Suggested to me by YouTube was this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMAYACpIRQ

whose author took a break from her serious paleontology videos
to look at a new Creationist "documentary"... about the
Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes in Alaska.

This led me to look up a few things. Okay, it was the first
iteration of the Pentium III that had Katmai as its codename.

As far as I could tell, while the movie, Journey to Novarupta,
took time to note that Robert Fiske Griggs was a Christian,
I found no evidence that he had ever claimed to discover any
evidence for the Biblical Creation story in the area.

However, on one site referring to an audio product connected
with the movie, it's mentioned that the sedimentary feature
known as the Naknek Formation was set down by Noah's Flood.

Wikipedia tells me that in the Naknek Formation, they've found
Plesiosaur remains, and those spoilsport atheistic evolutionists
date that formation to the Mesozoic - back when dinosaurs
ruled the Earth.

So I suppose the plesiosaurs were laughing and playing silly
games as the rains were falling... although being sea creatures,
would missing the Ark have been an issue for them?

Also, an Ice Age formation post-dating the Naknek Formation is
mentioned, so presumably ice ages didn't last all that long.

John Savard

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 3:30:00 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> Suggested to me by YouTube was this video
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMAYACpIRQ
>
> whose author took a break from her serious paleontology videos
> to look at a new Creationist "documentary"... about the
> Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes in Alaska.
>
> This led me to look up a few things. Okay, it was the first
> iteration of the Pentium III that had Katmai as its codename.
>
> As far as I could tell, while the movie, Journey to Novarupta,
> took time to note that Robert Fiske Griggs was a Christian,
> I found no evidence that he had ever claimed to discover any
> evidence for the Biblical Creation story in the area.
>
> However, on one site referring to an audio product connected
> with the movie, it's mentioned that the sedimentary feature
> known as the Naknek Formation was set down by Noah's Flood.
>
> Wikipedia tells me that in the Naknek Formation, they've found
> Plesiosaur remains, and those spoilsport atheistic evolutionists
> date that formation to the Mesozoic - back when dinosaurs
> ruled the Earth.
>
> So I suppose the plesiosaurs were laughing and playing silly
> games as the rains were falling... although being sea creatures,
> would missing the Ark have been an issue for them?
>
> Also, an Ice Age formation post-dating the Naknek Formation is
> mentioned, so presumably ice ages didn't last all that long.
>
> John Savard
Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against the literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC - As for example in https://craigavonhistoricalsociety.org.uk/rev/bailliedendrochron.php

"With the successful proving of the method by Douglass, the American workers turned their attention to the establishment of very long sequences of tree-rings. Their success with the Giant Redwoods (Sequoia Gigantea) which yielded tree-rings dating back to 1500 B.C. has in recent years been enhanced still further with the exploitation of the Bristlecone Pines (Finns Aristata). These trees, a single one of which had lived for over 4,000 years, have yielded a continuous tree ring chronology of 8,000 years (Ferguson 1972)."

In article <33438631-8970-4fe5-bfb8-701d673a8c87n@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 3:30:00 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> Suggested to me by YouTube was this video
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMAYACpIRQ
>>
>> whose author took a break from her serious paleontology videos
>> to look at a new Creationist "documentary"... about the
>> Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes in Alaska.
>>
>> This led me to look up a few things. Okay, it was the first
>> iteration of the Pentium III that had Katmai as its codename.
>>
>> As far as I could tell, while the movie, Journey to Novarupta,
>> took time to note that Robert Fiske Griggs was a Christian,
>> I found no evidence that he had ever claimed to discover any
>> evidence for the Biblical Creation story in the area.
>>
>> However, on one site referring to an audio product connected
>> with the movie, it's mentioned that the sedimentary feature
>> known as the Naknek Formation was set down by Noah's Flood.
>>
>> Wikipedia tells me that in the Naknek Formation, they've found
>> Plesiosaur remains, and those spoilsport atheistic evolutionists
>> date that formation to the Mesozoic - back when dinosaurs
>> ruled the Earth.
>>
>> So I suppose the plesiosaurs were laughing and playing silly
>> games as the rains were falling... although being sea creatures,
>> would missing the Ark have been an issue for them?
>>
>> Also, an Ice Age formation post-dating the Naknek Formation is
>> mentioned, so presumably ice ages didn't last all that long.
>>
>> John Savard
>Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against
>the literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC - As for
>example in
>https://craigavonhistoricalsociety.org.uk/rev/bailliedendrochron.php
>
>"With the successful proving of the method by Douglass, the American
>workers turned their attention to the establishment of very long
>sequences of tree-rings. Their success with the Giant Redwoods (Sequoia
>Gigantea) which yielded tree-rings dating back to 1500 B.C. has in
>recent years been enhanced still further with the exploitation of the
>Bristlecone Pines (Finns Aristata). These trees, a single one of which
>had lived for over 4,000 years, have yielded a continuous tree ring
>chronology of 8,000 years (Ferguson 1972)."

