First discussion with a liberal fundy

[Kay]

Long rant - could be pointless

 

It started at a friend's get together with some coworkers and ex-coworkers. There was an ex-coworker of mine whom I looked up to and liked a lot (as a friend that is), but tonight, I found out that he and his girlfriend were fundies who believed the bible was inerrant. They believe Genesis (although they looked surprised that I actually used this word - guess they weren't expecting it?), which means creation in 7 days and that the earth was created a couple of thousand years ago.

 

So it began with the topic of evolution.

 

Ex-coworker started off with Darwin.

I quickly said: Darwin was the springboard. Science has come a long way since. Parts of Darwin's ideas have been debunked. So when talking about evolution, solely relying on what Darwin said to prove/disprove evolution is useless.

Ex-coworker said: so what do you believe?

I said: I trust the methodology and conclusions produced by science. I acknowledge that science is always disproving old theories and coming up with new ones. I said that it's a way of refining our knowledge.

Ex-coworker's girlfriend said: so evolution may in two or three years time by disproved.

I said: Well, it's unlikely, given the bulk of evidence that has been generated. And besides, science isn't about belief - it's about drawing conclusions from what's there. So if science does say otherwise in a few years time, who am I to argue against that?

Girlfriend said - you're just going by what's popular.

I said: No, I'm going by evidence that's constantly being tested.

 

Ex-coworker said: I can't believe in evolution. How does it explain where life came from.

I quoted Neil: Evolution wasn't meant to tackle that.

Ex-coworker said: but by saying life evolves, you're saying it comes from somewhere.

I quoted Neil: Yes, life must have come from somewhere, but evolution is about animals adapting to changing environment. It was not an answer to how life began.

Ex-coworker: ......

 

I asked them whether they believed dinosaurs existed.

Girlfriend of ex-coworker said yes - they are in the bible.

But then I pointed out that they are a couple of million years old, contradicting the story in Genesis.

Girlfriend then said that the dating could be wrong.

I vaguely quoted that there are several methods of dating aside from carbon dating. I remember someone here at the forum said that uranium depletion (?) was a good indication of working out how old something is.

Ex-coworker (boyfriend) then said: what if god already made the substance depleted so that when we discovered it, we thought we were dating something back a couple of million years?

I said: You assert, please prove.

 

Then Girlfriend says that evolution is just a theory, so why can't creation be equally as valid.

I quoted Neil: It is not a theory. Science has been able to predict changes. Experiments can be conducted.

Girlfriend then said: there is no proof.

I quoted Neil again: yes, there is. I am not knowledgeable, but I certainly know of a handful of sites on the internet, such as talkorigins, where people can explain these things in detail.

Girlfriend then said: you're just going by what's popular.

I said: no, I have read debates between Creationists and evolutionists, and I have seen first hand evidence of intellectual dishonesty and selective quoting by creationists.

Girlfriend and boyfriend both said: well, that's what we believe.

I said: So...you would maintain your worldview, despite facts to the contrary.

They said: No, evolution is just a theory with no proof.

I said: I'm not an expert, but I certainly know of people on the net who are experts.

Girlfriend said: You're biased. You've read all the information from evolutionists, but you haven't considered the evidence for creation.

I told her: Yes, I have. I have read through the debates. I frequent Christian sites like christianforums.com and listen to them talk all the time.

Boyfriend said: I just don't see the point in going to these evolution sites. I mean, I'm comfortable with my belief, and why do you have to prove that evolution is correct? why do I have to prove win an argument that creation is correct?

I said: So, you will hold onto your believe despite facts to the contrary.

Boyfriend said: that's just my beleif.

I said: You're definitely entitled to you believe, but don't you want to make a more informed choice?

Girlfriend said: I find it rude and presumptuous of you to assume we haven't made an informed choice. I have done reading that supports creationism.

I said: that's good. Where did you read this?

Girlfriend said: It was some years ago.

I said: Do you remember the name of the publication?

Girlfriend said: no I don't.

I said: was it a Christian scientific publication.

She said: it probably was, but you won't know of it because you are biased. You've only considered material that sings to your belief. You are so close minded! So don't tell me I haven't made an informed choice.

I said: Well, I'm sorry, but going by what you've told me, how you can't give me any evidence of creation being more valid than evolution, given that you can't tell me what the holes in evolution are, I assumed you didn't make an informed choice. What do you mean by informed choice?

