God - a liar?

Of course if you drop the theological concerns "apparent age" is a perfect excuse. ANY evidence can be "explained" by saying that it is just an appearance. And that is why it is necessary to point out that just saying that the evidence is a misleading appearance is not enough, and that there needs to be some explanation of why the evidence is there in the first place

You know Mike, I didn't think you'd trap yourself so neatly.The extra text you quoted changed nothing as is quite obvious to anyone who compares the two. I suppose when you say "This is also a common occurence amongst your side, when quoting from the bible" you mean that you have tried this trick before.Yes, the person I quoted said "almost" - exactly as I quoted it. I suppose the juxtaposition of the charge of omission with this is an attempt to imply that I left out the "almost" - which of corse is completely false. I haven't edited post 87 - the quote is there as I cut-and-pasted it - complete with the "almost".http://EvC Forum: God - a liar? -->EvC Forum: God - a liar?Anyone who reads post 87 can see that I introduced that quote by asserting only that the YEC site found "apparent age" to be "questionable" - which is true. Anyone who compares it with your quote in post 95 can see that the ONLY additional material you quoted was the preceding question "How can we then resolve the time problem?" I could tack on the preceding sentence or the following sentence and declare your quote "incomplete" with as much reason.And the OEC sites I quoted AGREE that AoA implies deception. Like I said it's not just me. If anything "slowed" or rather prevented debate it was your own emotional reactions. The phrases you object to were perfectly justified - and you never even made a real attempt to show otherwise.I made my main argument in post 2. So far it has yet to be seriously challenged. It can stay like that so far as I'm concerned. If you want to argue against it I'll defend my position, but at this stage I'd much rather win a victory by default than put up with the mud-slinging (all too typical of YOUR side).

Mike, I QUOTED him as saying "almost". What he said is not an issue. What is an issue is that you seem determined to imply that I left out the "almost" when it is quite plainly there in the quote I provided.So what would be the "full quote" The whole paragraph ? The whole article ? When you start arbitarily insisting that more material should be quoted just so you can say that someone else's quote was "incomplete" where does it end ? WHere it is convenient for Mike.The question was irrelevant because it did not address the issue - which is what the author thought of apparent age. As I said he thught it was questionable - and that is what the quote showed.And no Mik, I win. Your false accusations over the quote are a moral victory for me. You never supported your own "analogies" - even implicitly denying their validity (as you have done here again). The fact is Mike I made my case and you never addressed it. All you do is try to pretend it doesn't exist as youi do here !

Mike, since you admit that the "almost" is present in the quote I produced then perhaps you can explain why you kept trying to link it to your false assertion that the quote I provided was incomplete ? It is quite clear that you were trying to give the impression that it was absent from my quote. THat is the moral victory - they you are reduced to such shaeful tactics.Amd YES Mike I *did* see it. That is why I treated that quote seperately. That is why I explicitly stated that the author of that site found "appearance of age" to be questionable. That is why I quoted that section, when I did not quote any of the other sites.And any reader that goes through the thread can see that your final paragraph is full of lies. I did point out where your analogies were invalid - and you actually think I tried to "trick" you into saying that you beleived that they were ! It's beyond a joke. Your main line of argument was to invent "analogies" that even you won't claim to represent the real situation.Now the only "fixing" you refer to would be to make the statement more closely resemble your position. But you say that you didn;t do that - so the "fix" was just an arbitrary change that did nothing useful.
And no, there was nothing at all wrong about adding "false" to your statement. "Appearance of Age' DOES refer to a FALSE appearance of age. That's the whole point of it - to claim that the APPEARANCE is false - that the Earth and he Universe only LOOK old, but are really young, Do you really, really, beleive that YEC's would say that the Earth looks old because it IS old ? So yes, "appearance of age" - in context - is precisely equivalent to "false appearance of age".

What you neglect to say Mike is that YOU claimed that because I never supported my analogies (which illustrated points I had ALREADY made) I lost. But now you say the fact that you never supported your analogies (and won't even claim that they are valid) is irrelevant. That's a double standard Mike. If supporting analogies is a measure of victory it applies to you as much as it does to me.Now there was nothing more logical about your analogies. In fact they were invalid - unless you are prepared to say that the evidence of age for the Earth is equivalent to that of your only-used-once football - which seems not to be the case - you are only illustrating an argument that you refuse to make. That *is* illogical. If you aren't prepared to make your argument openly and explicitly then trying to sneak it in by using an analogy is worthless and an improper use of analogies.When you say that my analogies were "one-sided" you mean that they illustrated MY points. Analogies are SUPPOSED to be one-sided in that way. So long as the analogy accurately represents my position all you can do is to argue against the points being illustrated (both the assumptions and the conclusions) - and you didn't even try that. Your "more logical" position was to use analogies that you yourself say did not accurately represent your position and to object when I argued against the assumptions embodied in them (i.e. the assertion that the evidence for an Old Earth is weak and superficial).So no I haven't ignored what you have shown. Because you didn't show much of relevance at all.

