Originally posted by Jorge
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Watching planets form ...
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostFIFY n/cJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View Postwrong hole
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYes- Really. Case in point - Saturn's rings. What creates the gaps in them? The presence of moons both within and outside the ring system.
These gaps are direct evidence for planets which are clearing their orbits of debris - and in the process growing (forming).
This disk is itself the leftover from the star's original formation from a disk of gas and dust - that we can see in earlier stages in the Orion Nebula for one.
As for 'catching in snares', if my words show that to follow Christ does not mean the rejection of thousands of plain and simple facts about the world in which we live, then I have in all likelihood saved many from the snare you and Ken Ham have created by defining the truth of the scripture as dependent upon the falsity of these same known and simple facts (e.g. that the universe is 13+ billion years old, the Earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years in age, and life has a history of over 500 million years on that same Earth)
Jim
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI'm not an expert on that element, and I can't guarantee the comments that follow are necessarily 'orthodox' on that subject. But I don't think OEC/TE necessarily defines a position one way or the other. The "Big Bang" itself is often regarded as essentially "creation ex nihilo". But it gets fuzzy in terms of 'what do you mean by "nothing"', as one can see just on concurrent thread on ZPE and the definition of 'what is a vacuum'. The Bible says life was formed from the Earth (man from the dust of the Earth) and so on, so Biblically, creation ex nihilo refers to something before the 'Spirit of God was hovering over the waters', something before when God place the stars in the heavens, or brought forth the dry land from the waters. by those events, 'something' had already been produced from 'nothing'.
So I guess I'm not exactly sure how that connects with my original comments about God continuing to create as regards stars and planets, why one would regard the current process as necessarily (Biblically) distinct from how God created what we see in the heavens at night? Do you see it necessary that the stars we see in the sky at night where produced by a process different from what is producing stars today?
Jim
Why must the obvious have to be reminded for you guys?
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI think that is a tad cynical if you are referring to the OEC/TE take on things. It describes Deism well. I personally know very few Christians that would profess faith in the physical Resurrection that would limit God's involvement in the world past present or future in such an austere way - regardless of their take on the mechanism or timeframe of creation. I personally describe myself as TE/CE but find no reason to doubt that God works and has worked directly in the lives of people all over the world. And that there are in fact miracles of God in the world: past, present, and future.
Jim
Until you accept the fact that you are in fact a BS* (it's not what you think), you will never, ever, escape your errors. I've been telling you that for many years.
*BS = Biblical Selectionist = a person that selects/accepts from the Bible what he/she wants to accept -- because it supports his/her presupposed beliefs -- and rejects all else from the Bible.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostYou possess a delusion of the worst kind - the kind that you are totally unaware of.
Jorge
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View Post"I personally describe myself as TE/CE ..."
Until you accept the fact that you are in fact a BS* (it's not what you think), you will never, ever, escape your errors. I've been telling you that for many years.
*BS = Biblical Selectionist = a person that selects/accepts from the Bible what he/she wants to accept -- because it supports his/her presupposed beliefs -- and rejects all else from the Bible.
Jorge
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostAnd here is your problem Jorge. When the reality of the situation challenges your theology, rather than accept the evidence your theology is flawed, you deny reality. Here you simply dismiss the physical facts that allow us to understand what those gaps mean in terms of planet formation. Planets are forming, and we are seeing a snapshot of that process in the image that is in the OP of this thread. But that challenges your theology, and so rather than accept that reality, you just deny it and cast it out of your mind, and then project your own deficiencies onto those that point the reality out to you.
Jim
What "reality" is it that you think "challenges my theology"? Tell me, because I don't know of any.
Do I have unanswered questions and "mysteries" in my life/theology? Yes, of course, as does everyone else. But that is an acceptable condition, a consequence of my limitations. That said, the weight of the supporting evidence far, FAR exceeds the weight of those unanswered questions. Furthermore, I do not have to blatantly DISTORT God's Holy Word as do (TEs, PEs, Atheists and Humanists) nor deny many observable facts in order to retain my theological position. You cannot say the same and I have demonstrated as much over the years.
