The discovery agrees with the "woo woo", and you call upon the discovery as scientifically valid to dismiss the religious argument. Great reasoning there.
You say it's "old water", therefore that's objective fact, therefore censorship is okay. That's nonsense. It's "old", therefore it's wrong. That's nonsense too.
It's disagreed with my your imagined majority here, therefore it's "off-topic". Also nonsense.
It is vastly not the most accepting forum. That's why I'm here. Besides reality being ultimately compulsory, I do indeed have my reasons, that you don't yet perceive. Your reasons don't need to be mine.
I would have little issue with the moderation, if it was a category other than "overrated", which by the lack of specification given by the site for it, it was. That's, again, a coward's moderation when having no actual criticism or argument other than they don't like what it says, and they -know- it.
Really, you deserve at least a "+1 Funny" for this, even if it is entirely content-free where it isn't directly wrong. Peer-reviewed evidence has been posted in this very thread. As well as a thorough demonstration that there is no possible way you can know in -any- case whether someone else has evidence, much less your desperation-amplified "never, ever, been a single shred of evidence". You don't have psychic powers. You cannot possibly know this, as a matter of provable epistemology. You -cannot- know what evidence a single other person knows or experienced as of this moment, much less all others, absurdly less what everyone of all time has had evidence for or has experienced. If anything is "delusional" (and note that a belief that is shared by the majority of one's culture -cannot- be correctly stated as "delusional", per the people whose field this actually is, and the DSM), it is your claim. How do you possibly know there "never, ever" has been any evidence? You don't. You're neither omniscient nor psychic. Your nonsensical word-mangling of "a shred of proof" (what's a partial piece of something that's by definition proven, or disproven, anyway?) doesn't grant you those psychic powers, either.
You can't construct anything but nonsensical and false characterizations, and you've proven it here.
I know, I know. Your psychic powers tell you that regardless of what arguments you encounter, none of them will be "meaningful" alter your position from its complete, provable irrationality. Fair enough, I'll let Natural Selection take you out for me then.
You stated "a several thousand year old myth", and the age was the only thing there's any backing for, no matter how dumb (and I'll have to repeat it, because I have no doubt you've been persistently this dumb for years, so saying that was perfectly natural for you) it is to consider age relevant to something's truth-status.
The "myth" part you gave absolutely no backing for at all. And I see from you repeating that claim you don't get what a Bare Assertion fallacy is, either.
I seriously hope nobody listens to you and considers you anything other than a provably-nonsense spewing aberration. They deserve better than to adopt your incoherence.
So... you've got nothing but a self-contradictory wish/insult. Fair enough.
And, to be clear, I have no interest in including you now or in the future against your choice. Still open to negotiation with your associates, though. Physical reality will probably have some input on that eventually as well.
I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides.
No, you're perfectly clear on it, you simply choose to lie. If you had an equivalent breakdown of eyewitness reports of a crime, with very high correlation between them and correspondence between the theory of what transpired, you would accept it as evidence without question. I understand you had the foresight to stack the deck that the evidence must specifically require speaking to additional supposed attributes of your conceptualization, but in fact, that is wholly unrequired to serve as evidence of the question at hand. Really, you probably should have added "who has a beard" at the end, you'd pre-exclude for yourself more even earlier, with your odd conceptualization that anyone thinks that's the relevant question rather than "is there a God or an afterlife of the manner claimed by that"?
I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion.
Fair enough. Feel free to do so. I'll wait, and Natural Selection will take care of you for me. No need to argue.
To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions.
Sure. So, one takes alternate forms of analysis, such as internal consistency of the defining writings of the worldview, successful predictions of future events, references from external secular sources, and personal spiritual experiences by which to narrow the field of plausibility. It is not by happenstance a very few have survived, and the rest long-dismissed. It's because they are -better-. They are more plausible, and that in no way excludes a particular one from being true. I'm sure, following standard argument here, you are very happy to share with us the superiority of your evaluation that they are all equivalent over millions of people who have concluded they are not. That stance, however, won't be rational. It does, however, fit harmoniously in its irrationality with your assertion that because you've been given one set of supporting information, that is therefore the only support that exists. An endless supply of personal accounts and arguments based on philosophical or scientific implausibility is a Google search away. And no, that you don't accept them a-priori, or they don't constitute "proof" for you and thus put you in a situation of immediate, forced conversion, in no way alters the fact they are evidence.
