Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: a "yes or no" answer for David

Expand Messages
  • DBWILLIS@aol.com
    David Willis here Baty (suggesting what I would affirm) ... I would affirm that! Hey Baty...how about a CLEAR answer...would you DENY that God can make
    Message 1 of 23 , May 2 9:29 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      David Willis here

      Baty (suggesting what I would affirm)
      >>> After all, any evidence that some
      > thing is over a few thousand years
      > old just shows God can make stuff
      > that looks older than it really is.
      > Signed: DBWillis>>

      I would affirm that! Hey Baty...how about a CLEAR answer...would you DENY
      that "God can make stuff that looks older than it really is"??? Isn't
      that BY DEFINITION what a MIRACLE is???
    • DBWILLIS@aol.com
      David Willis here: Idoubtit Oh my, Robert s Goliath has been beaten so he has now been reduced to calling people idiots. Robert would probably point out
      Message 2 of 23 , May 2 9:31 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        David Willis here:


        Idoubtit>>Oh my, Robert's "Goliath" has been beaten so he has now been
        reduced to calling people idiots.>>

        Robert would probably point out to you that he used the same term I used
        for him....when he appeared on a ATHEIST RADIO PROGRAM to be in support of
        ATHEISTS regarding some tax issue, and never used 2 seconds time to try to
        refute atheism or distance himself in any way from them. They were happy to
        make use of him as their "useful idiot".

        Although at times I see him as just a plain idiot, MY use of the term
        "useful idiot" was more specific. It is used to refer to someone who
        ingratiates himself to some evil force and that evil force happily USES him (without
        him even realizing it) to advance their purposes even if he would not want
        to be directly involved in advancing them himself.

        wiki: "In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe
        Soviet sympathizers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet
        government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question
        naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they
        were actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used."


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • rlbaty50
        ... DBWillis, Thank you for your verification that my representation of your position, and your like-minded brethren, is and has been correct. Sincerely,
        Message 3 of 23 , May 2 10:56 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@... wrote:
          >
          > David Willis here
          >
          > > Any evidence that some thing is
          > > over a few thousand years old
          > > just shows God can make stuff
          > > that looks older than it really
          > > is.

          > I would affirm that!

          DBWillis,

          Thank you for your verification that my representation of your position, and your like-minded brethren, is and has been correct.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • rlbaty50
          ... DBWillis, Are you implicitly admitting that you haven t been paying attention. In fact, I did point out in a previous post that I was using the term you
          Message 4 of 23 , May 2 11:02 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@... wrote:

            > Robert would probably point out to you
            > that he used the same term I used for
            > him....

            DBWillis,

            Are you implicitly admitting that you haven't been paying attention.

            In fact, I did point out in a previous post that I was using the term you used to describe me, but I used it in an appropriate manner to describe you and yours as it relates to your behvior with reference to me and my "Goliath of GRAS".

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty
          • rlbaty50
            DBWillis did what Terry W. Benton, DBWillis estranged NI fellow preacher, was recently seen condemning. Terry s condemnation was misdirected. Terry should
            Message 5 of 23 , May 2 11:31 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              DBWillis did what Terry W. Benton, DBWillis' estranged NI fellow preacher, was recently seen condemning.

              Terry's condemnation was misdirected.

              Terry should have waited for DBWillis' to post that message today so he could appropriately condemn DBWillis for his antics.

              Here is a little something DBWillis failed to include in his post regarding how the term "useful idiot" is used:

              > The term is now used more broadly
              > to describe someone who is perceived
              > to be manipulated by a political
              > movement, terrorist group, hostile
              > government, or business, whether or
              > not the group is Communist in nature.

              Yep, that provides the basis for an appropriate definition that fits DBWillis, Terry W. Benton, Jerry D. McDonald and others sorts who I have been successfully manipulating; though I must again make clear that I do not make any payments to them in order to get them to play their "useful idiot" roles.

              Stipulated "useful idiot" definition:

              > The term useful idiot is used to describe
              > certain young-earth creation-science
              > promoters and apologists.

