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

[rwatts]

... but YOU need to give it.


Jim

In your country, I believe that Hell has frozen over:-



So the way should be clear for Jorge to offer one.

[rogue06]

In your country, I believe that Hell has frozen over:-



So the way should be clear for Jorge to offer one.

[klaus54]

If Jorge's still participating in this thread, I'd like him to comment on the notion of the "eyewitness" Genesis account as espoused by Answers in Genesis:

Linky here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/sear...ness&search=Go

In view of this, I'm wondering why Jorge didn't accept Sylas' own eyewitness account of his ecclesiastical history?

Also, it would super-duper if Jorge would give a simple explanation of how Ge 1:2 maps to the physical world. If Elohim were a eyewitness and used Moses as an amanuensis, why would this verse be ambiguous?

K54

[shunyadragon]

Like when the Minnesota Vikings win the Super Bowl.

[rwatts]

If Jorge's still participating in this thread, I'd like him to comment on the notion of the "eyewitness" Genesis account as espoused by Answers in Genesis:



Linky here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/sear...ness&search=Go

In view of this, I'm wondering why Jorge didn't accept Sylas' own eyewitness account of his ecclesiastical history?

Also, it would super-duper if Jorge would give a simple explanation of how Ge 1:2 maps to the physical world. If Elohim were a eyewitness and used Moses as an amanuensis, why would this verse be ambiguous?

K54

I like to ask creationists if any of them were there to directly observe God having a hand in the writing of any of the texts of the Bible. Or if they were there to directly observe any text being written to know that it actually recorded something real, and if so, did so with 100% accuracy.

After all, this happened in the past.


Besides, one can always appeal to "same data different interpretation" to show that all opinions about the Bible are equally valid.

[klaus54]

I like to ask creationists if any of them were there to directly observe God having a hand in the writing of any of the texts of the Bible. Or if they were there to directly observe any text being written to know that it actually recorded something real, and if so, did so with 100% accuracy.

After all, this happened in the past.


Besides, one can always appeal to "same data different interpretation" to show that all opinions about the Bible are equally valid.

Touche'!

K54

[Jorge]

Touche'!

K54

For the record, your "Touche'!" reply to rwatts' imbecilic nonsense concerning "were you there?" is all of the evidence that I need from this point forward to know with absolute certainty that my intuition was correct - you are every bit a waste of time as rwatts, Tiggy (whom you never had the pleasure of meeting (unless you are him in disguise)) and others here.

Listening to people like rwatts and yourself speaking of the Bible and why we have powerful reasons to believe that it is what it is, is like listening to Adolf Hitler giving a speech on the virtues of the Jewish people.

Jorge

[Jorge]

If Jorge's still participating in this thread, I'd like him to comment on the notion of the "eyewitness" Genesis account as espoused by Answers in Genesis:



Linky here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/sear...ness&search=Go

In view of this, I'm wondering why Jorge didn't accept Sylas' own eyewitness account of his ecclesiastical history?

Also, it would super-duper if Jorge would give a simple explanation of how Ge 1:2 maps to the physical world. If Elohim were a eyewitness and used Moses as an amanuensis, why would this verse be ambiguous?

K54

Are there MODS still operating here on TWeb?
Is what Santa asking appropriate for Natural Science 301?
Just asking...

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

For the record, your "Touche'!" reply to rwatts' imbecilic nonsense concerning "were you there?" is all of the evidence that I need from this point forward to know with absolute certainty that my intuition was correct - you are every bit a waste of time as rwatts, Tiggy (whom you never had the pleasure of meeting (unless you are him in disguise)) and others here.

Listening to people like rwatts and yourself speaking of the Bible and why we have powerful reasons to believe that it is what it is, is like listening to Adolf Hitler giving a speech on the virtues of the Jewish people.

Jorge

Yep because anybody who doesn't agree with your narrow YEC interpretation of the Bible can't be a 'true Christian', eh Jorge?

[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

I take it that you haven't read my last dozen or so posts.
Time for you to do so and then to clam up.

Jorge

[klaus54]

For the record, your "Touche'!" reply to rwatts' imbecilic nonsense concerning "were you there?" is all of the evidence that I need from this point forward to know with absolute certainty that my intuition was correct - you are every bit a waste of time as rwatts, Tiggy (whom you never had the pleasure of meeting (unless you are him in disguise)) and others here.

Listening to people like rwatts and yourself speaking of the Bible and why we have powerful reasons to believe that it is what it is, is like listening to Adolf Hitler giving a speech on the virtues of the Jewish people.

Jorge

Jorge,

Wuz u dere? No? I guess that's why you can't explain Ge 1:2 in a straightforward, plain, simple, literal manner.

