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

[One Bad Pig]

I joined in 2004? Really? I would've bet that it was in 2002. I still have doubts.

The archived date is indeed accurate. In any case, TheologyWeb's first incarnation began January 26, 2003, so a join date of 2002 would've been quite impossible.

Meanwhile, I see you and Tiggy are getting along swimmingly as usual.

[Roy]

I'll answer that.

My recollection is what it is - I can hardly deny it. Could I be mistaken? Yes, of course. But I would have to be brought to that point by, say, hard evidence, certainly not by your say-so.

Apparently screenshots showing Sylas identifying himself as an atheist in December 2003 and Jorge not registering here until Feb 2004 don't count as hard evidence. Perhaps Jorge is waiting for a papal decree countersigned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama. But there's a much larger issue at the bottom of all this ...

The tiresome claim that "Jorge does not admit being wrong", which you parrot here yet again, is pathetic ...

It's not a claim, it's a demonstration. Jorge has been shown to be wrong about when he joined TWeb not only by a screenshot giving his registration date but also by the forum not actually existing when he claims he was posting.

Has Jorge admitted he was wrong? No.

Roy

P.S. Dima.

[sylas]

Apparently screenshots showing Sylas identifying himself as an atheist in August 2003 and Jorge not registering here until Feb 2004 don't count as hard evidence. Perhaps Jorge is waiting for a papal decree countersigned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama. But there's a much larger issue at the bottom of all this ...

We don't have screen shots of me identifying myself as an atheist in August 2003; I didn't start posting, until October 2003. The screen shot showing me speaking of my atheism was for December 2003. (Earliest explicit mention of my own atheism in my personal text records is October 28, 2003).

[klaus54]

Thanks for this post which has an air of objectivity about it.
I joined in 2004? Really? I would've bet that it was in 2002. I still have doubts.
As I stated in a previous post, that time frame was a 'dark' period in my life.

In any event, I'm pretty much over this topic. Thanks again.

Jorge

Aren't strident YECs always going on about "Eye Witness Accounts"?

Cognitive dissonance?

K54

[klaus54]

I assume that means you'll be back to your regularly scheduled program of making ridiculous YEC claims, running from all questions, and posting dozens of one-liner drive by insults in lieu of scientific discussion. Right?

I've got your list of excuses all ready.



Maybe you could just save time and say "No.3" instead of writing 20 paragraphs tells us how you're too busy to answer.

7) Perhaps Satan is paying you to haunt me?

K54

[Roy]

We don't have screen shots of me identifying myself as an atheist in August 2003; I didn't start posting, until October 2003. The screen shot showing me speaking of my atheism was for December 2003. (Earliest explicit mention of my own atheism in my personal text records is October 28, 2003).

Oops! Thanks. My mistake. I'll fix my post.

Roy

[Jorge]

You are most welcome.

However, you also owe sylas an apology.
After all, you accused sylas of "re-writing history to suit an agenda", and told him "No more historical porkies, okay?". In reality, sylas online presence as an outspoken atheist on usenet pre-dates your encounter with him by a decade or more, and unlike the TWeb of yore it is still easy to find.

Thanks again but what you ask is a no-can-do at the present time. Here's why ...

I still have vivid recollections of posts involving Sylas with the topic of "Evolution is leading you to ..." and things along those lines (comparisons to Charles Templeton and so on). Sylas' denial of this isn't compelling for reasons that I've outlined in a post a few removed from this one.

My advice is to drop this thing UNLESS 'all' of my posts (2002 - 2008 would suffice) became available. That would be rock-solid evidence that would settle the issue permanently. I would then sincerely and immediately apologize. Other than myself, the 'YECs' from that time frame are all gone (care to wonder why?) and I'm not going to be getting any help from those here. In short, we are at an impasse. Sorry if this disappoints but surely (if you're honest) you can see the rationality of my position.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Aren't strident YECs always going on about "Eye Witness Accounts"?

Cognitive dissonance?

K54

8) Have you taken your meds today?


That's the one that applies here, Santa.

Jorge

[Jorge]

The archived date is indeed accurate. In any case, TheologyWeb's first incarnation began January 26, 2003, so a join date of 2002 would've been quite impossible.

Meanwhile, I see you and Tiggy are getting along swimmingly as usual.

Tiggy?

I haven't seen / read anything from Tiggy in quite some time - since last year sometime.
Have you been smoking that 'funny stuff' again, Piggy?

Jorge

[Cerebrum123]

Tiggy?

I haven't seen / read anything from Tiggy in quite some time - since last year sometime.
Have you been smoking that 'funny stuff' again, Piggy?

Jorge

No, HMS_Beagle is Tiggy's new username. Some people here figured it was him, but he wouldn't admit to it. He later let it slip in a response to CowPoke.

[klaus54]

8) Have you taken your meds today?


That's the one that applies here, Santa.

Jorge

In fact, yes I have! Do you see the irony of "Eye Witness Account"? Special Pleading, no?

Now, back to your regularly scheduled rant...

K54

P.S. Ranting appears to be an excellent tactic for avoiding substantive discussion. Red Herring by Rant Fallacy = RHR Fallacy.

[Cerebrum123]

So, you want me to admit to something that in my heart of hearts I do not believe -- that's what you are asking me to do. As for "Sylas not knowing his own history", so you're saying that Sylas is infallible - he cannot possibly be mistaken - while I can be mistaken (of course I can). Again, that is what you are saying. Sorry, I cannot accept that. I've already said that with the hard evidence I would sincerely and immediately apologize. More than that I cannot give.

That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that there is ample evidence on his side, and against yours. I even give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that it very easily could be a simple mistake, like remembering someone else.

How about we agree to leave this alone? The hard evidence that would resolve this appears to be 'gone' as so belaboring the matter is pointless. Also, this was well before your time so this request applies especially for you. Thanks for the effort, though.

Jorge

That's just it, I think that there is hard evidence of you being mistaken, and none to suggest that sylas doesn't know his own history. I'll drop it here though.

[Jorge]

That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that there is ample evidence on his side, and against yours. I even give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that it very easily could be a simple mistake, like remembering someone else.



That's just it, I think that there is hard evidence of you being mistaken, and none to suggest that sylas doesn't know his own history. I'll drop it here though.

Thank you.

Jorge

[rogue06]

That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that there is ample evidence on his side, and against yours. I even give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that it very easily could be a simple mistake, like remembering someone else.



That's just it, I think that there is hard evidence of you being mistaken, and none to suggest that sylas doesn't know his own history. I'll drop it here though.

I offered that as an explanation back on post #255

The most obvious of which is that he could be mistaking sylas for someone else.

[oxmixmudd]

Thank you.

Jorge

Jorge - you really do owe Sylas a clear, humble, and concise apology for the reasons already mentioned. He doesn't need it, but YOU need to give it.


Jim