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

[klaus54]

...

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

This was, without a doubt, THE most egregious misuse of the terminology "point-by-point response."

And what's your fixation on Clinton, "Darwin's underwear", and trying to outdo yourself on Projection?

So, once-and-for-all, pure-and-simple what is:

1) Your definition of "Biblical Creation"?

2) Your definition of "Biblical Scientific Creation"?

And if you have the time and energy, 3) Your definition of "science"?

K54

P.S. Please don't say you've answered these hundreds of times before, since I have no evidence of that and no one here appears to agree with you.

[rwatts]

'Dumbo' has chimed in.

Indeed.

"rant"???

Yes. Just you wait and see what you provide.*

Been sniffing Darwin's last underwear again, Roland?

Yes. The scent of wisdom, knowlege, humility, ability. You should try it sometime Jorge.

Jorge

As always, you get that correct.


ETA

* I told you so:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post46906

[oxmixmudd]

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




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.




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.

As I said. Generally your responses are about slamming the moral integrity of those you disagree with, rather than actually engaging in open, honest discussion. Thank you for obliging my observation with so clear and concise an example.

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!

"the two evolutions". This has nothing to do with the current discussion, or the topic of Klaus' thread. He is asking for you to define your terms, not arguing with you over their validity.

But this does again lay out yet another clear example of how you approach these conversations. 'dishonestly', 'bait-n-switch', 'deception' - what a paranoid list this is! Do you really suppose we sit around and devise evil plans against you hoping to catch you in a weak moment?

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.

Ah, something we can agree on. You assessment of 'why' bears little resemblance to reality, but nevertheless, we can agree on the content of your posts.

As I said, my assessment is that your faith is fragile. And you protect it with these paranoid projections of Satan's image on the character of those who disagree with you. Indeed, if we are not pawns at the hand of the deceiver, if what we are saying may actually be true, your entire world collapses. So we MUST be deceived and deceiving, and further, since Jesus has promised that if we seek Him with our whole heart, He we lead us into the truth, then since we do not see the truth as you see it on this matter, the must not be seeking Christ with our whole heart.

What you fail to comprehend Jorge is that the divisions within Christendom exist because NONE of us truly seek Christ with a pure and whole heart. We are all tainted with sin. And that clouds ALL of our views of Him. We see through a glass darkly. Only the shall we see face to face. You are just as much a victim of that as anyone else. And it is therefore by His grace alone any of us stands before Him in any part conformed to Him.

Because we see through the glass darkly, because we are all subject to stumbling due to our own sin, Love is what we must master, not judgement, not doctrine. Love must reign over these things Jorge.

The age of the Earth, the proper understanding of Genesis and how it maps to the history of the word, this is NOT a key element of the faith. That God created, That we fell, That we need redemption, That Christ is Redeemer, These are the key elements. The precise mechanism of how all these things work and play out are not important, nor are they even fully taught in scripture. How does Jesus blood redeem Jorge? How did Adam's fall come to us all? How did God create? We don't know how Jorge. We don't need to know how to be redeemed.

Your stumblings in these areas all involve details as to HOW. The involve assumptions about the text that cannot be supported. Assumptions about its mode of revelation. Assumptions about its literary and mode.

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.

For the most part, the massive separations you make in the various self-defined forms of science are themselves simply yet more protections for you fragile faith. Science is a method of acquiring knowledge that is well defined and that excludes postulates of miraculous intervention favoring the discovery of natural cause and effect. That is its purpose, that is why it works. It reveals to us the underlying mechanisms God has put into place, the elements that are always in play regardless of God's miraculous intervention.

Science can't reveal mechanisms behind the miraculous, but it can reveal if a purported miraculous event has occurred. The sight if a man once blind can be observed, as can the records attesting to his previous state of blindness. Another example: a global flood can be assessed in terms of whether or not it left behind physical remnants consistent with such an event, regardless of the mechanism producing it. Once evaluated, one may conclude science can or can't support such a claim. And to be fair, that has already happened. Science can't support such a claim. That doesn't mean it did not happen per se. But it does mean that if it did, it left insufficient evidence consistent with such an event to conclude it was a reality.

But further, science can assess if there is evidence contrary to the claim. And indeed, that it also does. Indeed, there is so much evidence contrary to such an event that it shatters any possible hope for scientific support. That is, that whatever evidence might be consistent with it is overshadowed and rendered moot. All such evidence is in fact inconclusive and can be explained just as well (if not better) by non-Global floods. And so we are left with the reality science can't support an interpretation of Genesis that ascribes the deluge to a global event. The only problems then exist if one claims it can when in fact it can't. And so it is up to you to produce such evidence if it exists. I know of none. But such evidence must be 'science', not claims made a priori based on a certain theological position.