              > The implication is that though the
              > young-earth creation-science person
              > in question naïvely thinks themselves
              > an ally of the Lord in their lame
              > efforts to take on the "Goliath of GRAS",
              > they are actually held in contempt by
              > the Lord because of their unseemly,
              > unrepentant efforts in resisting the
              > truth, even while being used by the Lord
              > to demonstrate the idiocy that permeates
              > those who think to promote young-earth
              > creation-science.

              Yep, I think it fits rather well.

              Thanks goes to DBWillis for coming up with a label that properly fits him and his on this important public issue.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty


              --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, DBWILLIS@ wrote:

              > Robert would probably point out
              > to you that he used the same term
              > I used for him....

              DBWillis,

              Are you implicitly admitting that you haven't been paying attention.

              In fact, I did point out in a previous post that I was using the term you used to describe me, but I used it in an appropriate manner to describe you and yours as it relates to your behvior with reference to me and my "Goliath of GRAS".

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              -----------------------------------------
              -----------------------------------------
            • rlbaty50
              Has anyone Googled the term empirical scientist yet? I get thousands of references to the use of the term. Kinda makes me look real cool in using the term,
              Message 6 of 23 , May 2 11:49 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Has anyone "Googled" the term "empirical scientist" yet?

                I get thousands of references to the use of the term.

                Kinda makes me look real cool in using the term, appropriately so, with reference to just such as that label was designed for.

                I guess everyone knows that; except for one sorehead that seems to show up around here from time to time!

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty


                --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

                Equivocation:

                > Equivocation is classified as both
                > a formal and informal fallacy.

                > It is the misleading use of a term
                > with more than one meaning or sense
                > (by glossing over which meaning is
                > intended at a particular time).

                And so one poster has written regarding those who study the empirical sciences:

                > (T)heir so-called empirical evidence
                > tells them that Adam and Eve had
                > parents...

                I propose that the equivocation is in the use of the terms "Adam" and "Eve".

                Certain religionists, as the poster of the above claim, define "Adam and Eve", in relevant part, as "ex nihilo creations a few thousand years ago; without earthly ancestors".

                I propose that those empirical scientists whose opinions are worthy of consideration simply do not let the evidence tell them that, by definition, a being without ancestors had ancestors.

                I propose that those empirical scientists whose opinons are worthy of consideration define "Adam and Eve" as beings who had ancestors.

                So it is that you have to watch closely for the equivocations in such use of the terms.

                I think the equivocation is rather clear if and when someone claims that empirical scientists claim a being which, by definition, had no ancestors had ancestors.

                I recently demonstrated that some folks actually claim that God's word says everything was created in six days; without regard to whether or not God's word says that.

                I'm interested if anyone can provide a link and a quote where a competent empirical scientist actually claims that a being which, by definition, had no ancestors had ancestors.

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                ------------------------------
                ------------------------------
              • PIASAN@aol.com
                David Willis here, ... Pi: To which I would add: According to YEC, when is a lie not a lie? Answer: When God does it. ... David: YOU are the one making God a
                Message 7 of 23 , May 2 7:32 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Willis here,

                  >>************
                  Pi:
                  To which I would add:
                  According to YEC, when is a lie not a lie?


                  Answer:
                  When God does it.
                  >>



                  David:
                  YOU are the one making God a liar when His book TELLS us that there was a
                  worldwide flood which killed off all land life...but YOU and the AE's say
                  that never really happened! You think Peter believed a lie!...and told a
                  lie.
                  ************
                  Pi:
                  No. I'm the one seeking truth in both His book AND His creation. YEC, on the other hand, rely on a superficial reading of the book and make Him a liar in His creaton. Keep in mind the Bible is absolutely filled with metaphorical and symbolic messages. You need to stop the shallow investigation and seek the deeper meaning.

                  Do you believe the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Matt. 13:31-32)? It isn't. Was Jesus lying when He said it is? No. He was making a point using symbolic language understandable to people of all times.

                  Do you believe the devil took Jesus to the top of a mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world could be seen (Luke 4:5)? Where is that mountain?

                  YEC are just as guilty of "picking and choosing" what to believe as any theistic evolutionist.





                  David:
                  AND, how can you say (by your implication here) that a YEC view has God
                  lying...by presenting a mature-looking Earth (and Universe)?

