Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Still, it would nice to get SOMETHING out of him save implying that we're a bunch of dopes who could never understand.

    The only teasing peek he gave was that whether or not dinosaurs went extinct is a "core" issue for him.
    Blah ... blah ... blah ...


    Oh, well. It makes one wonder why they bother having a Natural Science forum on a theology website.

    K54
    I'll answer that : I have loved maths and sciences for as long as I can remember. I also love wisdom, a.k.a. Philosophy. In my undergraduate years (6 of them) I majored in all three fields. I eventually discovered that I loved Philosophy the most. Now to your question ...

    I LOVE to have real, bona fide SCIENCE discussions. The last one that I recall had to do with traveling to other stars - something that I hold will NEVER happen unless something straight out of science fiction becomes a reality. The gentleman that I had the exchange with was cordial and fair-minded. Overall it was a very decent chat. I believe that he saw my point clearly (I posted facts and figures) but TWeb crashed shortly thereafter.

    That said, I'm a fairly decent philosopher and know how to distinguish true science from ideology that is disguised as science. Most of Evolution Theory is such an animal. Lots of Big Bang (modern cosmology) is another as is a large chunk of modern geology, paleontology and other disciplines.

    Bottom line: the major culprits of your complaint are the Materialists/Atheists/Humanists, the Theistic Evolutionists, the Progressive Creationists and the Old Age Creationists, just to name a few. They know a thing or two about observational science but little if anything about historical science, philosophy of science and how the whole thing is supposed to work together. Sadly, as evidenced by your posts, you are among these culprits.

    Jorge
    Last edited by Jorge; 04-17-2014, 02:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      You may as well save yourself some typing K54. Jorge is well known as the board's self-appointed YEC buffoon. I can't think of a single person who takes his one-line drive-by vomiting seriously. Those who do pay him any attention usually just point and laugh.
      Hmmm ... a "YEC buffoon". Huh ... Given that on a really bad day you don't even register as a blip on a radar screen, if I'm a "buffoon" then that makes you a what, Beagle? Pray tell, inquiring minds want to know.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        Jorge compares my attitude toward "Biblical Creationist" to the attitude of Hitler toward Jews. LOL!!!

        Sorry, Jorge, I'm not ready for a holocaust quite yet.

        Are you still afraid of "Big Words"? Heehee...

        Perhaps during boring evenings in your hotel on your business trip you'll be able to cogitate more on the simple questions here and come up with some cogency in your replies.

        K54

        P.S. What was the topic of this thread again? Jorge's got me totally confused now.

        P.P.S. So, I have to be "receptive" in order to learn? Hmm... Smacks of an excellent example of the Projection Fallacy.
        Your Honor, just read the above and I rest my case. Thank you.

        Jorge

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Nonsense, untrue and a misrepresentation of reality.
          You should know better after reading hundreds of my posts.
          If you were Pinnochio, your nose would be dragging on the floor by now.

          Jorge
          A literal reading (or as I prefer to say, an overly simplistic, woodenly literal reading) is still an interpretation. Sorry if the reality crashes in on your fantasy.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Uhhhh ... get a clue, Santa. I was referring to the 'old' Tweb in which I posted somewhere between 13,500 and 14,500 posts. Many (perhaps even most) of those posts were "just for fun" (sort of "answering the fools as deserved"). But even if just 5% of my posts were serious and substance-filled (i.e., 95% "throwaways") that means that I had somewhere around 700 posts that provided substantial answers to the clueless here at TWeb. THOSE 5% were the posts that I was referring to. Now do you get it? BTW, there were more than just 5% but I won't quibble.

            Jorge
            From your replies here I would wager the throwaway post percentage is 100 - epsilon, where epsilon is within 10^(-100) of zero.

            K54

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              A literal reading (or as I prefer to say, an overly simplistic, woodenly literal reading) is still an interpretation. Sorry if the reality crashes in on your fantasy.
              =

              Exactly. And even more strongly, a literal reading would have to be unambiguous -- like Jesus turning water into wine.

              K54

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                Blah ... blah ... blah ...




                I'll answer that : I have loved maths and sciences for as long as I can remember. I also love wisdom, a.k.a. Philosophy. In my undergraduate years (6 of them) I majored in all three fields. I eventually discovered that I loved Philosophy the most. Now to your question ...

