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

[Jorge]

Ok - this is getting ridiculous. I don't know who you think you are Jorge (maybe your ego has taken you up in your mind to some sort of demi-urge with the capacity to read minds and conjure the souls of those around you), but your constant insinuations and accusations about those who happen to disagree with you are going to fall away, or in this case are some sort of 'closet unbeliever' are way beyond the realm of and honest speculation based on real evidence and have moved into the realm of libel/slander.

And then there is the little matter of you trying to act as if YOU know Sylas' own personal history better than he himself does! Again, just who do you think you are? I'm beginning to think Roland's teasing of you thinking you are "God's direct mouthpiece" might just reflect reality a little more than any of us had dared suspect!!

As for 'lies' written about you? What lies Jorge? A link to your own words as you failed miserably to explain a reality even you admit is a problem for YEC (meteor impacts of sufficient size and number that they simply could not have happened so recently or in so short an interval as is implied by the YEC timeline). How can your own words be lies told by me?

Or the fact you think the scriptures imply stars can't form naturally? Even in this thread you have tried to justify that belief. There is some room for error on my part as to your theology as I am relying on my memory of previous threads on the old TWEB to flesh out the basics of what drives your need to try to find fault in the observed reality of stars forming all across the galaxy and universe. But that hardly constitutes a 'lie', and you are always free to take the time to provide a more accurate view. I certainly will accept your own clarification of your views over my own memory of what they are/were.

Or do you now to deny you base your resistance to the acceptance of stars forming naturally on your interpretation of the Bible?

Anyway - stop the slander. I am who I say I am, a Believer in Christ. Regardless of what your warped view of your 'super powers' and ' theology' might lead you to imagine.


Jim

I don't pay as much attention to the 'words' as I do to the 'actions', Jim. Stop trying to sound so 'indignant', making yourself a 'victim' or a 'martyr'. If you sleep with the enemy (namely, with those that oppose Christ and His Word) then you are bound to wake up with their stench on your body. Accept it and live with it when you are called out on that point. OR, you can choose to cease sleeping with the enemy. Which will it be, I wonder?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge,

1) In view of Sylas' explanation, do you have difficulty admitting you are wrong?

None whatsoever. Do you?

I call 'em as I see 'em. Wish we had ALL of the TWeb posts from 2002 through 2005-6. Oh well ...

2) IMHO, the "baby steps" toward atheism come from the Luddite view of science and the insistence of a "literal" interpretation of Genesis, which so far you haven't be able to flesh out unambiguously. It seemeth to me a prima facie example of projection.

Now -- Ge 1:2, PLEASE!

K54

I have already spent more than too much time with you on this.

Jorge

[Jorge]

It is so interesting and enlightening to see just how far you will go to avoid simply admitting you could have made a mistake. There are many ways you could address this issue that would show a tad of humility, just an ounce of capacity to recognize you could in some fashion have misunderstood. Yet you avoid them all. It clarifies so, so much

Jim

Ol' Jimbo once again flailing accusations at Jorge ...

Yyyyaaaawwwwnnnnnn .................

Has anyone seen a good movie lately?

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

I don't pay as much attention to the 'words' as I do to the 'actions', Jim. Stop trying to sound so 'indignant', making yourself a 'victim' or a 'martyr'. If you sleep with the enemy (namely, with those that oppose Christ and His Word) then you are bound to wake up with their stench on your body. Accept it and live with it when you are called out on that point. OR, you can choose to cease sleeping with the enemy. Which will it be, I wonder?

Jorge

Jorge, the only one in this thread that 'stinks' is, unfortunately, you. You have made an absolute fool of yourself as you continue to try to justify what is clearly simply a mistake on your part. You inability to face that, again, is oh so informative.

The consequence being: you have made it easy to see who is telling the truth, who remembers what has happened, who can be trusted to relay accurate facts and who can be expected to distort relevant information and who can be counted on to give honest, objective assessments of both history and science.

From this point forward when Jorge starts accusing folks of this or that, or making pompous claims about his capacity or memory, or the unwillingness of others to be 'honest' with the data, we don't need the old TWEB's records any more. We can simply refer to this thread.



Back to the OP ... assuming there is someone out there of the YEC persuasion capable of stepping up to the plate.

Jim

[klaus54]

None whatsoever. Do you?

I call 'em as I see 'em. Wish we had ALL of the TWeb posts from 2002 through 2005-6. Oh well ...

Complete recalcitrant arrogance...

I have already spent more than too much time with you on this.

Jorge

The only answer I got was "I dunno." That's not acceptable coming from a Genesis story "literalist" who apparently can't tell literal from figurative. Isn't that the same accusation that YECs level at OECs and TEs???

Now do some more work on my questions regarding Ge 1:2, and try a LOT harder this time! Bitte?

K54

[sylas]

None whatsoever. Do you?

Show it Jorge. Actually say it. You were wrong; so acknowledge it. It isn't hard, once you make it a practice.