                  ********
                  Pi:
                  Oh, I'm not implying the YEC view has God's creation as a lie. I'm stating it explicitly as I possibly can.





                  David:
                  If God wanted it to be ready immediately for human life, He HAD to make it appear older
                  than it was.
                  *********
                  Pi:
                  Why?

                  He could just as easily made creation with only those few stars we actually use to mark the seasons rather than the billions of trillions we now know exist. He could have made trees without rings. He could have provided foods that do not easily spoil until trees were ready to produce fruit. He could have, quite simply, done any number of things that would NOT make the universe appear older than it is.




                  David:
                  Just like Adam himself was created instantly mature. God did
                  not have to operate by your or Todd's imaginary rules about when God is
                  permitted to create a mature item...and what it would have to look like (i.e. it
                  would have to NOT look like a naturally aged item...a tree must not have
                  rings).
                  *************
                  Pi:
                  What's imaginary about a "rule" that God is not deceptive? What's imaginary about the position that DELIBERATELY making something appear to be what it not is a deception? Don't you have the exact same "imaginary rules"?

                  If I were to make a piece of furniture using 1700's methods then use other processes to make it appear to be a genuine 1700's antique item, you would (correctly) say I am committing an act of deception. You are holding God to a different (and MUCH LOWER) standard of honesty.

                  The point is that tree rings are like a date stamp. If God were to make a tree with rings, He is making one that says it is old when it is not. That fits my definition of a deception. Maybe you are using a different dictionary.



                  David:
                  AND remember...if God TELLS you it is young (by historical
                  accounts in His word) how can you accuse him of being a liar if the Earth
                  really IS young, although it has appearance of age? He TOLD you.
                  ********
                  Pi:
                  WOW, David. Did you really read that before you sent it? If someone makes something have the "appearance of age" when it really does not, that is a LIE. It's really quite simple.

                  Unless, that is, you want to argue a lie is not a lie when God does it.... which is EXACTLY how I see the "appearance of age" argument.




                  David:
                  It's like my
                  example of my landscaping. If someone sees my newly relocated mature bushes
                  and trees and knocks on my door to accuse me of being a liar....they belong
                  in a mental institution. And they ESPECIALLY would if I had written a sign
                  that said "these plants were NOT grown from seeds, we relocated them in my
                  yard because I wanted mature plants immediately."
                  ************
                  Pi:
                  Right. And there are ways I can verify that those plants actually are old. Now, if you were to say you planted the seeds yesterday but the trees have 10 years of rings, you would be a liar, wouldn't you?

                  What's the difference?






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • DBWILLIS@aol.com
                  David Willis here, ... I would affirm that! Hey Baty...how about a CLEAR answer...would you DENY that God can make stuff that looks older than it really
                  Message 8 of 23 , May 2 8:22 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David Willis here,

                    >>Baty (suggesting what I would affirm)
                    >>> After all, any evidence that some
                    > thing is over a few thousand years
                    > old just shows God can make stuff
                    > that looks older than it really is.
                    > Signed: DBWillis>>

                    I would affirm that! Hey Baty...how about a CLEAR answer...would you DENY
                    that "God can make stuff that looks older than it really is"??? Isn't
                    that BY DEFINITION what a MIRACLE is???>>

                    Baty is a COWARD. When he is pressed to answer something he RUNS AWAY.
                    What's your answer, COWARD? Can God make stuff that looks older than it
                    really is OR NOT?

                    >>Thank you for your verification that my representation of your position,
                    and your like-minded brethren, is and has been correct.>>

                    You did NOTHING to "verify" that! I've been saying it ALL ALONG, COWARD.
                    Apparently YOUR position is God CANNOT! What sort of LAME god do YOU hold
                    allegience to? You enjoy kissing up to atheists so much...just go ahead
                    and join them. You are WORTHLESS in service to God.








                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • rlbaty50
                    ... While I don t think it true, I do thank DBWillis for his further admission that that has been his position all along; just as I have been trying to note in
                    Message 9 of 23 , May 2 9:23 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I proposed that DBWillis' position was, in part, briefly stated as:

                      > Any evidence that some thing
                      > is over a few thousand years
                      > old just shows God can make
                      > stuff that looks older than
                      > it really is.