At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!
You were given genuine, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. You'll need to do your next step here and construct he necessary formulation of the scope of "science" needed to be sure to exclude a peer-reviewed study, authored by multiple PhD's, published by probably the leading medical journal of Europe. Go ahead, I have time. Just don't take too long, because the standard equivocations and dances around this shouldn't take long with Google available.
It is your claim that is extraordinary. The majority of the planet is theist. That's what "ordinary" means. Your erroneous rendering of what "extraordinary" means is entirely personal, subjective, and spurious. I don't find it "extraordinary" at all. For me, based on my experiences, it is simply fact.
All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.
Yes, you have. You have dozens of them from this study alone. Unless you want to assert the eyewitnesses were lying, or the scientific methodology incorrect. Note up-front that the peer review process has already addressed this, so do consider it even if you feel yourself qualified to override that by fiat in
I do not see how this has anything to do with there being a God, however.
Perhaps if you chose to view the content more pertinently for what it is, quantified eyewitness accounts of the predictions of religion, you'd lessen the self-generated mental vagueness there to help you help yourself evade clear and obvious conclusions.
Also claiming that asking for evidence is "intellectually dishonest" is bizarre.
If only that had anything to do with what I said. Asking for evidence is fine, and was provided. Asking for "evidence proving" is a meaningless mashing of words and a generally-impossible request (and probably intentionally so). Show me any instance of "evidence proving" something, for any topic.
One of them is provable and the other is philosophical bullshit.
Aww... that would be just awesomely great and hurtful if it wasn't a stupid Bare Assertion fallacy. As well as showing general incompetence in understanding science at all.
So... same question then. Are you wanting evidence, or proof? Bear in mind that giving you proof would be essentially forced conversion. You then have no choice about the issue--it's proven, period. Comply or go to an asylum for denying proven facts.
Some reasons this may intentionally not be commonly available might come to mind.
Still, that's not the question at hand. Do you want evidence, or proof, because they are two different things, and what would your response to each be? I propose you want neither, and the question is intended to guarantee you get what you want by demanding something called "evidence proving" that like "a shred of proof" is something that doesn't, and can't, exist anywhere, for any topic, but is a meaningless linguistic construction.
As for me, I asked for evidence, got it, and reacted accordingly.
There's numerous arguments around biological complexity and IC that provide evidence. And whether the universe per se is evidence or not is a question of interpretation. As Einstein said, you either consider everything a miracle, or nothing a miracle. Same basic thing. We could revisit all the general arguments around IC here, but nothing will change that from being evidence, neither political insults or goalpost-shifting that it isn't "proof". I neither claimed it was, nor that my link would have anything to do with directed evolution. Bother to read the thread and what I was replying to, and you can't miss it.
The link to the claims of religion are clear and obvious. The religion predicts X. X occurs, quantifiably, precisely when it says it will. The notion that there is that high of a correlation by happenstance among all the random hallucinations possible caused by brain failure is highly unlikely, and clearly a wildly-biased interpretation of the facts.
And no, you have not the slightest understanding of my fellow theist Occam or his "Razor". It never includes or excludes anything as being a valid interpretation of empirical, it just specifies what has the most practical conceptual economy -all else being equal-.
I'd be more negative toward your near-universal ignorance of science and philosophy, but it's hard to be too critical since you're clearly just a marginally capable Dawkins parrot. So, peace.
Sorry, you're both good little Dawkins parrots, but yes, it is in fact -epistemologically impossible- to say that you know somebody else is making a conclusion based on no evidence.
This is actually, -provably- irrational, per the whole history of Western Philosophy and all of science.
It is possible one has evidence of something. It is possible that one does not have evidence of something. It is -impossible-, -always-, to know that nobody has said evidence. No matter the subject. No matter the situation. Always. It is possible for you to know what happened on the corner of Fifth and Main at 2 PM last weekend. It is -not- possible for you to know nobody knows.
While, in fact, it is by definition (according to the actual authorities on the subject and the DSM) factually wrong to claim a belief that the majority of a person's culture adheres to can be a "delusional" belief, if either is a delusion, it is your stance. Not arguably. -Provably-. How do you propose to know whether anyone does, or does not, have evidence of any given thing, in any given case?