I make a deliberate effort myself to acknowledge my mistakes and thank the people who point them out for me. I used to give out pearls in these cases, but alas, that is no longer an option. All of us get things wrong from time to time; what really stands out are the people who can acknowledge their mistakes quickly and gracefully. I did it just yesterday in a post on the inflation and gravity topic.

I confess, for me this isn't hard at all. Having had this policy for a time, I can tell you that it actually increases your credibility. That isn't WHY I adopted the strategy, but simply my experience of how it works. So for me there's no down side at all in acknowledging my errors.

You made an error. You also accused me, unjustly, of telling "historical porkies". You claim to prefer actions; but so far I haven't see anything from you to acknowledge that your memory failed you in this instance, or any apology. I don't mind how you managed to make the error; but the plain fact is that I was never a theistic evolutionist on TheologyWeb, and that I never "came out" here as an atheist. I had my little faith icon displayed openly in every post, as atheist, well before we ever interacted directly here. If you had actually manged to apologize, I'd accept without reservation in a heartbeat and think no more of it. It's not really something you need to do for my benefit. You need to do it for yourself.

Actually openly admitting you got this wrong, and apologizing to me for your accusation of telling porkies, would bring you nothing but benefit. Alas, not much benefit. You've dragged your feet much too long for anyone to overcome the negative impression your rudeness has already generated. But for future record. If you really do care about actions -- then less rudeness, and more rapid open acknowledgement of mistakes would actually DEMONSTRATE you care about actions. Try it. If you make it a personal private policy, you really would find it transforms your reputation and witness here, all for the better.

I call 'em as I see 'em. Wish we had ALL of the TWeb posts from 2002 through 2005-6. Oh well ...

Me too... and I really wish I had got another more recent archive through 2013. There's a heck of a lot I wrote here I'd love to get back on my own personal records. Ah well.

Cheers -- sylas

[JonF]

I, too, wish we had an archive of pre-crash posts. I remember clearly that Jorge often refused to acknowledge even stupider errors.

He'll never acknowledge this one or apologize.

[Wally]

Jorge personifies the difference between a "Christian" and a follower of Jesus of Nazareth.

Even though I'm an atheist, I do my best to be the latter.

[Carrikature]

I, too, wish we had an archive of pre-crash posts. I remember clearly that Jorge often refused to acknowledge even stupider errors.

He'll never acknowledge this one or apologize.

I have beachfront property to sell you...














it's on a lake...

[Carrikature]

I, too, wish we had an archive of pre-crash posts. I remember clearly that Jorge often refused to acknowledge even stupider errors.

He'll never acknowledge this one or apologize.

BTW, you could ask a mod to fix your name.

[JonF]

Hee hee hee...

I'll do it one of these days.

[Ucchedavāda]

If I am not mistaken, the following is a (short) auto-biography written by Sylas, dating to 2001:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010306...Ho-Stuart.html

Over this time of self examination I very slowly and gradually came to lose my christian faith; to the point where now I call myself atheist. I have never lost my interest in religion, or the bible, and hope that my participation in aus.religion is respectful of the many different viewpoints that exist in that forum.

[klaus54]

If I am not mistaken, the following is a (short) auto-biography written by Sylas, dating to 2001:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010306...Ho-Stuart.html

That should stick a fork in it.

Now back to the topic...

K54

[sylas]

Yes, Ucchedavada... that was a brief self description I wrote for aus.religion.christian; a group in which I was very active at a time. Danny Yee made the project to collect biographies of active members of the group. The aus.* hierarchy in USENET was very useful to get a little niche of discussion groups that would not be overwhelmed by the USA perspective -- which tends to be rather different.

It was a mostly very friendly group, and the active members generally got on well together. There were exceptions of course. A bit like here, now that I think of it. A major difference, however, is that the group was not intended for Christians; but rather for anyone at all who wanted to discuss Christianity as a topic. We had plenty of atheist and agnostic members, like myself' and a few of other non-Christian religious traditions; though as you'd expect most of the members were Christians. Good times....

Danny Yee's pages are still available. They include the group's formal charter (which Danny actually wrote), the potted biographies of thirteen active members, an account of WHY he started to collect biographies (basically, to foster friendly engagements). See aus.religion and aus.religion.christian.

I had a very similar biography written at the old TheologyWeb as part of my profile. In fact, I think I'll do the same again here; I haven't got around to filling in all my profile again as yet.

Cheers -- sylas

[rwatts]

I'm beginning to think Roland's teasing of you thinking you are "God's direct mouthpiece" might just reflect reality a little more than any of us had dared suspect!!

Unfair?Christians worthy of respect versus those who are not.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Given their behaviours, 1 John 2:4 is worth presenting to them as well:-

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Lying about what we think and why we think it is breaking at least one commandment, surely.

And associated with the above, the continuation of Matt 7:20 is worth a quote as well:-

21 Not every one that asaith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the dwill of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not aprophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In Conclusion

Having written the above, I think there is one thing always worth remembering. How folk really are in real life, might not be reflected completely by these forums.



* Consider that in Christian theology, these are infallible, omnipotent sources of pure truth and justice - which adds impetus to the boast made by the person claiming these mantles.