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 Jorge View Post

    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
    And so we identify at least one source of Jorge's inability to discuss the issues in a reasoned fashion. He has not one clue what a testable hypothesis is!

    Jim
    My 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 Post
      And so we identify at least one source of Jorge's inability to discuss the issues in a reasoned fashion. He has not one clue what a testable hypothesis is!

      Jim
      Hmmm ... I've worked in science-related fields for essentially all of my professional career (~ 40 years) including at Air Force Laboratories, Los Alamos National Lab, NASA @ Cape Canaveral (defense contractor), private industry and at my own business.

      Yet, Mr. Blowhard O-Mudd here says that "Jorge doesn't know what a testable hypothesis is".

      The only possible conclusion is that ol' Mr. Blowhard once again doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Yet he makes himself sound so "authoritative" that the casual onlooker is fooled.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Hey, Santa, please allow me to ask, what have you been snorting?

        Jorge
        in fact, yes. I snort and blow coffee out my nose laughing so hard at your non-responses to cogent questions.

        Thanks for nothin'. Now go try harder.

        K54

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          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




          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
          We DO make DIRECT observations of stars at various stages of their formation -- just in different places (and at different times due to a finite c.) I guess you didn't get my simple alien Earth explorer analogy, which BTW was a bit weaker than the processes of star formation we directly OBSERVE.

          And as Jim and I pointed out, you have NOT given us a testable hypothesis for ID since your feeble attempt has 1) undefined terms, 2) no specification of what you mean by a complex system, 3) apparently anthropomorphic ideas like a Toyota Camry assembling itself from iron ore.

          Give us a testable hypothesis using objects found in nature, hmmm... like stars.

          Grade - "D-" for effort. Paper returned for a fourth draft. You're running out of re-tries, so PLEASE try harder this time!

          K54

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Hmmm ... I've worked in science-related fields for essentially all of my professional career (~ 40 years) including at Air Force Laboratories, Los Alamos National Lab, NASA @ Cape Canaveral (defense contractor), private industry and at my own business.

            Yet, Mr. Blowhard O-Mudd here says that "Jorge doesn't know what a testable hypothesis is".

            The only possible conclusion is that ol' Mr. Blowhard once again doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Yet he makes himself sound so "authoritative" that the casual onlooker is fooled.

            Jorge
            Jim "Blowhard" OxycleansMudd is CORRECT. You DON'T know what a testable hypothesis is. What kind of "science" did you do where you wouldn't have learned the concept of hypothesis testing? OTOH, Jim appears to understand scientific method quite well. I would guess he has a degree in and has worked in a science field.

            Ok, let's drop the ID banter for awhile and go back to an attempt to get you to flesh out what "Biblical Scientific Creation" is in relation to the Genesis creation stories. Start with Ge 1:1 - 2:3 and explain precisely and scientifically what "Elohim said, 'Let there be light" means.

            Try harder. I KNOW you can do it, I have faith in you!

            K54
            Last edited by klaus54; 04-25-2014, 08:27 AM. Reason: word omissions

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Hmmm ... I've worked in science-related fields for essentially all of my professional career (~ 40 years) including at Air Force Laboratories, Los Alamos National Lab, NASA @ Cape Canaveral (defense contractor), private industry and at my own business.
              ...
              Sounds like you did technology or applied science. What hypothesis testing did you do?

              The only possible conclusion is that ol' Mr. Blowhard once again doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Yet he makes himself sound so "authoritative" that the casual onlooker is fooled.

              Jorge
              Projection par excellence.

              K54

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                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).
                Silly fellow. So all airplane flights are miraculous events at the hand of God because someone once modeled manned flight and found that according to his assumptions it was impossible?

                Are you seriously going to suggest that because stars exist that are higher in mass than someone once thought ought to be possible they therefore MUST be formed miraculously?

                The fact a model is countered by reality is NOT a reason to infer that process is impossible without divine intervention.

                As I said in the post you so conveniently ignored, the phases we observe, unless God Himself intervenes and STOPS the natural processes themselves, will connect simply by continuing from where they are to the next observed phase. It is that simple. Your key points have to do with what initiates collapse IIRC. And while there may be problems modeling that, we CAN and DO observe it. Likewise circumstellar disks. Likewise circumstellar disks CLEANED by the forming planets and so on and so forth.

                You sit in a 'God of the gaps' mentality. Anything we can't explain that fits your theology is necessarily impossible and proves God did it according to your assumptions drawn from a simplistic reading of scripture. And when a gap goes away, "out of sight, out of mind". You just move on to the next one, unfazed by the fact you are wrong over and over again. Witness the extra-solar planets fiasco, records of which still exist in the minds of Oh so many who post here. Or the meteor cater fiasco which still flies prominantly over at 'trueorigins'.


                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 04-25-2014, 09:08 AM.
                My 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 rwatts View Post
                  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.
                  Afaict, it all comes down to personality.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Hey, Santa, please allow me to ask, what have you been snorting?