                I LOVE to have real, bona fide SCIENCE discussions. The last one that I recall had to do with traveling to other stars - something that I hold will NEVER happen unless something straight out of science fiction becomes a reality. The gentleman that I had the exchange with was cordial and fair-minded. Overall it was a very decent chat. I believe that he saw my point clearly (I posted facts and figures) but TWeb crashed shortly thereafter.

                That said, I'm a fairly decent philosopher and know how to distinguish true science from ideology that is disguised as science. Most of Evolution Theory is such an animal. Lots of Big Bang (modern cosmology) is another as is a large chunk of modern geology, paleontology and other disciplines.

                Bottom line: the major culprits of your complaint are the Materialists/Atheists/Humanists, the Theistic Evolutionists, the Progressive Creationists and the Old Age Creationists, just to name a few. They know a thing or two about observational science but little if anything about historical science, philosophy of science and how the whole thing is supposed to work together. Sadly, as evidenced by your posts, you are among these culprits.

                Jorge
                Since you fancy maths, the sciences, and philosophy, I'd LOVE to see your definition of "Bona Fide Science". Does it use scientific method?

                I'm getting more and more curious about your epistemology. You're such a tease!!!

                K54

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  That said, generally speaking you are vilifying Biblical Creationists ("YEC").
                  Keep in mind of what I wrote about those who use the term "Biblical Creationist"
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                  IMHO, he did this in order to attempt to make it seem that YECs are supported by the Bible and that anyone who disagrees with their position is anti-Biblical. The fact is that all Christians are Biblical Creationists of some type in that I think it is safe to say that we all agree that God is responsible for the Creation. We just disagree over the details of how this was accomplished.

                  Jorge has long served as a perfect example. He wields the term like a club trying to beat others into submission by insinuating or outright saying that his view is the only one supported by the Bible and therefore those who disagree were anti-Biblical.

                  But then what can you expect of someone who on the BC (Before Crash) Tweb had threads with titles like "TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" and concluded no and then expanded the same judgment to include anyone who wasn't a YEC.

                  Later he would graciously decide that it was possible for a few non-YECs to be saved but only if they were ignorant or mentally deficient and therefore not responsible for their beliefs.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Hmmm ... a "YEC buffoon". Huh ... Given that on a really bad day you don't even register as a blip on a radar screen, if I'm a "buffoon" then that makes you a what, Beagle? Pray tell, inquiring minds want to know.
                    HMS Beagle is not saying that ALL YECs are buffoons, but that you are an example of a YEC who is also a buffoon.

                    You've got me wondering if you believe you have been given special knowledge in the area of origins? Sounds rather gnostic. Especially when you imply you can't share.

                    If the creation stories in Genesis are so plain and simple and agree with what's observed in nature (creation) itself, why is it so stinkin' hard for you to explain?

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                      I've been searching your hundreds of post. They don't answer any of the questions I posed, but rather tediously repeat the kind of non-answer you give (or don't give???) here.

                      K54
                      That is Jorge's stick. He wrote literally hundreds of posts telling everyone how once upon a time he answered any and all these questions and doesn't have to do so again. He never posted a link to any of these supposed posts and when others would go through the Before Crash archives they could find little if any trace of such posts[1]]. Jorge actually had the gall to demand payment if someone wanted him to link to any of them!




                      1. There was one time he actually did offer what he considered evidence for a young earth namely the old PRATT about the salinity of the ocean and that writing could not unambiguously be shown to be more than 6000 years old (of course Jorge decided whether something was unambiguously writing and automatically rejected all evidence older than 4000BC).

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        I LOVE to have real, bona fide SCIENCE discussions. The last one that I recall had to do with traveling to other stars - something that I hold will NEVER happen unless something straight out of science fiction becomes a reality.
                        For anyone who doesn't know, the reason Jorge gave for interstellar travel being impossible given the current state of knowledge was that...
                        [spoiler space]






























                        ...there are too many rocks in the way.

                        Roy
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Keep in mind of what I wrote about those who use the term "Biblical Creationist"

                          Jorge has long served as a perfect example. He wields the term like a club trying to beat others into submission by insinuating or outright saying that his view is the only one supported by the Bible and therefore those who disagree were anti-Biblical.

                          But then what can you expect of someone who on the BC (Before Crash) Tweb had threads with titles like "TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" and concluded no and then expanded the same judgment to include anyone who wasn't a YEC.

                          Later he would graciously decide that it was possible for a few non-YECs to be saved but only if they were ignorant or mentally deficient and therefore not responsible for their beliefs.
                          As is typical of your style you wildly misrepresent the position of others (like mine) - mostly by omission but by other means also. On numerous occasions in the old TWeb I explained what 'Biblical Creationist' was all about. Yet here you omit and distort what I had provided to you. There's a word for that kind of behavior, Rogue06, but I don't want to become the first person banned on the new TWeb so I'll just chill.

