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

[rwatts]

Touche'!

K54

I think I might have poked Jorge in the bum with the point of the blade. He said "ouch" and now seems bitter and twisted:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post50480


Tiggy was great. Like LittlePixie - called a spade a spade and a nincompoop a nincompoop. He knew his science.

[rwatts]

You vilify without a care but get affronted when people hold you to account for doing it and then play your wounded victim card.

I suspect that Jorge hopes to get to heaven and inform God that while some early Christians merely got thrown to the lions, he actually got called bad names by the people he vilified.

[Jorge]

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

Stop sniffing that weird stuff, Terror - it ain't good for you.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Stop sniffing that weird stuff, Terror - it ain't good for you.

Jorge

What isn't good for you is to completely ignore almost the entirety of Christ and the NT's teaching on behavior while constantly focusing on some perceived gnat of an error as regards the 'correct' reading of Genesis 1. I am amazed at how common this is these days. Apologists of one form or another who could care less about any element of personal behavior and integrity, but who run around telling everybody else how smart they are for 'rightly dividing God's word' and how deadly stupid the rest of the world is for not seeing it their way.

You've quite the legacy Jorge. You will be remembered long after you are gone.

But for all the wrong reasons.



Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

Stop sniffing that weird stuff, Terror - it ain't good for you.

Jorge

Jorge stock response No.1

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.

[klaus54]

Jorge,

So when are you going to answer my questions? The readers await!

K54

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.

[Jorge]

What isn't good for you is to completely ignore almost the entirety of Christ and the NT's teaching on behavior while constantly focusing on some perceived gnat of an error as regards the 'correct' reading of Genesis 1. I am amazed at how common this is these days. Apologists of one form or another who could care less about any element of personal behavior and integrity, but who run around telling everybody else how smart they are for 'rightly dividing God's word' and how deadly stupid the rest of the world is for not seeing it their way.

You've quite the legacy Jorge. You will be remembered long after you are gone.

But for all the wrong reasons.

Jim

Just got into Amarillo, Texas and was 'greeted' with the highlighted 'gem' by -- who else? -- ol' O-Mudd.

"... perceived gnat of an error ... " ???

Do you have the faintest grasp of what you're saying?

Do NOT bother to answer, O-Mudd, I already know the answer to that question.

Here is that answer : NO !!!

Pay the lady a buck and do keep trying, O-Mudd.

You are bound to get it right one of these days - the laws of probability say so.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Just got into Amarillo, Texas and was 'greeted' with the highlighted 'gem' by -- who else? -- ol' O-Mudd.

"... perceived gnat of an error ... " ???

Do you have the faintest grasp of what you're saying?

Do NOT bother to answer, O-Mudd, I already know the answer to that question.

Here is that answer : NO !!!

Pay the lady a buck and do keep trying, O-Mudd.

You are bound to get it right one of these days - the laws of probability say so.

Jorge

If Jim is wrong, then please give us the clear uninterpreted literal meaning of Ge 1:2. You failed with Ge 1:3 and weaseled out of Ge 1:2 thus far.

Danke,

K54

[Jorge]

Jorge,

So when are you going to answer my questions? The readers await!

K54

You may continue to wait, Santa.
I'll be the judge of when you are ready to have an honest, constructive, fair-minded dialogue.
Today, sadly, is not that day.
As a consolation I'll inform you that the weather is sunny and mild here in Amarillo, TX.

Jorge

[Jorge]

If Jim is wrong, then please give us the clear uninterpreted literal meaning of Ge 1:2. You failed with Ge 1:3 and weaseled out of Ge 1:2 thus far.

Danke,

K54

Answer truthfully, are you 'Tiggy' in disguise?
See, part of being less-than-honest is to use pseudonyms on the internet.
Tiggy was #1 with few peers in that department.
He had a habit of repeating himself over and over.
Sort'a like you've been doing.
Yeah, if I had to cast my vote today, I'd say that you are 'Tiggy'.
That conclusion is based on deduction with (scarce) available evidence.

Me, from day one I've use my name - Jorge A. Fernandez ... 'Jorge' for short.
Some say that they just want to be "safe" and that's why they hide their identity.
Hey, in today's world - NSA spying and all that - if someone wants to find you, they can and they will. There is only one way to avoid that - stay TOTALLY off every part of grid in every sense of the word.

Jorge

[Cerebrum123]

Answer truthfully, are you 'Tiggy' in disguise?
See, part of being less-than-honest is to use pseudonyms on the internet.
Tiggy was #1 with few peers in that department.
He had a habit of repeating himself over and over.
Sort'a like you've been doing.
Yeah, if I had to cast my vote today, I'd say that you are 'Tiggy'.
That conclusion is based on deduction with (scarce) available evidence.

Me, from day one I've use my name - Jorge A. Fernandez ... 'Jorge' for short.
Some say that they just want to be "safe" and that's why they hide their identity.
Hey, in today's world - NSA spying and all that - if someone wants to find you, they can and they will. There is only one way to avoid that - stay TOTALLY off every part of grid in every sense of the word.

Jorge

You missed the post where I told you that HMS_Beagle let it slip that he was Tiggy didn't you?

[klaus54]

You may continue to wait, Santa.
I'll be the judge of when you are ready to have an honest, constructive, fair-minded dialogue.
Today, sadly, is not that day.
As a consolation I'll inform you that the weather is sunny and mild here in Amarillo, TX.

Jorge

Jorge,

Could you just answer this, please: Is your recalcitrance because you DON'T WANT to answer, or you CAN'T answer?

K54

[klaus54]

Answer truthfully, are you 'Tiggy' in disguise?
See, part of being less-than-honest is to use pseudonyms on the internet.
Tiggy was #1 with few peers in that department.
He had a habit of repeating himself over and over.
Sort'a like you've been doing.
Yeah, if I had to cast my vote today, I'd say that you are 'Tiggy'.
That conclusion is based on deduction with (scarce) available evidence.

Me, from day one I've use my name - Jorge A. Fernandez ... 'Jorge' for short.
Some say that they just want to be "safe" and that's why they hide their identity.
Hey, in today's world - NSA spying and all that - if someone wants to find you, they can and they will. There is only one way to avoid that - stay TOTALLY off every part of grid in every sense of the word.

Jorge

Why would your ability or willingness to answer my questions be dependent on me being 'Tiggy', or Genghis Khan, or Adolf Hitler?

I know ad hom is used to ignore a person's answer, but this is first time I've seen it used to NOT answer.

K54

K54

[Roy]

Yeah, if I had to cast my vote today, I'd say that you [klaus54] are 'Tiggy'.
That conclusion is based on deduction with (scarce) available evidence.

Just one more example of Jorge's inability to evaluate evidence.

Or maybe he's going senile? It would explain why he simply can't remember that TWeb was founded in 2003:

My advice is to drop this thing UNLESS 'all' of my posts (2002 - 2008 would suffice)

Roy

[phank]

Where is becca when we need her?