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
Out of curiosity, how, for the purposes of discussion and meeting your request, would you define these terms, specifically:
For example, believing my conclusions are based on no evidence, you having no possible evidence for this or way of reviewing my brain or life to know this, as a reflection of your psychic powers?
There's peer-reviewed evidence linked in this very thread. If your psychic powers fail you in this case, some clicking should get you there. I'm not relinking it here.
You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish.
I'll do what I please. Nothing about this thread is off-topic. You aren't the arbiter of what Slashdot is. I understand your admission of incompetence and failure of punting and saying "google how you're wrong".
So now it's time for you to consider the overall veracity and value of the wider presentation around that, and harmoniousness with overall existence as you perceive it to be.
There is not a single accurate thing in this post.
I understand by your sole reliance on silly negative characterization (yes, when you want to use the term "sky daddy" instead of the standard terminology, relying on us to consider that both the same, and not the same, simultaneously, you show clearly your ingrained intellectual dishonesty) that you have not the slightest idea of how to construct an actual meaningful argument. Still, when, in cases like you, one does not, cowardly "overrated" modding is simply soft censorship.
Sure. Any physical object can suddenly "come into existence" at any time, according to physics, though very improbably (an improbability one might otherwise call a "miracle").
No theological assumptions required for this to be true at all. Nothing but established QM physics is needed.
Whether such phenomena are "truly random" or not (a bit of a paradox for a supposedly generally-deterministic physics), or, say, a perfect back-door to controlling all of physical reality that an insightful engineer might put in, or, say a God, is a metaphysical question. But that it can happen is clear, as a matter of science.
Yes... I also take the allegorical nature of Genesis and that of Revelation to be parallel. While it contains spiritual metaphors and truths, I am quite sure that nobody thought a literal dragon would be literally chasing around a literal pregnant woman during the "end times", from the very moment Revelation was first written down, up until today.
Similarly, I interpret Genesis as predominately metaphorical. That doesn't mean however, that certain elements we may have originally presumed were allegory, might not have an unexpected literal element to them. In my experience, such cases can be quite enlightening.
Though I don't really agree with the notion on a "general principle" level, the notion that the properties of observables from which we infer material attributes, and the properties from which we infer time sequences, are not separable, is an interesting viewpoint to me.
From that perspective, if one were to create something in a manner not following typical physical causality, it would have to have a structure "appearing to have had time pass" in order to be viable and stable per physical laws.
Although it personally to me would be interesting as a sci-fi novel premise more so than a parsimonious theological position, it does seem rather hard to refute.
That's quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've seen all week.
No, it's not.
You are excluding by fiat that anything can be created "ex nihilo", and out of presumed causal "sequence", for which hard physics (in particular, quantum indeterminacy) states you cannot assert and not simply be wrong per physics.
Again, however, reading that my stance hasn't changed might help your post from being the stupidest misreading posted this week.
Yes, the interesting part is the order of these observables, per the model's "findings" (or perhaps more appropriately, "focus"), from the perspective of the Earth, mirrors the sequence given in Genesis.
There are lots of different ways to conceptualize this finding, and there would still be many issues with a literal application of Genesis, which is why as I said I'm still an Old Earth Creationist (or an advocate of "directed evolution", if you prefer).
Caveats, disclaimers, mysteries, etc. hereby included by reference.
Slashdot Mirror
The discovery agrees with the "woo woo", and you call upon the discovery as scientifically valid to dismiss the religious argument. Great reasoning there.
You say it's "old water", therefore that's objective fact, therefore censorship is okay. That's nonsense. It's "old", therefore it's wrong. That's nonsense too.
It's disagreed with my your imagined majority here, therefore it's "off-topic". Also nonsense.
It is vastly not the most accepting forum. That's why I'm here. Besides reality being ultimately compulsory, I do indeed have my reasons, that you don't yet perceive. Your reasons don't need to be mine.
I would have little issue with the moderation, if it was a category other than "overrated", which by the lack of specification given by the site for it, it was. That's, again, a coward's moderation when having no actual criticism or argument other than they don't like what it says, and they -know- it.