Girlfriend said: informed choice...well, I've done my reading and just because I don't recall the publication and don't go on internet forums like you do doesn't mean I haven't made an informed choice.

I said: err....ok.

Boyfriend said: you can't trust science either.

I said: why not? It's constantly disproving and bettering itself.

Girlfriend said: how can you trust something that's never constant?

I said: but life is like that all the time. I think there's a beauty in making new discoveries everyday.

Boyfriend said: scientists can't be trusted - they only look for facts that support their hypothesis.

I said: no, they draw conclusions from what the evidence around them.

Boyfriend and girlfriend say: No, the usual methodology is to draw up a hypothesis, such as evolution is correct, then do tests to see if it supports the theory.

I said: yes, do tests. And if tests show otherwise, then the hypothesis is shot to hell. No scientist is willing to do fake experiments. He'll be discredited for life and throughout history.

Boyfriend said: do you know that experiments cost a lot of money? Do you know where money comes from?

I said: private corps, government grants.

Boyfriend said: Yes. And these private companies want results. They want scientists to prove a point, and if a scientist wants continued funding, he'd better produce results people higher up like. You can't trust all people you know.

I said: so you're doubting the professionalism and methodology of scientists. That's pretty harsh. If you assert, please prove.

Boyfriend: I'm just saying that scientists have pressures to come up with certain results.

I said: It's unfair to make an assumption like that - have you evidence of this? Please prove.

Girlfriend said: why do I need to prove?

I said: because generally, those who make assertions should prove them.

Boyfriend said: I just can't believe evolution. I mean, there are just too many coincidences.

I said: (genuinely puzzled) What coincidences?

Boyfriend said: well....

Girlfriend said: I just can't see how one animal can become another over a million yeras.

I quoted Neil: No, evolution doesn't say you can change from one species to another. We are not saying a horse can become a dog over a million years.

Girlfriend said: That's not what I'm trying to say.

Boyfriend said: I don't believe our ancestors are monkeys.

I said: but our DNA is so similar.

Boyfriend said: Yes, similar.

I said: Yeah, in the 99% range, and we also carry the negative defects (highly vague with detail here) of the monkeys as well.

Boyfriend: I just can't believe that.

I said: So, you would continue to hold onto your beliefs despite facts to the contrary.

Girlfriend: I just can't accept that after a few hundred million years, an amoeba can produce a human with arms and legs.

I said: You have to appreciate just how LONG a few hundred million years is. Just because something boggles the imagination doesn't mean it's false.

(what I should have said was: well, humans DO start off as a cell in the womb, which they multiplies and multiplies until you get a human looking foetus after 9 months....)

Girlfriend said: No, it's just not possible for say, a fish to become a land creature.

I said: You mean, when lakes dry up and some fish adapt and become able to breathe on land, and their fins start to function as legs over a few thousand years? How's that not possible?

Girlfriend: evolution is just a theory and has no evidence, like the big bang. No one was there when the big bang happened.

I said: but there are ripple effects we can study, then infer what happened at the beginning.

 

After a while

 

I said: So, you guys believe both the old and new testament?

They said: Yep.

I said: do you ever question the morals of your god?

Girlfriend said: what do you mean?

I said: well, what about the flood? I mean, why did god create the flood?

Girlfriend said: because people were disobedient.

I said: So, it's ok to drown people who are disobedient?

Girlfriend said: yes - god created them so we have to live by his rules.

I said: so it's ok for god to commit genocide.

Girlfriend: ....yes, god has the right because he created us. He can do what he likes with his creations.

(I was tempted to go into the idea of democracy...but went for something else)

I then said: do you believe in free will?

She said: yes.

I said: so how is there free will if god drowns you for not obeying him.

She said: we do have a choice. We can choose to obey and not obey god.

I said: but he drowns you if you disobey.

She said: You do have a choice. You willingly choose to die.

I said: Then, you're saying a woman willingly chooses to die if a rapist holds a gun to her head and says 'submit or die'.

She said: No, that's different.

I said: how's that different? The rapist kills the woman if she doesn't submit. The humans get drowned if they don't obey. Why can't we therefore say that the woman willingly chose to die just as the disobedient humans willingly chose to get drowned?

She said: No, God gave us life, therefore God....I mean, God created us therefore...I mean...

 

Someone approached us with plates of cake - she didn't try and finish what she was trying to say.