A second problem is the challenge to a certain interpretive perspective. That interpretation of the text (or more precisely, those assumptions about its textual mode and type, revelational mode and type) is challenged by science. One solution is to ignore the science (but to be honest, one must admit one is ignoring the science). Another option that retains faith in the God of the text is to search for a better interpretive mode that is still faithful to the text.

POT ... KETTLE ... BLACK.




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

I comprehend your position well Jorge. I've been there, done that. The reason we disagree is not a lack of understanding of the elements you raise. It is disagreement concerning the validity of those same arguments. They just don't stand up Jorge. The evidence for an old Earth and Universe can't be dismissed by the mechanisms you claim. I would invite you to entertain the possibility that I see what I see because I am seeking God and I am following Christ, not in spite of it. And I would invite you to engage without guns blazing and all the projections of demons flying. Just a simple, prayerful, respectful and patient discussion of our differing points of view.

Why not Jorge?



Jim

[rogue06]

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'.

Don't tell me, you prefer Michael Behe's definition for what constitutes a scientific theory -- one that he was forced to admit under oath during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial would include astrology as being legitimate science:

Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct...


Source

© Copyright Original Source

The problem is than in order for folks of your ilk to shoehorn your beliefs into being scientific you have to utterly bastardize what science is.

[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

Huh?

I've more-than-adequately presented what I mean by Biblical Creationist and why I prefer that term over YEC. I've also differentiated between three items and explained why: operational science, historical science and "science" falsely-so-called (i.e., ideology under the guise of science). Therefore, I have no idea what you are ranting above here.

Are you sure that you are well?

Jorge

[Jorge]

This was, without a doubt, THE most egregious misuse of the terminology "point-by-point response."

And what's your fixation on Clinton, "Darwin's underwear", and trying to outdo yourself on Projection?

So, once-and-for-all, pure-and-simple what is:

1) Your definition of "Biblical Creation"?

2) Your definition of "Biblical Scientific Creation"?

And if you have the time and energy, 3) Your definition of "science"?

K54

P.S. Please don't say you've answered these hundreds of times before, since I have no evidence of that and no one here appears to agree with you.

Refer to my last post. Do you have any issues - such as a comprehension handicap - that I should be aware of (I mean that seriously)? If you do then please share - I only want to help.

Jorge

[Jorge]

As I said. Generally your responses are about slamming the moral integrity of those you disagree with, rather than actually engaging in open, honest discussion. Thank you for obliging my observation with so clear and concise an example.



"the two evolutions". This has nothing to do with the current discussion, or the topic of Klaus' thread. He is asking for you to define your terms, not arguing with you over their validity.

But this does again lay out yet another clear example of how you approach these conversations. 'dishonestly', 'bait-n-switch', 'deception' - what a paranoid list this is! Do you really suppose we sit around and devise evil plans against you hoping to catch you in a weak moment?





Ah, something we can agree on. You assessment of 'why' bears little resemblance to reality, but nevertheless, we can agree on the content of your posts.

As I said, my assessment is that your faith is fragile. And you protect it with these paranoid projections of Satan's image on the character of those who disagree with you. Indeed, if we are not pawns at the hand of the deceiver, if what we are saying may actually be true, your entire world collapses. So we MUST be deceived and deceiving, and further, since Jesus has promised that if we seek Him with our whole heart, He we lead us into the truth, then since we do not see the truth as you see it on this matter, the must not be seeking Christ with our whole heart.

What you fail to comprehend Jorge is that the divisions within Christendom exist because NONE of us truly seek Christ with a pure and whole heart. We are all tainted with sin. And that clouds ALL of our views of Him. We see through a glass darkly. Only the shall we see face to face. You are just as much a victim of that as anyone else. And it is therefore by His grace alone any of us stands before Him in any part conformed to Him.

Because we see through the glass darkly, because we are all subject to stumbling due to our own sin, Love is what we must master, not judgement, not doctrine. Love must reign over these things Jorge.

The age of the Earth, the proper understanding of Genesis and how it maps to the history of the word, this is NOT a key element of the faith. That God created, That we fell, That we need redemption, That Christ is Redeemer, These are the key elements. The precise mechanism of how all these things work and play out are not important, nor are they even fully taught in scripture. How does Jesus blood redeem Jorge? How did Adam's fall come to us all? How did God create? We don't know how Jorge. We don't need to know how to be redeemed.

Your stumblings in these areas all involve details as to HOW. The involve assumptions about the text that cannot be supported. Assumptions about its mode of revelation. Assumptions about its literary and mode.





