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 Jorge View Post
    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.
    YOUR data points challenges??? Where??? You said we'd need to debate specific data. SINCE WHEN HAVE YOU EVER BEEN WILLING TO DEBATE SPECIFIC DATA???


    Ok smart A.., I'm opening a thread and I will give you the opportunity to post all the SCIENTIFIC evidence or data that points to the world younger than 10,000 years. And we'll see what sort of a 'challenge' you can present. And I will keep bumping it, and bumping it. And each time I bump it, I will quote what you just said. Time to put up or shut up Mr. Fernandez. And I will in each bump keep a counter of how many posts you have created that actually posit some evidence that points to the universe or the Earth being <10,000 years old.



    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.
    Stop being an idiot. That is not what I said. Nor is it implied what what I said.



    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.
    Are you out of your mind? One thing is for sure, you clearly do need to spend more time trying to understand my posts Jorge!

    The fact that for Jesus to walk on the water something miraculous must have happened is NOT evidence that contradicts the event.

    In fact, it is very unlikely ANY evidence exists that can tell us anything objective about the event. One believes it or one does not.

    Likewise the Resurrection of Lazurus.


    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 !!!
    Jorge, your foot now firmly in your mouth, your accusation here is false. So what it truly boils down to now it does seem is that since you can't address the actual content of my posts you will now resort to actually accusing my of belonging to some sort of cult, and not believing the basics of the Christian faith?

    Go back and read my post a few more times Jorge. You clearly need to.



    For the sake of those that might be inclined to put stock in Jorge's confusion as he and you share common ground on the issue of YEC, let me state for the record that I accept the miracles Jorge is talking about (Resurrection of Lazurus/Jesus walking on water etc.) here AS miracles. He simply completely misunderstood the point of my post, which was:

    Some texts of scripture require information outside that text to fully understand how to interpret it. Jorge ASSUMES that the events of Genesis 1 proceeded miraculously and that the text was meant by God to be read in a technical manner. My point is that the evidence would strongly indicate Jorge's ASSUMPTIONS in that regard are incorrect.

    There is nothing in that which calls into question the miracles of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-24-2014, 03:38 PM.
    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 klaus54 View Post
      Your post to Roy does not address my post in the least.
      It doesn't even address mine.

      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


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Ok smart A.., I'm opening a thread and I will give you the opportunity to post all the SCIENTIFIC evidence or data that points to the world younger than 10,000 years. And we'll see what sort of a 'challenge' you can present. And I will keep bumping it, and bumping it. And each time I bump it, I will quote what you just said. Time to put up or shut up Mr. Fernandez. And I will in each bump keep a counter of how many posts you have created that actually posit some evidence that points to the universe or the Earth being <10,000 years old.
        You'll need to get another '0' key for your keyboard.

        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


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          YOUR data points challenges??? Where??? You said we'd need to debate specific data. SINCE WHEN HAVE YOU EVER BEEN WILLING TO DEBATE SPECIFIC DATA???

          Ok smart A.., I'm opening a thread and I will give you the opportunity to post all the SCIENTIFIC evidence or data that points to the world younger than 10,000 years. And we'll see what sort of a 'challenge' you can present. And I will keep bumping it, and bumping it. And each time I bump it, I will quote what you just said. Time to put up or shut up Mr. Fernandez. And I will in each bump keep a counter of how many posts you have created that actually posit some evidence that points to the universe or the Earth being <10,000 years old.

          ...

          Jim
          Jim, I suspect the Mr. Fernandez will tell us that he is simply too busy to engage us with cogent analysis of actual evidence. Or he will claim that he could do it, but it's not worth it to waste his time on us. Pearls before swine and such.

          In a post on this or some other thread he implied he had a supply of lengthy insults, ready to post as needed. This context was that I asked him why he didn't have the time to answer simple questions but had the time for lengthy insults.

          K54

          P.S. However, I am delighted that you started a new thread, but I fear it will immediately start gathering moths and crickets.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            YOUR data points challenges??? Where??? You said we'd need to debate specific data. SINCE WHEN HAVE YOU EVER BEEN WILLING TO DEBATE SPECIFIC DATA???


            Ok smart A.., I'm opening a thread and I will give you the opportunity to post all the SCIENTIFIC evidence or data that points to the world younger than 10,000 years. And we'll see what sort of a 'challenge' you can present. And I will keep bumping it, and bumping it. And each time I bump it, I will quote what you just said. Time to put up or shut up Mr. Fernandez. And I will in each bump keep a counter of how many posts you have created that actually posit some evidence that points to the universe or the Earth being <10,000 years old.





            Stop being an idiot. That is not what I said. Nor is it implied what what I said.





            Are you out of your mind? One thing is for sure, you clearly do need to spend more time trying to understand my posts Jorge!

            The fact that for Jesus to walk on the water something miraculous must have happened is NOT evidence that contradicts the event.

            In fact, it is very unlikely ANY evidence exists that can tell us anything objective about the event. One believes it or one does not.

            Likewise the Resurrection of Lazurus.




