# Quick question for the relgious! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2003, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-for-the-relgious/160125 "2003-03-09T20:11:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shaolinrabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Shaolinrabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shaolinrabbit)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-for-the-relgious/160125/81 "2003-03-15T02:41:12Z")
As an aside, I’d like to amend the statement: [Christian Humor] > [@](#): > > Take evolution, To reflect: > [@](#): > > Take evolution. . . please! [/Christian Humor] I sincerely apologize, but I couldn’t help myself. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-for-the-relgious/160125/82 "2003-03-15T02:42:06Z")
I wrote: > [@](#): > > What if God set a cut-off point out at 1000 light-years or so, and everything that looks farther away than this is actually just really really small and dim but with a spectrum made up to confuse you into thinking it was larger? (I guess it makes as much sense as God sending the photons from a distant galaxy on their way to Earth so that they’d arrive here and now.) To which **Mangetout** replied: > [@](#): > > You’re right; it paints him as a lying toady whichever way up you stack it; red shift couldn’t be faked by making the fainter/smaller stars _redder_ because the absorption lines would be all wrong. Ah, but red shift **could** be faked by giving all the small, dim stars incredibly high surface gravities. White dwarfs are known to have gravitational redshifts in their spectra, which is what makes determining their radial velocity so difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Urt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8491ac/32.png) [@Mr\_Urt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Urt)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-for-the-relgious/160125/83 "2003-03-15T06:42:02Z")
Of course, that assumes that God actually had to fake anything. First of all, one could go back to the fact that it’s not a literal 24-hour day that’s referred to in Genesis (in fact, before God created the sun and the earth, how would one gauge the length of a day¿), so after light was created, sufficient time could have been given to allow the light to reach earth. Second of all, the Bible says God created “light,” and not necessarily just the stars, therefore it could be taken in the literal sense that he in fact created light. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-for-the-relgious/160125/84 "2003-03-15T16:52:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr Urt \* > **First of all, one could go back to the fact that it’s not a literal 24-hour day that’s referred to in Genesis (in fact, before God created the sun and the earth, how would one gauge the length of a day¿),** That’s always bugged me too. Genesis chapter 1 talks about the passage of evening and morning to mark the “days” of Creation from the very beginning, yet the sun doesn’t get created until the 4th day! ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-for-the-relgious/160125/85 "2003-03-15T17:15:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > **NCB** : > > > [@](#): > > > > Isaiah 40:22 > > > > He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, > > and its people are like grasshoppers. > > But this could imply they believed that the Earth was platter-shaped. After all, a circle is not a sphere and you cannot be “above” a sphere suspended in space. As I say in [my wepage on how the Bible proves the Earth is square](http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/square_earth.html), the word translated as “circle” in this verse is the Hebrew “Chuwg”, which _can_ mean circle, but can also mean circuit or compass. When occurring by itself, this word can also mean the vault of the heavens. This verse probably refers to the fact that God sits enthroned above the vault of the heavens, which _encompasses_ the whole Earth. Then again, the **vault** of the heavens is clearly supposed to be a concave bowl resting over the [flat] Earth. ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-for-the-relgious/160125/86 "2003-03-19T04:24:10Z")
I apologize for just getting back to this after a weekend trip, and I hope no one minds the “resurrection”. 😃 **cmkeller** , your performance is confusing to say the least. I’ve asked you the same questions in several posts, and you keep bobbing and weaving, taking issue with minor tangents, altogether avoiding a fruitful discussion. It is almost as if you do not wish to examine these points too closely, preferring instead to quibble about the definition of Occam’s Razor and the difference between “most” and “all”. Do you not wish to subject your views to the harsh light of scrutiny, or is my writing so unclear that you honestly believe these are the answers I seek? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by cmkeller_ > **All the predictions you made are predictions of what fossil-hunters might find, which is hardly the extent of what paleontology covers.** Yeah, I just happened to find the small portion of paleontology that is falsifiable, since most of it is not. :rolleyes: If you still cannot concede the scientific nature of paleontology, I can provide you with many more such predictions. Quite an amazing feat for a discipline where “most” of it is pseudoscience. > [@](#): > > **Paleontologists also make statements about the diet, behavior, and evolutionary tree that cannot, based on present technology, be proven false.