For the most part, the massive separations you make in the various self-defined forms of science are themselves simply yet more protections for you fragile faith. Science is a method of acquiring knowledge that is well defined and that excludes postulates of miraculous intervention favoring the discovery of natural cause and effect. That is its purpose, that is why it works. It reveals to us the underlying mechanisms God has put into place, the elements that are always in play regardless of God's miraculous intervention.

Science can't reveal mechanisms behind the miraculous, but it can reveal if a purported miraculous event has occurred. The sight if a man once blind can be observed, as can the records attesting to his previous state of blindness. Another example: a global flood can be assessed in terms of whether or not it left behind physical remnants consistent with such an event, regardless of the mechanism producing it. Once evaluated, one may conclude science can or can't support such a claim. And to be fair, that has already happened. Science can't support such a claim. That doesn't mean it did not happen per se. But it does mean that if it did, it left insufficient evidence consistent with such an event to conclude it was a reality.

But further, science can assess if there is evidence contrary to the claim. And indeed, that it also does. Indeed, there is so much evidence contrary to such an event that it shatters any possible hope for scientific support. That is, that whatever evidence might be consistent with it is overshadowed and rendered moot. All such evidence is in fact inconclusive and can be explained just as well (if not better) by non-Global floods. And so we are left with the reality science can't support an interpretation of Genesis that ascribes the deluge to a global event. The only problems then exist if one claims it can when in fact it can't. And so it is up to you to produce such evidence if it exists. I know of none. But such evidence must be 'science', not claims made a priori based on a certain theological position.

A second problem is the challenge to a certain interpretive perspective. That interpretation of the text (or more precisely, those assumptions about its textual mode and type, revelational mode and type) is challenged by science. One solution is to ignore the science (but to be honest, one must admit one is ignoring the science). Another option that retains faith in the God of the text is to search for a better interpretive mode that is still faithful to the text.



I comprehend your position well Jorge. I've been there, done that. The reason we disagree is not a lack of understanding of the elements you raise. It is disagreement concerning the validity of those same arguments. They just don't stand up Jorge. The evidence for an old Earth and Universe can't be dismissed by the mechanisms you claim. I would invite you to entertain the possibility that I see what I see because I am seeking God and I am following Christ, not in spite of it. And I would invite you to engage without guns blazing and all the projections of demons flying. Just a simple, prayerful, respectful and patient discussion of our differing points of view.

Why not Jorge?

Jim

I've asked you before but I forgot your answer : are you by any chance a practicing lawyer? I ask because, just like any greasy, devious, forked-tongued attorney, you have an ability to mix truth with lie, clarity with distortion, facts with imaginations and you top all of that with omission of whatever doesn't advance your agenda.

K54 may not have much of a history with me but you have tons of history and I remember very well most of what I've responded to you in the past. Your post does a great job of omitting, distorting, misrepresenting, etc. essentially everything from those past responses.

You continue to parrot that "YEC arguments don't stand up". Well, for starters you need to study those arguments sans the Materialistic blinders, otherwise you'll never get to first base. The funny thing is how quick you are to point out alleged errors in the YEC position while miserably failing to see the glaring errors in your own position. The verse of "speck in one eye versus the log in another" comes to mind. As I've told you many times, Jim, until you realize and accept that you are presently blinded by a Materialistic agenda, you will remain in your rut, possibly until the day you die.

One last point: please stop preaching the sermon that "these aren't salvational matters". If you don't have the intelligence or wisdom to realize the inter-connectedness between different aspects (such as morality, history, economics, politics, ethics, the arts, and so on), then at least recognize that there are some of us that do have a fairly good grasp on this. Christ is either LORD of all or He is LORD of none - not to mention the implications / consequences of one aspect on the others. Your desire to compartmentalize one or several aspects of reality from all others is foolish and extremely harmful to Christianity. At least remain silent until you've learned this truth, otherwise you will continue to mislead others and for that you will have to answer.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Don't tell me, you prefer Michael Behe's definition for what constitutes a scientific theory -- one that he was forced to admit under oath during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial would include astrology as being legitimate science:

Source: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct...


Source

© Copyright Original Source

The problem is than in order for folks of your ilk to shoehorn your beliefs into being scientific you have to utterly bastardize what science is.

Michael Behe is a top-notch scientist in his field but he is not a very good science philosopher. The entire Dover group (including the attorneys) defending the ID position were simply ill-informed. That was the number one reason why Dover was lost. Not that you understand any of that but I've responded to your nonsense nonetheless.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Michael Behe is a top-notch scientist in his field but he is not a very good science philosopher. The entire Dover group (including the attorneys) defending the ID position were simply ill-informed. That was the number one reason why Dover was lost. Not that you understand any of that but I've responded to your nonsense nonetheless.