 

Later, boyfriend asked: so do you believe in god?

I said: well, no one's proven god exists.

Girlfriend said: we don't need proof.

I asked: do you believe in pink unicorns.

They said: no.

I asked: why not?

They said: there's no proof.

So I said: well, if you don't need proof for your god to exist, why does the pink unicorn need to prove its existence?

Boyfriend and girlfriend: well we can prove god exists.

I said: cool. how?

Boyfriend and girlfriend said: personal experience.

I thought: (they might be really offended if I suggest they could be hallucinating)

Well, if I were to say that the pink unicorn speaks to me in my dreams, would that prove its existence as well?

Boyfriend: ......

Girlfriend: no.

I asked: why not?

Girlfriend said: Well, I'd say your personal experience is false.

I said: how do you know it's false? I mean, it's a personal experience that this pink unicorn speaks to me in my mind. Does that mean I can suspect that your personal experiences are also false, thereby casting the existence of your god into doubt?

Girlfriend said: .......well, pink unicorns might exist for you, just as god exists for us.

I said: That's cool.

 

 

Anyhow, this wasn't the first time I was left in speechless stupor when engaged by a Christian in discussion. I thought it was highly amusing that I was accused of being narrowminded, biased and selective with my reading before I had a chance to accuse them of it

[Vixentrox]

Invisible BLUE Unicorn dammit!

[The Silent One]

Invisible BLUE Unicorn dammit!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The invisible GREEN unicorn pwns you all!

 

And you definately seemed to handle yourself rather well, better than I probably would have. I blank out completely in Real Life when talking to people like this.

[Caretaker]

:shakes head:

[Kay]

I actually felt like a fundie atheist for a moment. I mean, there I was, promoting sites that they should be going to in order to educate themselves before they decide whether their beliefs are reasonable!

 

The above is not a faithful transcript of the conversation. We went around in tedious circles for some time, particularly on the issue of "so, you'd hold onto your worldview despite facts to the contrary", so I cut that out to spare you of that. Fact was, they didn't like being told or reminded that their belief was subjective. But in the end, when confronted with my personal experiences with the psychedellic unicorn who sings to me in my dreams, they conceded that if my personal experiences could be cast into doubt, then their's were also suspect.

 

We still managed to end up smiling at the end of the discussion. I don't really see myself as having ambushed them given I know my ex-coworker does to bible study and what not.

 

The real 'pleasure' I got out of the conversation was how my ex-worker's girlfriend could not explain the difference between God's threat and the rapist's threat when it came to free will. I wonder if I've planted the first seed of doubt?

 

I blank out completely in Real Life when talking to people like this.

 

2 against 1 as well, and my heart was racing. But then, it was about time I stopped being silent about my beliefs. I mean, the conversation was generally neutral, so none of us descended into vulgarities or anything.

 

I think it's time to pay more attention to Neil's posts re evolution.

[Ouroboros]

Kay, you did really O'Kay! Nice work.

[Caretaker]

"liberal fundy"

 

I just can't help but find that funny...

[Kay]

Well, they are a liberal fundy in the sense that:

 

1) they believe the bible is inerrant; but

2) they (have to) concede that the truth that they accept is a subjective one, meaning that they don't try and say that they are right. Sure, they said quite a couple of times that evolution is just a theory with no proof, but when I said there was proof, and said I knew of people who could describe in more detail the process and methodology of extracting such proof, they fell back on: "we believe this..." and they didn't really have much to say against "so you would believe this despite facts to the contrary."

 

The fact they have to resort to some 'conspiracy of scientists' to explain away the possible proof that exists for evolution kind of evidences their desperation.

 

Having had that animated discussion however, I think I'll never get an invitation to their camps and getaways anymore

[DaveL]

No the Unicorn is definitely Pink, she spoke to me in a vision.

Wait until the inquisition Vixentrox, then the truth will come out.

Green Unicorn??? Your sooo going to hell!!

 

Praised be her Holy Horniness.

 

That was a great discussion Kay. I don't know how you remained so calm?

I just had a similar argument with a Chrisitan co-worker. It felt great at the time, but I felt more fearful afterwards. So far so good on that front.

 

I can't believe fundies are so ignorant of Science, when it comes to issues like evolution. Yet they rely on Science to send text messages to their Christian buddies, or rely on Science to drive their butts to Church on Sundays. But when it something that contradicts faith, nope Science got it totally wrong there.

