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

[klaus54]

Kindly stop wasting your time (and mine) with your insistence. I have clearly stated that you appear to have no true, genuine desire to learn. To me it seems that there is a lot of 'Pharisee-ism' in your posts; i.e., like Clinton you will employ semantic tricks and other devious methods in order to trash your opponent while justifying yourself / your beliefs. That simply doesn't cut it with me and so I'll say again - stop wasting your time bothering other people.

Jorge

No semantic tricks at all. Strong concordism has a precise definition which I gave above, i.e., choosing the particular "literal" reading of the Genesis stories while harmonizing them with what the vast body of scientific knowledge informs.

Whereas, you use semantic tricks when you say you're a "Biblical Creationist", when that is a rhetorical term that's never fleshed out using your particular "literal" Genesis interpretation, and to what aspects of the body of scientific knowledge that you accept or reject.

Your replies are classic examples of projection.

K54

[oxmixmudd]

Kindly stop wasting your time (and mine) with your insistence. I have clearly stated that you appear to have no true, genuine desire to learn. To me it seems that there is a lot of 'Pharisee-ism' in your posts; i.e., like Clinton you will employ semantic tricks and other devious methods in order to trash your opponent while justifying yourself / your beliefs. That simply doesn't cut it with me and so I'll say again - stop wasting your time bothering other people.

Jorge

Lets see, 8 pages, and not a single substantive post by a single YEC. And what do we have above. Name calling by Jorge. Judgement of motives by Jorge. Projection by Jorge. But no substance. Nothing.

So Jorge, what constitutes a 'person willing to learn'. A person that already agrees with you? A person that knows nothing about the topic and therefore can't possibly ask any troubling questions about what you try to 'teach'?

I'll tell you something Jorge. A person that has a sound logical argument doesn't need to carry on like you do. They simply lay out their argument in a clear an concise fashion. Klaus will do that for you if you will engage. He has nothing to fear, like you do. He can tell you why he thinks what he thinks, and he can listen to you tell him why you think what you do (if you could EVER muster the courage to do it of course). But you simply can't do that.

You have to carry on like you have over the last 3 pages.

Why?

The answer is simple. You have nothing substantive to say. And so you substitute accusations and pejoratives for arguments and facts.

"Come let us reason together."

That is what God says.

Why don't you try it Jorge? Are you so weak minded, so fragile in your ego and faith that you can't engage in a simple and honest discussion of the topic at hand?

Don't answer. You don't have to.

You already have.


Jim

[rogue06]

Lets see, 8 pages, and not a single substantive post by a single YEC. And what do we have above. Name calling by Jorge. Judgement of motives by Jorge. Projection by Jorge. But no substance. Nothing.

So Jorge, what constitutes a 'person willing to learn'. A person that already agrees with you? A person that knows nothing about the topic and therefore can't possibly ask any troubling questions about what you try to 'teach'?

I'll tell you something Jorge. A person that has a sound logical argument doesn't need to carry on like you do. They simply lay out their argument in a clear an concise fashion. Klaus will do that for you if you will engage. He has nothing to fear, like you do. He can tell you why he thinks what he thinks, and he can listen to you tell him why you think what you do (if you could EVER muster the courage to do it of course). But you simply can't do that.

You have to carry on like you have over the last 3 pages.

Why?

The answer is simple. You have nothing substantive to say. And so you substitute accusations and pejoratives for arguments and facts.

"Come let us reason together."

That is what God says.

Why don't you try it Jorge? Are you so weak minded, so fragile in your ego and faith that you can't engage in a simple and honest discussion of the topic at hand?

Don't answer. You don't have to.

You already have.


Jim

If you have the facts on your side you don't need to rely upon bluff and bluster.

[Jorge]

Have a blessed Easter Jorge (and everyone else). For He is Risen!

AMEN to that!

It is good to keep such things in mind and to honor our LORD by always keeping His Holy Word above the words and vain imaginations of men - imaginations that dishonor His truths. To him that has ears, let him hear!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Strong concordism applied to Creation involves finding an interpretation of the Genesis stories that is as "literal" as possible. And because of the ambiguity of the concept of a "literal", your interpretation is chosen such as to harmonize as much as possible with what scientific method can inform us of Creation itself.

