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
See more
See less

What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Using your logic regarding "calling a spade a spade", we should be lambasting you with pejoratives like stink on a rotting carcass.

    BTW, that would be tit-for-tat, which would not be nice.

    K54
    True.

    I think that when some of these folk use that kind of language, it's justified because "Jesus also got cross and called a spade a spade".

    When we use that kind of language it simply shows what reprobates we are, under the influence of Satan. Hence we deserve it.


    Gotta wonder what religion does to the minds of some personalities. With some, it inspires noble deeds. With others it inspires extreme stupidity and self glorification.


    As an example, this last week, Iíve stuck a couple of YECs who are not backward in boasting of their intimate relationship with God, and who are not backward at implicitly calling you a liar, because you accept evolution and attempt to persuade others of its veracity. Yet at the same time, you catch them out on a few occasions literally doing just that which they damn you for - namely lying. Real, actual, true blue porkies. And they do it without conscience. Itís as if their interpretation of the Bible says that they can do it, but damnation to anyone else they think does it.

    That really is religion gone screwball. I often wonder, does the religion make the personality like that, or is the personality attracted to that particular version of religion?

    You get other folk who share the same religion, but are intelligent, articulate, and down right decent folk.
    Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 05:43 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      Give us a testable hypothesis -- a specific hypothesis -- and we won't have to waste your time.

      K54

      P.S. The star formation example Jim gave is testable and is in fact supported since we can DIRECTLY observe star systems at various stages of formation. We see planetary nebulae, a system in the t-Tauri stage, exoplanets, etc. It's like an alien space mission landing on Earth and trying to figure out H. sapiens lifecycle but having only three days to do so. They would observe women becoming pregnant, babies being born, toddlers, children, adolescents, young adults, adults in the reproductive stage, adults past the reproductive stage, very worn-out adults, and finally people dying. The only point where this analogy fails is that the aliens would have no way of measuring the time it takes. Astronomers have that luxury due to vast distances and the finite speed of light in vacuo.

      Oh, just a tangential note in passing -- if you think light has changed speed or radioactive decay rates have change, then Google "Supernova 1987a". But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
      You appear to be nothing more than a parrot - incapable of original / independent thinking - that merely regurgitates arguments that he has heard. The "star formation" you speak of is but a weak hypothesis based on a number of assumptions, the main one being ideological, not scientific. NO ONE has seen a star form, nor can they because the (alleged) process takes vast amounts of time. What the Faithful (as yourself) have done is observe one thing and then another and a third. Then they create a model that ties them together as "different stages of a single process".

      The comparison you give with a pregnant woman is ridiculous, disingenuous and not entirely honest. It's also a very familiar cop-out by people in your Faith System - "we cannot observe it because it takes too long for humans to observe". Yeah, right. Hey, there was a unicorn in my back yard - honest! - but he was moving too fast for me to take a picture of it. So, are you convinced of the unicorn in my back yard? I didn't think so. Just because YOU wish to adopt certain beliefs doesn't me that others that are more discerning and critical than you are have to adopt those beliefs.

      BTW, is someone paying you to torment me? It really doesn't matter because in two days I'll be on travel and I'll put the whole flock of you critters into my back burner. Maybe I'll have a bit of time to kill and open up TWeb on my trip but I won't try very hard. I mean, why would I - to speak with people .... (errr, erase that) ... with regurgitating parrots incapable of original thinking?

      Jorge
      Last edited by Jorge; 04-24-2014, 05:52 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        NO ONE has seen a star form, nor can they because the (alleged) process takes vast amounts of time.

        Jorge
        So Jorge, about this true evolution as opposed to false evolution.

        Has anyone directly observed variation/sub-speciation happening in the wild such that they saw that it was a natural process, and God did not actually cause it by direct command?

        The Bible always tells us that God causes rain and rainfall by his direct action and direct command. Nowhere does it tell us that God created natural process to cause rain and rainfall. So do you believe the Bible concerning this matter, or do you believe meteorological science which claims that rain and rain fall are caused by natural processes.
        Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 05:57 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rwatts View Post
          Hi Jorge,

          I note you completely avoided my claim that your micro/macro distinction is utterly charged with non neutral metaphysics, even your micro claims are not metaphysically neutral. They are full of non neutral metaphysics.

          Afraid to discuss it Jorge?




          I only wrote that we do have something. I made no claim that we were nearly there. Here are two examples of the kind of thing we do have:-

          http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ja0706955

          http://phys.org/news/2012-10-rna-rib...5dResearchers/


          There is a lot of this kind of stuff in the research literature.