                          Rogue06, I have learned, is beyond my help. But for those that are new here : I prefer 'Biblical Creationist' over 'YEC' because YEC (Young Earth Creationist) gives the erroneous impression of being based on 'Young Earth' beliefs.

                          No! 'Young Earth' is a consequence, not a presupposition. A 'consequence' of what? A consequence of applying a sound and proven exegesis and hermeneutic to the reading of the Bible. IOW, the BIBLE is the foundation for our position, not a "Young Earth". Hence, Biblical Creationist.

                          Now, the ignorant, the liars and the deceivers keep harping the tune that, and I quote, "YECism is based on a particular interpretation of the Bible and that interpretation is wrong". They then go on to invoke things like figurative, allegorical, parabolic and poetic language (all of which, of course, we find in the Bible along with literal language). But such invocations are expressions of ignorance or of purposeful deception. Why? Because the aforementioned tried-and-proven exegesis and hermeneutic resolve these matters in essentially every case (there may be some - e.g., in Revelation - that are as yet unresolved but those are the rare exceptions, not the rule).

                          What those that wish to reject God's intended meaning do is to apply clever intellectual techniques so as to make a text say whatever they wish. E.g., "The frog jumps." How would you interpret that phrase? Well, I meant it to mean that "the frog jumps" - period! However, a post-modern intellectual nutcase with too much time on his hands, and also wanting to secure some grant money, might say that "frog" is symbolic - it stands for the 'liberal man'; "jumps" is 'the desire to reach something outside of himself'. Thus, "the frog jumps" represents 'the life-long struggle and desire of man to reach goals that are beyond his own self'. Errrr ... no, "the frog jumps" was written and intended to mean, "THE FROG JUMPS" - nothing more!

                          Such are the games that people play, especially in regards to the Bible. These 'games' have but one goal - allow other views than what God had intended in His Word. That way these people can feel justified believing what they want to believe and living the lifestyle that they wish. Believe what you will, it's that simple.

                          A dissertation or two may be written on this. I'll end here.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            For anyone who doesn't know, the reason Jorge gave for interstellar travel being impossible given the current state of knowledge was that...
                            [spoiler space
                            ...there are too many rocks in the way.

                            Roy
                            WOW!!! Your ignorance and sheer stupidity continues to amaze me even to this day.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              For anyone who doesn't know, the reason Jorge gave for interstellar travel being impossible given the current state of knowledge was that there are too many rocks in the way.
                              WOW!!! Your ignorance and sheer stupidity continues to amaze me even to this day.
                              Note that Jorge doesn't say I am wrong.

                              Roy
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                              Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                As is typical of your style you wildly misrepresent the position of others (like mine) - mostly by omission but by other means also. On numerous occasions in the old TWeb I explained what 'Biblical Creationist' was all about. Yet here you omit and distort what I had provided to you. There's a word for that kind of behavior, Rogue06, but I don't want to become the first person banned on the new TWeb so I'll just chill.

                                Rogue06, I have learned, is beyond my help. But for those that are new here : I prefer 'Biblical Creationist' over 'YEC' because YEC (Young Earth Creationist) gives the erroneous impression of being based on 'Young Earth' beliefs.

                                No! 'Young Earth' is a consequence, not a presupposition. A 'consequence' of what? A consequence of applying a sound and proven exegesis and hermeneutic to the reading of the Bible. IOW, the BIBLE is the foundation for our position, not a "Young Earth". Hence, Biblical Creationist.
                                No matter how you choose to spin it you perfectly demonstrate what I said. According to you the YEC view is the only Biblically supported view and all others are by definition not supported by the Bible.

                                You choose to call yourself a "Biblical Creationist" so you can insinuate that those who don't share your particular view are not. As I wrote:
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                [Jorge] wields the term like a club trying to beat others into submission by insinuating or outright saying that his view is the only one supported by the Bible and therefore those who disagree were anti-Biblical.

                                You even came right out and directly declared in your old "TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" thread that TEs, OECs, PCs, and IIRC, those who support the Gap Theory as well (essentially anyone who doesn't embrace the YEC model) are not really Christians. Later you sorta kinda back-tracked from that position to say that those who were either ignorant or mentally deficient and therefore not responsible for their beliefs just might be Christians -- but only barely. How gracious of you.