(Hal Heydt)
Many years ago, I used to post on a newsgroup devoted to
debunking creationist claims. At one point I brought up
dendrochronology. At that time, researchers had overlapping tree
ring sequences going around 14,000 years.

For debunking "The Flood", there are individual bristlecone pines
that are older than the conventional literalist dating for that
event. For a literalist, "The Flood" should wiped out those
trees, but it clearly didn't.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:24:22 PM UTC-6, Andrew McDowell wrote:

> Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against the
> literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC

It should be pointed out, I suppose, that while finding Plesiosaur
fossils in the Naknek Formation maya make it seem preposterous
to you and I that it was laid down during Noah's Flood, this would
not debunk that claim in _their_ eyes, since they believe that
dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - and are referenced in
the Bible as "dragons".

John Savard

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 2:33:50 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:24:22 PM UTC-6, Andrew McDowell wrote:
>
> > Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against the
> > literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC
> It should be pointed out, I suppose, that while finding Plesiosaur
> fossils in the Naknek Formation maya make it seem preposterous
> to you and I that it was laid down during Noah's Flood, this would
> not debunk that claim in _their_ eyes, since they believe that
> dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - and are referenced in
> the Bible as "dragons".

And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.

John Savard

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:24:22 PM UTC-6, Andrew McDowell wrote:
>
> > Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against the
> > literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC
> It should be pointed out, I suppose, that while finding Plesiosaur
> fossils in the Naknek Formation maya make it seem preposterous
> to you and I that it was laid down during Noah's Flood, this would
> not debunk that claim in _their_ eyes, since they believe that
> dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - and are referenced in
> the Bible as "dragons".

I like to ask YECs when the Flood occurred. The usual answer is 'around 2600 BC'.

I then point out that the Egyptian 'King Lists' have monarchs going back to around
3200 BC, without mention of a little thing like the death of every single Egyptian.
There's plenty of other Egyptian artefacts and inscriptions bridging the date of the
putative Flood as well.

pt

On Aug 16, 2023, pete...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<dc63792f-f9ab-462d-ae7c-472497a2ebdbn@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:24:22 PM UTC-6, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> >
> > > Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against
> > > the
> > > literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC
> > It should be pointed out, I suppose, that while finding Plesiosaur
> > fossils in the Naknek Formation maya make it seem preposterous
> > to you and I that it was laid down during Noah's Flood, this would
> > not debunk that claim in _their_ eyes, since they believe that
> > dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - and are referenced in
> > the Bible as "dragons".
>
> I like to ask YECs when the Flood occurred. The usual answer is 'around 2600
> BC'.
>
> I then point out that the Egyptian 'King Lists' have monarchs going back to
> around
> 3200 BC, without mention of a little thing like the death of every single
> Egyptian.
> There's plenty of other Egyptian artefacts and inscriptions bridging the date
> of the
> putative Flood as well.
>
> pt

It’snot just Egypt. There were civilizations in the Indus Valley and what
is now China around then, too. I’m pretty sure that they’d have noticed
being under water...

Not much is known about civilizations in what is now Spain at that time, just
that there was at least one, and they liked ships. They _really_ liked ships,
their primary diety appears to have been the God of the Sea. Not only would
they have noticed all that water, but they would have been able to board
ships (better ships than the Ark, not that that’s difficult) and have at
least a chance of survival. (If Noah and his sons, wife, and daughters-in-law
could do it, then professional long-distance sailors probably could, too.)

Creationism is utterly stupid.

