The age of the Earth

CrikeyBobs · 26th May 2009, 11:41 AM

An Englishman and a Frenchman are out walking in the countryside when they happen upon a creature.

The Englishman points at the creature and says "rabbit". The Frenchman looks at him, a little puzzled, but then points at the creature and says "lapin". "No, no", responds the Englishman in a patronizing tone, "it's a rabbit -- ra bit" (emphasing the individual syllables).

"Pourquoi êtes-vous dit cela? La créature est très certainement un lapin."

"'Lapin'? what the hell is a 'lapin'? Are you out of frog-riddled mind? It's a frikken rabbit. OK?

"Vous English sont idiots au-delà de ma capacité à articuler. Lapin, lapin, lapin!"

At which point much bitch-slapping ensued.

joobz · 26th May 2009, 11:53 AM

My mom gave me a quarter.

slingblade · 26th May 2009, 04:39 PM

I put it up my nose!

I Ratant · 26th May 2009, 04:49 PM

I might get a hair cut.
Or, all of them.

joobz · 26th May 2009, 05:41 PM

It's too wet to plow.

Ladewig · 26th May 2009, 06:27 PM

I can see by your tags that this is some sort of allegory related to science and religion, but I cannot figure it out. Might you elaborate?

joobz · 26th May 2009, 06:34 PM

I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages.

Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth.

paximperium · 26th May 2009, 06:37 PM

If I define this OP as Bullcrap will this equate with garbage?

Elizabeth I · 26th May 2009, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages.

Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth.

Even if this paraphrase turns out to be incorrect, I am totally impressed with the fact that you were able to coherently tie the OP in with the tags, or with anything, for that matter.

Meadmaker · 26th May 2009, 07:33 PM

Je pense qu'il dit, "Un jour est come mille ans."

(I wonder how badly I mangled the French.)

Tanstaafl · 26th May 2009, 08:10 PM

I think it's a trap to get us all modded for posting off-topic.

slingblade · 26th May 2009, 08:12 PM

I put it up my nose!

Ladewig · 26th May 2009, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages.

Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth.

Your explanation was the first one I thought of but I dismissed it for the same reason you did. Six orders of magnitude is not a simple misunderstanding.

If CrikeyBobs is trying to make an allegory related to the age of the Earth, then it should go like this:

Englishman: That elephant weighs 15,000.
Frenchman: No, that elephant weighs 15/1000 of one pound.
Englishman: But look at its size. Surely it weighs more than both of us combined.
Frenchman: Nope, my inerrant holy scriptures say elephants weigh a tiny fraction of an ounce.

. . . . . . . . .

Is the OP merely some type of jest or teasing?

joobz · 26th May 2009, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Is the OP merely some type of jest or teasing?

That's why I originally responded with a meaningless non sequitor.
It would be hard for me to believe that someone would truly try to imply that the age of the earth debate is nothing more than a "you say potato" type of missunderstanding.

Sun Countess · 26th May 2009, 10:08 PM

Heh. The only word I can think of to describe the OP was accidentally coined by kurious_kathy: voicedross.

Question: Why does the frenchman say the word "English" in English? Shouldn't that be "anglais?"

CrikeyBobs · 27th May 2009, 12:07 AM

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

ImaginalDisc · 27th May 2009, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

This is the fallacy of the middle ground, that when two opinions differ, the correct answer has to be some heartwarming third option.

You see, science involves the rigorous analysis of reality. Christianity involves ********, lies, ********, hogwash, ******, and things people made up out of whole cloth.

paximperium · 27th May 2009, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

Using you analogy, someone's belief that he is Napolean and has a chip placed in his brain by goblins is analogous to a Psychiatrists belief that this individual has schizophrenia and is psychotic.

Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

Seren_ · 27th May 2009, 12:30 AM

Except that "year" has a precise definition.

If you disagree, would you mind to lend me 2,000 $ that I will repay double at the end of the next year* ?

* Christian year of course !

CrikeyBobs · 27th May 2009, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

This is the fallacy of the middle ground, that when two opinions differ, the correct answer has to be some heartwarming third option.