 

Your insertion of the Unicorn argument was well timed. Good work!!

[Brother Jeff]

Christian scientific publication...

 

Do those actually exist? Sounds like an oxymoron to me!

 

Great job, Kay! I hope you did plant seeds of doubt! Glory!

[Kay]

A non-offensive way to continue a discussion would be to continue to pose questions in a genuinely puzzled and inquisitive tone. When I bought out the pink unicorn, I avoided sounding sarcastic or belittling.

 

I can't believe fundies are so ignorant of Science, when it comes to issues like evolution.

 

I don't know if this was highlighted the above transcript or not, but the general gist was:

 

They said: "I don't believe in evolution. It's just a theory with no proof."

I said: "There is proof. I know some knowledgeable people on the internet who can show you."

They said: "I just believe creation. Why do I need to prove that evolution is false?"

I thought: Well, it's because your original proposition - that evolution is a theory with no proof - was expressed as a statement of objective fact.

I said: So...you would maintain your belief irrespective of facts to the contrary.

They said: No. This is what we believe. We believe that evolution is a theory with no proof.

I said: But I know people on the internet who've debunked all of Hovind's arguments!

 

And the circle continued like that for some time. They emphasized belief, but didn't appreciate it when I pointed it out that their belief stood in contradiction to fact.

 

But when it something that contradicts faith, nope Science got it totally wrong there.

 

Or there is some conspiracy within the scientific community and scientists have no professional ethics or the methodology is wired to ensure the hypothesis is proven (despite not knowing a single detail about how the tests are conducted), or god did something to stuff up the radioactive decomposition around fossils so that we'd get the dating of dinosaurs way wrong.

 

I generally get queasy when people tell me they're hardcore Christian. I think I've finally found out why - and I don't know if it's wrong or misguided of me to think twice about my friendship with fundies. I mean - they genuinely believe that it's ok for their god to eternally torture me in hell because I don't share their religion. I'm supposed to be their friend, for goodness sakes. I don't cheat, steal, murder and rape - doesn't it make them angry that their god will cast me into a lake of fire for eternity when I'm essentially just as 'good' as they are, only I don't do the church and I say Buddha is a smarter guy with a better understanding of humanity? How much of a friend can they be if they don't stick up for me in the face of such unfairness?

 

Is that kind of thinking wrong?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Or there is some conspiracy within the scientific community and scientists have no professional ethics or the methodology is wired to ensure the hypothesis is proven (despite not knowing a single detail about how the tests are conducted), or god did something to stuff up the radioactive decomposition around fossils so that we'd get the dating of dinosaurs way wrong.

 

Christians are great at making up ad hoc explanations galore. Explaining away scientific discovery by guessing that maybe there's a conspiracy within the scientific community at large over time across the world is the pot calling the kettle. Your friends don't seem to have considered how so-called Creation Science is a much better example of a bunch of scientists who fudge stuff to fit their preconceptions.

 

I generally get queasy when people tell me they're hardcore Christian. I think I've finally found out why - and I don't know if it's wrong or misguided of me to think twice about my friendship with fundies. I mean - they genuinely believe that it's ok for their god to eternally torture me in hell because I don't share their religion. I'm supposed to be their friend, for goodness sakes. I don't cheat, steal, murder and rape - doesn't it make them angry that their god will cast me into a lake of fire for eternity when I'm essentially just as 'good' as they are, only I don't do the church and I say Buddha is a smarter guy with a better understanding of humanity? How much of a friend can they be if they don't stick up for me in the face of such unfairness?

 

Is that kind of thinking wrong?

 

I never thought of this before, Kay, but maybe you've hit on the explanation of why I (and I guess a lot of people) find Christians somehow hard to deep down trust. Like you I don't know whether that means friendship with them is compromised.

[Ouroboros]

I generally get queasy when people tell me they're hardcore Christian. I think I've finally found out why - and I don't know if it's wrong or misguided of me to think twice about my friendship with fundies. I mean - they genuinely believe that it's ok for their god to eternally torture me in hell because I don't share their religion. I'm supposed to be their friend, for goodness sakes. I don't cheat, steal, murder and rape - doesn't it make them angry that their god will cast me into a lake of fire for eternity when I'm essentially just as 'good' as they are, only I don't do the church and I say Buddha is a smarter guy with a better understanding of humanity? How much of a friend can they be if they don't stick up for me in the face of such unfairness?