Really, you deserve at least a "+1 Funny" for this, even if it is entirely content-free where it isn't directly wrong. Peer-reviewed evidence has been posted in this very thread. As well as a thorough demonstration that there is no possible way you can know in -any- case whether someone else has evidence, much less your desperation-amplified "never, ever, been a single shred of evidence". You don't have psychic powers. You cannot possibly know this, as a matter of provable epistemology. You -cannot- know what evidence a single other person knows or experienced as of this moment, much less all others, absurdly less what everyone of all time has had evidence for or has experienced. If anything is "delusional" (and note that a belief that is shared by the majority of one's culture -cannot- be correctly stated as "delusional", per the people whose field this actually is, and the DSM), it is your claim. How do you possibly know there "never, ever" has been any evidence? You don't. You're neither omniscient nor psychic. Your nonsensical word-mangling of "a shred of proof" (what's a partial piece of something that's by definition proven, or disproven, anyway?) doesn't grant you those psychic powers, either.
You can't construct anything but nonsensical and false characterizations, and you've proven it here.
I know, I know. Your psychic powers tell you that regardless of what arguments you encounter, none of them will be "meaningful" alter your position from its complete, provable irrationality. Fair enough, I'll let Natural Selection take you out for me then.
You stated "a several thousand year old myth", and the age was the only thing there's any backing for, no matter how dumb (and I'll have to repeat it, because I have no doubt you've been persistently this dumb for years, so saying that was perfectly natural for you) it is to consider age relevant to something's truth-status.
The "myth" part you gave absolutely no backing for at all. And I see from you repeating that claim you don't get what a Bare Assertion fallacy is, either.
I seriously hope nobody listens to you and considers you anything other than a provably-nonsense spewing aberration. They deserve better than to adopt your incoherence.
So... you've got nothing but a self-contradictory wish/insult. Fair enough.
And, to be clear, I have no interest in including you now or in the future against your choice. Still open to negotiation with your associates, though. Physical reality will probably have some input on that eventually as well.
I'm not exactly clear what evidence for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being your peer-reviewed study provides.
No, you're perfectly clear on it, you simply choose to lie. If you had an equivalent breakdown of eyewitness reports of a crime, with very high correlation between them and correspondence between the theory of what transpired, you would accept it as evidence without question. I understand you had the foresight to stack the deck that the evidence must specifically require speaking to additional supposed attributes of your conceptualization, but in fact, that is wholly unrequired to serve as evidence of the question at hand. Really, you probably should have added "who has a beard" at the end, you'd pre-exclude for yourself more even earlier, with your odd conceptualization that anyone thinks that's the relevant question rather than "is there a God or an afterlife of the manner claimed by that"?
I do not subscribe to a belief system that has supernatural components. I won't shy away from expressing my opinion.
Fair enough. Feel free to do so. I'll wait, and Natural Selection will take care of you for me. No need to argue.
To be fair, theories expounding the existence (or non-existence) of Yahweh or Hashem or Shiva or Ahura Mazda aren't falsifiable, so science cannot directly address such questions.
Sure. So, one takes alternate forms of analysis, such as internal consistency of the defining writings of the worldview, successful predictions of future events, references from external secular sources, and personal spiritual experiences by which to narrow the field of plausibility. It is not by happenstance a very few have survived, and the rest long-dismissed. It's because they are -better-. They are more plausible, and that in no way excludes a particular one from being true. I'm sure, following standard argument here, you are very happy to share with us the superiority of your evaluation that they are all equivalent over millions of people who have concluded they are not. That stance, however, won't be rational. It does, however, fit harmoniously in its irrationality with your assertion that because you've been given one set of supporting information, that is therefore the only support that exists. An endless supply of personal accounts and arguments based on philosophical or scientific implausibility is a Google search away. And no, that you don't accept them a-priori, or they don't constitute "proof" for you and thus put you in a situation of immediate, forced conversion, in no way alters the fact they are evidence.
At the same time, any genuine scientific evidence would be welcome. What's that? Nothing? I'm shocked! Truly shocked!