                      Earlier DBWillis wrote:

                      > I would affirm that!

                      After I thanked him for that confirmation, he now writes:

                      > I've been saying it all along.

                      While I don't think it true, I do thank DBWillis for his further admission that that has been his position all along; just as I have been trying to note in order to save time in that, with such a philosophy as that, it really isn't necessary to consider the evidence of age.

                      Sincerely,
                      Robert Baty
                    • Terry
                      ... TB: Since the universe and nature is immense, all reading of it is superficial and will never be other wise. PI: Keep in mind the Bible is absolutely
                      Message 10 of 23 , May 2 9:23 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Terry to PI:

                        --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > David Willis here,
                        >
                        > >>************
                        > Pi:
                        > To which I would add:
                        > According to YEC, when is a lie not a lie?
                        >
                        >
                        > Answer:
                        > When God does it.
                        > >>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > David:
                        > YOU are the one making God a liar when His book TELLS us that there was a
                        > worldwide flood which killed off all land life...but YOU and the AE's say
                        > that never really happened! You think Peter believed a lie!...and told a
                        > lie.
                        > ************
                        > Pi:
                        > No. I'm the one seeking truth in both His book AND His creation. YEC, on the other hand, rely on a superficial reading of the book and make Him a liar in His creaton.

                        TB: Since the universe and nature is immense, all reading of it is superficial and will never be other wise.

                        PI: Keep in mind the Bible is absolutely filled with metaphorical and symbolic messages. You need to stop the shallow investigation and seek the deeper meaning.

                        TB: What is the deeper meaning of the Bible saying that Adam was the first man, the flood caused the world to perish and all were taken away, genealogies that can go back no further than Adam? And, are you sure that nature is not read superficially but deep enough to over-rule even the clearest statements of God's word? In other words, did God really communicate at all in the Bible if it is always so uncertain what He really said and meant? What good is that?
                        >
                        PI: Do you believe the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Matt. 13:31-32)? It isn't.

                        TB: What did Jesus REALLY mean?

                        PI: Was Jesus lying when He said it is? No. He was making a point using symbolic language understandable to people of all times.

                        TB: What is the language symbolic of? I think figures of speech are quite commonly recognized, but symbolic language means that he was trying to use language to symbolize something else. What does mustard seed smaller than all seeds symbolize? "Smallest of all seeds" may be a figure of speach, exaggerating for a point of emphasis, but "smallest of all seeds" is not a symbol or symbolic language. Is it?

                        >
                        PI:> Do you believe the devil took Jesus to the top of a mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world could be seen (Luke 4:5)? Where is that mountain?

                        TB: A) Yes. B) I don't know. Where is the mountain that cannot be touched?(Heb.12:22f) How high is it? So, what does the text REALLY mean?
                        >
                        PI:> YEC are just as guilty of "picking and choosing" what to believe as any theistic evolutionist.

                        TB: I doubt it. It does not seem that way to me. There may be different perspectives on a passage, but there are some passages that theistic evolutionists just do not believe and they have no contextual explanation that harmonizes the text with what they believe they have detected in the created world.

                        >
                        > David:
                        > AND, how can you say (by your implication here) that a YEC view has God
                        > lying...by presenting a mature-looking Earth (and Universe)?
                        >
                        > ********
                        > Pi:
                        > Oh, I'm not implying the YEC view has God's creation as a lie. I'm stating it explicitly as I possibly can.

                        TB: So, if God wanted to alter a sun-dial, He would be lying? And, if God wanted to turn water to wine, and a person could not tell the difference between God's instant wine and the best natural wine, then God is a liar? I have serious problems with this comment of yours.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > David:
                        > If God wanted it to be ready immediately for human life, He HAD to make it appear older
                        > than it was.
                        > *********
                        > Pi:
                        > Why?
                        >
                        > He could just as easily made creation with only those few stars we actually use to mark the seasons rather than the billions of trillions we now know exist.

                        TB: Why would He want to do that?

                        Pi: He could have made trees without rings.