 

Is that kind of thinking wrong?

I don't know if I could be a friend, at least not a close friend, to a hardcore Christian anymore. I used to be one, and the thoughts I had when being friend with an unbeliever was the little plan to convert them over time. That's what you have to be prepared for, they might want to convert you, and one day you find yourself surrounded by 10 hardcore Christians bombarding you with bible quotes and criticism of science... Scary...

[Amethyst]

You can't possibly be liberal and fundy. Those two terms contradict themselves. Perhaps they're Christians who voted for John Kerry, but that doesn't make them liberal.

 

Anyway, your converstation echoed some of the debates I've had with my fundy cube worker. It frustrates me how people can't think out of the tiny little broom closet they've locked themselves into, and then I remember how I used to be like that and replied to everything with circular logic too. It's the brainwashing.

 

Yes, there are scientists who have done unethical things, but that doesn't mean all scientists have, or that we should automatically ignore everything that's come out since oh, they proved that the world was actually round and that the earth goes around the sun.

 

BTW, my invisible unicorn happens to be purple. Invisible purple unicorns rule!

 

We need a unicorn smiley or two.

 

I mean - they genuinely believe that it's ok for their god to eternally torture me in hell because I don't share their religion. I'm supposed to be their friend, for goodness sakes. I don't cheat, steal, murder and rape - doesn't it make them angry that their god will cast me into a lake of fire for eternity when I'm essentially just as 'good' as they are, only I don't do the church and I say Buddha is a smarter guy with a better understanding of humanity? How much of a friend can they be if they don't stick up for me in the face of such unfairness?

 

I agree. That's why I tend to be friends with liberal Christians who have more universalist views, and I tend to not get along with fundies.

[Kay]

You can't possibly be liberal and fundy. Those two terms contradict themselves. Perhaps they're Christians who voted for John Kerry, but that doesn't make them liberal.

 

Liberal in the sense that they don't try and claim their god is fact. I mean, the girlfriend was willing to concede that the existence of god is only true to her, and not to me with the unicorn experience.

 

They emphasized belief. I believe this, I believe that. My ex-coworker went as far as to say that he's got a worldview, and everything else that doesn't fit into that view is ignored. Basically, that IS saying he's an ignorant bugger who can't accept the facts, but so long as you don't say it out loud and embarrass him with it, I think he deep down knows there is a distinction between what's objective and what's his subjective belief.

 

Because honestly - if you can trust the scientists who make your Panadol, why is there suddenly this group of renegade scientists holding the world in thrall with the evolution "theory"? Surely there's a limit to one's delusions if one does readily accept certain aspects of reality.

 

Like you I don't know whether that means friendship with them is compromised.

 

I understand Christians love and fear their god because they acknowledge god as their authority. Then and again, I had not much love for authority figures, especially if they are not worthy, and especially if they require us to act against our conscience without providing good justification.

 

Threat of torture is NOT a good justification.

[Amethyst]

Liberal in the sense that they don't try and claim their god is fact. I mean, the girlfriend was willing to concede that the existence of god is only true to her, and not to me with the unicorn experience.

 

They emphasized belief. I believe this, I believe that. My ex-coworker went as far as to say that he's got a worldview, and everything else that doesn't fit into that view is ignored.

 

Sounds to me like they are still claiming it's a fact, though. Just because they're willing to admit they don't have proof, doesn't make it any less of a fact to them.

[Kay]

Sounds to me like they are still claiming it's a fact, though. Just because they're willing to admit they don't have proof, doesn't make it any less of a fact to them.

 

Yeah, well, the only reason we got into 'discussion' is because they tried to argue that there was no proof for evolution. When I said there were people who could offer them proof, they generated a certain amount of backpedalling, covering it up by going so far as to ask why we even need to discuss!

 

So, you will hold onto your believe despite facts to the contrary.

 

They do it. They know it. They just can't bear to hear someone point it out to them.

 

Shame really. Liked my co-worker heaps. Still do - except now, I've got to ignore the part of him that's hideously ignorant, stupid and deluded. Then and again, if I can't "accept him as a whole" - how much of a friend would I be?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Shame really. Liked my co-worker heaps. Still do - except now, I've got to ignore the part of him that's hideously ignorant, stupid and deluded. Then and again, if I can't "accept him as a whole" - how much of a friend would I be?