You were given genuine, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. You'll need to do your next step here and construct he necessary formulation of the scope of "science" needed to be sure to exclude a peer-reviewed study, authored by multiple PhD's, published by probably the leading medical journal of Europe. Go ahead, I have time. Just don't take too long, because the standard equivocations and dances around this shouldn't take long with Google available.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
It is your claim that is extraordinary. The majority of the planet is theist. That's what "ordinary" means. Your erroneous rendering of what "extraordinary" means is entirely personal, subjective, and spurious. I don't find it "extraordinary" at all. For me, based on my experiences, it is simply fact.
All I asked was for a single, verifiable piece of evidence. I haven't seen one yet.
Yes, you have. You have dozens of them from this study alone. Unless you want to assert the eyewitnesses were lying, or the scientific methodology incorrect. Note up-front that the peer review process has already addressed this, so do consider it even if you feel yourself qualified to override that by fiat in
I do not see how this has anything to do with there being a God, however.
Perhaps if you chose to view the content more pertinently for what it is, quantified eyewitness accounts of the predictions of religion, you'd lessen the self-generated mental vagueness there to help you help yourself evade clear and obvious conclusions.
Also claiming that asking for evidence is "intellectually dishonest" is bizarre.
If only that had anything to do with what I said. Asking for evidence is fine, and was provided. Asking for "evidence proving" is a meaningless mashing of words and a generally-impossible request (and probably intentionally so). Show me any instance of "evidence proving" something, for any topic.
One of them is provable and the other is philosophical bullshit.
Aww... that would be just awesomely great and hurtful if it wasn't a stupid Bare Assertion fallacy. As well as showing general incompetence in understanding science at all.
So... same question then. Are you wanting evidence, or proof? Bear in mind that giving you proof would be essentially forced conversion. You then have no choice about the issue--it's proven, period. Comply or go to an asylum for denying proven facts.
Some reasons this may intentionally not be commonly available might come to mind.
Still, that's not the question at hand. Do you want evidence, or proof, because they are two different things, and what would your response to each be? I propose you want neither, and the question is intended to guarantee you get what you want by demanding something called "evidence proving" that like "a shred of proof" is something that doesn't, and can't, exist anywhere, for any topic, but is a meaningless linguistic construction.
As for me, I asked for evidence, got it, and reacted accordingly.
Here you go.
Oh, and here.
And this.
Add Aristotle and Plato to your bookmarks too, for extra humor material. Old = wrong, right?
How long do I have to wait exactly until I know a particular idea has passed it's truth spoilage date? That would be handy to know.
There's numerous arguments around biological complexity and IC that provide evidence. And whether the universe per se is evidence or not is a question of interpretation. As Einstein said, you either consider everything a miracle, or nothing a miracle. Same basic thing. We could revisit all the general arguments around IC here, but nothing will change that from being evidence, neither political insults or goalpost-shifting that it isn't "proof". I neither claimed it was, nor that my link would have anything to do with directed evolution. Bother to read the thread and what I was replying to, and you can't miss it.
The link to the claims of religion are clear and obvious. The religion predicts X. X occurs, quantifiably, precisely when it says it will. The notion that there is that high of a correlation by happenstance among all the random hallucinations possible caused by brain failure is highly unlikely, and clearly a wildly-biased interpretation of the facts.
And no, you have not the slightest understanding of my fellow theist Occam or his "Razor". It never includes or excludes anything as being a valid interpretation of empirical, it just specifies what has the most practical conceptual economy -all else being equal-.
I'd be more negative toward your near-universal ignorance of science and philosophy, but it's hard to be too critical since you're clearly just a marginally capable Dawkins parrot. So, peace.
Sorry, you're both good little Dawkins parrots, but yes, it is in fact -epistemologically impossible- to say that you know somebody else is making a conclusion based on no evidence.
This is actually, -provably- irrational, per the whole history of Western Philosophy and all of science.
It is possible one has evidence of something. It is possible that one does not have evidence of something. It is -impossible-, -always-, to know that nobody has said evidence. No matter the subject. No matter the situation. Always. It is possible for you to know what happened on the corner of Fifth and Main at 2 PM last weekend. It is -not- possible for you to know nobody knows.
While, in fact, it is by definition (according to the actual authorities on the subject and the DSM) factually wrong to claim a belief that the majority of a person's culture adheres to can be a "delusional" belief, if either is a delusion, it is your stance. Not arguably. -Provably-. How do you propose to know whether anyone does, or does not, have evidence of any given thing, in any given case?