Okay, now that I know what you mean by "strong concordism" then, NO, I am not a "strong concordist". Responding to your criterion: I do not seek to "find an interpretation of the Genesis stories that is as literal as possible". I seek to read God's Word and ascertain what HE intended to communicate. In short, I seek the TRUTH in God's Word - period.

So, would this moniker fit your beliefs regarding "Biblical Scientific Creation"?

Asked and answered.

Also, are you a "Biblical Scientific Creationist" or just a "Biblical Creationist"?

Biblical Creationist says it all. God's Special Revelation (the Bible) is the primary source of His truth. In it we find moral truth, spiritual truth and scientific truth, among others. The problem with most people (yourself included) is that they are either ignorant or confused on terms such as "science", "truth", "Bible" and many others. From that point on it's all downhill.

Thanks in advance for your reply, and Happy Resurrection Day! K54

Thanks - you 2.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Lets see, 8 pages, and not a single substantive post by a single YEC. And what do we have above. Name calling by Jorge. Judgement of motives by Jorge. Projection by Jorge. But no substance. Nothing.

So Jorge, what constitutes a 'person willing to learn'. A person that already agrees with you? A person that knows nothing about the topic and therefore can't possibly ask any troubling questions about what you try to 'teach'?

I'll tell you something Jorge. A person that has a sound logical argument doesn't need to carry on like you do. They simply lay out their argument in a clear an concise fashion. Klaus will do that for you if you will engage. He has nothing to fear, like you do. He can tell you why he thinks what he thinks, and he can listen to you tell him why you think what you do (if you could EVER muster the courage to do it of course). But you simply can't do that.

You have to carry on like you have over the last 3 pages.

Why?

The answer is simple. You have nothing substantive to say. And so you substitute accusations and pejoratives for arguments and facts.

"Come let us reason together."

That is what God says.

Why don't you try it Jorge? Are you so weak minded, so fragile in your ego and faith that you can't engage in a simple and honest discussion of the topic at hand?

Don't answer. You don't have to.

You already have.


Jim

If you were honest (which you may be at times but, sadly, are often NOT), you would have mentioned that on MANY occasions I tried to engage in "simple, honest discussions" with you and others here on TWeb. Yet, as an example of one of your times NOT being honest, here you omit even mentioning that fact thereby essentially telling (certainly implying) K54 and other new people here that I have NEVER even TRIED [read the highlighted portion above and be honest]. Then you toss in a measure of judgment ("fragile ego and faith"). New TWeb but it's the same ol' O-Mudd.

The result of those discussions? After being subjected to numerous instances of intellectual dishonesty I eventually gave up, moving on to other things. I took no joy in that because I love good, honest, constructive, edifying discussions. Such discussions benefit everyone in multiple ways. But I can count on one hand the number of times that I've had such discussions with someone here. The last, as I mentioned recently, was on traveling to other stars.

Anyway, until you and others like you learn the true meaning of honesty, we will always be butting heads. Why? Because I can sniff out dishonesty like a bloodhound and I do not give it a free pass - ever!

So, do try again, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

If you were honest (which you may be at times but, sadly, are often NOT), you would have mentioned that on MANY occasions I tried to engage in "simple, honest discussions" with you and others here on TWeb. Yet, as an example of one of your times NOT being honest, here you omit even mentioning that fact thereby essentially telling (certainly implying) K54 and other new people here that I have NEVER even TRIED [read the highlighted portion above and be honest]. Then you toss in a measure of judgment ("fragile ego and faith"). New TWeb but it's the same ol' O-Mudd.

The result of those discussions? After being subjected to numerous instances of intellectual dishonesty I eventually gave up, moving on to other things. I took no joy in that because I love good, honest, constructive, edifying discussions. Such discussions benefit everyone in multiple ways. But I can count on one hand the number of times that I've had such discussions with someone here. The last, as I mentioned recently, was on traveling to other stars.