But Jorge, what you did not want to see was this question:-



          Be honest Jorge. You simply ran off when you saw that one. Care to address it now, or do you remain running?


          Oh, I'd be rich if I were given 5 cents for every time a creationist wrote this as opposed to addressing the points of an argument. I've had it put to me two or three times this week by creationists, devoid of anything to say. Jorge? I can just as easily write to you "I can only suggest that if you genuinely seek the truth ..."
          I've had plenty - I mean PLENTY - of experience with you, Roland, and the only person that beats you hands down was Tiggy. I honestly reached the conclusion that 'your cheese has slid off the cracker' and don't bother with you any more (other than to poke fun, like here). You seem like a "nice" enough fella' but that's about as far as I'll go. Take care.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            I've had plenty - I mean PLENTY - of experience with you, Roland, and the only person that beats you hands down was Tiggy. I honestly reached the conclusion that 'your cheese has slid off the cracker' and don't bother with you any more (other than to poke fun, like here). You seem like a "nice" enough fella' but that's about as far as I'll go. Take care.

            Jorge
            Is your reply the reply of a courageous Christian who is guided by God, and can thus address questions in a forthright and honest manner, or is it one from a coward who really has no answer beyond bluster?

            When you were running the USAF, did any one respond to questions and points of argument from you, in the way you respond to questions and points of argument here? If so, what did you say to them?
            Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 06:03 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rwatts View Post
              So Jorge, about this true evolution as opposed to false evolution.

              Has anyone directly observed variation/sub-speciation happening in the wild such that they saw that it was a natural process, and God did not actually cause it by direct command?

              The Bible always tells us that God causes rain and rainfall by his direct action and direct command. Nowhere does it tell us that God created natural process to cause rain and rainfall. So do you believe the Bible concerning this matter, or do you believe meteorological science which claims that rain and rain fall are caused by natural processes.
              See what I mean? You've been harping that ill-conceived argument for so long that it has rusted through-and-through and I've given up on it. Oops ... Out of time ................. have a good night.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                See what I mean? You've been harping that ill-conceived argument for so long that it has rusted through-and-through and I've given up on it. Oops ... Out of time ................. have a good night.

                Jorge
                How is it ill-conceived Jorge?

                You have no answer to that question, do you Jorge. So ....

                Originally posted by Jorge
                have a good night.
                ... you run away again.

                Running away is NEVER nice. And surely it is not Godly behaviour.
                Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 06:07 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  See what I mean? You've been harping that ill-conceived argument for so long that it has rusted through-and-through and I've given up on it. Oops ... Out of time ................. have a good night.

                  Jorge
                  Jorge, I am fascinated by your method of arguing, because I see it so often from YECs across the various forums and on facebook. They will often argue only by assertion, always ask questions and rarely (if never) explain anything, and will often post bible verses along the lines of "they are without excuse". Many will even claim that they have a superior wisdom to the rest of us, given the nature of their belief.

                  You almost always argue by assertion. Please correct me if I am wrong but is this because, as a person who has been reborn in Christ, a person who believes the Bible, a person who has an intimate relationship with God, and a person whose every word and deed are guided by and inspired by God, then do you think that your assertions are all that is needed when dealing with your opponents?
                  Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 07:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    You appear to be nothing more than a parrot - incapable of original / independent thinking - that merely regurgitates arguments that he has heard. The "star formation" you speak of is but a weak hypothesis based on a number of assumptions, the main one being ideological, not scientific. NO ONE has seen a star form, nor can they because the (alleged) process takes vast amounts of time. What the Faithful (as yourself) have done is observe one thing and then another and a third. Then they create a model that ties them together as "different stages of a single process".

                    The comparison you give with a pregnant woman is ridiculous, disingenuous and not entirely honest. It's also a very familiar cop-out by people in your Faith System - "we cannot observe it because it takes too long for humans to observe". Yeah, right. Hey, there was a unicorn in my back yard - honest! - but he was moving too fast for me to take a picture of it. So, are you convinced of the unicorn in my back yard? I didn't think so. Just because YOU wish to adopt certain beliefs doesn't me that others that are more discerning and critical than you are have to adopt those beliefs.

                    BTW, is someone paying you to torment me? It really doesn't matter because in two days I'll be on travel and I'll put the whole flock of you critters into my back burner. Maybe I'll have a bit of time to kill and open up TWeb on my trip but I won't try very hard. I mean, why would I - to speak with people .... (errr, erase that) ... with regurgitating parrots incapable of original thinking?

                    Jorge
                    My analogy was sound and cogent. How else would you propose astronomers to observe a star's lifecycle? Build a time-machine (actually a finite c is sort of a time machine)? You realize you just committed petitio principe again? It's a the ol' YEC canard "Wuz u dere, Charley?"