Even if I am not worth it, and I'm being paid by Satan, what about the lurkers and other participants in this thread? Can't you do it for THEM? Certainly not ALL the readers are as hopeless as moi. And they can perceive your ossified recalcitrance as well.

I'm calling your bluff. I say you CAN'T do it. Whadda ya say to THAT?

K54

[klaus54]

Are there MODS still operating here on TWeb?
Is what Santa asking appropriate for Natural Science 301?
Just asking...

Jorge

Jorge,

I assume since this is a theology website and has a natural science forum that the science-theology interface is apropos this thread.

As a YEC you claim the Genesis creation stories are ACTUAL history and therefore can be mapped to the physical world. This is even more relevant in that you purport to be a "Biblical Scientific Creationist". So if you hide behind a smokescreen of obfuscation whence you fling the Flak of Insults when asked for a straightforward reading of Ge 1:2, it certainly doesn't elicit confidence in BSC.

So can you explain Ge 1:2 or not? You already conceded that Ge 1:3 is a mystery and could be figurative. I'm sure you realize that doesn't bode well for the "plain-simple-straightforward-literal" viewpoint.

Eject the cartridge, clean your weapon, lock and load, and take your best shot. The peanut gallery awaits.

K54

[phank]

I take it that you haven't read my last dozen or so posts.
Time for you to do so and then to clam up.

Jorge

We read HIS post. We've read your reactions. Our recollections of your honesty have had a complete refresh cycle.

[Omega Red]

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.

This misses the point I made about you not loving your wife last year. Why does my affirmation of that event, which is based on recollection of your posts, trump your personal knowledge in this case? Why should I seek hard evidence that you did actually love your wife last year before admitting I made a mistake? Is it acceptable to call you a liar because you maintain that you did love you wife last year but you failed to produce any hard evidence to support your claim?

But there's a much larger issue at the bottom of all this ...

Your (and that of others) constant push towards demonizing not just me but other Biblical Creationists is something that sticks out like a wart on a nose.

Some have left TWeb because of this. The tiresome claim that "Jorge does not admit being wrong", which you parrot here yet again, is pathetic ... I mean, p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c! Anyone that knows me personally knows that such a claim doesn't even begin to apply to me. The problem HERE is that when you people don't get what you WANT then it's always the Biblical Creationist that has to 'give-in' and apologize. That attitude doesn't make it to first base with me.

It's like the time when I said, "Beachfront property" and everyone here tried to convince me that I was WRONG because there was "beachfront property" in Kansas. Even after I explained that "beach" means one thing here in Florida and another in Kansas or Arizona, you people wouldn't let up until you received an "I was wrong" apology from me. Of course, you'll get that apology on the day that Hell freezes over. And when you didn't get it, this fed the feeding frenzy of "Jorge never admits being wrong". READ MY LIPS: I will not ever admit to error where none exists. Why? Because that is a form of lying and that is also capitulating to bullying by dishonest people.

Here, as another example, you say that "... when I had posts at my disposal". Yes, and so did YOU, the person now flinging the accusations. Why didn't YOU spend your time searching? I wasn't going to waste MY time searching through 14 thousand posts for something that, from experience, you people were going to summarily dismiss anyway.

My point is that you people always, invariably, want it YOUR way or else the accusations start to fly. You employ a double-standard for ethics, for evidential worthiness, for belief, for truth, for science ... and for many other things. If there's one thing that I have learned in over 40 years of these kinds of interactions is that -- generally speaking -- those belonging to the Materialist/Humanist/Atheist/Evolutionist Camp are NOT honest people where by "honest" I mean that they do not employ double standards or lie by omission, distortion and misrepresentation. I've wondered why this is so and have concluded that because they have sided with untruth, they are forced to adopt measures for sustaining those untruths. Analogous to this is the person that tells a lie. Later, that person will be forced to lie to cover up the first lie and then lie again to cover up the second lie and so on. Something along those lines ...

[rwatts]

For the record, your "Touche'!" reply to rwatts' imbecilic nonsense concerning "were you there?" is all of the evidence that I need from this point forward to know with absolute certainty that my intuition was correct - you are every bit a waste of time as rwatts, Tiggy (whom you never had the pleasure of meeting (unless you are him in disguise)) and others here.

Listening to people like rwatts and yourself speaking of the Bible and why we have powerful reasons to believe that it is what it is, is like listening to Adolf Hitler giving a speech on the virtues of the Jewish people.

Jorge

Nice Jorge.

It was a great point though, wasn't it.


As for Hitler, well he thought he had the absolute truth, didn't he? I know someone like that. You need to be careful when you compare others to Hitler.