Jorge

Or all the other major ID proponents were wise to not show up even after spending years claiming that such a hearing was exactly what they wanted. A case of be careful what you wish for?

And according to the Father of the Intelligent Design movement, Philip Johnson, while discussing Kitzmiller in an article in the Berkeley Science Review, there might have just been another reason for their devastating failure:

Paul Nelson, a YEC as well as a fellow of the Discovery Institute's (the primary organization backing ID) Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design appears to agree, stating in an article in Touchstone magazine:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

William Dembski seems to concur:

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

[klaus54]

Refer to my last post. Do you have any issues - such as a comprehension handicap - that I should be aware of (I mean that seriously)? If you do then please share - I only want to help.

Jorge

Vielen Dank for wasting our time with this worthless content-free non-response.

So I will assume from now on you're unable to answer simple questions.

Any other "Biblical Creationist" or "Biblical Scientific Creationist" willing to give Jorge a hand?

K54

[klaus54]

Or all the other major ID proponents were wise to not show up even after spending years claiming that such a hearing was exactly what they wanted. A case of be careful what you wish for?

And according to the Father of the Intelligent Design movement, Philip Johnson, while discussing Kitzmiller in an article in the Berkeley Science Review, there might have just been another reason for their devastating failure:

Paul Nelson, a YEC as well as a fellow of the Discovery Institute's (the primary organization backing ID) Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design appears to agree, stating in an article in Touchstone magazine:

"Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design."

William Dembski seems to concur:

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

I don't want this to morph into a ID discussion, but this is just my two pence. It seems the way ID is defined without a specific designer makes it untestable and therefore a philosophy rather than a science. Perhaps that's its strong point as well. The ID proponents can then claim it's not be falsified when it is in fact unfalsifiable, and therefore make it an easy sell to "the folk."

On the other hand "Biblical Scientific Creationism" presumably claims to make testable hypotheses about nature -- geology, astronomy, biology, and physics. The big problem for it though is those testable hypotheses have been falsified for a long time. Plus BSC lacks anything vaguely resembling consilience. If I'm wrong, and BSC is a philosophy and so doesn't have a testable model, then it's not science in any reasonable sense of the word.

K54

[firstfloor]

[Jorge]

.
.
QUOTE MINING ...
.
.

So it seems that these leading proponents of Intelligent Design all think that the one thing that their movement is missing is scientific support. Not support from the scientific community but rather support in the way of actual corroborating evidence for their claims.

Preposterous misrepresentation of reality.

Clearly you haven't a c-l-u-e about these matters thus explaining your blind opposition to ID.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Vielen Dank for wasting our time with this worthless content-free non-response.

So I will assume from now on you're unable to answer simple questions.

Any other "Biblical Creationist" or "Biblical Scientific Creationist" willing to give Jorge a hand?

K54

You either do have a comprehension handicap of the type that I inquired about or you simply aren't an honest person, Santa. What part of my reply did you not grasp ...

"I've more-than-adequately presented what I mean by Biblical Creationist and why I prefer that term over YEC. I've also differentiated between three items and explained why: operational science, historical science and "science" falsely-so-called (i.e., ideology under the guise of science). Therefore, I have no idea what you are ranting above here."

At least be honest and acknowledge that I have supplied what you requested only that you are unable or unwilling to grasp / accept what I've supplied. That would be a good first step.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I don't want this to morph into a ID discussion, but this is just my two pence. It seems the way ID is defined without a specific designer makes it untestable and therefore a philosophy rather than a science. Perhaps that's its strong point as well. The ID proponents can then claim it's not be falsified when it is in fact unfalsifiable, and therefore make it an easy sell to "the folk."

On the other hand "Biblical Scientific Creationism" presumably claims to make testable hypotheses about nature -- geology, astronomy, biology, and physics. The big problem for it though is those testable hypotheses have been falsified for a long time. Plus BSC lacks anything vaguely resembling consilience. If I'm wrong, and BSC is a philosophy and so doesn't have a testable model, then it's not science in any reasonable sense of the word.

K54

Good heavens, just how ignorant are you about these things, Santa?

What I mean is, to say the things that you wrote above you must either be,

(1) totally ignorant of ID and BSC ... OR

(2) you are not ignorant - you know ID and BSC well - but you're not honest.

I cannot think of another alternative. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll believe that it's (1) but you're not doing anything to help me retain that belief.

Jorge