Anyway, until you and others like you learn the true meaning of honesty, we will always be butting heads. Why? Because I can sniff out dishonesty like a bloodhound and I do not give it a free pass - ever!

So, do try again, O-Mudd.

Jorge

I didn't say or imply you NEVER engaged someone Jorge. I said you are not now engaging, nor has any other YEC on this site. And certainly by your own words you are admitting you do not any longer engage. In the many years I have been at this site and have tried to engage you Jorge, probably 1000's of posts total, I can count on one hand the number of times you have actually engaged in a real discussion of the sort you claim here to enjoy. You engaged me a few times out of a minimum of hundreds of opportunities (with various outcomes, the most common some sort of derision of the value of my faith).

What I see then Jorge is a man who can't make a case that is actually science, and who knows he can't, but who will not admit it. It would seem to me THAT would define dishonesty. Honesty would be to say you believe the scriptures teach a young earth but you don't have a solid scientific case with which to back that up. That is the simple reality. And that is the truth you will not confess.

IF you would ever actually honestly admit what the true state of affairs is then perhaps you would have a position on which to stand when you hurl your 'dishonesty' accusations. But the truth is the only 'dishonest' one here is you, because you claim to have scientific support that you know you do not have.

It is that simple.


Jim

ETA:

As for 'judgement'. Let us be clear. Judgement can be a term with many applications. I assess you faith as fragile based on its incompatibility with reality. It must then be shielded with a certain sort of blinder which hides reality from it for it to survive. However, I do not attribute your position as a fundamental indicator or some sort of corruption in your soul, some sort of indicator your faith in Christ is less the genuine. Take note also, and most importantly: the former is not the sort of thing Jesus tells us not to do ("Judge not lest ye be judged"). However, the latter is.

[klaus54]

Well put, Jim.

Awaiting Jorge's cogent reply.

K54

[rogue06]

AMEN to that!

It is good to keep such things in mind and to honor our LORD by always keeping His Holy Word above the words and vain imaginations of men - imaginations that dishonor His truths. To him that has ears, let him hear!

Jorge

Which translates into "you better agree with how I interpret the first couple chapters of Genesis" regardless with how it conflicts with everything we see when we examine God's creation that is right before our eyes. Got it.

[rogue06]

What I see then Jorge is a man who can't make a case that is actually science, and who knows he can't, but who will not admit it. It would seem to me THAT would define dishonesty. Honesty would be to say you believe the scriptures teach a young earth but you don't have a solid scientific case with which to back that up. That is the simple reality. And that is the truth you will not confess.

Such as what Kurt Wise, the YEC who is the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett-McConnell College says:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young from scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant”.

And

“Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.”

While I disagree about there being any real scientific evidence in support of the young earth model I commend Wise for being honest enough to admit where he stands.

[Jorge]

Well put, Jim.

Awaiting Jorge's cogent reply.

K54

Just a quick note : you invariably side with anyone speaking against me. Now, if that doesn't say anything to you then you aren't as clever as you may think you are.

I'll now respond (briefly) to Jim's post ...

Jorge

[rwatts]

Just a quick note : you invariably side with anyone speaking against me.

Jorge

Given the quality of your arguments and the evidence you always don't bring to bear in support of them, that one is a no brainer Jorge.

So see if you can do better with your rant to Jim.

[Jorge]

I didn't say or imply you NEVER engaged someone Jorge.

Ah-so, Clintonese nit-picking, I see ...

I said you are not now engaging, nor has any other YEC on this site.

I certainly 'engaged' - just not the way you guys want. And why not? I adequately provided my reasons - reasons that you guys simply ignore / push aside while continuing to whine about not getting what you want.

And certainly by your own words you are admitting you do not any longer engage.

False again! Give me a good, honest discussion and I'll be more than happy to engage. But when you people toss out IDEOLOGY and want me to discuss it as if it were "science" then I'm not going to fall for those deceptions. I then call you out on it to which you respond as you do here. Heads, you win; tails, I lose. I know your tactic well, O-Mudd.

