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

"The case for junk DNA"

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

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    ...
    Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?
    Jim, ZERO. That was easy!

    Now let's see Jorge get back to science. Ok, I know he'll say it's not "true" science ("Science falsely so called"). But it would instructive to see him point out the flaws in the interpretation of the data within the confines of the "untrue" science.

    "You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own data." Data cannot be ignored.

    This certainly gets confusing!

    K54


    Jim[/QUOTE]

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      And so we have second post in a row where you have ignored the scientific issues AND have spent the entire time telling my how terrible I am as a Christian and lauded your own wonderfully perfect and better position before Him.
      Your posts keep getting longer and longer, perhaps employing the Elephant Hurling strategy.

      BTW, I've never said that you are a "terrible Christian" nor have I "lauded my wonderfully perfect and better position" - yet another porky from you (aside from your logical blooper - namely, how can I be both "perfect" and "better"?).

      What I have said is that - under the assumption that you are a Christian (a matter for God and God alone to decide) - you are committing multiple errors and those errors are weakening your own faith, the faith of others, and doing great harm to Christianity in general --- THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID. As a Christian that would not make you "terrible", just ignorant, lacking wisdom and perhaps needing direction. Now stop all your fibbing, O-Mudd.


      As I understand the Christian faith, we are not bound under law or tradition. Especially in the Protestant tradition. So assuming one of us has it wrong on this particular issue, it really doesn't matter in that our position before God is determined by what Christ has done, not our capacity to 'figure it all out'. There are issues of the heart that could actually cast one of us as 'better' or 'worse' than the other in a sense, but these would be issues of humility before God and the genuineness of our desire to please Him and seek Him. These are in point of fact far more important than our actual position on this issue (time frame/method of creation), but are simply elements that are for the most part opaque to us (even sometimes as it applies to our own self), and especially as it applies to this issue.

      And indeed, you do try to paint one of us as having the 'correct' heart and the other the 'bad/evil' heart. I prefer not to do that Jorge. Before God, we are equal, Christ is our savior. I can't decide that since you don't see things my way, it must be you that has the 'evil' heart and is not 'listening' to God. I've learned the hard way it just doesn't work that way.

      So can we leave the attempt at figuring out which of us is 'doing things God's way' out of the discussion. There is no information available to either of us that defines any sort of sinful behavior that would be worthy of dominating the discussion.

      And seeing as how this is the "Natural Science" Forum, would it be possible to discuss science or science related theological issues as oppose to which of us is the 'bad' fellow and which is the 'good' fellow?

      So, back to the issue at hand. Do you have any clue how to explain the observed correlation between theory and observation other than "it is happy coincidence"? Can you make a case for YEC that involves science beyond the fact that in any scientific theory, there is always some small possibility the data which lead to the conclusion is in some way misleading.

      And to that point, why do you think it is reasonable to assume that the majority of the hard sciences whose principles are applied to the historical state of the planet and universe would all point to an age far greater than 10,000 years and an evolutionary history of life if in fact that were NOT the physical reality of the same? How many stacks of data of that form (i.e. "yes is looks like this implies the universe is really old, but there is always this really tiny possibility it might be wrong") can you (or more importantly, any rational, thinking person) tolerate before you or they will make a reasonable visit to the idea your take on how to interpret scripture might be wrong?


      Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?

      Jim
      Your lengthy discourse above, as you often do, contains elements of truth sprinkled amongst many distortions, misrepresentations and ambiguous statements. For example, right from the git-go you say, "... we are not bound under law or tradition." Well, yes and no - it is much deeper than your superficial, one-sided statement would lead a person to believe. To wit ...

      Christ came so that the Law would be fulfilled through Him and, also, we are not to be governed by traditions (fashioned by men). But then, you (conveniently?) forget what God says about this important matter throughout the Scriptures. For example, in Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." You've been "in bed" with Materialistic-minded people for so long that, just as they often do, you present only a partial truth - that which advances a specific agenda. I shan't waste my time with further illustrations on the rest of your post - the point has been made.

      EDITED TO ADD:

      "Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?"

      Stop the Elephant Hurling. Take each of those "data points" one at a time and determine its origin (foundation) and its validity - start with that.