                    So give us a testable hypothesis generated by ID. Try harder this time. I have faith in you.

                    K54

                    P.S. Did you get that "unicorn" thing from the AKJV1611?
                    Last edited by klaus54; 04-24-2014, 09:49 PM. Reason: "T" wasn't in the green scare highlighting

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      What you call "derogatory comments" is nothing more than me calling a spade, a spade. I'm sorry that the you find the truth "derogatory", Jim.
                      Jorge, good grief man. To follow Christ means to lay down the old man with its self justification and hypocrisy. EVERYONE reading this thread can see you are rude and self absorbed and virtually incapable of accepting any sort of personal moral reponsibility for your actions. Grow up. Please.

                      The three "simple" counter-examples that you provide are embarrassing, to say the least. Don't you realize that you are invoking something that you need to first demonstrate? No, of course you don't.

                      1) I'm pointing out just how poorly defined your terms are.

                      2) We observe these processes at all phases. THE ONLY POWER CAPABLE OF PREVENTING NATURAL FORCES AND TIME FROM CONNECTING THEM IS GOD HIMSELF. Literally trillions of examples across the universe. Stars and planetary systems are forming by the millions across this Galaxy alone. And each one is a complex, functioning system. And the instructions that drive their formation where written onto the very fabric of space time within the first day of creation.

                      You are assuming that Mars, the Sun and the Solar System self-organized ... that is PRECISELY what hard-core Materialists assume. How many times over the years have I pointed out the extremely high level of solidarity that you have with Materialists? You see, for me self-organization was NOT how Mars, the Sun and the solar system came about. You may believe what you will, but don't be telling the world that you believe in one thing when you preach another.
                      Recognizing God's hand in the natural He has created is fundamental. And goes to the heart of Roland's repeated question to you about the rain. The natural world can't exist 1 second if God choses to remove His sustaing power. So it's not does God send the rain or is it just a natural thing and the Bible is wrong to say He sends it. It is that God sends the rain AND it is a natural thing.

                      God created the Earth and Mars and the Sun AND they formed over time and in accordance with the same physical laws we see forming stars and planetary systems all across this galaxy.

                      A mini-digression: Why don't you just come out, Jim? ... you know, just as Sylas did. I remember exchanging posts with Sylas when he was in your camp and I 'predicted' that he was on the path towards abandoning God altogether. When he finally made his announcement, I for one was not the least bit surprised. End of mini-digression.
                      You would like that, wouldn't you? To justify your own theology and interpretation of scripture you literally would rather see your brother in Christ fall away and face Eternity in Hell. THAT is truly pathetic. I truly, truly hope that fate does not befall you Jorge. I pray only that, in spite of our disagreements in this area, you will know the joy of standing before God in the end having finished the race well.

                      I simply could not imagine ever actually encouraging a soul to do that. Wow!


                      Without your assumption, you have nothing - absolutely nada! Hey, let me prove that unicorns exist, okay? Watch: "My back yard was grazed upon and I have no cows. Therefore, it was a unicorn. QED." That is about what you did except that your adherence to an ideology blinds you to that fact.

                      Get a clue, O-Mudd. If you listen to me, you will.

                      Jorge
                      Probably not Jorge. Probably not.



                      Jim
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 04-24-2014, 10:03 PM.
                      Mockery is the argument of the mentally and/or emotionally challenged.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                        Jorge, I am fascinated by your method of arguing, because I see it so often from YECs across the various forums and on facebook. They will often argue only by assertion, always ask questions and rarely (if never) explain anything, and will often post bible verses along the lines of "they are without excuse". Many will even claim that they have a superior wisdom to the rest of us, given the nature of their belief.

                        You almost always argue by assertion. Please correct me if I am wrong but is this because, as a person who has been reborn in Christ, a person who believes the Bible, a person who has an intimate relationship with God, and a person whose every word and deed are guided by and inspired by God, then do you think that your assertions are all that is needed when dealing with your opponents?
                        Yes, the venerable fallacy of projection. It's rife in YEC argumentation from their use of "presuppositions" to "Wuz u dere? Hmmm...??" and lots twixt and 'tween. Oh, yes, and of course the "argument by assertion".

                        Jorge, Get back to the OP. Flesh out "Biblical Scientific Creation" for us. Just a tiny little bit. Please! Bitte! Por favor! Παρακαλώ!

                        OK, If you want to keep harping on how ID is science, then show us one of its testable hypotheses. I mean one using terminology that has standard and tenable definition.