In article <0001HW.2A8D020E00560E74700002F5238F@news.supernews.com>,
WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:
>On Aug 16, 2023, pete...@gmail.com wrote
>(in article<dc63792f-f9ab-462d-ae7c-472497a2ebdbn@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:24:22 PM UTC-6, Andrew McDowell wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against
>> > > the
>> > > literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC
>> > It should be pointed out, I suppose, that while finding Plesiosaur
>> > fossils in the Naknek Formation maya make it seem preposterous
>> > to you and I that it was laid down during Noah's Flood, this would
>> > not debunk that claim in _their_ eyes, since they believe that
>> > dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - and are referenced in
>> > the Bible as "dragons".
>>
>> I like to ask YECs when the Flood occurred. The usual answer is 'around 2600
>> BC'.
>>
>> I then point out that the Egyptian 'King Lists' have monarchs going back to
>> around
>> 3200 BC, without mention of a little thing like the death of every single
>> Egyptian.
>> There's plenty of other Egyptian artefacts and inscriptions bridging the date
>> of the
>> putative Flood as well.
>>
>> pt
>
>It’snot just Egypt. There were civilizations in the Indus Valley and what
>is now China around then, too. I’m pretty sure that they’d have noticed
>being under water...
>
>Not much is known about civilizations in what is now Spain at that time, just
>that there was at least one, and they liked ships. They _really_ liked ships,
>their primary diety appears to have been the God of the Sea. Not only would
>they have noticed all that water, but they would have been able to board
>ships (better ships than the Ark, not that that’s difficult) and have at
>least a chance of survival. (If Noah and his sons, wife, and daughters-in-law
>could do it, then professional long-distance sailors probably could, too.)
>
>Creationism is utterly stupid.
>

The obvious absurdity serves a useful purpose. Saps that will accept
a Great Flood that clearly contradicts the evidence will cheerfully
embrace any other bullshit their leaders serve them. Same reason many
email scams begin with clearly fraudulent pitches: you want only the
most gullible victims.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 2:33:59 PM UTC+1, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <0001HW.2A8D020E00...@news.supernews.com>,
> WolfFan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 16, 2023, pete...@gmail.com wrote
> >(in article<dc63792f-f9ab-462d...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> >> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:33:50 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:24:22 PM UTC-6, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against
> >> > > the
> >> > > literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC
> >> > It should be pointed out, I suppose, that while finding Plesiosaur
> >> > fossils in the Naknek Formation maya make it seem preposterous
> >> > to you and I that it was laid down during Noah's Flood, this would
> >> > not debunk that claim in _their_ eyes, since they believe that
> >> > dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - and are referenced in
> >> > the Bible as "dragons".
> >>
> >> I like to ask YECs when the Flood occurred. The usual answer is 'around 2600
> >> BC'.
> >>
> >> I then point out that the Egyptian 'King Lists' have monarchs going back to
> >> around
> >> 3200 BC, without mention of a little thing like the death of every single
> >> Egyptian.
> >> There's plenty of other Egyptian artefacts and inscriptions bridging the date
> >> of the
> >> putative Flood as well.
> >>
> >> pt
> >
> >It’snot just Egypt. There were civilizations in the Indus Valley and what
> >is now China around then, too. I’m pretty sure that they’d have noticed
> >being under water...
> >
> >Not much is known about civilizations in what is now Spain at that time, just
> >that there was at least one, and they liked ships. They _really_ liked ships,
> >their primary diety appears to have been the God of the Sea. Not only would
> >they have noticed all that water, but they would have been able to board
> >ships (better ships than the Ark, not that that’s difficult) and have at
> >least a chance of survival. (If Noah and his sons, wife, and daughters-in-law
> >could do it, then professional long-distance sailors probably could, too..)
> >
> >Creationism is utterly stupid.
> >
> The obvious absurdity serves a useful purpose. Saps that will accept
> a Great Flood that clearly contradicts the evidence will cheerfully
> embrace any other bullshit their leaders serve them. Same reason many
> email scams begin with clearly fraudulent pitches: you want only the
> most gullible victims.
> --
> My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
> My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
> My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
> My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
For most of the history of the various flood myths, they could not have served this purpose, because there was little evidence of the past except the myths themselves. I quite like the speculation I have seen about a possible small portion of truth behind the various flood myths, some of I think I think referenced from SF or near SF although I cannot remember where I first saw it. Now I see a variety of suggestsion catalogued at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth and I also note that not all flood myths are from religions that it is fashionable to poke fun at - https://www.livius.org/articles/misc/great-flood/flood1-t-quran/

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 2:33:50 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:24:22 PM UTC-6, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> >
> > > Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against the
> > > literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC
> > It should be pointed out, I suppose, that while finding Plesiosaur
> > fossils in the Naknek Formation maya make it seem preposterous
> > to you and I that it was laid down during Noah's Flood, this would
> > not debunk that claim in _their_ eyes, since they believe that
> > dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - and are referenced in
> > the Bible as "dragons".
> And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
> emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
> book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
> not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.

"The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".