      "... inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe"? No, not necessarily. It's only "inconsistent" if a number of things are arbitrarily ruled out --- a practice all-too-familiar to you people.

      But I have a much better one for you - in fact, I have several. Ready? Here goes:

      How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that thousands of hungry men, women and children may be fed - with more left over than at the start - with just a few loaves and fishes? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a man may walk totally unassisted on the surface of a rough, stormy sea? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a dead person entombed for several days, in a state of decay as evidenced from the smell (Lazarus), may become alive again? Need I go on - there are many, many cases, you know.

      How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support these and many other claims in Scripture? Yet you believe them, don't you? Why? Why is it that amongst ALL of these claims you single out ONE - the 6-day creation - as the one that you refuse to believe? DON'T be so naive as to say, as you always do, that it's because of "the observable scientific data". If you do that then you have to explain each and every belief that you have of all of the biblical claims without a single data point to support your belief.

      And if you say that you don't believe in these biblical claims then ... Houston, we have a problem!

      Will you EVER get it ... I wonder. Clear as clear can be, O-Mudd... clear as clear can be.

      Jorge
      Last edited by Jorge; 05-23-2014, 02:32 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Your posts keep getting longer and longer, perhaps employing the Elephant Hurling strategy.
        ---
        No, Jorge - Jim is employing the Trying to Have a Rational Discussion strategy. You should try it sometime.

        ...

        Stop the Elephant Hurling. Take each of those "data points" one at a time and determine its origin (foundation) and its validity - start with that.

        "... inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe"? No, not necessarily. It's only "inconsistent" if a number of things are arbitrarily ruled out --- a practice all-too-familiar to you people.

        But I have a much better one for you - in fact, I have several. Ready? Here goes:

        How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that thousands of hungry men, women and children may be fed - with more left over than at the start - with just a few loaves and fishes? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a man may walk totally unassisted on the surface of a rough, stormy sea? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a dead person entombed for several days, in a state of decay as evidenced from the smell (Lazarus), may become alive again? Need I go on - there are many, many cases, you know.

        How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support these and many other claims in Scripture? Yet you believe them, don't you? Why? Why is it that amongst ALL of these claims you single out ONE - the 6-day creation - as the one that you refuse to believe? DON'T be so naive as to say, as you always do, that it's because of "the observable scientific data". If you do that then you have to explain each and every belief that you have of all of the biblical claims without a single data point to support your belief.

        And if you say that you don't believe in these biblical claims then ... Houston, we have a problem!

        Will you EVER get it ... I wonder. Clear as clear can be, O-Mudd... clear as clear can be.

        Jorge
        It's "clear as clear can be" that you are a ignoramus and a coward.

        If you take the data points one-at-a-time you still get most of them fitting a Deep Time and multi-episodic scenario.

        Anyway "real" science, not the ridiculous crap you try to pass off, MUST consider ALL the points, and have theories that are consilient. 1) Do you know what consilient means? 2) Does the nailing-jello-to-the-wall dreck that you so pompously call "Biblical Creation" have consilence? Yes or no?

        When you take data points one-at-a-time you end with stupidity like the sodium ion residence time in the oceans gives an upper bound on ocean age of 4000 years. But when you apply the same logic to aluminum you get a few hundred years as an upper bound on the age. Duh!

        Now, I would really like for you to get back to the Biblical exegesis of the first Genesis story that is both literal and unambiguous. Wanna try again? Or are you too chicken?? Bwaaakkk!!!!

        K54

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Your posts keep getting longer and longer, perhaps employing the Elephant Hurling strategy.
          I am sorry you can't stand information. The post you reference was 8 paragraphs, or a grand total of 589 words. Given the average reading rate of 250 to 300 words per minute, my post would have taken you at most 3 minutes of your time to read. And you would need to be a slow reader for it to take you that long (<200 wpm).

          BTW, I've never said that you are a "terrible Christian" nor have I "lauded my wonderfully perfect and better position" - yet another porky from you (aside from your logical blooper - namely, how can I be both "perfect" and "better"?).
          You've not used those words, but that is the clear meaning of your words. You are better. I am on the border with Hell. You've said it quite a few times. Even started two threads on the topic (Can Christian be an Evolutionist I and II).

