The concepts "old" or "young" have no real meaning when applied to periods before human language. We can talk about the Earth as "billions of years old" (and the concept may even be helpful in furthering our understanding of the Earth), but this has as little meaning as "the square root of minus 1" (which still has its uses in mathematics) or as "a unicorn's horn" (which has its mythological uses). The existence of a word for a thing - even for a useful thing - is no proof for the existence of that same thing.
The Earth therefore cannot be "older" than the age of human language in which the concept "old" first appeared. "Old" or "young" mean nothing without a human to express them. Nor do the words "God", "Earth" or any other word.
So phrases such as OLD or YOUNG EARTH only start to mean something when human speech first appears. The words that allow us to speak of the Earth and its age mark the beginning:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the WORD.
The Earth is therefore YOUNG, probably no older than the last Ice Age, since human speech began round about that time
44 comments
Aha!
The Earth therefore cannot be "older" than the age of human language in which the concept "old" first appeared. "Old" or "young" mean nothing without a human to express them. Nor do the words "God", "Earth" or any other word.
And since, according to John, the Word was God, God has no meaning without humans.
Ergo, humans created God, not the other way round.
Brilliant! Let us all thank disruptor for inadvertantly proving what we've all known all along.
Now, does it matter WHICH language the word "old" exists in? If you accept that the earth can't be "older" than human speech, and also accept that it means it can't be "older" than the last ice age, that makes the earth around 12,000 years old. Older than that little Bible thing that you're trying to use to support your idea. Sooooo...is the Bible wrong, or is your theory? Because one of them HAS to be, and both can NOT be right...so, which is it?
By the way, modern scholors and scientists place the origin of language at between 2,000,000 and 40,000 years ago, long before both your theory AND the Bible say the Earth existed. Plus your "theory" even contradicts the Bible, since god created the Earth before Adam and Eve, and the Bible even calls it the Earth, yet no human existed at that point to speak. So using your idea, the Earth existed but couldn't exist.
This is the dumbest misunderstanding of language that I have ever seen. Congratulations, disruptor, you have managed to go where only a few fundies have gone before, and directly attacked my faith in humanity. Asswipe.
So, before people developed language they didn't age?
"The Earth therefore cannot be "older" than the age of human language in which the concept "old" first appeared."
You are a class A, top-shelf, bone fide shithead. Of course, one can refer to things that are older than human language. You really are a stunningly stupid piece of work.
This really hurts.
The existence of a word for a thing - even for a useful thing - is no proof for the existence of that same thing.
He gets that part right. Things existed prior to the words which describe those things. And some words (God comes to mind) describe things which do not exist.
But then in an increadible flip of logic he says, "The Earth therefore cannot be 'older' than the age of human language in which the concept 'old' first appeared."
WTF!
And then, "The Earth is therefore YOUNG, probably no older than the last Ice Age, since human speech began round about that time"
So, genious, what was here before the Ice Age? An unnamed planet.
The Earth is young because it only got a name since there were humans to name it. It was there before but since it had no name, it did not exist???!
Oh, brother! This is rich! That may be the wildest assertion I've seen yet concerning how to determine the age of the Earth. This has got to be Post of the Month material at the very least.
As insane as those YEC folk are on that forum, I was impressed that they are treating this assertion as less than solid. Of course, some of their arguments are built on just as much air themselves, but at least they aren't completely without standards. 9_9
Even though they don't have the first idea of what constitutes truly rational critical thinking, they are doing their darnedest to mimic the form of it, if not the substance, in not jumping to accept another idea that purports to support theirs without kicking its tires a bit first.
~David D.G.
The Fundie Word Redefinition Project has moved into it's next phase: changing the nature of language itself. Tune in next week when up becomes down, bad becomes good, and evolution becomes some sort of ham sandwich.
True what you say David. No standards at all!
A nice hybrid between postmodernism and fundamentalism. The hybrid is of course sterile.
<<The Earth is therefore YOUNG, probably no older than the last Ice Age, since human speech began round about that time>>
And where exactly would that beginning of human speech have taken place I wonder? Not to mention the implied previous Ice Ages.