                    Jorge
                    Some things never change. Disagree with Jorge and he assumes you must be drunk/stoned, delusional and /or stupid.

                    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 klaus54 View Post
                      We DO make DIRECT observations of stars at various stages of their formation -- just in different places (and at different times due to a finite c.)
                      Sort of like how no one person has seen a redwood tree grow from seedling to a full sized mature tree. But we can see it in various stages of growth and reasonably assume that it grows from seed to tree in a natural manner without miraculous intervention.

                      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 Post
                        Silly fellow. So all airplane flights are miraculous events at the hand of God because someone once modeled manned flight and found that according to his assumptions it was impossible?

                        Are you seriously going to suggest that because stars exist that are higher in mass than someone once thought ought to be possible they therefore MUST be formed miraculously?

                        The fact a model is countered by reality is NOT a reason to infer that process is impossible without divine intervention.

                        As I said in the post you so conveniently ignored, the phases we observe, unless God Himself intervenes and STOPS the natural processes themselves, will connect simply by continuing from where they are to the next observed phase. It is that simple. Your key points have to do with what initiates collapse IIRC. And while there may be problems modeling that, we CAN and DO observe it. Likewise circumstellar disks. Likewise circumstellar disks CLEANED by the forming planets and so on and so forth.

                        You sit in a 'God of the gaps' mentality. Anything we can't explain that fits your theology is necessarily impossible and proves God did it according to your assumptions drawn from a simplistic reading of scripture. And when a gap goes away, "out of sight, out of mind". You just move on to the next one, unfazed by the fact you are wrong over and over again. Witness the extra-solar planets fiasco, records of which still exist in the minds of Oh so many who post here. Or the meteor cater fiasco which still flies prominantly over at 'trueorigins'.


                        Jim
                        1) Hummingbirds.

                        2) And bad theology. Once one thinks one has run out of "gaps" then one starts thinking like an ontological naturalist --> short leap to full-blown atheism. I wonder whether Jorge has ever considered that progression, and the potential damage he is doing?

                        K54
                        Last edited by klaus54; 04-25-2014, 11:31 AM. Reason: scare font size

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          ...

                          Ok, let's drop the ID banter for awhile and go back to an attempt to get you to flesh out what "Biblical Scientific Creation" is in relation to the Genesis creation stories. Start with Ge 1:1 - 2:3 and explain precisely and scientifically what "Elohim said, 'Let there be light" means.

                          Try harder. I KNOW you can do it, I have faith in you!

                          K54
                          Jorge, Are you going to have a go at this? Should be easy for ya.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            1) Hummingbirds.

                            2) And bad theology. Once one thinks one has run out of "gaps" then one starts thinking like an ontological naturalist --> short leap to full-blown atheism. I wonder whether Jorge has ever considered that progression, and the potential damage he is doing?

                            K54
                            Well that is an interesting question. This Evangelical minister I mentioned to Jorge? The one Jorge simply dismissed? That is exactly his point. He works on campus and is deeply concerned at the damage certain creationists do to the faith, and the people they drive away. From a post he sent to me on another forum, it goes something like this:-

                            1) Child taught by parents, church and junior school that God exists, Genesis is history, and that evolution is an evil idea.

                            2) Child gets to high school and first encounters evolution in a science class.

                            3) Worried, child goes and speaks to school counsellor.

                            4) Counsellor tells child that teacher is a buffoon and a liar, but to make sure child learns enough to pass tests and exams.

                            5) Child, reassured by counsellor, does what is needed.

                            6) Child graduates and goes to college or university.

                            7) There the child, now a young adult, encounters the theory of evolution for real and/or goes to a library and observes row upon row of books on evolution, many written by some of the finest minds on the planet, and all, detailing evidence upon evidence for the reality of the process.

                            8) The young adult has a crisis of faith.

                            9) Only a few ignore what they have just seen and refuse to accept it, continuing to see evolution as a lie and Genesis as true history.

                            10) Many leave the church altogether, on seeing that the very folk they had trusted were in fact lying about the theory.

                            11) Of those who leave the church, many do return, and most return as changed people.

                            12) But many do not return. They are irrecoverably lost from the faith altogether.


                            It's the group in 12) where he sees creationism doing the most damage.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              To write what you do above you must either be (1) ignorant or, (2) dishonest. There is no third alternative. ... Pick ONE, Roland --- as I said, there is no 3rd choice.
                              O.k. I'm ignorant.

                              So can you please address the following Jorge, and fill me in:-

                              Originally posted by roland asking Jorge the question because he is ignorant
                              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?
                              ?


                              Your chance to educate me and again you simply run away.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                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).
                                The theoretical upper limit on stellar formation is actually 150x the mass of the Sun. It's set by the Eddington limit: at some point the energy released by in-falling matter starts to cause radiation pressure that sends any further mass in the opposite direction.

                                That's only star formation, though. There's nothing preventing two massive stars from merging and forming a single, even more massive body. Those won't exist for long on a cosmic scale before they blow up, but a few hundred million years on a human scale is quite a while.
                                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X