                        TB: Why? When would tree wrings be a factor for calculating time? Why wouldn't the taste of wine give clue to it's age? Would the best wine that Jesus made have to be unlike aged wine, because it must not deceive people about it's real age?

                        PI: He could have provided foods that do not easily spoil until trees were ready to produce fruit.

                        TB: What would the foods have to look like? I guess it would have to look like nothing in the natural world? Why? So, would that mean that since "manna" was "like corriander seed" and like the taste of honey, that it was an act of deception on God's part?


                        Pi: He could have, quite simply, done any number of things that would NOT make the universe appear older than it is.

                        TB: If that is what God SHOULD have done, then God should not have turned water to wine and given the impression it was older than it really was. Further, He should not have been crucified on the cross. That gave the impression that he was defeated by Satan, when it really meant that He was using it to defeat Satan. He tricked Satan and deceived him. Did He not?
                        >
                        > David:
                        > Just like Adam himself was created instantly mature. God did
                        > not have to operate by your or Todd's imaginary rules about when God is
                        > permitted to create a mature item...and what it would have to look like (i.e. it
                        > would have to NOT look like a naturally aged item...a tree must not have
                        > rings).
                        > *************
                        > Pi:
                        > What's imaginary about a "rule" that God is not deceptive?

                        TB: Your ignorance or mine is not "God's deception". You may not understand something (many things) but we are not smart enough to know what God was doing and why.

                        Pi: What's imaginary about the position that DELIBERATELY making something appear to be what it not is a deception? Don't you have the exact same "imaginary rules"?

                        TB: So, how should Adam appear? How should the sun-dial not appear to move? How should the wine really taste? Your argument does not hold water. You don't understand why or what God did. And you want to charge God with sin and evil if you don't understand what God did and why He did it the way He said? Give us a break!
                        >
                        Pi:> If I were to make a piece of furniture using 1700's methods then use other processes to make it appear to be a genuine 1700's antique item, you would (correctly) say I am committing an act of deception.

                        TB: I would say: "hey, that is neat. It looks old just as you told me you did it recently to look old". No deception unless you said it was really as old as it looked.

                        Pi: You are holding God to a different (and MUCH LOWER) standard of honesty.

                        TB: Sounds to me like you think you know enough to judge God's actions. I think that is very dangerous and foolish.

                        >
                        Pi:> The point is that tree rings are like a date stamp. If God were to make a tree with rings, He is making one that says it is old when it is not.

                        TB: Not unless he says it is old. All the rings mean is that you don't know how a 6,000 year old tree ought to look, and if God wanted a 1 day old tree to appear to have the age of a modern 20 year old tree, you don't know what he should have done or not done.

                        Pi: That fits my definition of a deception. Maybe you are using a different dictionary.

                        TB: It appears so. I don't believe your dictionary knows God well enough to know what and why He did certain things you think should have been done differently.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > David:
                        > AND remember...if God TELLS you it is young (by historical
                        > accounts in His word) how can you accuse him of being a liar if the Earth
                        > really IS young, although it has appearance of age? He TOLD you.
                        > ********
                        > Pi:
                        > WOW, David. Did you really read that before you sent it? If someone makes something have the "appearance of age" when it really does not, that is a LIE. It's really quite simple.

                        TB: I wonder if you really read that before sending it? If God does something without reporting to you all the valid reasons why he did it that way, then all that means is that you can only judge God out of ignorance, but not out of knowledge.
                        >
                        Pi:> Unless, that is, you want to argue a lie is not a lie when God does it.... which is EXACTLY how I see the "appearance of age" argument.


                        TB: I believe you are treading dangerous waters. I don't believe it is a lie for God to do things that might decieve some people if they are ignorant of what He did and why, and they think they know enough to judge God anyway. If God SAID he made woman from the rib of a man, and he really didn't, then God either lies or does not know how to communicate with man about what He did. Take your pick.

                        >
                        > David:
                        > It's like my
                        > example of my landscaping. If someone sees my newly relocated mature bushes
                        > and trees and knocks on my door to accuse me of being a liar....they belong
                        > in a mental institution. And they ESPECIALLY would if I had written a sign
                        > that said "these plants were NOT grown from seeds, we relocated them in my
                        > yard because I wanted mature plants immediately."
                        > ************
                        > Pi:
                        > Right. And there are ways I can verify that those plants actually are old. Now, if you were to say you planted the seeds yesterday but the trees have 10 years of rings, you would be a liar, wouldn't you?