Okay, well then most of these claims you may wish to revise based on the peer-reviewed evidence I have provided you, particularly the allusion (Hint? Equivocation? Vague aspersion? I'm not sure what your intent was) that there's something there contradicting the empirical evidence regarding existence we have.
Out of curiosity, how, for the purposes of discussion and meeting your request, would you define these terms, specifically:
"Evidence"
"Proof"
"Evidence proving"
For example, believing my conclusions are based on no evidence, you having no possible evidence for this or way of reviewing my brain or life to know this, as a reflection of your psychic powers?
There's peer-reviewed evidence linked in this very thread. If your psychic powers fail you in this case, some clicking should get you there. I'm not relinking it here.
You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish.
But here's something peer-reviewed for you.
How about this instead.
I'll do what I please.
Nothing about this thread is off-topic.
You aren't the arbiter of what Slashdot is.
I understand your admission of incompetence and failure of punting and saying "google how you're wrong".
Incompetent coward.
Yes.
So now it's time for you to consider the overall veracity and value of the wider presentation around that, and harmoniousness with overall existence as you perceive it to be.
I recommend bringing a towel.
There is not a single accurate thing in this post.
I understand by your sole reliance on silly negative characterization (yes, when you want to use the term "sky daddy" instead of the standard terminology, relying on us to consider that both the same, and not the same, simultaneously, you show clearly your ingrained intellectual dishonesty) that you have not the slightest idea of how to construct an actual meaningful argument. Still, when, in cases like you, one does not, cowardly "overrated" modding is simply soft censorship.
You'll need to do better than that Ad Hominem. It wasn't even a clever one.
Sure. Any physical object can suddenly "come into existence" at any time, according to physics, though very improbably (an improbability one might otherwise call a "miracle").
No theological assumptions required for this to be true at all. Nothing but established QM physics is needed.
Whether such phenomena are "truly random" or not (a bit of a paradox for a supposedly generally-deterministic physics), or, say, a perfect back-door to controlling all of physical reality that an insightful engineer might put in, or, say a God, is a metaphysical question. But that it can happen is clear, as a matter of science.
I see we have Slashdot's typical systematic "overrated" downvoting of religion posts in lieu of an actual counterargument again.
Don't be shy, mods. You can share it with us, if you have it. You know I'll be asking you about it again much later anyway.
Yes... I also take the allegorical nature of Genesis and that of Revelation to be parallel. While it contains spiritual metaphors and truths, I am quite sure that nobody thought a literal dragon would be literally chasing around a literal pregnant woman during the "end times", from the very moment Revelation was first written down, up until today.
Similarly, I interpret Genesis as predominately metaphorical. That doesn't mean however, that certain elements we may have originally presumed were allegory, might not have an unexpected literal element to them. In my experience, such cases can be quite enlightening.
Though I don't really agree with the notion on a "general principle" level, the notion that the properties of observables from which we infer material attributes, and the properties from which we infer time sequences, are not separable, is an interesting viewpoint to me.
From that perspective, if one were to create something in a manner not following typical physical causality, it would have to have a structure "appearing to have had time pass" in order to be viable and stable per physical laws.
Although it personally to me would be interesting as a sci-fi novel premise more so than a parsimonious theological position, it does seem rather hard to refute.
Well, I don't ever do intra-theist arguments on the internet, so I'll just note that my personal "sequence of accuracy" goes like...
...
;)
1. Old Earth Creationism
2. Young Earth Creationism
n. Atheists
That's quite possibly one of the stupidest things I've seen all week.
No, it's not.
You are excluding by fiat that anything can be created "ex nihilo", and out of presumed causal "sequence", for which hard physics (in particular, quantum indeterminacy) states you cannot assert and not simply be wrong per physics.
Again, however, reading that my stance hasn't changed might help your post from being the stupidest misreading posted this week.
Yes, the interesting part is the order of these observables, per the model's "findings" (or perhaps more appropriately, "focus"), from the perspective of the Earth, mirrors the sequence given in Genesis.
There are lots of different ways to conceptualize this finding, and there would still be many issues with a literal application of Genesis, which is why as I said I'm still an Old Earth Creationist (or an advocate of "directed evolution", if you prefer).
Caveats, disclaimers, mysteries, etc. hereby included by reference.