          What I have said is that - under the assumption that you are a Christian (a matter for God and God alone to decide) - you are committing multiple errors and those errors are weakening your own faith, the faith of others, and doing great harm to Christianity in general --- THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID. As a Christian that would not make you "terrible", just ignorant, lacking wisdom and perhaps needing direction. Now stop all your fibbing, O-Mudd.
          Bottom line, I'm a terrible Christian. Get over it Jorge, that is what you mean, and more importantly, that is what you believe to be true. No use denying it. It's quite obvious.

          Your lengthy discourse above, as you often do, contains elements of truth sprinkled amongst many distortions, misrepresentations and ambiguous statements. For example, right from the git-go you say, "... we are not bound under law or tradition." Well, yes and no - it is much deeper than your superficial, one-sided statement would lead a person to believe. To wit ...

          Christ came so that the Law would be fulfilled through Him and, also, we are not to be governed by traditions (fashioned by men). But then, you (conveniently?) forget what God says about this important matter throughout the Scriptures. For example, in Romans 6:15 "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." You've been "in bed" with Materialistic-minded people for so long that, just as they often do, you present only a partial truth - that which advances a specific agenda. I shan't waste my time with further illustrations on the rest of your post - the point has been made.
          The issue here is not sin. The issue is interpretation as regards a secondary issue.


          EDITED TO ADD:

          "Or more succinctly, given that nearly EVERY known data point is consistent with a billion year old universe and earth, and the majority of the data points are inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe and Earth, what is the probability YOUR take on Genesis is flawed?"

          Stop the Elephant Hurling. Take each of those "data points" one at a time and determine its origin (foundation) and its validity - start with that.
          Members of TWEB have been trying to get you to deal with those data points for years now. Of course I'd be glad to take a look at them with you. The problem is not on my side of the fence Jorge. You are the one that runs the other way and won't talk about these issues in technical terms. Feel free to start a thread on any technical topic at any time. Unlike your responses in the past, I'll be there, and without a long list of insults and diversionary sidelines. The ball is in YOUR court on that one Jorge.

          "... inconsistent with a 10,000 (or less) year old universe"? No, not necessarily. It's only "inconsistent" if a number of things are arbitrarily ruled out --- a practice all-too-familiar to you people.
          Sorry Jorge. Those craters on the moon - the ones that are hundreds of kilometers wide by the hundreds? They are inconsistent with a 10,000 year old solar system. As are the ones on Mars, and Mercury, and Vesta, and Ceres, and on and on and on ....

          Or how about those tidal tails in the magellenic clouds. Those are inconsistent with a 10,000 year old universe.

          Or how about those tidal tails visible in literally thousands of galactic systems.

          Or how about the shockwaves in Andromeda made by M32's passage through it some 200,000,000 years ago?

          Or how about the time it take light to travel from Andromeda to our eyes (2.5 million years).

          I shall stop there, but the list is, literally, endless.

          But I have a much better one for you - in fact, I have several. Ready? Here goes:

          How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that thousands of hungry men, women and children may be fed - with more left over than at the start - with just a few loaves and fishes? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a man may walk totally unassisted on the surface of a rough, stormy sea? How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support the claim that a dead person entombed for several days, in a state of decay as evidenced from the smell (Lazarus), may become alive again? Need I go on - there are many, many cases, you know.
          And how much physical evidence exists which directly contradicts those events? How many records from those places and times describe the events in question and tell a story which directly contradicts the scriptural accounts of what you mention?

          You are not recognizing that some historical events have been recorded, and others have not. Claims about the events that have been recorded can be tested against the evidence. Further the mechanism behind the event can only be ascertained if there is physical evidence. So we can't know any more than that the scripture describe the miracles you mention in the cases you mention. But we have records in the rocks and the sky as to the events surrounding creation. And so we can draw some conclusions about how they proceeded. When you claim the Biblical text should be interpreted to imply the world was created in 6 24 hour days 6000 years ago, we can test that claim against the existing physical evidence. And we can from that evidence determine that claim is false. Most of us that believe the Bible is the word of God simply conclude the text in Genesis as regards those details is not meant to be read so woodenly, and more than that a text which refers to the Earth being immovable should not be read as to imply it cannot be rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun.