            Jorge, your foot now firmly in your mouth, your accusation here is false. So what it truly boils down to now it does seem is that since you can't address the actual content of my posts you will now resort to actually accusing my of belonging to some sort of cult, and not believing the basics of the Christian faith?

            Go back and read my post a few more times Jorge. You clearly need to.



            For the sake of those that might be inclined to put stock in Jorge's confusion as he and you share common ground on the issue of YEC, let me state for the record that I accept the miracles Jorge is talking about (Resurrection of Lazurus/Jesus walking on water etc.) here AS miracles. He simply completely misunderstood the point of my post, which was:

            Some texts of scripture require information outside that text to fully understand how to interpret it. Jorge ASSUMES that the events of Genesis 1 proceeded miraculously and that the text was meant by God to be read in a technical manner. My point is that the evidence would strongly indicate Jorge's ASSUMPTIONS in that regard are incorrect.

            There is nothing in that which calls into question the miracles of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.

            Jim
            **************************

            On something as serious as this I am most certainly willing to give you the full benefit of the doubt. Okay, so let's make 100.00% sure of what you're saying and what you're not ...

            1. You ACCEPT the miracles of the feeding of the masses (several times), the walking on the stormy sea, the resurrection of Lazarus and the many other miracles spoken of in Scripture. IS THAT CORRECT? (I will proceed as if your answer is "yes".

            2. There is, however, ONE miraculous event - JUST ONE - that you do not accept / believe, namely, the 6-day completed creation of the physical universe and all therein. IS THAT CORRECT? (Again, I will proceed as if your answer is "yes").

            3. You say that you do not accept / believe that miraculous event because most or all of the observable, testable, scientific data testifies against a 6-day creation. IS THIS CORRECT? (One more time, I will proceed as if your answer is "yes").

            4. Okay, so I asked you for the observable, testable, scientific data that supports all of the other miracles that you DO choose to believe in. Your comeback was that you believe in them because you choose to, I quote, "One believes it or one does not." That's fine - no argument from me on that.

            So, SINCE YOUR BELIEFS IN SCORES OF MIRACLES FOUND IN SCRIPTURE ARE NOT BASED ON OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA, THEN WHY IS IT THAT YOU CHOOSE TO NOT BELIEVE IN THE ONE MIRACLE (6-day creation) THAT HAPPENS TO BE FOUNDATIONAL FOR NOT JUST THE BIBLICAL HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY, BUT FOR MANY OTHER FOUNDATIONAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY (e.g., marriage, the Fall, God's redemptive plan (the Cross), ... and so on)?

            Furthermore, the ONE miracle that you deny just happens (coincidence?) to be the one that is ESSENTIAL for the Materialistic position of the universe. Specifically, eliminate gigayears and Materialism is fini, kaput, finished! Materialists absolutely MUST HAVE gigayears in their worldview and, by denying God's clearly-stated chronology, people like yourself hand this to them on a silver platter.

            Okay, so I've given you the full benefit of the doubt. Now let's see what you respond.

            Jorge
            Last edited by Jorge; 05-26-2014, 09:30 AM.

            Comment


            • Jorge no one here has ever claimed to have positive scientific evidence for the Biblical miracles you listed above. You on the other hand HAVE claimed to have positive scientific evidence for a <10,000 year age of the Earth and a literal Noah's Flood only 4500 years ago. THAT's the evidence you keep getting asked for and that you can never produce.

              Unless you're going to change your story and finally admit you accept everything in Genesis on faith alone despite the contradictory scientific evidence. Is that it?

              Quit with the chicken poo flinging and make your position clear.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                Jorge no one here has ever claimed to have positive scientific evidence for the Biblical miracles you listed above. You on the other hand HAVE claimed to have positive scientific evidence for a <10,000 year age of the Earth and a literal Noah's Flood only 4500 years ago. THAT's the evidence you keep getting asked for and that you can never produce.


                Unless you're going to change your story and finally admit you accept everything in Genesis on faith alone despite the contradictory scientific evidence. Is that it?

                Quit with the chicken poo flinging and make your position clear.
                HMS_B,

                EXACTLY!

                He is free to believe his Ge 1-11 interpretation trumps all evidence since the important parts are miraculous. But then he cannot claim Biblical Scientific Creation.

                It's as simple as that.

                Jorge, are you willing to admit the truth?

                K54

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  **************************

                  On something as serious as this I am most certainly willing to give you the full benefit of the doubt. Okay, so let's make 100.00% sure of what you're saying and what you're not ...

                  1. You ACCEPT the miracles of the feeding of the masses (several times), the walking on the stormy sea, the resurrection of Lazarus and the many other miracles spoken of in Scripture. IS THAT CORRECT? (I will proceed as if your answer is "yes".

                  2. There is, however, ONE miraculous event - JUST ONE - that you do not accept / believe, namely, the 6-day completed creation of the physical universe and all therein. IS THAT CORRECT? (Again, I will proceed as if your answer is "yes").