Mike there are a LOT of things wrong with your post.1) You misrepresent my position. I have always maintained that the "massive deception" is what is required for "appearance of age" to explain the ACTUAL evidence of age. Someone unaware of the evidence, unwilling to think about the issue or who rejects the evidence of other grounds would not draw that conclusion.2) The point of the payment was to set up a situation where there was a reasonable expectation that the evidence could be trusted.3) I did NOT conclude that you were a YEC. In fact I trusted your claim to the contrary.4) You presented no logical argument. "My analogies are better than yours 'cos I say so" is not a logical argument. It is especially illogical - as is the case here - where the validity of your analogies rely on an assertion that you will not even endorse.5) I have not confused "false appearance of age" with "appearance of age". I intentionally intorduced the word "false" to MAKE the distinction between a thing which appears to be old and is in fact old (as I and OECs beleive to be the case for the Earth and the Universe) and something which appears to be older than it is (the "false appearance of age" of the YEC argument). A woman who is 30 and appears to be 45 has a false appearance of age - she is younger than she appears to be. This is an important distinction to make and I have consistently used "false apparance of age" in just this fashion
(Of course if we use a proportional comparison with the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth and the typical maximum age allowed by YECs of 10,000 years your woman who appears to be 45 years old would have to actually be less than an hour old.)6) If the altered version of my statement - which can certainly be attributed to you since the alterations were your choice - did not represent your position then it served no purpose - unless your intent was to make me believe that it was your position and then attack me for misrepresenting you. Given that you have done so even when I gave you the opportunity to offer further corrections such a hypothesis may not be far from the truth.7) Your analogies all use evidence that is weak at best to represent the evidence of age. None of them could stand up to serious investigation. Since the strength of the evidence is a key point - it was a major point in the argument I presented in post 2 - your analogies do NOT match the reality unless the evidence of age IS genuinely weak. Up to now you have refused to discuss or even explicitly endorse such a claim. Are you prepared to explicitly make it now ? Because if you do not then the only honest alternative is to retract your claim that your analogies represent reality.And even then to prove your point you need to make the case that the evidence really IS that weak. You cannot disprove my argument simply by imagining that one of the premises is false - which is all you are doing. You need to support that claim.

No, I don't think that that is Mike's main point at all. He hasn't tried to argue that except in pa passing reference to Buz's post. What's more it's a point that can only be evaluated by dealing with the actual evidence. Something I've done in several posts - and Mike refuses to touch. Instead he starts with evasions and has now moved on to innuendo smears and lies.So far as I can tell Mike's MAIN point is that he has somehow got the impression that I was saying that the YECs using the argument explicitly beleived that appearance of age is a deception. Which is a complete strawman since I never said any such thing. But of course Mike won't accept any correction I offer - what I actually *say* is just a "trick" - according to Mike. My position is whatever he imagines it to be - and what I SAY has nothing to do with it.

Is that it makes no sense to wade into a debate when you don't understand what is being discussed.Let me put it simply Mike:
It has been argued that "apprearance of age" DOES require unnecessary signs of age - if it is to explain the actual evidence. You have not addressed these arguments. In other words the point you quote from Ned was addressed - and it was addressed back in post 2.Nobody has implied that God is a liar. Rather it is pointed out that this is an implication of appearance of age, given that the evidence is such that there is no other reasonable explanation.Let us also note - again - that your "analogies" all work only because the evidence in the analogy is weak and in every case any reasonable investigation would see through it. You have expressly claimed that those analogies reflect reality. Thus you are implicitly denying that the evidence of an old universe is strong. But you won/'t defend that claim - and if you oculd there would be no need for analogies. It seems then that you are using your "analogies" as a way of "smuggling in" assertions so you can avoid habing to actually argue for them. One more case where you have evaded honest discussion.