                                And for you YEC is a presumption and not a consequence. This is evidenced by the fact that despite your repeated praising of the KJV as being by far the best and most superior translation you had no trouble throwing it under the bus in favor of translations you proclaimed were inferior the moment the KJV couldn't be used to support a YEC interpretation.

                                Case in point: Psalm 104 where the KJV and several other translations describe the waters as moving while in some other translations it describes the mountains that the water covered as moving. The latter supports some of the notions proposed by YEC "Flood Geologists" so you abandon what you repeatedly declare to be the best translation in favor of what you called inferior translations because they favor your YEC presumptions.

                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                Now, the ignorant, the liars and the deceivers keep harping the tune that, and I quote, "YECism is based on a particular interpretation of the Bible and that interpretation is wrong". They then go on to invoke things like figurative, allegorical, parabolic and poetic language (all of which, of course, we find in the Bible along with literal language). But such invocations are expressions of ignorance or of purposeful deception. Why? Because the aforementioned tried-and-proven exegesis and hermeneutic resolve these matters in essentially every case (there may be some - e.g., in Revelation - that are as yet unresolved but those are the rare exceptions, not the rule).
                                IOW, you hold that the YEC interpretation is the only Biblically based one and that anyone who disagrees is either ignorant, a liar or a deceiver. This brings us straight back to my previous statement that the more Jorge writes the more he demonstrates its accuracy:
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Jorge has long served as a perfect example. He wields the term like a club trying to beat others into submission by insinuating or outright saying that his view is the only one supported by the Bible and therefore those who disagree were anti-Biblical.

                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                What those that wish to reject God's intended meaning do is to apply clever intellectual techniques so as to make a text say whatever they wish.
                                Because Jorge is privy to the mind of God he knows exactly what He meant

                                The overly simplistic woodenly literal reading has been repeatedly shown to be in error in the past. For instance, we long believed that the earth was immobile and that the sun and everything else revolved around it in large part due to a hyper-literal reading of the Bible (specifically Josh. 10:12-13; I Chron. 16:30; Job 9:7; Ps. 93:1; 96:10; Eccl. 1:5; Isa. 38:8; Hab. 3:11). Then thanks to folks observing God's creation we were able to determine that this view was incorrect. There were heliocentric models proposed in ancient times (Pythagoras had one of them), but they were all summarily rejected by early Christians because they didn't correspond to what they were sure the Bible plainly stated. And remember, Galileo faced charges of heresy not because he disagreed with the scientific establishment but because what he was proposing supposedly contradicted Scripture.

                                The same thing can be said about the firmament which was universally seen as being a solid structure onto which the sun and stars were physically attached. Nearly a quarter of the verses of Gen. 1 are devoted to describing this structure. Now we know that it is better thought of as an expanse rather than a solid structure.

                                Likewise, we used to think it was impossible for anyone to be living at the opposite side of the planet (the antipodes) because Paul wrote that the entire world was hearing the gospel (Rom. 1:8; 10:18; 16:25-26; Col. 1:6, 23; cf. I Tim. 3:16). The idea that someone could be living there was thought to be at best dangerous, and likely damnable (Since Paul had clearly stated that the gospel was preached "unto the ends of the world" and since no one had gone to the other side of the earth, therefore there could be no humans over there). Augustine was especially critical of those who disagreed: "Therefore we find it constantly declared that, as those preachers did not go to the antipodes, no antipodes can exist; hence that the supporters of this geographical doctrine give the lie directly to King David and to St. Paul, and therefore to the Holy Ghost."

                                There were those who declared that women had fewer ribs than did men. This controversy reached a head in 1524 in what became known as the "Adam's Rib Controversy" when the Flemish anatomist Andreas Vesalius (considered the founder of modern human anatomy) contested this notion by demonstrating that the human males and the females have an equal number of ribs in his De humani corporis fabrica ("On the fabric of the human body in seven books") in supposed contradiction of Genesis 2:21.

                                Finally, look at how the Jews, using an overly literal interpretation of what they read in the Bible, rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Apparently they rejected any notion of anything that they deemed wasn't "God's intended meaning."

                                The Bible was never meant to be read as a scientific textbook. It is concerned with greater truths than that.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:39 AM
                                1 response
                                28 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-25-2021, 08:57 AM
                                0 responses
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 07-23-2021, 06:14 PM
                                1 response
                                14 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-22-2021, 07:50 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-21-2021, 08:13 AM
                                13 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X