                        TB: David did not say he planted seeds yesterday. He said he planted mature plants. How is that a lie? A lie would be if God said he planted seeds in the garden and we see full-grown trees, or if God said he planted mature trees, and all we see is seeds. Your seeing rings in God's trees only means you do not understand why he made mature looking people and trees. You understanding or lack thereof is not God's fault or God's problem.
                        >
                        Pi: What's the difference?
                        >
                        TB: The difference is that David did not say he planted seeds, and God did not say He planted seeds. Nor, did God say that dating trees with rings is now a practical way of dating what He did. It may become a generally helpful way of dating things later, but God did not say that is what you need to do to check up on when He did things. Only if God said He did something yesterday and you can use tree rings to prove what He said is true, and even tell you how many rings that tree should have as a one day old tree, would it be deception if it turned out different than what He said.

                        You are treading very foolish and dangerous ground IMO.

                        Terry W. Benton
                      • rlbaty50
                        ... I think it was Terry W. Benton, DBWillis estranged NI fellow, who recently provided the justification for my efforts in that regard. DBWillis just can t
                        Message 11 of 23 , May 2 9:31 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          DBWillis wrote:

                          > Robert...appeared on a ATHEIST
                          > RADIO PROGRAM to be in support
                          > of ATHEISTS regarding some tax
                          > issue...

                          I think it was Terry W. Benton, DBWillis' estranged NI fellow, who recently provided the justification for my efforts in that regard.

                          DBWillis just can't stand me getting my 15 minutes.

                          Regarding that "tax issue", it has to do with the pending litigation which proposes to have the income tax free ministerial housing allowance provision of the law declared unconstitutional as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

                          There is presently a hearing scheduled before Judge Shubb in Sacramento on May 10, 2010.

                          The hearing will be primarily concerned with deciding whether or not the plaintiffs have "standing" to prosecute the litigation.

                          If Judge Shubb determines there is "standing", then the case can proceed to be decided on the merits and, as demonstrated in the Rick Warren case, the Court appears to have already indicated that it is inclined to rule that the law is unconstitutional.

                          Sincerely,
                          Robert Baty
                        • DBWILLIS@aol.com
                          DW here, Pi Do you believe the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Matt. 13:31-32)? It isn t. Was Jesus lying when He said it is? No. He was making a
                          Message 12 of 23 , May 3 2:33 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            DW here,

                            Pi>>Do you believe the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (Matt.
                            13:31-32)? It isn't. Was Jesus lying when He said it is? No. He was making a
                            point using symbolic language understandable to people of all times.>>

                            To try to equate this statement of Jesus with the HISTORY of the Flood is
                            absurd.

                            >>Do you believe the devil took Jesus to the top of a mountain from which
                            all the kingdoms of the world could be seen (Luke 4:5)? Where is that
                            mountain? >>

                            I think that would involve a miracle.

                            >>YEC are just as guilty of "picking and choosing" what to believe as any
                            theistic evolutionist.>>

                            No YEC denies there are instances of figurative language in the Bible. If
                            you point that out, you've proved nothing. You can't just say that ANY
                            passage is figurative simply because it conflicts with some naturalist's view
                            of what is possible. That eliminates ALL the miracles.

                            >>David:
                            If God wanted it to be ready immediately for human life, He HAD to make it
                            appear older
                            than it was.
                            *********
                            Pi:
                            Why?

                            He could just as easily made creation with only those few stars we
                            actually use to mark the seasons rather than the billions of trillions we now know
                            exist. He could have made trees without rings. He could have provided foods
                            that do not easily spoil until trees were ready to produce fruit. He could
                            have, quite simply, done any number of things that would NOT make the
                            universe appear older than it is.
                            >>

                            I didn't mean that God could only make the creation the way He did. I
                            meant that if He wanted to have the Earth fit and ready immediately for
                            ongoing human life that by definition would mean some sort of apparent age. It
                            is the same thing regarding Adam himself. A 1 day old baby would not fit
                            with what God wanted. So Adam appeared older immediately than he really was.
                            And so did the trees, soil, air, mountains, rivers, etc.