** So now you want to backtrack and add the stipulation “based on present technology”, which is, of course, irrelevant and also untrue. It matters not whether we can currently devise an experiment to test said claims, they are, in fact, falsifiable, in stark contrast to your “Divine Trickster” argument. Let’s recall how we got to this point. I stated that your “in situ” fossil claim was non-falsifiable and worthless. You responded by asserting “most” of paleontology was non-falsifiable as well. I provided numerous examples of paleontology predictions, and then you make vague claims about diet, behavior and lineage and claim they cannot be falsified, when clearly they can, even with current technology. If I claim the T-Rex diet consisted mainly of Archaeopteryx, then you demonstrate they did not even exist at the same point in time, you have falsified my claim. If I claim Archaeopteryx descended from Triceratops, then you show that Triceratops appeared after Archaeopteryx, again the statement is falsified. Need I continue? What you need to do in order to backup your wild assertions is to research the available peer-reviewed literature for instances of these supposed non-falsifiable statements, then compare this voluminous result to the falsifiable instances and report the percentage. Not that I expect you will even attempt to do so, but here is a subtle hint – the Discovery channel and Jurassic Park movies are not generally considered to be peer-reviewed. If you are unable to support this assertion, will you maintain integrity by issuing a retraction? > [@](#): > > **Let Stephen J. Gould turn over in his grave. Hell, if I’m correct in my religious beliefs, he’s probably not very much enjoying seeing how wrong he had been about such things.** **cmkeller** , I am going to reserve my judgement here because I am not very well versed in Orthodox Jewish beliefs. Are you implying that Gould is being tormented in Hell or Gehenna? Due to his misunderstanding of the fossil evidence? I sure hope not. > [@](#): > > **I say, in my initial post on the subject, the word “most.” You declare a logical inconsistency which would require that “most” to have been “all”. When I point out that “most” and not “all” is what I said in the first place, you accuse me of backtracking?** I did not accuse you of backtracking here, though I have _now_ concerning what you believe makes “most” of paleontology unfalsifiable. What I _have_ accused you of is forming a poor argument. Rest assured I realize what you posted initially, and I fully understand the difference between “most” and “all”. Again, the query is – how can something that you claim is mostly junk pseudoscience, yet was put in place by God to teach scientific principles, possibly achieve this goal? The problem exists despite your inability to see it. If I publish a book representing all knowledge about genetics in which 80% of it is junk, how is this useful as a teaching tool regarding science? How do I distinguish what is valid from what is invalid? Note that 80% does not equal “all”. Furthermore, if you are going to postulate that an invisible superbeing just “poofed” it all into place, how am I able to falsify anything? Can’t I address any concern or contradiction by asserting “Goddidit”? > [@](#): > > **Again, a twisting of Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor does not speak to the inherent complexity of a theory, it speaks to the multiplication of different factors needed for it to be true. Since my position posits only a single factor - G-d - then, no matter how complex it is internally, it will not lose an Occam’s razor evaluation. I don’t need to pretend a thing to say that your debating methodology is flawed.** Not surprisingly, at least [this source](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#occam) doesn’t agree with you concerning simplicity and Occam’s razor. They describe it generally as “Take the simplest solution.” But I don’t want you to get sidetracked with this again, so let me try once more to lay out my question in the naive hope that you will address it. GIVEN: God exists God created the universe CONCLUSION: The evidence we gather about the universe portrays what God wishes to say through his creation YOUR VIEW: God exists God created the universe God speaks to Man Man reproduces God’s intentions without error God intends Exodus tale to be taken literally Man can date Exodus event accurately God intends Creation story to be taken literally God intends Creation date to be back-calculated from lineage of Jesus Man can calculate said Creation date accurately YOUR CONCLUSION: The evidence we gather about the universe has been falsified to give the illusion of age for the edification of Man. This is why I claim my argument is simpler, and I wonder why you do not consider evidence about the nature of the universe to be closer to the mind of God. It seems to me this would come closer to representing an actual communication from God, and less likely to contain a source of error. Will you address this question, or is there to be more nonsense concerning Occam’s Razor? > [@](#): > > **The chronology of world history set forth in Genesis and Exodus up to the point of the Exodus from Egypt (which is when the Bible was said to have been revealed) is easily calculated to a date of 2248 years prior to that event, which by our dating system is, is 3670 BCE.** Sure, it is “easily calculated” by the non-questioning mind. Of course, everything is easy when you let a single source authenticate itself self-referentially. However, some of us choose to take a bit more in-depth view of events. Let’s examine a few of these, shall we? Obviously, the first source anyone should consider is our very own [Cecil Adams](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_035b.html). He seems to believe the story of Moses was borrowed from the Egyptian legend of Isis, and the plagues were simply routine disasters of the day. Also, he agrees there is no extra-biblical data to corroborate Exodus. [Other sources](http://www1.minn.net/~nup/Exodus.htm) point out numerous problems, such as the total lack of historical or archaeological evidence for 2 million Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years, or even leaving Egypt. Also, the Exodus writer’s ignorance concerning Bronze Age Egypt hardly suggests a divine authorship. [This article](http://www.talkreason.org/articles/kelemen1.cfm) also stresses the complete lack of any evidence for the Exodus, the Plagues, and the 40 years of wandering (notice a certain theme yet?) Moreover, it notes _“The biblical chronological scheme places the Exodus at sometime between 1500 and 1200 BCE (depending on the interpretation of some mutually contradictory passages in the Bible)”_, which certainly doesn’t support an “easily calculated” date. Furthermore, if the Egyptian army really had been decimated by the Red Sea calamity, so much so that 40 years later it is still ruined as Moses asserts in Deuteronomy 11:4, the surrounding empires would