          How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support these and many other claims in Scripture? Yet you believe them, don't you? Why? Why is it that amongst ALL of these claims you single out ONE - the 6-day creation - as the one that you refuse to believe? DON'T be so naive as to say, as you always do, that it's because of "the observable scientific data". If you do that then you have to explain each and every belief that you have of all of the biblical claims without a single data point to support your belief.

          By definition, all claims concerning miracles are testable only after the event and only against whatever evidence they might leave behind. And it's not as if Genesis itself does not beg the question of how it should be interpreted! The church and rabbinical history is FULL of debates over how to properly understand that text. I don't think God expects us to behave as dummies here Jorge. He created the text in such a way as to ask for understanding. There are obvious issues in that text that beg for resolution. UNLIKE the other texts you mention here.

          And if you say that you don't believe in these biblical claims then ... Houston, we have a problem!

          Will you EVER get it ... I wonder. Clear as clear can be, O-Mudd... clear as clear can be.

          Jorge
          [/QUOTE]

          No Jorge, it's just a simple matter of realizing this text, if interpreted as you think, simply doesn't describe the creation or the history of the creation we can observe. Most texts that have those kinds of elements are more obviously also a form a textual type that lends itself to the possibility of non-literal reading. But not all. And that is key. The Joshua text reads very literally, and for a more than two millenia it was interpreted to mean very literally exactly what it said - that the sun and moon stopped in the sky. It was read as both an observational AND a technical description. No more. Even you don't read it that way any longer.

          But the text of Genesis, even more so than the text of Joshua prior to Galileo, was recognized as having elements that begged the question: Is this text supposed to be read literally? I simply regard that question as answered most resoundingly "no". It is God's word, God just wasn't giving us technical information. That is what the debate is here. Not IF this is God speaking, but HOW is he speaking. One can only determine that by examining and listening to the clues we have which speak to that issue. And with this text, we have an entire universe full of information to help us clarify God's intent.


          Jim
          My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            How many observable, testable, repeatable scientific data points support these and many other claims in Scripture? Yet you believe them, don't you? Why? Why is it that amongst ALL of these claims you single out ONE - the 6-day creation - as the one that you refuse to believe? DON'T be so naive as to say, as you always do, that it's because of "the observable scientific data".
            A recent creation and global flood would be expected to have left "observable scientific data" that would still be investigable today, and which could provide confirmation or rebuttal.

            The miraculous production of hundreds of fish butties would not.

            That's the difference.

            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


            • So now Jorge has brought Biblical miracles into the fray. Miracles have no natural explanation, and they defy laws of nature. The Bible brings in miracles to convey a special message for a purpose at one particular time. They are (ostensibly) verifiable as miracles to an observer understanding how nature work who then recognizes in an obvious way that something extremely unusual has happened.

              Bringing out the "miracles card" in a science discussion is like bringing out the "Hitler card" in a debate. It's a sure sign the bringer-outer has lost. Anything the doofus can't explain becomes attributable to "miracle."

              And for the 6Ka/6day/24hour creationist it the death rattle of any chance of proffering a "Biblical Creation Science". Anything said after that about how the geological/astronomical/biological/... evidence points to that cosmic history is worthless, since they've already said it's something that the natural sciences can't discuss.

              Of course, due to the abundance of evidence for billions of years and many, many episodes in the record of nature, one would have to resort to some kind of "grown creation" of some sort -- and not just Adam's Bellybutton or trees without growth rings, but a FULL-BLOWN trickster version of creation -- with UNNECESSARY evidence of time and events that never occurred and a fortiori for NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DECEIVE! (Unlike miracles which have an instructive purpose.)

              Jorge, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Ponder it and let it sink into your ossified noodle.

              Such arrogance, ignorance, and deceit I have never seen...

              K54

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                I am sorry you can't stand information. The post you reference was 8 paragraphs, or a grand total of 589 words. Given the average reading rate of 250 to 300 words per minute, my post would have taken you at most 3 minutes of your time to read. And you would need to be a slow reader for it to take you that long (<200 wpm).



                You've not used those words, but that is the clear meaning of your words. You are better. I am on the border with Hell. You've said it quite a few times. Even started two threads on the topic (Can Christian be an Evolutionist I and II).