William Hyde

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:30:00 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> Suggested to me by YouTube was this video
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytMAYACpIRQ
>
> whose author took a break from her serious paleontology videos
> to look at a new Creationist "documentary"... about the
> Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes in Alaska.
>
> This led me to look up a few things. Okay, it was the first
> iteration of the Pentium III that had Katmai as its codename.
>
> As far as I could tell, while the movie, Journey to Novarupta,
> took time to note that Robert Fiske Griggs was a Christian,
> I found no evidence that he had ever claimed to discover any
> evidence for the Biblical Creation story in the area.
>
> However, on one site referring to an audio product connected
> with the movie, it's mentioned that the sedimentary feature
> known as the Naknek Formation was set down by Noah's Flood.
>
> Wikipedia tells me that in the Naknek Formation, they've found
> Plesiosaur remains, and those spoilsport atheistic evolutionists
> date that formation to the Mesozoic - back when dinosaurs
> ruled the Earth.
>
> So I suppose the plesiosaurs were laughing and playing silly
> games as the rains were falling... although being sea creatures,
> would missing the Ark have been an issue for them?

It's not a problem for Nessie, is it?

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
> > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
> > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
> > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.

> "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".

I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
_non sequitur_.

Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.

So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
development preceding its creation.

Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
that date.

John Savard

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:52:59 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
> > > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
> > > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
> > > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
>
> > "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
> I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
> is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
> _non sequitur_.
>
> Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
> Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
> word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
> if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.
>
> So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
> He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
> development preceding its creation.
>
> Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
> ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
> with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
> that date.

And, in case you're wondering, this incredibly obscure nineteenth-century book...

is mentioned in _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science_ by Martin Gardner,
and also in _The Flamingo's Smile_ by Stephen Jay Gould, else of course I would
not have heard of it myself, let alone have expected anyone else to have heard
of it.

John Savard

On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 02:52:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
> > > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
> > > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
> > > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
>
> > "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
> I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
> is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
> _non sequitur_.
>
> Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
> Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
> word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
> if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.
>
> So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
> He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
> development preceding its creation.
>
> Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
> ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
> with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
> that date.

ObSF: Terraformers in Terry Pratchett's novel _Strata_
actually install synthetic geology on reformed planets.
Thus the title. Do you want me to check whether this
legitimately includes dinosaur fossils, and it's only
the nuclear bomb protest placards they're holding
that are considered to be going too far?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)>
indeed was liked by nobody, but
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis>
has reappeared within religious fundamentalism,
and indeed existed before _Omphalos_. (If anything did.)
Wikipedia quotes "Gerald E. Aardsma" who to me
reads like somebody making a mocking parody
of omphalism, but he appears to be sincere.
He also appears to be selling "anti-aging vitamins"
according to Google, but maybe that is not the same
real Gerald E. Aardsma. The Snopes Web site currently
has one or more reports per week of a famous person's
identity being misused by someone selling a doubtful
!health product online.

ObSF, sort of: one version of a religious young-earther
claim is that stars farther away in light years than 6000
or 10000 or whatever age they give the earth, exist,
but the light currently reaching us did not literally
come from those stars; God created the light in outer
space, so that we can see where those stars are.
This apparently is a claim made in _Omphalos_,
<https://www.peterstiles.co.uk/articles/catalogue-notes/vivarium-2009/>
it is not the only young-earther approach to challenges
of cosmology, and I don't see it in the Talk.Origins
Creationist Claims index, so I'm not wholly confident
that it appeared from creationists in the 20th and 21st
century. Until I created it today. :-)

Also ObSF: "World of Tiers" and something early
from Michael Moorcock, I think, portray strange
versions of Earth in which the universe outside
the solar system is only a projection. IIRC when
a space probe gets close to the edge of the system,
it looks fuzzy and blurry?

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 4:32:57 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> He also appears to be selling "anti-aging vitamins"
> according to Google, but maybe that is not the same
> real Gerald E. Aardsma.

I'm afraid it is:

https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/AAV_correspondence.php

shows him discussing them on his page about Biblical
Chronology.