I don't agree with that. The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist. The OP isn't advocating some accountancy fiddle to keep everyone happy, more like an acceptance that never the twain shall meet. Mind you, it's not a reason to stop arguing.

Quote:

You see, science involves the rigorous analysis of reality. Christianity involves ********, lies, ********, hogwash, ******, and things people made up out of whole cloth.

I agree with that.

CrikeyBobs · 27th May 2009, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Seren_

Except that "year" has a precise definition.

If you disagree, would you mind to lend me 2,000 $ that I will repay double at the end of the next year* ?

* Christian year of course !

Love to, but I'm tapped out until after the tribulation.

H3LL · 27th May 2009, 12:50 AM

Just because some idiot Christian refuses to accept good, solid evidence doesn't make that evidence go away, though his idiocy remains.

A TM may believe he can fly through meditation but gravity will still be there and he still won't be able to fly.

.

CrikeyBobs · 27th May 2009, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by paximperium

Using you analogy, someone's belief that he is Napolean and has a chip placed in his brain by goblins is analogous to a Psychiatrists belief that this individual has schizophrenia and is psychotic.

Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

Indeed, although I have a feeling you consider my allegory "ludicrous".

paximperium · 27th May 2009, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

Indeed, although I have a feeling you consider my allegory "ludicrous".

"So Mr. Bobs, lay back on the couch and relax. You are safe from the anal probes here. Tell me about your allegory and mother issues."

CrikeyBobs · 27th May 2009, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by paximperium

"So Mr. Bobs, lay back on the couch and relax. You are safe from the anal probes here. Tell me about your allegory and mother issues."

My Mother? Let me tell you about my mother...

After a most helpful session on the couch (although, without anal probes, it's just not the same), CrikeyBobs has been translated to another frame of reference. Tags updated accordingly.

joobz · 27th May 2009, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

I don't agree with that.

Doesn't really matter whether you agree or not. Year has the exact same physical meaning to a YEC as to a scientist. There is no middle ground here.

UndercoverElephant · 27th May 2009, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

That doesn't make the claims equal. The "language game" of Biblical literalism effectively defines "truth" to mean "whatever it says in the Bible." For anyone who doesn't share that particular belief-system, the whole caboodle is ludicrous. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of scripture. It's not bad science. It is bad religion. "Jesus was the son of God" isn't supposed to mean that God was Jesus's Dad. It was never supposed to mean that. Who cares whether or not Joseph was the biological father of Jesus? It's totally irrelevant - especially considering that Jesus himself was supposed to have said "Anyone can do what I have done. Anyone can be like me." How can anyone be like Jesus if Jesus was biologically fathered by God?

arthwollipot · 27th May 2009, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

I don't agree with that. The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist. The OP isn't advocating some accountancy fiddle to keep everyone happy, more like an acceptance that never the twain shall meet. Mind you, it's not a reason to stop arguing.

The difference is that one of them is... um, true.

MRC_Hans · 27th May 2009, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

No, that is actually not correct. For the fundie Christians it is indeed 6,000 years, as in 6,000X365 days, or Earth 6,000 times orbiting the Sun. It is not a question of language, or definition of the term 'year'.

Fundie Christians really, really claim that Earth was created in six days (as in 6x24 hours, as in one revolution of Earth), 6,000 good standard calendar years ago.

They are, in other words, claiming an entirely different scenario.

I know there exist such a thing as "old earth creationists' who may say that the six days mentioned in Genesis is really an allegory for billions of years, but, if you analyze it, OEC is even more ridiculous than YEC.

Hans

godless dave · 27th May 2009, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

How is the second one "correct"? The only way it could be "correct" is if "earth" means something different in the second frame of reference than in the first. If "age of the earth" means "age of literate cultures in the Levant" then the second one still isn't correct but is close. And if you define "health food" to mean "beer" then I am a big consumer of health food.