                Bottom line, I'm a terrible Christian. Get over it Jorge, that is what you mean, and more importantly, that is what you believe to be true. No use denying it. It's quite obvious.



                The issue here is not sin. The issue is interpretation as regards a secondary issue.




                Members of TWEB have been trying to get you to deal with those data points for years now. Of course I'd be glad to take a look at them with you. The problem is not on my side of the fence Jorge. You are the one that runs the other way and won't talk about these issues in technical terms. Feel free to start a thread on any technical topic at any time. Unlike your responses in the past, I'll be there, and without a long list of insults and diversionary sidelines. The ball is in YOUR court on that one Jorge.



                Sorry Jorge. Those craters on the moon - the ones that are hundreds of kilometers wide by the hundreds? They are inconsistent with a 10,000 year old solar system. As are the ones on Mars, and Mercury, and Vesta, and Ceres, and on and on and on ....

                Or how about those tidal tails in the magellenic clouds. Those are inconsistent with a 10,000 year old universe.

                Or how about those tidal tails visible in literally thousands of galactic systems.

                Or how about the shockwaves in Andromeda made by M32's passage through it some 200,000,000 years ago?

                Or how about the time it take light to travel from Andromeda to our eyes (2.5 million years).

                I shall stop there, but the list is, literally, endless.



                And how much physical evidence exists which directly contradicts those events? How many records from those places and times describe the events in question and tell a story which directly contradicts the scriptural accounts of what you mention?

                You are not recognizing that some historical events have been recorded, and others have not. Claims about the events that have been recorded can be tested against the evidence. Further the mechanism behind the event can only be ascertained if there is physical evidence. So we can't know any more than that the scripture describe the miracles you mention in the cases you mention. But we have records in the rocks and the sky as to the events surrounding creation. And so we can draw some conclusions about how they proceeded. When you claim the Biblical text should be interpreted to imply the world was created in 6 24 hour days 6000 years ago, we can test that claim against the existing physical evidence. And we can from that evidence determine that claim is false. Most of us that believe the Bible is the word of God simply conclude the text in Genesis as regards those details is not meant to be read so woodenly, and more than that a text which refers to the Earth being immovable should not be read as to imply it cannot be rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun.




                By definition, all claims concerning miracles are testable only after the event and only against whatever evidence they might leave behind. And it's not as if Genesis itself does not beg the question of how it should be interpreted! The church and rabbinical history is FULL of debates over how to properly understand that text. I don't think God expects us to behave as dummies here Jorge. He created the text in such a way as to ask for understanding. There are obvious issues in that text that beg for resolution. UNLIKE the other texts you mention here.

                No Jorge, it's just a simple matter of realizing this text, if interpreted as you think, simply doesn't describe the creation or the history of the creation we can observe. Most texts that have those kinds of elements are more obviously also a form a textual type that lends itself to the possibility of non-literal reading. But not all. And that is key. The Joshua text reads very literally, and for a more than two millenia it was interpreted to mean very literally exactly what it said - that the sun and moon stopped in the sky. It was read as both an observational AND a technical description. No more. Even you don't read it that way any longer.

                But the text of Genesis, even more so than the text of Joshua prior to Galileo, was recognized as having elements that begged the question: Is this text supposed to be read literally? I simply regard that question as answered most resoundingly "no". It is God's word, God just wasn't giving us technical information. That is what the debate is here. Not IF this is God speaking, but HOW is he speaking. One can only determine that by examining and listening to the clues we have which speak to that issue. And with this text, we have an entire universe full of information to help us clarify God's intent.


                Jim[/QUOTE]

                Wow - longer and longer and longer ... YUP, I'm convinced, you are employing the Elephant Hurling strategy so that I 'give up' and you then declare 'victory' when I don't reply. Go ahead, O-Mudd - have your 'victory'. As for my reading speed, I don't read this stuff as if I were reading a cheap comic book - I give it thought and try to grasp what the message is. That requires TIME - get it? Anyway, your errors above are Legion-cubed. Got'ta go.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  A recent creation and global flood would be expected to have left "observable scientific data" that would still be investigable today, and which could provide confirmation or rebuttal.

                  The miraculous production of hundreds of fish butties would not.

                  That's the difference.

                  Roy
                  And you think that there isn't any such evidence? How about hundreds of mass burial sites that testify to a sudden, catastrophic "burial" such as would occur in the biblical Flood?