John Savard

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 6:32:57 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 02:52:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> > > > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
> > > > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
> > > > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
> > > > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
> >
> > > "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
> > I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
> > is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
> > _non sequitur_.
> >
> > Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
> > Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
> > word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
> > if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.
> >
> > So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
> > He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
> > development preceding its creation.
> >
> > Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
> > ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
> > with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
> > that date.
> ObSF: Terraformers in Terry Pratchett's novel _Strata_
> actually install synthetic geology on reformed planets.
> Thus the title. Do you want me to check whether this
> legitimately includes dinosaur fossils, and it's only
> the nuclear bomb protest placards they're holding
> that are considered to be going too far?
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)>
> indeed was liked by nobody, but
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis>
> has reappeared within religious fundamentalism,
> and indeed existed before _Omphalos_. (If anything did.)
> Wikipedia quotes "Gerald E. Aardsma" who to me
> reads like somebody making a mocking parody
> of omphalism, but he appears to be sincere.
> He also appears to be selling "anti-aging vitamins"
> according to Google, but maybe that is not the same
> real Gerald E. Aardsma. The Snopes Web site currently
> has one or more reports per week of a famous person's
> identity being misused by someone selling a doubtful
> !health product online.
>
> ObSF, sort of: one version of a religious young-earther
> claim is that stars farther away in light years than 6000
> or 10000 or whatever age they give the earth, exist,
> but the light currently reaching us did not literally
> come from those stars; God created the light in outer
> space, so that we can see where those stars are.
> This apparently is a claim made in _Omphalos_,
> <https://www.peterstiles.co.uk/articles/catalogue-notes/vivarium-2009/>
> it is not the only young-earther approach to challenges
> of cosmology, and I don't see it in the Talk.Origins
> Creationist Claims index, so I'm not wholly confident
> that it appeared from creationists in the 20th and 21st
> century. Until I created it today. :-)

In Omphalos, the lightspeed issue is 'fixed' in exactly this
way .

> Also ObSF: "World of Tiers" and something early
> from Michael Moorcock, I think, portray strange
> versions of Earth in which the universe outside
> the solar system is only a projection. IIRC when
> a space probe gets close to the edge of the system,
> it looks fuzzy and blurry?

I've certainly heard 'God created fossils and put them in the rocks as a test of faith' in the past decades
from Creationists. Of course, not all YECs see it the same way.

'Omphalos' can be read on archive.org.

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Omphalos_hypothesis
suggests it is rejected by most YECs.

pt

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39?PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34?AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
>> > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
>> > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
>> > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
>
>> "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
>
>I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
>is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
>_non sequitur_.
>
>Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
>Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
>word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
>if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.

A while back, an obscure reference in a book from my grandfather's
library led me to a man who theorized that Adam got his naval because,
when he fell and the world become subject to sin, the naval became a
part of man.

Frankly, I have never understood the problem with God forming Adam
from the dust with a naval. Who can say what artistic reasons may have
been involved?

OTOH, this guy's theory could be extended to all of reality -- that
/everything/ changed from how the world was originally created to how
it is now when Adam fell. Science, of course, would then be able to
tell us a great deal about the world as it is now, but nothing at all
about how it was before. Indeed, to science, there would be no before.

>So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
>He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
>development preceding its creation.

Put this way, it avoids the obvious problem: protraying God as a liar
-- which would, of course, be blasphemous. Well, unless the idea was
to /deceive/ scientists by lying to them, of course.

>Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
>ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
>with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
>that date.

You have actually found a situation in which /The Matrix/ is the best
example of a computer-generated reality: congratulations! (Usually I
find /The Thirteenth Floor/ or even /ExistenZ/ to be better.)

As you may recall, the program in /The Matrix/ reproduces a period
conveniently similar to that in which the film was made (for ease in
getting props and locations) and with start- and end-points, so, in
that case, it could indeed have been created yesterday with a full
history behind it.

But you are correct that this is a problem with runaway creationism:
sooner or later it becomes apparent that the world could have created
2 seconds ago and it would make no difference at all. Such is the
result of trying to put bounds on God.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 03:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 02:52:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39?PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34?AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>> > > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
>> > > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
>> > > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
>> > > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
>>
>> > "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
>> I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
>> is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
>> _non sequitur_.
>>
>> Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
>> Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
>> word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
>> if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.
>>
>> So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
>> He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
>> development preceding its creation.
>>
>> Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
>> ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
>> with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
>> that date.
>
>ObSF: Terraformers in Terry Pratchett's novel _Strata_
>actually install synthetic geology on reformed planets.
>Thus the title. Do you want me to check whether this
>legitimately includes dinosaur fossils, and it's only
>the nuclear bomb protest placards they're holding
>that are considered to be going too far?
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)>
>indeed was liked by nobody, but
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis>
>has reappeared within religious fundamentalism,
>and indeed existed before _Omphalos_. (If anything did.)
>Wikipedia quotes "Gerald E. Aardsma" who to me
>reads like somebody making a mocking parody
>of omphalism, but he appears to be sincere.
>He also appears to be selling "anti-aging vitamins"
>according to Google, but maybe that is not the same
>real Gerald E. Aardsma. The Snopes Web site currently
>has one or more reports per week of a famous person's
>identity being misused by someone selling a doubtful
>!health product online.
>
>ObSF, sort of: one version of a religious young-earther
>claim is that stars farther away in light years than 6000
>or 10000 or whatever age they give the earth, exist,
>but the light currently reaching us did not literally
>come from those stars; God created the light in outer
>space, so that we can see where those stars are.
>This apparently is a claim made in _Omphalos_,
><https://www.peterstiles.co.uk/articles/catalogue-notes/vivarium-2009/>
>it is not the only young-earther approach to challenges
>of cosmology, and I don't see it in the Talk.Origins
>Creationist Claims index, so I'm not wholly confident
>that it appeared from creationists in the 20th and 21st
>century. Until I created it today. :-)
>
>Also ObSF: "World of Tiers" and something early
>from Michael Moorcock, I think, portray strange
>versions of Earth in which the universe outside
>the solar system is only a projection. IIRC when
>a space probe gets close to the edge of the system,
>it looks fuzzy and blurry?