 

Kay, I forget whether you addressed this before, but: does your coworker think non-Christians will go to hell? How does it make you feel if he and his girlfriend think that about you?

 

This is one of the things that really bums me out about Christianity, and it did that even when I was a Christian.

[Guest Joseph]

....or god did something to stuff up the radioactive decomposition around fossils so that we'd get the dating of dinosaurs way wrong.

{emphasis Joseph's}

 

Under such a statement the Christian has denoted that their respective idea of god is a liar. By such their omnibenevolent god has become evil by their own declaration that their god has made the age of reality appear to be one thing while it is in fact not that thing.

 

Just as the kid with the fake ID is lying to buy beer, their god is as deviant and thus their argument fails to answer or defend their accusations outright.

 

This is very important as the early Church did just such a thing to science in saying that faith/revelation was more powerful than the observed universe. No matter what we see in the heavens the "Bible" is correct because God is testing us. Such is of course easily defeated when you realize that such a god would be deviant, a liar. This argumentation died out quickly.

[Kay]

does your coworker think non-Christians will go to hell? How does it make you feel if he and his girlfriend think that about you?

 

Well, if they believe the 7 day creation, they would certainly accept hell and would therefore certainly accept that people who do not believe in JC will be sent there. I thought that was a requisite for fundies.

 

Assuming they do...it outrages me in the sense that they know I will be punished when I'm essentially no worse than them (in terms of character), yet they aren't willing to question their god about it, just as my ex-coworker's girlfriend said without flinching "god has a right to commit genocide because he has authority over us."

 

I know that I would be asking a lot from them if I asked them to challenge their god on the basis of our friendship. I mean, I only worked with the guy for around 4 months, but nevertheless, sitting right next to each other 5 days a week, 9 hours a day....you're still a good friend.

 

Friends are supposed to stick up for each other. Best friends go to the end of the universe for each other.

 

Friends who keep their hands by their side when you're drowning, because it was their god's will that I drown, stinks of betrayal and cowardice. Add a splash of selfishness to that.

 

Of course, to save me from hell, they could use their best efforts to convert me so that I'm on the side of their god and he won't cast me into the pit. However, that would be a violation of my free will, and the injustice and arbitrariness of god's action is still unaddressed.

 

If we are righteous people who spit in the face of dictators who wield power without accountability and who has been known to commit genocide and torture, we put our lives on the line to get rid of such a figure. The fact they can't do this, the fact they rush to justify their god's ills instead of ousting him with as much enthusiasm as the US toppled Saddam....it's deeply disappointing.

[Kay]

Under such a statement the Christian has denoted that their respective idea of god is a liar. By such their omnibenevolent god has become evil by their own declaration that their god has made the age of reality appear to be one thing while it is in fact not that thing.

 

I'm not really sure I understood what you meant by 'liar'. How does God fiddling around with the radioactive composition make him a liar? Unless you're trying to say that he's said somewhere before, "I swear that I have not fiddled with the radioactive composition"?

 

No matter what we see in the heavens the "Bible" is correct because God is testing us. Such is of course easily defeated when you realize that such a god would be deviant, a liar.

 

Your elaboration on what constitutes 'deviancy' in your quote would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you kindly for your patience.

[Guest Joseph]

I'm not really sure I understood what you meant by 'liar'. How does God fiddling around with the radioactive composition make him a liar?

 

If I take my ID and make my age "older" or "younger" than it actually is I have done a deviant act and I am lying about my age.

 

If God were to "fiddle" (heh) with the radioactive composition of our universe in order to hide the actual age of our solar system it would make Him/She/It a deviant, especially when He/She/It claims the age to be different. It is the same as if God gave us the age of the universe in a text (ID) and then lied about it in creation (by changing the radioactive composition).

 

It is intrinsically a deviant act, a deception.

 

Unless you're trying to say that he's said somewhere before, "I swear that I have not fiddled with the radioactive composition"?

 

Not the point.

To generate a reality and say it has a certain age and then to make that age a lie within the material of that reality, is a deviant act.

 

Your elaboration on what constitutes 'deviancy' in your quote would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you kindly for your patience.

 

OK, a kid takes a fake ID and makes his age "old" than he actually is. He is lying about his age.