                  Here's the actual problem, Roy: people like yourself either dismiss what is out there OR you re-interpret the evidence right before your eyes so as to allow for YOUR chosen beliefs to remain standing. I'm sorry but against such less-than-honest trickery there is no remedy ... no amount of evidence will ever convince people that employ such underhanded tactics.

                  I know that you don't like it but, there you go - you have your answer.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    So now Jorge has brought Biblical miracles into the fray. Miracles have no natural explanation, and they defy laws of nature. The Bible brings in miracles to convey a special message for a purpose at one particular time. They are (ostensibly) verifiable as miracles to an observer understanding how nature work who then recognizes in an obvious way that something extremely unusual has happened.

                    Bringing out the "miracles card" in a science discussion is like bringing out the "Hitler card" in a debate. It's a sure sign the bringer-outer has lost. Anything the doofus can't explain becomes attributable to "miracle."

                    And for the 6Ka/6day/24hour creationist it the death rattle of any chance of proffering a "Biblical Creation Science". Anything said after that about how the geological/astronomical/biological/... evidence points to that cosmic history is worthless, since they've already said it's something that the natural sciences can't discuss.

                    Of course, due to the abundance of evidence for billions of years and many, many episodes in the record of nature, one would have to resort to some kind of "grown creation" of some sort -- and not just Adam's Bellybutton or trees without growth rings, but a FULL-BLOWN trickster version of creation -- with UNNECESSARY evidence of time and events that never occurred and a fortiori for NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DECEIVE! (Unlike miracles which have an instructive purpose.)

                    Jorge, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Ponder it and let it sink into your ossified noodle.

                    Such arrogance, ignorance, and deceit I have never seen...

                    K54
                    Just read my last post (addressed to Roy) and apply to yourself a triple dose of the same ointment.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • [qs]How about hundreds of mass burial sites that testify to a sudden, catastrophic "burial" such as would occur in the biblical Flood?[/qs]

                      Many of them do not testify to sudden catastrophic burial, e.g the Clarkia beds Creation Science Rebuttals: Young-Earth Creationist Distortions of the Paleoenvironments of the Clarkia Fossil Beds, Idaho, USA

                      All were produced at widely separated times as evinced by multiple independent lines of evidence.

                      So, yeah, how 'bout them fossil beds? How 'bout you start a thread with a post detailing and demonstrating exactly why those hundreds of mass burial sites are consistent with and evidence of a global fludde lasting a year, including geological and chemical and radiological and... evidence or references to such? Not just "they shoor likes lahk a glubal fludde too me, derp derp derp".

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Just read my last post (addressed to Roy) and apply to yourself a triple dose of the same ointment.

                        Jorge
                        Jorge,

                        Your post to Roy does not address my post in the least.

                        Now apply a quadruple dose of that same ointment, and try again.

                        K54

                        Originally posted by Klaus54
                        So now Jorge has brought Biblical miracles into the fray. Miracles have no natural explanation, and they defy laws of nature. The Bible brings in miracles to convey a special message for a purpose at one particular time. They are (ostensibly) verifiable as miracles to an observer understanding how nature work who then recognizes in an obvious way that something extremely unusual has happened.

                        Bringing out the "miracles card" in a science discussion is like bringing out the "Hitler card" in a debate. It's a sure sign the bringer-outer has lost. Anything the doofus can't explain becomes attributable to "miracle."

                        And for the 6Ka/6day/24hour creationist it the death rattle of any chance of proffering a "Biblical Creation Science". Anything said after that about how the geological/astronomical/biological/... evidence points to that cosmic history is worthless, since they've already said it's something that the natural sciences can't discuss.

                        Of course, due to the abundance of evidence for billions of years and many, many episodes in the record of nature, one would have to resort to some kind of "grown creation" of some sort -- and not just Adam's Bellybutton or trees without growth rings, but a FULL-BLOWN trickster version of creation -- with UNNECESSARY evidence of time and events that never occurred and a fortiori for NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DECEIVE! (Unlike miracles which have an instructive purpose.)

                        Jorge, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Ponder it and let it sink into your ossified noodle.