Wasn't there also one where, when a deep space probe got far enough
away from the Sun, there was a loud "ping" and the crystal shell
surrounding our Solar System cracked and vanished? And the crystal
shells turned to only be breakable from the inside?
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 09:54:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
<mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 2:33:59?PM UTC+1, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <0001HW.2A8D020E00...@news.supernews.com>,
>> WolfFan <akwo...@zoho.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 16, 2023, pete...@gmail.com wrote
>> >(in article<dc63792f-f9ab-462d...@googlegroups.com>):
>> >
>> >> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:33:50?AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:24:22?PM UTC-6, Andrew McDowell wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Just to point out that you don't need rocks and fossils to argue against
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > literalist chronology of the world starting in 4004BC
>> >> > It should be pointed out, I suppose, that while finding Plesiosaur
>> >> > fossils in the Naknek Formation maya make it seem preposterous
>> >> > to you and I that it was laid down during Noah's Flood, this would
>> >> > not debunk that claim in _their_ eyes, since they believe that
>> >> > dinosaurs were contemporary with humans - and are referenced in
>> >> > the Bible as "dragons".
>> >>
>> >> I like to ask YECs when the Flood occurred. The usual answer is 'around 2600
>> >> BC'.
>> >>
>> >> I then point out that the Egyptian 'King Lists' have monarchs going back to
>> >> around
>> >> 3200 BC, without mention of a little thing like the death of every single
>> >> Egyptian.
>> >> There's plenty of other Egyptian artefacts and inscriptions bridging the date
>> >> of the
>> >> putative Flood as well.
>> >>
>> >> pt
>> >
>> >It’snot just Egypt. There were civilizations in the Indus Valley and what
>> >is now China around then, too. I’m pretty sure that they’d have noticed
>> >being under water...
>> >
>> >Not much is known about civilizations in what is now Spain at that time, just
>> >that there was at least one, and they liked ships. They _really_ liked ships,
>> >their primary diety appears to have been the God of the Sea. Not only would
>> >they have noticed all that water, but they would have been able to board
>> >ships (better ships than the Ark, not that that’s difficult) and have at
>> >least a chance of survival. (If Noah and his sons, wife, and daughters-in-law
>> >could do it, then professional long-distance sailors probably could, too.)
>> >
>> >Creationism is utterly stupid.
>> >
>> The obvious absurdity serves a useful purpose. Saps that will accept
>> a Great Flood that clearly contradicts the evidence will cheerfully
>> embrace any other bullshit their leaders serve them. Same reason many
>> email scams begin with clearly fraudulent pitches: you want only the
>> most gullible victims.
>> --
>> My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
>> My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
>> My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
>> My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
>For most of the history of the various flood myths, they could not have served this purpose, because there was little evidence of the past except the myths themselves. I quite like the speculation I have seen about a possible small portion of truth behind the various flood myths, some of I think I think referenced from SF or near SF although I cannot remember where I first saw it. Now I see a variety of suggestsion catalogued at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth and I also note that not all flood myths are from religions that it is fashionable to poke fun at - https://www.livius.org/articles/misc/great-flood/flood1-t-quran/

It is, I suppose, always possible that a Really Impressive Flood left
a story behind.

I have encountered a few others (two Greek and one Mesopotamian). In
one (or maybe in all) of these the Chief God gets tired of Man and
decides to wipe him out. Secondary deities pick on man and have him
build an Ark and save himself and his family (etc). They then jiggle
the Chief God into accepting Man's continued existence.

The Biblical version, being monotheistic, assigns all the roles to
God. This produces the picture of God working at cross-purposes with
Himself (that is, both wanting to destroy "all flesh" because of the
violence filling the Earth and at the same time ensuring the survival
of /precisely/ the creatures that annoy him), which is quite
insteresting.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <9aosdi50hqlm3ri8sn191uuhes3eb5u2o7@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>But you are correct that this is a problem with runaway creationism:
>sooner or later it becomes apparent that the world could have created
>2 seconds ago and it would make no difference at all. Such is the
>result of trying to put bounds on God.