 

"God" says the age of the solar system is a certain number but then setups up within matter a false age (a lie). The action is by definition a deviant act:

One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards. We do not find it socially acceptable to lie about your age. If a car maker put a false age on the car he made I'm certain there would be ramifications to such an action.

[Kay]

If God were to "fiddle" (heh) with the radioactive composition of our universe in order to hide the actual age of our solar system it would make Him/She/It a deviant, especially when He/She/It claims the age to be different.

 

In context, you are saying that the radioactive decomposition currently reveals dinosaurs to be several millions of years old.

 

A Christian claims that the radioactive decomposition test is unreliable because god may have tampered with it, made it decompose faster to throw us off track. What looks to be decomposition from several million years is in fact only 7000 years.

 

That's therefore assuming that the earth really IS billions of years old, only God is trying to pass it off as 7000 by saying he fiddled with the radioactive decomposition?

 

So either we are presupposing that there has been no tampering to the decomposition, or the Christian has to prove that God did tamper with it.

 

??? I'm still confused with how the lying comes in. I'm so sorry

[Guest Joseph]

In context, you are saying that the radioactive decomposition currently reveals dinosaurs to be several millions of years old.

 

Well, fossil evidence and even rocks themselves demonstrate around 4.6 billion years ago it all got started for our little corner of reality.

 

A Christian claims that the radioactive decomposition test is unreliable because god may have tampered with it, made it decompose faster to throw us off track.

 

Thus their god has lied. He has changed what the age should be to a lie (a falsificaiton).

 

What looks to be decomposition from several million years is in fact only 7000 years.

 

Thus this is why it is a lie, because God has given mankind the ability to know how radioactive decomp happens over time and to extrapolate age from it. If God purposely misleads us to think that creation is older than it actually is, there is the falsehood, the lie.

 

That's therefore assuming that the earth really IS billions of years old, only God is trying to pass it off as 7000 by saying he fiddled with the radioactive decomposition?

 

Let me state this another way just using a different subject.

 

"That's therefore assuming that the teenager really is 18 years old, only he was trying to pass his age off as 21 so he could buy beer."

 

Needless to say, that if your assumption above turns out to be so, then their idea of god is one of a deviant entity outright, just as the teenager is deviant to attempt to misrepresent his age.

 

So either we are presupposing that there has been no tampering to the decomposition, or the Christian has to prove that God did tamper with it.

 

"We" simply state that the literal meaning found in Genesis is disproven by science. Evidence driven repeatable experimental science following the scientific method. Whatever the X-ian says in response is a joke basically because they can only come to a small group of conclusions. Their book is at fault, their god is a liar, or perhaps the aging processes known to mankind is at fault. Various groups grasp to one of these straws daily.

 

??? I'm still confused with how the lying comes in. I'm so sorry

 

If I say "this rock is 10 years old" and hand it to you, and you find out it is a 100 years old, have I not lied to you?

 

If "God's text" (what Christians accept anyways) says that creation is but a few thousand years old, and it is in fact billions of years old, then their idea of god must be deviant or their text at fault. The only other recourse is to say that science is at fault (which of course is easily defeated).

 

Taking their options in hand, many would rather then move to a non-literal meaning of Genesis because they must hold to their statement that the book is without fault. By such they can make the age "whatever" they want by saying such things as "God's day is as a thousand years." And such is the modern rationalizations found in various sectations which allows both science and their text to exist within their world view without a conflict. Even if you were to demonstrate quite clearly that the text is at fault, they would merely point out that it is "our interpretation" that is at fault, and by such anything it says could be truthful because it can not be tested because it is not held to a literal meaning.

[Kay]

If God purposely misleads us to think that creation is older than it actually is, there is the falsehood, the lie.

 

Ah! I see now!

 

If I say "this rock is 10 years old" and hand it to you, and you find out it is a 100 years old, have I not lied to you?

 

I guess my confusion before arose because we're presupposing that our methods of calculation are reliable. When my fundie friend said "but god fiddled with the decomp", what he was trying to say was that the decomposition was not a reliable indicator of age.

 

The only other recourse is to say that science is at fault (which of course is easily defeated).

 

Which was exactly what my fundie friend was suggesting. How am I supposed to refute the all-powerful and untraceable workings of god though? Isn't that why they smacked on the 'god' factor in the first place to defeat the date test on fossils?

 

Nonetheless, I'm most grateful for your patience.

 

Cheers