                            >>God is
                            permitted to create a mature item...and what it would have to look like
                            (i.e. it
                            would have to NOT look like a naturally aged item...a tree must not have
                            rings).
                            *************
                            Pi:
                            What's imaginary about a "rule" that God is not deceptive?>>

                            Your "rule" that God must make things you and all other humans can
                            differentiate from non-created things is indeed imaginary. It is a philosophical
                            construct...and if that construct is mistaken then you will misinterpret
                            the evidence.

                            >>If I were to make a piece of furniture using 1700's methods then use
                            other processes to make it appear to be a genuine 1700's antique item, you
                            would (correctly) say I am committing an act of deception. You are holding God
                            to a different (and MUCH LOWER) standard of honesty.>>

                            Nope...if you were just making it to look that way because you like that
                            look, no one would regard that as deceptive/evil. But if it was to deceive
                            someone so you could fraudulently sell it as being authentically old, that
                            would be different...and you KNOW it.

                            >>The point is that tree rings are like a date stamp. >>

                            So is the wine in Jn. 2. So is soil, air, mountains, rivers, and Adam.

                            >>If God were to make a tree with rings, He is making one that says it is
                            old when it is not. That fits my definition of a deception. Maybe you are
                            using a different dictionary.>>

                            No...different philosophical construct. That idea is not in the
                            dictionary and you know it.

                            >>Pi:
                            Right. And there are ways I can verify that those plants actually are old.
                            Now, if you were to say you planted the seeds yesterday but the trees have
                            10 years of rings, you would be a liar, wouldn't you?>>

                            Of course. That is absurd to try to equate my telling people I planted
                            trees YESTERDAY which are LARGE today...with me placing large trees in my
                            yard and causing people who drive through the neighborhood and don't know what
                            my yard looked like yesterday to THINK they were in my yard for 5 years.
                            If I lied to say they WERE in my yard 5 years, that WOULD be deception.

                            >>What's the difference? >>

                            You seem to have purposefully twisted the illustration...which probably IS
                            a deception on your part. The point is that someone driving by and
                            looking may think (by appearances) that the trees looked the same as if I had
                            planted seeds IN MY YARD 5 years ago. They would have branches and big trunks
                            and rings the same either way. But since I have the capability to haul in
                            fully grown trees and place them in my yard in one day so they LOOK like
                            they've been there 5 years, then you cannot be sure by just looking as you
                            drive by whether they've been there 5 years or one day. The data is
                            insufficient to inform you of that, given my ability. You must RULE OUT my
                            ability to haul them in, before you can assert that they've been in my yard 5
                            years. And you'd be an idiot to accuse me of being a deceiver if I did that
                            just to enjoy big trees right away...especially if I TOLD EVERYONE I did
                            that.




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • DBWILLIS@aol.com
                            David Willis here ... something appear to be what it not is a deception? God deliberately made the earth so it appeared flat for thousands of years. Was God
                            Message 13 of 23 , May 3 2:56 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              David Willis here

                              >>Pi: What's imaginary about the position that DELIBERATELY making
                              something appear to be what it not is a deception?>>

                              God deliberately made the earth so it appeared flat for thousands of
                              years. Was God lying all that time?




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • PIASAN@aol.com
                              David Willis here ... something appear to be what it not is a deception? David: God deliberately made the earth so it appeared flat for thousands of years.
                              Message 14 of 23 , May 3 8:50 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                David Willis here

                                >>Pi: What's imaginary about the position that DELIBERATELY making
                                something appear to be what it not is a deception?>>
                                David:
                                God deliberately made the earth so it appeared flat for thousands of
                                years. Was God lying all that time?

                                ************
                                Pi:
                                David, you're losing it.

                                Even the ancient Greeks were able to figure out the Earth is not flat. In about 240 BC:
                                Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth without leaving Egypt. ...., if we assume that Eratosthenes used the "Egyptian stadium"[8] of about 157.5 m, his measurement turns out to be 39,690 km, an error of less than 1%
                                Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes










                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.