Mike, the strength of the evidence of age is PART OF MY ARGUMENT. The strength of the evidence of age is a *relevant part of YOUR ANALOGIES.You cannot simply declare the evidence of age out of bounds if you want to assert that your analogies have any bearing on my argument.Now you AREN'T on this thread to oppose anyone calling God a liar because there isn't anyone doing that here. The point of the thread is to discuss why it is said "appearance of age" implies that God is a liar.Now there is no failure on my part - because you posted to oppose my argument - and YOU certainly thought you were doing so. Indeed you called my argument in post 2 "ridiculous" (see post 4) - while failing to address it. So clearly the mistake is yours. How am I supposed to know that you are opposing a figment of your imagination ?Perhaps you would like to show the earliest post where you admitted that you had no objection to my actual arguments. If you want to claim that the error was mine you certainly can manage that. Or can it be that you never said such a thing, despite all the times I referred you back to my first post ? Or the other times I repeated my argument ?In fact is it not the case that once when I explained my position for your benefit you called it a "trick" ?It appears that if anyone has come to a sudden realisation of an error it is you.And the fact is that I have explained and justified my insertion of "false". You have found nothing wrong in that justification.So Mike, you are in no position to claim any "victory". By your own admission your objections to my argument rest on not even understanding the conclusion. So you cannot claim to have won the argument - nor can you claim to have won on moral grounds. The numerous misrepresentations and falsehoods you have posted give you no chance.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-09-2004]

Mike if you are using "false appearance of age" as I have used it then you are not dealing with the "appearance of age" argument which specifically asserts that the Earth and the Universe appear to be older than they are.Even if you are using your reading - which requires taking active steps to deceive - I have already argued that the evidence is such that the only way it can be accounted for through "appearance of age" is if there is such a deception. See post 2 for some examples, but there are others I have produced in this thread.Moreover Mike if you had READ my justification you would have seen that I did indeed classify a 30 year old woman who appears to be 45 as an example of a "false apperarance of age". I explained precisely the distinction I was making - and it did not involve deception. Thus you have no grounds to accuse me of illogic since you - quite literally - do not know what you are talking about.And can you make up your mind exactly what it is you are arguing against ? I have made it clear from the start that the inference from AoA to deception is based on the quality and nature of the available evidence. Is it that inference you are against ? Because that is what you called "ridiculous". But all your arguments assume that the evidence is of a lower quality - so if you REALLY oppose my argument you need to actually deal with the evidence -which you have failed to do

No, saying something "appears" to be old or red or whatever does not imply that it is NOT as it appears. In normal speech it is often used to imply uncertainty, with the idea that the thing in question might or might not be as it appears to the speaker.Thus we do need to distinguish cases where the appearance is ONLY an appearance - as the YEC "appearance of age" position claims is the case for the Earth and the Universe.

"False" often simply means untrue - it need not imply intentional deception. (Indeed even if you said her appearance was "deceptive" it would not imply intent). So if you like yes, your woman falsely appears to be 45 because she is only 30.Appearance does not imply falsehood even in the sense of "not true". Indeed I have already said that the universe appears to be old because it IS old. If your assertion that an object cannot be as it appears to be were true that would make no sense.dictionary.com definitions
appear ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pr)
intr.v. appeared, appearing, appears1.To become visible: a plane appearing in the sky.
2.To come into existence: New strains of viruses appear periodically.
3.To seem or look to be: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem.
4.To seem likely: They will be late, as it appears.
5.To come before the public: has appeared in two plays; appears on the nightly news.
6.Law. To present oneself formally before a court as defendant, plaintiff, or counsel.seem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seeming, seems1.To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2.To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3.To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for
several years.
4.To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.false ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fls)
adj. falser, falsest1.Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.
2.Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath.
3.Arising from mistaken ideas: false hopes of writing a successful novel.
4.Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises.
5.Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend. See Synonyms at faithless.
6.Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents.
7.Erected temporarily, as for support during construction.
8.Resembling but not accurately or properly designated as such: a false thaw in January; the false dawn peculiar to the tropics.
9.Music. Of incorrect pitch.
10.Unwise; imprudent: Don't make a false move or I'll shoot.
11.Computer Science. Indicating one of two possible values taken by a variable in Boolean logic or a binary device.So if something appeared to be other than it was then the appearance would be "contrary to fact" and therefore false.

A woman wearing wig and makeup to make herself appear older still displays a false appearance of age. The difference is that it is intentionally false. Maybe an "intentional false appearance of age" if we wish to make that distinction

Leaving aside he vexed question of whether Adam had a navel Adam would presumably be created older than a newborn and thus would present a false appearance of age. On the other hand there would be no need to create Adam with scars from injuries that did not happen. So creation might make some appearances of age necessary - but there are possible appearances of age that cannot be accounted for by simply invoking supernatural creation. So the question must move on to consider the evidence that lets us conclude that the Earth and the Universe is old and see which class it falls into.

Mike I think it would be better if you put more effort into understanding what others are writing. I know that not everything I write is as clear as it could be but I've already been quite clear on what I mean by a "false appearance of age".I used "false appearance" to refer to an appearance which misleads i.e. a woman who appars to be 45 but is actually 30 would have a "false appearance of age", as I am using the term. Since the appearance is contrary to the fact it seems reaonable to label the appearance false.Is the distinction you are trying to make based on intent ? If so then the appearance is still a real appearance. Is it that the appearance is artificial ? I think that either would be a better distinction.