Sun Countess · 27th May 2009, 11:06 AM

In the OP, the Frenchman and the Englishman are both recognizing the exact same animal with the exact same characteristics, but are simply giving the creature a different name. If I ask a French schoolchild to draw a "lapin" and an English child to draw a "rabbit," they'll draw very similar pictures.

If asked about them, they would also both likely know that the rabbit/lapin is a cute and cuddly-looking non-cud-chewing quiet mammal, which breeds prodigiously, then they're still describing the same creature. It's not as though the French lapin is thought to be a 10,000 year old space alien who becomes invisible at night, steals socks, and tosses shoes on the sides of freeways. The words are different, but the definitions are not, so your analogy doesn't hold.

linusrichard · 27th May 2009, 11:07 AM

Old riddle, favorite of mine:

If you call a hump a leg, how many legs does a camel have?

Four.

six7s · 27th May 2009, 04:29 PM

Ceci n'est pas un Pope

ParrotPirate · 27th May 2009, 08:35 PM

Brainbarf.

KingMerv00 · 27th May 2009, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist.

It might surprise you to hear that I agree with you...for reasons I suspect you wouldn't like.

CrikeyBobs · 28th May 2009, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

It might surprise you to hear that I agree with you...for reasons I suspect you wouldn't like.

Please post your reasons.

CrikeyBobs · 28th May 2009, 04:33 AM

It comes as no surprise that conversations between those who hold very strict religious views and those for whom science forms the bedrock of understanding can become heated. I enjoy reading them, but I tend stick my toe in only occasionally. While I think it is important that people should be able to robustly express their sincerely held views, sometimes these threads take on the aspect of slanging matches, with neither side being able to get through to the other, resulting in much frustration.

For some reason this put into my mind the scenario of my OP. I could have used any area of contention between theism and science as the title, but I chose the age of the earth as I think it is the most obvious schism. I have to admit I chuckled as I was composing it and, with hindsight, I could have posted it in humour. I didn't because I think that beneath the silliness of the "allegory" (and it is silly) there is a kernel of truth -- namely that the positions of "fundie" and "heathen" cannot be reconciled as they operate from two very different frames of reference.

I must confess I was somewhat taken aback with a few of the responses as, to me, they seemed leagues apart from my intent, which was to use humour to illustrate my perspective. In some case I actually felt a bit guilty (catholic upbringing -- can't seem to shake off those final remnants

).

drkitten · 28th May 2009, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs

I didn't because I think that beneath the silliness of the "allegory" (and it is silly) there is a kernel of truth -- namely that the positions of "fundie" and "heathen" cannot be reconciled as they operate from two very different frames of reference.

The problem is that this is simply untrue.

My sister is a fundamentalist. If you ask her how old she is, she'll,.... we'll, she'll lie and shave a few years off her age. But she'll tell me that her daughters are twelve and eight, respectively.

That doesn't mean that she thinks her daughter is 12/6000 times as old as the sun itself and therefore older than the Pyramids. When she says that her daughter is twelve, she means her daughter was born in 1997. When she says the Sun is 6000 years old, she means it was made in about 4000 BCE.

We're not operating from different frames of reference. She's simply wrong.

Quote:

I must confess I was somewhat taken aback with a few of the responses as, to me, they seemed leagues apart from my intent, which was to use humour to illustrate my perspective.

Using humor doesn't really make your pespective less wrong.

drkitten · 28th May 2009, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Seren_

Except that "year" has a precise definition.

If you disagree, would you mind to lend me 2,000 $ that I will repay double at the end of the next year* ?

* Christian year of course !

Maybe I should try that on my credit cards. Simply tell them that from my frame of reference, the payment won't be due for a long, long time.

CrikeyBobs · 28th May 2009, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

The problem is that this is simply untrue.
My sister is a fundamentalist. If you ask her how old she is, she'll,.... we'll, she'll lie and shave a few years off her age. But she'll tell me that her daughters are twelve and eight, respectively.

That doesn't mean that she thinks her daughter is 12/6000 times as old as the sun itself and therefore older than the Pyramids. When she says that her daughter is twelve, she means her daughter was born in 1997. When she says the Sun is 6000 years old, she means it was made in about 4000 BCE.