have taken full advantage, which the historical record does not indicate. [Along the same lines](http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/4/4like93.html), the entire story of the Exodus strains the limits of any rational person’s credulity. I find it difficult to believe these millions of people would personally witness miracle after miracle, such as the parting of the Red Sea, water springing forth from rocks, manna from heaven, quail meat 3 feet by 20 miles deep, etc., yet they continually complain and doubt God’s support each time they encounter the tiniest obstacle? God kills a few of them with fire from his arse because of their incessant whining (who could blame him?), then he feeds them again, then finally he wants to kill them all, yet Moses talks him out of it by pointing out the flaws in the Almighty’s thought process? How does this make any sense? It is interesting to note that even among sources generally more favorable to your viewpoint, their is considerable disagreement. [This view](http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/ancientne/dating.html) of Exodus notes many discrepencies with the Exodus dating methods, and further states \*“It might be argued that the Genesis chronology is unreliable because it begins with Creation and the Flood, and those events are mythical at best.” \*Even some [conservative Rabbis](http://www.beth-elsa.org/be_s0601.htm) have begun to question the authenticity of the Exodus, arguing that _“The truth be told, there is precious little undisputed evidence of the Exodus, beyond the biblical account. While some material uncovered by archaeologists in Egypt may be related to the events described in the Bible, this data is very small in quantity. Adding greater doubt is the fact that the alleged evidence may actually refer to other events, and not to the Exodus at all.”_ The point of all this is not to get into pissing match about whether the Exodus actually occurred, or if it did, exactly when it happened. What I am trying to portray is the weakness of an argument based on the writings of flawed humans, which takes the shaky dating of a possibly mythical event, then back-calculates based on weak genealogical data to another likely mythical event, then takes the astoundingly non-logical leap that this is supposed to represent a clear signal from an omnipotent, invisible being to disregard the evidence directly in front of us. Can we address this topic instead of another tangent? > [@](#): > > **Once again, you postulate the Bible as the work of man in order to ask your question. I do not agree with that postulate. Care to acknowledge that the subject you expect me to broach is a moot issue in this context?** Are you seriously stating that the Bible was not written by men? Man was not involved? I guess I don’t consider the issue moot because I don’t understand your position. Did God simply drop the Bible from heaven fully formed for man to discover? Is it authored by Angels? > [@](#): > > **I agree that there is a conflict of interpretation, and one camp is right and the others wrong. I do not state with authority but my own opinion that my camp is right. That does not mean an intent to deceive on the part of the author/creator whose writing and work are being interpreted.** Another red herring. Who asked anything about intent? Again I ask, do you agree that some group is being deceived? Further, if God did not wish for some to be deceived, would it have been trivial for him to explicitly state these dates, and to note the fossil record was there merely for educational purposes? Finally, isn’t the removal of all evidence of a global flood deceitful? Will you answer these questions, or will it be more misdirection about “intent” and “interpretation”? > [@](#): > > **No, I do not agree. I never claimed any form of theology to be falsifiable. And I do not agree that ad hoc hypotheses are out of place in a thread where the OP explicitly asks how a believer reconciles two apparent contradictory facts. The question at hand does not ask how the Bible can be proven true. The question at hand is how the existence of extremely aged artifacts, such as fossils, could conceivably not prove it false. As such, any answer to the question in the OP is by the “Skeptic” definition ad hoc. It is also, however, a genuine answer to that OP.** More confusion and sleight-of-hand. I did not even insinuate that you claimed theology to be falsifiable, and I’m quite well aware what the questions were in the OP and your responses. I know your answer is ad hoc, since I posted the definition, but I would stop short of calling it “genuine”. My question to you concerns the reasoning behind your beliefs, and flowed from this exchange. You posted the Omphalos argument to explain the fossil evidence, and **MEBuckner** responded with the typical jab about “Last-Thursdayism”. When you stated that no one took this position seriously so there was no need for a veracity comparison, I challenged you with a veracity comparison between your view and the approximately 15 billion year universe claim. You did not address my question, so I asked it again, and added that as long as you were positing a supreme being, why not do so in agreement with the standard scientific consensus and avoid ad hoc explanations. You asked for a definition of ad hoc, I provided one, and then you throw out this gem, which is frustrating to say the least. I have seen your intelligence demonstrated before, so I thought we could have a meaningful debate. If you wish to avoid this topic, just say so and I will let it drop. Otherwise, simply join the discussion, and please stop wasting my time with these antics. If it is a question of veracity, what about a comparison with the scientific view? If you are going to hypothesize an omnipotent creator, why not do so in agreement with the scientific view and avoid the ad hocs? If the answer is “because the Bible says so”, what about the arguments above concerning deceit and the possible error introduced by Man? And why would you consider this convoluted method of reaching the Omphalos conclusion more compelling than a simple, direct reading of nature straight from the hand of God? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quick-question-for-the-relgious/160125.md?page=4)