                        I'm going to play the Jorge game for a bit, i.e., argue via ipse dixit. 1) Creationism is scientific because (in some of its forms) is falsifiable. Unfortunately, it has been falsified ad nauseum. 2) ID is NOT scientific since it makes no testable hypotheses (without using neologism and bluster), hence is not falsifiable. It is rather a philosophy/theology rather than natural science. And PLEASE don't bring up self-assembling LED TVs or something like that.

                        Thanks again for your forbearance.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          You realize you just committed petitio principe again? It's a the ol' YEC canard "Wuz u dere, Charley?"
                          Naturally, this leads to the question for creationists such as Jorge. Was he there to directly observe God having a hand in the writing of any Biblical text; to directly observe whether or not the author was writing about anything real, that actually happened; and if so whether or not the author recorded it with 100% accuracy?

                          Mature, sensible Christians simply don't get into these tangles, because they don't try those idiotic arguments in the first place.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            Yes, the venerable fallacy of projection. It's rife in YEC argumentation from their use of "presuppositions" to "Wuz u dere? Hmmm...??" and lots twixt and 'tween. Oh, yes, and of course the "argument by assertion".

                            Jorge, Get back to the OP. Flesh out "Biblical Scientific Creation" for us. Just a tiny little bit. Please! Bitte! Por favor! Παρακαλώ!

                            OK, If you want to keep harping on how ID is science, then show us one of its testable hypotheses. I mean one using terminology that has standard and tenable definition.

                            I'm going to play the Jorge game for a bit, i.e., argue via ipse dixit. 1) Creationism is scientific because (in some of its forms) is falsifiable. Unfortunately, it has been falsified ad nauseum. 2) ID is NOT scientific since it makes no testable hypotheses (without using neologism and bluster), hence is not falsifiable. It is rather a philosophy/theology rather than natural science. And PLEASE don't bring up self-assembling LED TVs or something like that.

                            Thanks again for your forbearance.

                            K54
                            Hey, Santa, please allow me to ask, what have you been snorting?

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                              Jorge, I am fascinated by your method of arguing, because I see it so often from YECs across the various forums and on facebook. They will often argue only by assertion, always ask questions and rarely (if never) explain anything, and will often post bible verses along the lines of "they are without excuse". Many will even claim that they have a superior wisdom to the rest of us, given the nature of their belief.

                              You almost always argue by assertion. Please correct me if I am wrong but is this because, as a person who has been reborn in Christ, a person who believes the Bible, a person who has an intimate relationship with God, and a person whose every word and deed are guided by and inspired by God, then do you think that your assertions are all that is needed when dealing with your opponents?
                              To write what you do above you must either be (1) ignorant or, (2) dishonest. There is no third alternative. Hoping that you are a "decent person", I will believe that you are merely ignorant. Ignorance may be remedied through study and honest reflection. If, on the other hand, you are inherently dishonest then I'm afraid that there's no cure for that. I would then simply leave you in God's hands and wish you well. Pick ONE, Roland --- as I said, there is no 3rd choice.

                              By the way, exactly same applies to Santa (K54) and to others here on TWeb (whom I shall not mention so as to not embarrass them - but they know who they are).

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                                My analogy was sound and cogent. How else would you propose astronomers to observe a star's lifecycle? Build a time-machine (actually a finite c is sort of a time machine)? You realize you just committed petitio principe again? It's a the ol' YEC canard "Wuz u dere, Charley?"
                                You just proved my point and for that I thank you. Yup, we cannot observe a star's formation, we can merely infer it based on some hypothetical model (that was my point). The problem is that much of what we do know goes AGAINST the possibility of natural star formation. Many DIRECT observations oppose all existing models (e.g., if I recall stars aren't suppose to be able to exceed a certain mass (8 solar masses, again on recollection) yet we observe thousands of stars exceeding that mass).

                                Look, I don't think that you people are either knowledgeable enough nor honest enough for this type of debate so why not just drop it, okay?

                                Jorge


                                So give us a testable hypothesis generated by ID. Try harder this time. I have faith in you.

                                K54

                                P.S. Did you get that "unicorn" thing from the AKJV1611?
                                I DID give you a testable hypothesis and, as fast as your legs could carry you, you and your ideological compadres ran for the hills. Just as you squirmed out of my "unicorn" scenario after realizing that that was precisely what you are practicing. Oh, wait ... you practice "real science". Bwahahahahaha

                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                15 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-21-2021, 08:13 AM
                                13 responses
                                40 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Sparko, 07-20-2021, 06:52 AM
                                45 responses
                                138 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-18-2021, 12:17 PM
                                19 responses
                                69 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X