The most disgusting thing for me in this post was that (in a paragraph I didn't include in the submission) Disruptor quotes Wittgenstein in support of his ansine "reasoning". Wittgenstein was perhaps the subtlest and deepest philosopher of the 20th century, and dozens of lengthy scholarly articles have been written discussing the interpretation of single sentences of his works. The gall of this retarded poster in presuming that he understands Wittgenstein's philosophy, and that it supports the ridiculous idea that reality literally did not exist before the human ability to talk about it, is almost too much to be believed.
"The Earth is therefore YOUNG, probably no older than the last Ice Age, since human speech began round about that time"
Ironically, those first words were: "goddamn it's cold!"
g-21-lto #41989
<< I have to give disruptor points for creativity, but these will all be taken away in the deficit of points he has earned for the actual content of this post. >>
-----------------------
"So, 10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking, eh?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox
~David D.G.
i is a tricky little devil, but just occasionally useful, if you're into that kind of thing, you dastardly perverts.
I am utterly amused at the convoluted thinking that these people come up with. These are some of the best chuckles I get all day. It is obvious to everyone that there is no stretch of the imagination, no idea too preposterous, for these mental midgets to come with too try to explain these half-wit religions that ARE man-made. It's no wonder that logic and thoughtful consideration is frowned upon by religionist, because they know that it only takes a small amount of either to see through such asinine explanations as put forth by this deluded fellow. Apparently, his name "disruptor" applies to whatever has severed the nueral pathways that transfer rational thought from his brain to the outlet of such ideas; i.e., his fingers on a keyboard.
I can refute this with a basic logic proof.
disrupter argues correctly that the existence of a word is no proof of the existence of the thing it describes. Essentially, if NOT A then NOT B, when all he's proved is if A then MAYBE B.
Dumbass.
This may be a hard concept for you, disruptor, but some of us have developed this neat idea called "object permanence." What that means is this: Objects don't disappear when we're not around to look at or name them. Most of us learn it as babies, but you seem to be an exception.
But.... what if there's an alien race out there, billions of years old, who had the word "old" in their language billions of years ago? That would mean the earth is billions of years old!
Things can exist without a name for them dumbass - I'm sure you've existed for more than a few minutes, but I bet more than a few words have been invented after reading your drivel ;)
OK let me get this straight, the world did not exist until we made up the word for it.
Did we exist before we made up the word for us?
It must've been damn awkward sitting in the middle of nothing until some bright spark said, "Hey let's sit on something Earthy." And that was great for a few thousand years till some prick said, "Hey, let's make it spherical, so we don't fall off the edge like Johnno just did." And then Sir Isaac Newton 'invented' gravity. Then Einstein took it one step too far. And Heisenberg took it two steps too far, and now there's fucking string theory!
@Crosis
This isn't just redefining words. This is redefining the entire concept of language!
This is redefining the entire concept of stupid!
@disruptor
The Earth is therefore YOUNG, probably no older than the last Ice Age, since human speech began round about that time
Yes, the earth was born of the ice of Niflheim, merged with the fires of Muspelheim, corrupted by Tiamat, which was slain by the mighty Thor, who then defeated the wretched frost-ogres. I know one creationist who definitely won a ticket to Asgard when he dies!
You know that there are new, up-to-then-unknown species of animals and plants discovered all the time? Did these animals and plants just pop into existence the moment they are named? Then how are they discovered if they do not exist without a name?
It seems your “logic” does not hold up very well
If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is around, does it make a sound? Your argument is no, it does not make a sound. And even if it did, it is completely without meaning and significance because their was nobody there to interpret it as such. Pretty fucking arrogant. Ask me the same question and I would say yes, it does make a sound. Just because a human being isn't around to hear and interpret it, doesn't mean that it didn't fucking happen or that it holds no meaning or importance, it just means that a person wouldn't be there to call it "important" or "meaningful." Words are meaningless, "actions speak louder than words," so on and so forth.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.