).
Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]The universe that I have personally observed does s. So perhaps you should pinpoint it down to one specific point at a time. 😏
Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old there should be several hundred million supernovas; however, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the bible says.
I doubt you will want to look at this video because who is on it. But if you are really interested in learning the truth it is up to you. It is like the old saying about leading a horse to water.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/how-do-we-see-stars-billions-of-light-years-away/
P.S. This was the answer I was thinking about, but it relates to a different issue:
He probably didn't have a vision like that, but I doubt you could prove he didn't, unless he admiited to faking it. I saw no proof of that in your post.
Originally posted by googlefudgeSorry for the delay in response.
Ack. That's not good.
I am more than willing to try again if my first post was unclear...
Could you give me a hint as to where it was I lost you?
It would help to know where to start in reformulating the argument.
Firstly, I owe you an apology. I forget that some peope really care about the quality of their posts, and my comment 'I don't understand a word' of what you said was not intended as a criticism, nor of course is it true.
I gave up maths and science at 16 and it was simply intended as an expression of the difficulty I have in following some of content in your posts. That does not mean your posts are unclear - just that I lack the knowledge to understand them easily sometimes.
So, for example, terms like 'probablilty mass', 'short scale', 'Bayesian theory' etc mean nothing to me and when I google these kind of terms, the explanation is usually even more complex. So when you are presented with a few of these in one post, you understand why I said 'What he said'.
Of course, it is possible to try and piece together the bones of the argument from context, so I thought I would try and rephrase it in my own terms to see if I have got the gist (with a due sense of trepidation):
The universe appears, according to the available scientific evidence, to be 13.77 billion years old.
OdBod’s contention, based on a ‘vision from God’, is that:
• the universe is, in fact, one hour old;
• it was created with the appearance of being 13.77bn years old; and
• such a contention cannot be refuted.
As no-one is arguing that the universe is older than 13.77bn years, the debate is about where within this period (‘potential creation period’ or PCP) the universe was or might have been created.
There is no evidence to support the view that OdBods ‘vision’ was anything more than a delusion.
There is therefore no evidence to support the view that the universe was created one hour ago, any more than any other particular hour in the PCP.
In the absence of such evidence, the chances of the universe actually having been created one hour ago is:
(1/number of hours in the PCP) * (Probability of universe created looking old)
However, for argument’s sake, I will accept that the universe was, indeed, created looking old.
This nonetheless means that the maximum chance of the universe having been created one hour ago is approximately 120,000 billion to one.
This means that evidence required to establish the premise in the OP must be sufficient to overcome a prior probability of 120,000 billion to one. No evidence has been offered that this is the case.
It is not possible to base one’s beliefs, or live one’s life, on something for which there is no evidence and which has a maximum probability of 120,000 billion to one of being correct.
As otherwise we would need to allow for the possibility that one of RJHinds’ postings on evolution is worth reading.
And then where would we be?
For this reason above all else, the contention in the OP is considered refuted.
Interested to know if this is basically correct.
Oh, and you will note that I have had the audacity to look at this in terms of hours. Not sure whether this is appropriate, but my logic was that it was unlikely that anyone saying the universe was created an hour ago means somewhere between 59-61 mins ago. But I may have missed the point.
But I didn't do it in terms of planck time units because, let's be honest, you were just showing off there.
😉