Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:20:27 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1943@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<3564632a-8d1d-40e7-a56c-8a25ddbb608b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 9, 11:37 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:36:00 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:34 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:54:04 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<07582b3e-1f6f-4d75-b9d2-a0945b24c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 7, 1:29 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:27 am, Grandbank <zetetic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 7, 9:03 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 6, 11:33 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2008-01-07, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:43 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It seems perfectly rational to assume that the universe and
everything in it was created with Apparent age.

Well of course!  And everyone knows that it happened last
Thursday! So how's your sophomore year going so far?  Puked
on a chick while you were making out yet?

Nonsensical but I susupect you have great experience in
puking......your AA buddy probably get a little worn with it.
The reason you react so irrationally is that you realize that
the apparent age argument cannot be disproved.

Of course it can't be disproved.  That's why it's ludicrous to
consider it.

Of course if say 10,000
years ago such was the case in order to get the universe to
operate properly it might well be reasonable to embue it with
characteristics and properties typical of great age.

Why not last Thursday?  Or why not consider that we are brains
in vats?

Because there are recent historical documents, memory of
varifiable events, and because we have a reliable record of
God's acts and a demonstrated example of His character which is
consistent with truth and not trickery.

But it was you who just claimed that things could be created with
the trickery of' "apparent" age.

Why would anyone resort to irrational imaginary explanations
when the written evidence is readily available for how all has
began and unfolded.

But it was you who just claimed that things could be created with
the trickery of' "apparent" age.

Unless you're an EVO and imagination is your stock in trade.
But it was you who just claimed that things could be created with
the trickery of' "apparent" age.

Creation of a man instead of a baby or a functioning sun instead
of a gas cloud is not trickery................turn on your brain
button and then come back.

This argument might apply to a few phenomena. You have mentioned
two, and a working soil, river systems, and oxygen atmosphere have
been mentioned by previous omphalists. But the theory founders on
the host of characteristics that are most clearly *not* necessary
for a functioning world. There is no point to light being created on
its way to earth from galaxies that are billions of light-years
away, or to supernovae in those galaxies, or to sedimentary rocks
made from metamorphic rocks made from other sedimentary rocks
containing what appear to be river pebbles.
  Or of the distribution of radioisotopes in created igneous rocks.
  Etc. Most of what gives the appearance of age has no function in
  the world.

Now of course you can argue that we are not capable of discerning
god's purpose in creating all this. But in that case you have no
argument -- anything could be anything. Omphalism is as sterile as
its cousins, Last Tuesdayism and solipsism.

Your idea that there is no point is an argument from ignorance and
personal incredulity. All mass and energy ever to be was present at
the creation and it had to be somewhere so some distribution was
necessary and the most consistent one was to rapidly populate the
universe with electromagnetic energy, massive bodies, etc. What other
preferref arrangement can evos suggest to be more likely and why ?

Why would there be any need to distribute mass and energy? Why couldn't
the creator have simply brought it into existence already in place?
Aren't you the one who argues in favour of the appearance of age?

The distribution of mass energy is not arbitrary

The will of the creator isn't arbitrary?  Does that mean the creator is
restricted in what it can do?

nor random it follows
laws that determine the operation there of and enables life to be
extant.

Sounds like an evil atheistic materialistic evolutionary opinion to me.  
Just take a handful of laws and some matter & energy and you just might
end up with life.  Well done -- I think you're coming around.

But you did fail to answer the questions.  Try again:

"Why would there be any need to distribute mass and energy? Why couldn't
the creator have simply brought it into existence already in place?
Aren't you the one who argues in favour of the appearance of age?"

PLease take a year of deep thought, confer with other evos, repair to
secret intellects outside the evo community and then maybe you can
tell me how "already IN PLACE" differs from a "DISTRIBUTION". What
a moron.

When are you going to take your own advice? It amazes me that you
can't see the contradictions in your own claims. Compare this claim:

Of course if say 10,000 years ago such was the case in order to
get the universe to operate properly it might well be reasonable
to embue it with characteristics and properties typical of great
age.

with this one:

All mass and energy ever to be was present at the creation and
it had to be somewhere so some distribution was necessary and
the most consistent one was to rapidly populate the universe
with electromagnetic energy, massive bodies, etc.

These are two completely different assertions. It should be obvious
that the phrase "distribution was necessary" implies the passage of
time, which would be reflected as "age". So why would distribution be
necessary if the creator could simply create the universe with the
appearance that distribution had taken place (AKA "the appearance of
age")?

.