The truth is that I do not (now or ever) emphatically-dogmatically deny the possibility that planets and/or stars may form naturally. You keep missing that point. My position is simply that I do not believe that they can and, furthermore, that there is no unequivocal evidence to support the opposite. Over the decades I've read hundreds of writings claiming that it is possible and I was able to shoot holes through all of it quite easily. Lastly, yes, observations may be INTERPRETED as said evidence. But interpretations sans hard evidence are opinions, no more. The basic physics does not support it - period!
The fact of the matter is that the Evolutionary Paradigm -- which you wholeheartedly embrace and which dictates your interpretation of EVERYTHING, from the natural world around you to God's Holy Word -- demands that you believe in natural planet-star formation even if you had nothing to stand on. It's all downhill after that.
Repeating: you will never, ever escape your errors until you face those facts.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostYou make me feel like a seasoned, educated adult having a conversation with a three-year-old.
What "reality" is it that you think "challenges my theology"? Tell me, because I don't know of any.
The science is quite solid for both of these, YOU don't believe they form because of the theology of it. And the fact you are not honest enough to admit it is telling.
Do I have unanswered questions and "mysteries" in my life/theology? Yes, of course, as does everyone else. But that is an acceptable condition, a consequence of my limitations. That said, the weight of the supporting evidence far, FAR exceeds the weight of those unanswered questions. Furthermore, I do not have to blatantly DISTORT God's Holy Word as do (TEs, PEs, Atheists and Humanists) nor deny many observable facts in order to retain my theological position. You cannot say the same and I have demonstrated as much over the years.
The truth is that I do not (now or ever) emphatically-dogmatically deny the possibility that planets and/or stars may form naturally. You keep missing that point. My position is simply that I do not believe that they can and,
furthermore, that there is no unequivocal evidence to support the opposite.
Over the decades I've read hundreds of writings claiming that it is possible and I was able to shoot holes through all of it quite easily.
My prediction: you won't be able to muster one solid argument against the evidence itself in either case.
Lastly, yes, observations may be INTERPRETED as said evidence. But interpretations sans hard evidence are opinions, no more. The basic physics does not support it - period!
The fact of the matter is that the Evolutionary Paradigm -- which you wholeheartedly embrace and which dictates your interpretation of EVERYTHING, from the natural world around you to God's Holy Word -- demands that you believe in natural planet-star formation even if you had nothing to stand on. It's all downhill after that.
No Jorge - the evidence itself demands an evolutionary conclusion. You have it all backwards. The early geologists STARTED believing in a 10,000 year old Earth and a global flood. The evidence is what undid their position. I started as a YEC and anti-evolution. I had no desire to be anything else, and my current position is the result of looking for evidence to SUPPORT that position - and likewise, the evidence forced a different conclusion. The only difference between you and I Jorge is I am honest about what the data implies.
Repeating: you will never, ever escape your errors until you face those facts.
Jorge
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostThis perspective is neither evangelical nor biblical. As Jim said, this is a deistic perspective.
Biblically, there is no "machine" and no "play" button. Rather, the universe is continually held together by God. It cannot exist for a nanosecond unless He actively upholds it. This is how my evangelical OEC and TE friends view it.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo Jorge - the evidence itself demands an evolutionary conclusion. You have it all backwards. The early geologists STARTED believing in a 10,000 year old Earth and a global flood. The evidence is what undid their position. I started as a YEC and anti-evolution. I had no desire to be anything else, and my current position is the result of looking for evidence to SUPPORT that position - and likewise, the evidence forced a different conclusion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge the welcherThe truth is that I do not (now or ever) emphatically-dogmatically deny the possibility that planets and/or stars may form naturally. You keep missing that point. My position is simply that I do not believe that they canJorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 06-20-2024, 09:11 PM
|
29 responses
172 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:33 AM |
Comment