                        Such arrogance, ignorance, and deceit I have never seen...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          And you think that there isn't any such evidence? How about hundreds of mass burial sites that testify to a sudden, catastrophic "burial" such as would occur in the biblical Flood?
                          Speaking of less than honest Jorge - why do you ignore the facts that the sites we have with mass burials are all localized sites and have different dates that are often hundreds of millions of years apart?

                          You've run from every question asked of you, you'll run from this one too. I's a lock.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                            Wow - longer and longer and longer ... YUP, I'm convinced, you are employing the Elephant Hurling strategy so that I 'give up' and you then declare 'victory' when I don't reply. Go ahead, O-Mudd - have your 'victory'. As for my reading speed, I don't read this stuff as if I were reading a cheap comic book - I give it thought and try to grasp what the message is. That requires TIME - get it? Anyway, your errors above are Legion-cubed. Got'ta go.

                            Jorge
                            You win the prize for evasion.

                            Enjoy it. It's the only prize you'll ever win in these debates (and it appears to be the only one you've ever tried for)

                            As for reading for comprehension, I would HOPE that is what you are doing. So you are now up to 4 minutes. maybe 5.

                            And does it really help your case for your abilities to think clearly in this debate to say that those 589 words in my simple comment are too much for your cognitive capacity?

                            OK guys, try not to overtax Jorge. By his own words, 589 words is just too much for him to grasp at better than 'comic book' level within 3 to 4 minutes

                            Short 'nough fer ya?


                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-24-2014, 09:54 AM.
                            My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              Speaking of less than honest Jorge - why do you ignore the facts that the sites we have with mass burials are all localized sites and have different dates that are often hundreds of millions of years apart?

                              You've run from every question asked of you, you'll run from this one too. I's a lock.
                              Uhmmm ... errr ... hey, Dumbo, the point in question CONCERNS these "hundreds of millions of years". You can't just use those dates as if they were "fact, Fact, FACT" and then challenge me on that basis. I mean, what in blazes is the matter with you, Goofy? By the way, be sure to demand a refund from wherever you learned basic logic.

                              Did I go too fast for you, Beagle?
                              Ask one of your compadres here to explain my point to you sloooooooowly.

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                You win the prize for evasion.
                                Keep in mind, folks, that that's coming from the Undisputed King of Evasion himself!

                                Hehehe ... loved your 'answers' to my "data points" challenges.

                                Pathetic, actually.

                                EDITED TO ADD:

                                I had meant to comment on this but kept forgetting. Here it is ...

                                "And how much physical evidence exists which directly contradicts those events? How many records from those places and times describe the events in question and tell a story which directly contradicts the scriptural accounts of what you mention?"


                                Do others here pick up (as I have) on what O-Mudd is implying (or more than merely 'implying')?
                                Yup, he sure is - he's implying that (some or most of) the miracles spoken of in Scripture ARE NOT TRUE!!! He is letting the "physical evidence" trump God's Holy Word.

                                The examples I gave were the feeding of the masses, Jesus walking on the stormy sea and the resurrection of Lazarus. So at least for those three events O-Mudd is saying -- just read above -- that there is "contradictory evidence"; i.e., they may not be true.

                                I cannot tell a lie: I am now genuinely believing that O-Mudd's faith is actually some pseudo-Christian cult which, as God warns us in 2 Timothy 3:5, "... having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." If O-Mudd is not there, he is well on his way. I mean, what's next on O-Mudd's list of things to delete / alter from Scripture? WOW !!!

                                Enjoy it. It's the only prize you'll ever win in these debates (and it appears to be the only one you've ever tried for)

                                As for reading for comprehension, I would HOPE that is what you are doing. So you are now up to 4 minutes. maybe 5.

                                And does it really help your case for your abilities to think clearly in this debate to say that those 589 words in my simple comment are too much for your cognitive capacity?

                                OK guys, try not to overtax Jorge. By his own words, 589 words is just too much for him to grasp at better than 'comic book' level within 3 to 4 minutes

                                Short 'nough fer ya?


                                Jim


                                Jorge
                                Last edited by Jorge; 05-24-2014, 12:38 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-23-2021, 02:51 PM
                                7 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2021, 07:42 AM
                                45 responses
                                235 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
                                19 responses
                                95 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
                                23 responses
                                87 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X