Case in point is Evolution - I have explained the two 'evolutions' many times. What you people (dishonestly) do is bring in E1 and then bait-n-switch to E2. I, somewhat experienced in this, am quick to detect the deception, call you out on it, and then I receive the 'lash' of your accusations. How DARE I call out deception!

In the many years I have been at this site and have tried to engage you Jorge, probably 1000's of posts total, I can count on one hand the number of times you have actually engaged in a real discussion of the sort you claim here to enjoy. You engaged me a few times out of a minimum of hundreds of opportunities (with various outcomes, the most common some sort of derision of the value of my faith).

I won't deny the general essence of what you say here. What you fail to mention is WHY this has happened. I corrected your omission in the preceding paragraph.

What I see then Jorge is a man who can't make a case that is actually science, and who knows he can't, but who will not admit it. It would seem to me THAT would define dishonesty. Honesty would be to say you believe the scriptures teach a young earth but you don't have a solid scientific case with which to back that up. That is the simple reality. And that is the truth you will not confess.

Think whatever you wish, O-Mudd. I will do the same : I think that when you willingly accepted man's edicts over God's Word you essentially abandoned truth for lies and now those lies are what direct your thinking in all matters. Here, for example, you say that "I can't make a case that is actually science".

Okay, so let's talk about dishonesty. Here you fail to mention at least three things: (1) You employ what I regard as an invalid (purely Materialistic) definition of 'science'. This invalid definition censors truths - scientific truths! - that go beyond Materialism. Thus, you do not allow what is censored and that makes you a 'winner' by default. (2) You do not make the distinction between operational science and historical science - this is an essential point in these discussions; (3) You fail to mention that I HAVE presented (operational) scientific evidence - you just didn't like it and so you summarily dismissed it.

Together, (1), (2) and (3) ooze intellectual dishonesty.

IF you would ever actually honestly admit what the true state of affairs is then perhaps you would have a position on which to stand when you hurl your 'dishonesty' accusations. But the truth is the only 'dishonest' one here is you, because you claim to have scientific support that you know you do not have.

It is that simple.

POT ... KETTLE ... BLACK.

As for 'judgement'. Let us be clear. Judgement can be a term with many applications. I assess you faith as fragile based on its incompatibility with reality. It must then be shielded with a certain sort of blinder which hides reality from it for it to survive. However, I do not attribute your position as a fundamental indicator or some sort of corruption in your soul, some sort of indicator your faith in Christ is less the genuine. Take note also, and most importantly: the former is not the sort of thing Jesus tells us not to do ("Judge not lest ye be judged"). However, the latter is.

SHEER NONSENSE! You begin by not even comprehending your opponent's position and then, due to your limitations, you accuse him (me!) of dishonesty, evasion, faithlessness and/or many other faults. If I had a dollar for every time that you've done that -- to me and to others -- I'd pay cash for that cruise to Tahiti that I've had in mind.

Now, I responded point-by-point to your entire post. Took more time than I could afford but it's done. Repent and seek God's truth ... until you do you will continue in your errors.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Given the quality of your arguments and the evidence you always don't bring to bear in support of them, that one is a no brainer Jorge.

So see if you can do better with your rant to Jim.

'Dumbo' has chimed in.

"rant"??? Been sniffing Darwin's last underwear again, Roland?

Jorge

[klaus54]

Just a quick note : you invariably side with anyone speaking against me. Now, if that doesn't say anything to you then you aren't as clever as you may think you are.

I'll now respond (briefly) to Jim's post ...

Jorge

You've got me totally confused, tied in knots as it were.

1) I have no idea what YOU mean by "Biblical Creation" or "Biblical Creation Science".

2) Since I have no idea what you mean by these, I have no idea what "side" I'm taking, other than to note that you lash out at others while not explaining your own views. So, in that sense, yes, I am taking the side of anyone speaking against you if they offer a cogent argument or point out that you haven't explained yourself.

3) Since I don't know what your view is, I can't argue against it. I can't argue against the empty set. Is this your logic, to make your POV (what ever it is!) vacuously true? "If x is a member of { }, then Q" where Q is always true vacuously.

Are you familiar with the phrase "nailing Jello to a wall?"

Try harder, PLEASE!

K54