(Hal Heydt)
Last Thursdayism. A critque that applies to a great many
creationist arguments.

On 8/17/2023 11:21 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 03:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 02:52:59 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39?PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34?AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
>>>>> emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
>>>>> book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
>>>>> not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
>>>
>>>> "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
>>> I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
>>> is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
>>> _non sequitur_.
>>>
>>> Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
>>> Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
>>> word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
>>> if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.
>>>
>>> So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
>>> He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
>>> development preceding its creation.
>>>
>>> Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
>>> ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
>>> with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
>>> that date.
>>
>> ObSF: Terraformers in Terry Pratchett's novel _Strata_
>> actually install synthetic geology on reformed planets.
>> Thus the title. Do you want me to check whether this
>> legitimately includes dinosaur fossils, and it's only
>> the nuclear bomb protest placards they're holding
>> that are considered to be going too far?
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_(book)>
>> indeed was liked by nobody, but
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis>
>> has reappeared within religious fundamentalism,
>> and indeed existed before _Omphalos_. (If anything did.)
>> Wikipedia quotes "Gerald E. Aardsma" who to me
>> reads like somebody making a mocking parody
>> of omphalism, but he appears to be sincere.
>> He also appears to be selling "anti-aging vitamins"
>> according to Google, but maybe that is not the same
>> real Gerald E. Aardsma. The Snopes Web site currently
>> has one or more reports per week of a famous person's
>> identity being misused by someone selling a doubtful
>> !health product online.
>>
>> ObSF, sort of: one version of a religious young-earther
>> claim is that stars farther away in light years than 6000
>> or 10000 or whatever age they give the earth, exist,
>> but the light currently reaching us did not literally
>> come from those stars; God created the light in outer
>> space, so that we can see where those stars are.
>> This apparently is a claim made in _Omphalos_,
>> <https://www.peterstiles.co.uk/articles/catalogue-notes/vivarium-2009/>
>> it is not the only young-earther approach to challenges
>> of cosmology, and I don't see it in the Talk.Origins
>> Creationist Claims index, so I'm not wholly confident
>> that it appeared from creationists in the 20th and 21st
>> century. Until I created it today. :-)
>>
>> Also ObSF: "World of Tiers" and something early
>>from Michael Moorcock, I think, portray strange
>> versions of Earth in which the universe outside
>> the solar system is only a projection. IIRC when
>> a space probe gets close to the edge of the system,
>> it looks fuzzy and blurry?
>
> Wasn't there also one where, when a deep space probe got far enough
> away from the Sun, there was a loud "ping" and the crystal shell
> surrounding our Solar System cracked and vanished? And the crystal
> shells turned to only be breakable from the inside?

I remember a comic book from many, many years ago where a manned ship is
sent to find out what was happening to probes when they reached the
"edge" of the solar system. The lone astronaut arrives to find a
crystal bowl/sphere surrounding the system. When he returns there is
discussion about who and why during which one of the participants looks
at a fish bowl and wonders about pets....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:52:59 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> > > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
> > > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
> > > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
> > > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
>
> > "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
> I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_

You should really stop making assumptions. You're not good at it.

> is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
> _non sequitur_.

My apologies, that was a deduction, not an assumption. But wrong all the same.

That Gosse's theory is not falsifiable says nothing one way or the other about
whether creationism is falsifiable. Which it is not.

Propose any contradiction to creationism you like, and the reply of a
creationist will be "god did it". Untestable, unfalsifiable.

The creationists rejected Gosse simply because his theory makes God look
like a dishonest thug. And much as I might appreciate Gosse's honesty
in this, for he was a vehement and deeply sectarian Christian man, his
co-religionists did not.

