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

  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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.
    Last edited by rwatts; 05-01-2014, 11:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omega Red
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by Jorge
    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.
    Wrong. I do not demonise anyone. Anyone that knows me personally knows that such a claim doesn’t even begin to apply to me. So it’s another attempt of you trying to vilify me. Sigh - You use the same tired lines of reasoning that only highlight your own actions towards others.

    Originally posted by Jorge
    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.
    At least this unpacks the problems explaining your actions. Internet forums provide a limited window to the person behind the posts. If many different people in that forum have the same reaction, it is likely that you are consistently writing in a style that is in inconsistent with your self-perceived attitude. And this isn’t about your detractors jumping on you; you’ve even got fellow Young Earth Creationists jumping on your head. But alarm bells fail to ring.

    Originally posted by Jorge
    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.
    Irrelevant analogy and incorrect as well, but I doubt you would spot the mistake. You accused someone of “historical porkies” based on your recollection even in light of evidence already presented. The sin exists. The sin is yours. Don’t keep up this pick n’ mix attitude towards the New Testament and conveniently forget vast tracks when it suits; Luke 17:3 for example is why your actions regarding this issue are important.

    Originally posted by Jorge
    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.
    You’ve used this argument before. It was irrelevant then as it is now. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. And on several issues I had told you plainly that I had searched your posts and no such post exits. You maintained that claim that the post exists and you failed to provide a link. To provide a link does not equal denying the content.

    Originally posted by Jorge
    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 ...
    Irrelevant to the discussion at hand and a poorly veiled attempt to lump anyone who disagrees with you into one category and call them dishonest. You vilify without a care but get affronted when people hold you to account for doing it and then play your wounded victim card. And do you really think the YEC camp is free of employing “double-standard for ethics, for evidential worthiness, for belief, for truth, for science ... and for many other things”? Do they not "employ double standards or lie by omission, distortion and misrepresentation"?

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • rwatts
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


    Like when the Minnesota Vikings win the Super Bowl.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    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:

    Originally posted by AiG, Feedback January 31, 2014
    ...

    Rather, a creation scientist understands that God’s eyewitness account of our
    origins provides the only reliable framework for interpreting ...
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
    In your country, I believe that Hell has frozen over:-

    It’s Official: Hell Has Frozen Over

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


    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
136 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X