We're not operating from different frames of reference. She's simply wrong.

You know she's wrong. I know she's wrong, but she doesn't. I'm sure she is just as confident of the validity of her beliefs and the stupidity of ours. When you present her with our evidence (radiometric dating, or whatever), does she respond "hmmm, I'll do some research on the technique and get back to you". Or does does she immediately reject it and instead spin a tale about God testing us, or The Flood affecting the readings, or Satan trying to sow seeds of doubt?

This is what I mean about different frames of reference. I cannot see any common ground from which to create a consensus. If I gave the impression that it's just about the perception of time then that is my fault.

Quote:

Using humor doesn't really make your pespective less wrong.

Of course. But to simply state that we have different perspectives would have made for a rather dull posting and I wouldn't have bothered. I didn't use humour to try and misrepresent the point (although it would appear that I effectively obfuscated it).

26th May 2009, 11:41 AM	#1
CrikeyBobs Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London Posts: 421	The age of the Earth An Englishman and a Frenchman are out walking in the countryside when they happen upon a creature. The Englishman points at the creature and says "rabbit". The Frenchman looks at him, a little puzzled, but then points at the creature and says "lapin". "No, no", responds the Englishman in a patronizing tone, "it's a rabbit -- ra bit" (emphasing the individual syllables). "Pourquoi êtes-vous dit cela? La créature est très certainement un lapin." "'Lapin'? what the hell is a 'lapin'? Are you out of frog-riddled mind? It's a frikken rabbit. OK? "Vous English sont idiots au-delà de ma capacité à articuler. Lapin, lapin, lapin!" At which point much bitch-slapping ensued.

26th May 2009, 11:53 AM	#2
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	My mom gave me a quarter.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

26th May 2009, 04:39 PM	#3
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	I put it up my nose!
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

26th May 2009, 05:41 PM	#5
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	It's too wet to plow.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

26th May 2009, 06:27 PM	#6
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,786	I can see by your tags that this is some sort of allegory related to science and religion, but I cannot figure it out. Might you elaborate?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

26th May 2009, 04:49 PM	#4
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	I might get a hair cut. Or, all of them.

26th May 2009, 06:34 PM	#7
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages. Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

26th May 2009, 06:37 PM	#8
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	If I define this OP as Bullcrap will this equate with garbage?
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

26th May 2009, 06:52 PM	#9
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 9,255	Originally Posted by joobz I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages. Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth. Even if this paraphrase turns out to be incorrect, I am totally impressed with the fact that you were able to coherently tie the OP in with the tags, or with anything, for that matter.
	__________________ • There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man. - Winston Churchill • Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. • My blog: Pardon me, may I ask...

26th May 2009, 07:33 PM	#10
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,434	Je pense qu'il dit, "Un jour est come mille ans." (I wonder how badly I mangled the French.)
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

26th May 2009, 08:10 PM	#11
Tanstaafl Unindicted Co-conspirator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 5,622	I think it's a trap to get us all modded for posting off-topic.
	__________________ To forgive is human, to condemn for eternity is divine. -- AudioFreak Truth is where evidence comes from, not where belief leads to. --yy2bggggs Expelled exposed! Sylvia Browne

26th May 2009, 08:12 PM	#12
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	I put it up my nose!
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

26th May 2009, 08:36 PM	#13
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,786	Originally Posted by joobz I believe he's implying that the age of the earth is nothing more than an arbitrary definition, like the names for objects under different languages. Of course, this is stupid on the face of it because, unlike names, ages have a numerical value with a meaning that extends beyond simple wording. 6000 years isn't equal to 5 billion years. Just like a pea isn't equal in size to the earth. Your explanation was the first one I thought of but I dismissed it for the same reason you did. Six orders of magnitude is not a simple misunderstanding. If CrikeyBobs is trying to make an allegory related to the age of the Earth, then it should go like this: Englishman: That elephant weighs 15,000. Frenchman: No, that elephant weighs 15/1000 of one pound. Englishman: But look at its size. Surely it weighs more than both of us combined. Frenchman: Nope, my inerrant holy scriptures say elephants weigh a tiny fraction of an ounce. . . . . . . . . . Is the OP merely some type of jest or teasing?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

