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

[TheLurch]

By the way, an article that I read within the past year or so -- written by an astrophysicist belonging to your camp -- highlighted this (stellar size) fact so if you fight me then you're fighting your own compadres as well.

Could you link to that? As i said, as far as i'm aware, the upper limit for stellar formation is 150 solar masses. If someone's saying it's significantly different from that, i'd be interested in hearing why.

[Jorge]

A bit ironic and a lot hypocritical coming from someone who would regularly talk of tar and feathering or burning at the stake those who disagreed with your YEC view. Your froth-filled diatribe against Ken Miller was quite a sight to behold as were your numerous calls for Eugene Scott to be burned as a witch^[1]. You also started threads with titles like "If I had the authority, I’d toss them in jail” making it quite clear how much love you have for those who dared disagree with the Almighty Jorge.

You neglected to mention -- on purpose, I'm sure -- that on more than one occasion I qualified such statements (tar and feathering, etc.) as figurative and/or in jest. Of course, since presenting that evidence wouldn't serve your agenda, you conveniently fail to mention it. So what else is new?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Could you link to that? As i said, as far as i'm aware, the upper limit for stellar formation is 150 solar masses. If someone's saying it's significantly different from that, i'd be interested in hearing why.

I will try right now (26 April, 5:51 PM ET USA) to find what I'm talking about. BTW, I did NOT say that 8 solar masses was the upper limit. What I DID say is that stellar formation above 8 solar masses was not predicted by models yet clearly we observe thousands of stars well above that mass. I also stated that I was going on recollection - thus, I may be off.

I don't have much time as I'm getting ready for a 3-week business trip beginning tomorrow early morning. I'll try ... if not, then when I return. Kindly remind me.

Jorge

[Jorge]

So when you write the silly things you do, and make all the mistakes you do, then you are providing us with messages from God. So why should God be trusted in anything he says, given this? We can't trust you. Now you attribute your untrustworthiness to God.

And if under such impeccable guidance, you can write such silly things and make so many mistakes, then why on earth do you think the ancient writers of the Bible were immune to this, given the same impeccable guidance?


I think that, if God exists, he has nothing to do with your rants and ramblings, given the mistakes you make and the silly things you say. God is supposed to be an infallible source of pure truth.

So why are you attributing your nonsense to God?

You're a drunken buffoon, Roland. Stop pestering me.

Jorge

[klaus54]

This is what I found:

http://www.universetoday.com/10247/u...-on-star-mass/

And: http://www.space.com/858-study-stars-size-limit.html

And, see page 3, column 2: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george...llarmasses.pdf

K54

P.S. Jorge, now PLEASE get back to answering my question "What does it mean when Elohim says 'let there be light'" from a Biblical Scientific Creation perspective.

Thank you!

[HMS_Beagle]

You're a drunken buffoon, Roland. Stop pestering me.

Jorge

Speaking of drunken buffoons, aren't you the author of this YEC article claiming that all the major Earth impactor craters like Barringer Crater in Arizona aren't really impact craters but are, what, giant gopher holes?

Impact craters - alleged challenge to YEC

Why yes, I believe you were that drunken buffoon.

[klaus54]

Why does Jorge fixate on "sniffing Darwin's dirty socks", "snorting", and alcohol consumption? Those and calling into question a participant's intellect xor integrity is, as far as I know, NOT a valid debate tactic. Is he a recovering alcoholic or something???

Now, why can't he answer my simple questions? 1) A testable hypothesis for ID and 2) what does "Elohim said 'Let there be light'" mean "literally" and unambiguously?

Flummoxed...

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

Why does Jorge fixate on "sniffing Darwin's dirty socks", "snorting", and alcohol consumption? Those and calling into question a participant's intellect xor integrity is, as far as I know, NOT a valid debate tactic. Is he a recovering alcoholic or something???

Now, why can't he answer my simple questions? 1) A testable hypothesis for ID and 2) what does "Elohim said 'Let there be light'" mean "literally" and unambiguously?

Flummoxed...

K54

Don't expect too much from Jorge in the way of science. Despite all his braggadocio and bluster he's one of the more scientifically ignorant YECs on line and that's saying something.

He is the undisputed king of the pointless one-line drive-by insults though.

[rwatts]

You're a drunken buffoon, Roland. Stop pestering me.

Jorge

Given that you are in agreement with God on all things Jorge, then what do we learn about God's thoughts when we read any of your posts?


So let's get back to what klaus54 is after:-

Now, why can't he answer my simple questions? 1) A testable hypothesis for ID and 2) what does "Elohim said 'Let there be light'" mean "literally" and unambiguously?

Flummoxed...

[rogue06]

You neglected to mention -- on purpose, I'm sure -- that on more than one occasion I qualified such statements (tar and feathering, etc.) as figurative and/or in jest. Of course, since presenting that evidence wouldn't serve your agenda, you conveniently fail to mention it. So what else is new?