William Hyde

On Thursday, 17 August 2023 at 19:18:52 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:52:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:52:39?PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:37:34?AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> > And in _this_ connection, it should be noted that Creationists _do_
> >> > emphatically reject the theory advanced by Philip Gosse in his
> >> > book _Omphalos_, as Martin Gardner has recorded, and so it is
> >> > not *quite* true that Creationism is not falsifiable.
> >
> >> "The sun sets in the west, and so it is not *quite* true that iron is an element".
> >
> >I take it you're not that familiar with what Philip Gosse's book _Omphalos_
> >is about, or you would not have seen my statement as quite such an absurd
> >_non sequitur_.
> >
> >Philip Gosse explained that there were dinosaur fossils in deep strata of the
> >Earth for the same reason that Adam had a navel. (Omphalos is the Greek
> >word for navel.) The Earth needed those fossils because it wouldn't work right
> >if it didn't have within it all the results of an organic growth and development.
> A while back, an obscure reference in a book from my grandfather's
> library led me to a man who theorized that Adam got his naval because,
> when he fell and the world become subject to sin, the naval became a
> part of man.
>
> Frankly, I have never understood the problem with God forming Adam
> from the dust with a naval. Who can say what artistic reasons may have
> been involved?
>
> OTOH, this guy's theory could be extended to all of reality -- that
> /everything/ changed from how the world was originally created to how
> it is now when Adam fell. Science, of course, would then be able to
> tell us a great deal about the world as it is now, but nothing at all
> about how it was before. Indeed, to science, there would be no before.
> >So, while God created the Earth six thousand years ago, just as the Bible says,
> >He created a complete Earth, not one missing the consequences of a natural
> >development preceding its creation.

Gerald E. Aardsma - look, that's got to be an anagram -
seemed to be arguing that the earth was created
with a "virtual history" that didn't happen and that was
represented in fossils, and that when Adam sinned,
the world became sinful, and that included the
"virtual history" and included alterations of the actual fossils
that were underneath Adam's feet. So when a scientist
finds God's fossilised creatures committing sins at the
moment of their death, that's why. /Does/ anyone think
this isn't gibberish?

> Put this way, it avoids the obvious problem: protraying God as a liar
> -- which would, of course, be blasphemous. Well, unless the idea was
> to /deceive/ scientists by lying to them, of course.

There seems to be a very long history, not only
in Christianity, of religious scholars arguing against
it, that a world with the "appearance of age", some of
the supporters of which prefer to use your word,
"complete", that such a world would also be a lie,
a forgery. And they're not in favour of representing
God as a deceiver.

I'm muddled on what of this is from Gosse's _Omphalos_
and nowhere else, and what is from ancient rabbis and
others. If they weren't talking about fossils, then it was
things like plants being created fully formed, trees with
fruit already on them. Terraforming scientists, however,
would be happy in most cases to grow their plants from
seeds, but then, in the first week after creation, what would
Adam eat? But... God could make the plants grow quickly?
This is a creationist equivalent of "inflation". :-)

I think it /was/ Gosse who insisted that Adam was created
already digesting in his stomach a meal that he had not
actually eaten. This really seems unnecessary.

The bible, unfortunately for an idle speculator, states
that the nostrils are where God blew the air into Adam -
that isn't what the navel is for.

> >Had creationists accepted his idea, then Creationism would, indeed, have
> >ceased to be falsifiable. The world could have been created yesterday,
> >with us being created complete with the memories of our lives preceding
> >that date.
> You have actually found a situation in which /The Matrix/ is the best
> example of a computer-generated reality: congratulations! (Usually I
> find /The Thirteenth Floor/ or even /ExistenZ/ to be better.)
>
> As you may recall, the program in /The Matrix/ reproduces a period
> conveniently similar to that in which the film was made (for ease in
> getting props and locations) and with start- and end-points, so, in
> that case, it could indeed have been created yesterday with a full
> history behind it.
>
> But you are correct that this is a problem with runaway creationism:
> sooner or later it becomes apparent that the world could have created
> 2 seconds ago and it would make no difference at all. Such is the
> result of trying to put bounds on God.

I think it would create difficulty if a Christian tried
to use that argument and then was told that
a consequence of that proposition is that Jesus
never lived, since the time in which he lived
never happened.

It goes for Abraham as well.

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:32:21 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:

> That Gosse's theory is not falsifiable says nothing one way or the other about
> whether creationism is falsifiable. Which it is not.
>
> Propose any contradiction to creationism you like, and the reply of a
> creationist will be "god did it". Untestable, unfalsifiable.

There is a difference between a theory that is not falsifiable, and a theory that
is believed by people who are impervious to logic and reason.

John Savard

On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> I think it would create difficulty if a Christian tried
> to use that argument and then was told that
> a consequence of that proposition is that Jesus
> never lived, since the time in which he lived
> never happened.
>
> It goes for Abraham as well.

Of course, though, theologians had already considered
it, and one theological position which developed in
consequence was the one later made popular by the
movie "The Matrix".

If one holds that Jesus was no less real for walking
the Earth when it was still in the Mind of God, then there
is no reason for the last-Thursday sort of creation to
ever happen. The world could _still_ be a thought within
the Mind of God, rather than being made of actual
substance with an (somewhat, in so far as is even possible)
independent existence apart from God.

John Savard