26th May 2009, 09:10 PM	#14
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by Ladewig Is the OP merely some type of jest or teasing? That's why I originally responded with a meaningless non sequitor. It would be hard for me to believe that someone would truly try to imply that the age of the earth debate is nothing more than a "you say potato" type of missunderstanding.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

26th May 2009, 10:08 PM	#15
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	Heh. The only word I can think of to describe the OP was accidentally coined by kurious_kathy: voicedross. Question: Why does the frenchman say the word "English" in English? Shouldn't that be "anglais?"

27th May 2009, 12:07 AM	#16
CrikeyBobs Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London Posts: 421	It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.

27th May 2009, 12:19 AM	#17
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame. This is the fallacy of the middle ground, that when two opinions differ, the correct answer has to be some heartwarming third option. You see, science involves the rigorous analysis of reality. Christianity involves ******, lies, ****, hogwash, ****, and things people made up out of whole cloth.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

27th May 2009, 12:28 AM	#18
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame. Using you analogy, someone's belief that he is Napolean and has a chip placed in his brain by goblins is analogous to a Psychiatrists belief that this individual has schizophrenia and is psychotic. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame.
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett Last edited by paximperium; 27th May 2009 at 12:29 AM.

27th May 2009, 12:30 AM	#19
Seren_ Scholar Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 104	Except that "year" has a precise definition. If you disagree, would you mind to lend me 2,000 $ that I will repay double at the end of the next year* ? * Christian year of course !
Seren_ Scholar Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 104	Last edited by Seren_; 27th May 2009 at 12:31 AM.

27th May 2009, 12:33 AM	#20
CrikeyBobs Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London Posts: 421	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc This is the fallacy of the middle ground, that when two opinions differ, the correct answer has to be some heartwarming third option. I don't agree with that. The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist. The OP isn't advocating some accountancy fiddle to keep everyone happy, more like an acceptance that never the twain shall meet. Mind you, it's not a reason to stop arguing. Quote: You see, science involves the rigorous analysis of reality. Christianity involves ******, lies, ****, hogwash, ****, and things people made up out of whole cloth. I agree with that.

27th May 2009, 12:46 AM	#21
CrikeyBobs Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London Posts: 421	Originally Posted by Seren_ Except that "year" has a precise definition. If you disagree, would you mind to lend me 2,000 $ that I will repay double at the end of the next year* ? * Christian year of course ! Love to, but I'm tapped out until after the tribulation.

27th May 2009, 12:50 AM	#22
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Just because some idiot Christian refuses to accept good, solid evidence doesn't make that evidence go away, though his idiocy remains. A TM may believe he can fly through meditation but gravity will still be there and he still won't be able to fly. .
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

27th May 2009, 01:17 AM	#23
CrikeyBobs Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London Posts: 421	Originally Posted by paximperium Using you analogy, someone's belief that he is Napolean and has a chip placed in his brain by goblins is analogous to a Psychiatrists belief that this individual has schizophrenia and is psychotic. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame. Indeed, although I have a feeling you consider my allegory "ludicrous".

27th May 2009, 01:36 AM	#24
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs Indeed, although I have a feeling you consider my allegory "ludicrous". "So Mr. Bobs, lay back on the couch and relax. You are safe from the anal probes here. Tell me about your allegory and mother issues."
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

27th May 2009, 01:49 AM	#25
CrikeyBobs Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London Posts: 421	Originally Posted by paximperium "So Mr. Bobs, lay back on the couch and relax. You are safe from the anal probes here. Tell me about your allegory and mother issues." My Mother? Let me tell you about my mother... After a most helpful session on the couch (although, without anal probes, it's just not the same), CrikeyBobs has been translated to another frame of reference. Tags updated accordingly.
	Last edited by CrikeyBobs; 27th May 2009 at 01:55 AM.