Jorge

There was not even the barest hint of jesting in your diatribe against Ken Miller. You wanted to start with him being fired and continued with physical punishment.

Your obsession with having Eugene Scott burned as a witch (bringing it into conversations that had nothing to do with her, evolution...) is hardly figurative.

Your thread "If I had the authority, I’d toss them in jail” made it clear that you were hardly kidding.

You love to whine about others "hating" and persecuting you but you constantly snarl about what you would do to others if given half a chance.

[rogue06]

Why does Jorge fixate on "sniffing Darwin's dirty socks", "snorting", and alcohol consumption? Those and calling into question a participant's intellect xor integrity is, as far as I know, NOT a valid debate tactic. Is he a recovering alcoholic or something???

Back on the pre-Crash Tweb a guide was devised describing Jorge's typical response that appear to make up most of Jorge's posts:

1) You're drunk / high on drugs
2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
3) Explaining is a waste of time / someone is paying you to waste my time.
4) This assertion is true because I said so
5) This assertion is even truer because I said so twice
6) I already provided evidence (in huge detail) but I won't repeat it or link to it.

If you look over his responses on this thread you'll see that little has changed.

[klaus54]

Back on the pre-Crash Tweb a guide was devised describing Jorge's typical response that appear to make up most of Jorge's posts:

1) You're drunk / high on drugs
2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
3) Explaining is a waste of time / someone is paying you to waste my time.
4) This assertion is true because I said so
5) This assertion is even truer because I said so twice
6) I already provided evidence (in huge detail) but I won't repeat it or link to it.

If you look over his responses on this thread you'll see that little has changed.

Cool beans! Sounds like the kind of rhetoric on political ads. The sad thing is that approach works with lots of folks.

K54

[sylas]

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.

Jorge remembers no such thing.

I have been out and public as an atheist from before Jorge knew of me and from before I had active internet involvement. I have no idea what Jorge is talking about here, but since I tend to pay him no attention I missed this bit of nonsense when it cropped up in the thread.

Jorge has repeated this claim a couple of times, I see from the thread; but it's totally without foundation. I quite possibly engaged with Jorge about 12 to 15 years ago on talk.origins, in which creationism was discussed. I was part of talk.origins from around 1993; and was an atheist throughout. Some of my colleagues back engaged in responding to nonsense from Jorge or others were Christians; but not me.

I admire and respect many Christians. Differences in belief don't matter all that much to me by comparison with differences/similarities in ways we treat one another and live our lives. For Jorge I have only contempt -- and that has NOTHING to do with his faith; only his crude and as far as I can see his totally unChristian manner of engagement with others.

Repeat: Jorge never knew me, or even knew of me, at any time before I was out and public as an atheist. I have always been more vocal over other subjects than my own personal lack of faith; it's quite possible to be following my writings anytime over the last 25 years or so and not be aware of my atheism if it happened not to be relevant to whatever topic was I focusing upon at the time. I've been an atheist for about 30 years; active on the internet for about 25.

Sylas

[klaus54]

Sylas,

Thanks for the clarification and your cordial demeanor.

Now, a quick question, not for my sake, rather for Jorge's and other strident YEC's benefit. Did "belief" (a noun that Jorge, et.al. would likely use) in Deep Time and cosmic and biological evolution have much to do with your de-conversion?

Thanks for your input on this.

K54

[sylas]

Now, a quick question, not for my sake, rather for Jorge's and other strident YEC's benefit. Did "belief" (a noun that Jorge, et.al. would likely use) in Deep Time and cosmic and biological evolution have much to do with your de-conversion?

Nothing at all.

Of course, I am only a sample of one. I know others for who concerns with deep time has had this effect, but it was a total non-issue in my case.

Generalizations are risky, but from what I have seen in engaging this subject over many years...

It is comparatively common for young earth creationists to have a faith crisis on first encountering an open discussion of the subject in a context not dominated and lead by creationists. This crisis can resolve in a number of ways, such as (and not limited to):

• loss of faith altogether
• reconciliation of faith with knowledge of deep time and biological evolution
• a firming of young earth creationist perspective and enthusiastic engagement with the conflicts over science
• adopting an essentially agnostic approach to deep time or science, and renewed focus on implications of faith for day to day life.

For Christians who were never young earth creationists (like myself) there are plenty of other points over which a faith crisis can arise, and more ways in which it can resolve. Creationism is certainly no way to avoid a faith crisis; in fact it can and does in many instance serve to precipitate crisis. That in itself is no kind of argument for or against anything in particular. Likewise, the idea that creationism will lead to a faith crisis, or that acceptance of science will lead to a faith crisis, just doesn't measure up against the diversity of experiences people have with, through or beyond a Christian faith.

Cheers -- sylas