27th May 2009, 03:45 AM	#26
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs I don't agree with that. Doesn't really matter whether you agree or not. Year has the exact same physical meaning to a YEC as to a scientist. There is no middle ground here.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

27th May 2009, 04:08 AM	#27
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame. That doesn't make the claims equal. The "language game" of Biblical literalism effectively defines "truth" to mean "whatever it says in the Bible." For anyone who doesn't share that particular belief-system, the whole caboodle is ludicrous. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of scripture. It's not bad science. It is bad religion. "Jesus was the son of God" isn't supposed to mean that God was Jesus's Dad. It was never supposed to mean that. Who cares whether or not Joseph was the biological father of Jesus? It's totally irrelevant - especially considering that Jesus himself was supposed to have said "Anyone can do what I have done. Anyone can be like me." How can anyone be like Jesus if Jesus was biologically fathered by God?
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about." Last edited by UndercoverElephant; 27th May 2009 at 04:10 AM.

27th May 2009, 04:22 AM	#28
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 42,956	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs I don't agree with that. The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist. The OP isn't advocating some accountancy fiddle to keep everyone happy, more like an acceptance that never the twain shall meet. Mind you, it's not a reason to stop arguing. The difference is that one of them is... um, true.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

27th May 2009, 05:19 AM	#29
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame. No, that is actually not correct. For the fundie Christians it is indeed 6,000 years, as in 6,000X365 days, or Earth 6,000 times orbiting the Sun. It is not a question of language, or definition of the term 'year'. Fundie Christians really, really claim that Earth was created in six days (as in 6x24 hours, as in one revolution of Earth), 6,000 good standard calendar years ago. They are, in other words, claiming an entirely different scenario. I know there exist such a thing as "old earth creationists' who may say that the six days mentioned in Genesis is really an allegory for billions of years, but, if you analyze it, OEC is even more ridiculous than YEC. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

27th May 2009, 10:52 AM	#30
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,122	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs It was just something I cobbled up and couched in humorous terms. In the "language" of science, the earth is 4 billion+ years. In the "language" of Christian fundamentalism, the earth is 6000+ years old. Within each frame of reference the value is "correct", but is equally ludicrous from the other frame. How is the second one "correct"? The only way it could be "correct" is if "earth" means something different in the second frame of reference than in the first. If "age of the earth" means "age of literate cultures in the Levant" then the second one still isn't correct but is close. And if you define "health food" to mean "beer" then I am a big consumer of health food.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

27th May 2009, 11:06 AM	#31
Sun Countess Appearance of intelligence Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Posts: 3,176	In the OP, the Frenchman and the Englishman are both recognizing the exact same animal with the exact same characteristics, but are simply giving the creature a different name. If I ask a French schoolchild to draw a "lapin" and an English child to draw a "rabbit," they'll draw very similar pictures. If asked about them, they would also both likely know that the rabbit/lapin is a cute and cuddly-looking non-cud-chewing quiet mammal, which breeds prodigiously, then they're still describing the same creature. It's not as though the French lapin is thought to be a 10,000 year old space alien who becomes invisible at night, steals socks, and tosses shoes on the sides of freeways. The words are different, but the definitions are not, so your analogy doesn't hold.

27th May 2009, 11:07 AM	#32
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,663	Old riddle, favorite of mine: If you call a hump a leg, how many legs does a camel have? Four.
	Last edited by linusrichard; 27th May 2009 at 11:08 AM. Reason: better without the epilogue

27th May 2009, 04:29 PM	#33
six7s veretic Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 8,710	Ceci n'est pas un Pope
	__________________ Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!

27th May 2009, 08:35 PM	#34
ParrotPirate Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Here,now Posts: 1,540	Brainbarf.

27th May 2009, 10:07 PM	#35
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by CrikeyBobs The content of the bible means nothing to a scientist, while radiometric dating means nothing to a Christian fundamentalist. It might surprise you to hear that I agree with you...for reasons I suspect you wouldn't like.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?