                  3. You say that you do not accept / believe that miraculous event because most or all of the observable, testable, scientific data testifies against a 6-day creation. IS THIS CORRECT? (One more time, I will proceed as if your answer is "yes").

                  4. Okay, so I asked you for the observable, testable, scientific data that supports all of the other miracles that you DO choose to believe in. Your comeback was that you believe in them because you choose to, I quote, "One believes it or one does not." That's fine - no argument from me on that.

                  So, SINCE YOUR BELIEFS IN SCORES OF MIRACLES FOUND IN SCRIPTURE ARE NOT BASED ON OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA, THEN WHY IS IT THAT YOU CHOOSE TO NOT BELIEVE IN THE ONE MIRACLE (6-day creation) THAT HAPPENS TO BE FOUNDATIONAL FOR NOT JUST THE BIBLICAL HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY, BUT FOR MANY OTHER FOUNDATIONAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY (e.g., marriage, the Fall, God's redemptive plan (the Cross), ... and so on)?

                  Furthermore, the ONE miracle that you deny just happens (coincidence?) to be the one that is ESSENTIAL for the Materialistic position of the universe. Specifically, eliminate gigayears and Materialism is fini, kaput, finished! Materialists absolutely MUST HAVE gigayears in their worldview and, by denying God's clearly-stated chronology, people like yourself hand this to them on a silver platter.

                  Okay, so I've given you the full benefit of the doubt. Now let's see what you respond.

                  Jorge
                  Jorge, your list is a straw-man (to use correctly a term you misuse constantly). It does not correctly reflect the content or the nature of the actual discussion/debate. Why is it a straw-man? A straw-man is a flawed representation of an argument or concept that is then systematically deconstructed.
                  The proponent that claims that by deconstructing the straw-man version, he has deconstructed the actual arguments or concept.

                  Where does your straw-man diverge from my actual position? Question #2. (BTW, my answer to 1, a valid question, is YES)

                  Question #2 is flawed, it is basically "How often do you beat your wife". It takes as proven the assumption that the 6 day INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1 is correct. That is THE point of debate Jorge. I accept God's capacity to perform the miraculous, and I accept that He has performed MANY miraculous events, only some of which are recorded in scripture. I believe God is Creator, and that creation proceeded from Him and is sustained by Him. The debate here is not if I believe in a miracle described in scripture, or if I believe God created this universe.

                  The debate here is WHAT KIND OF DESCRIPTION OF CREATION IS GENESIS 1.

                  We disagree on that point. To answer the remainder of your questions as they are formulated, I am implicitly agreeing with your interpretation, which I do not.

                  It should also be noted that the apparent contradiction you see derives from your incorrect formulation of Q2. If Genesis 1 is NOT a literal description of creation in 6 days as we humans count days, then not believing the time frame was 6 days does not deny any claimed miracle in scripture, any more than denying the sky is made of molten brass is somehow denying the truth of the text of Job, or any more than believing the Earth rotates denies text found in the Psalms.


                  Jim
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-26-2014, 10:44 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 oxmixmudd View Post
                    ...
                    It should also be noted that the apparent contradiction you see derives from your incorrect formulation of Q2. If Genesis 1 is NOT a literal description of creation in 6 days as we humans count days, then not believing the time frame was 6 days does not deny any claimed miracle in scripture, any more than denying the sky is made of molten brass is somehow denying the truth of the text of Job, or any more than believing the Earth rotates denies text found in the Psalms.

                    Jim
                    That would also mean the not only is the YEC interpretation exegetically as well as scientifically wrong, but it means they are doing the same thing to God's word that they accuse non-YECs of.

                    Has anyone ever taken that tack?

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                      Jorge no one here has ever claimed to have positive scientific evidence for the Biblical miracles you listed above. You on the other hand HAVE claimed to have positive scientific evidence for a <10,000 year age of the Earth and a literal Noah's Flood only 4500 years ago. THAT's the evidence you keep getting asked for and that you can never produce.

                      Unless you're going to change your story and finally admit you accept everything in Genesis on faith alone despite the contradictory scientific evidence. Is that it?

                      Quit with the chicken poo flinging and make your position clear.
                      The only "chicken poo flinging" is by you and your comrades here.

                      I HAVE made my position clear - many, many times in the past. That you et al. have a hearing, learning and/or a retention disability is NOT my problem - don't try to make it so!

                      I will waste more minutes (sigh!) of my life and succinctly "make my position clear" (AGAIN!!!).

                      NO physical data will 'seal the case' for any position - not for 10,000 years, not for 10 million years and not for 14 billion years.

                      Why? Because in order to arrive at dates regarding origins we are talking about historical science - not operational science. In the former you make observations but must then interpret according to some paradigm and from the outset you had to make assumptions/presuppositions. For Materialists like yourself, Uniformitarianism is one of these. The Copernican (or Copernican-like) Principle is another.

                      Simply change the paradigm, assumptions and presuppositions and THE SAME observations yield a different result. I see the same starlight as you do; I see the same fossils as you do; I observe the same geological features on Earth as you do. However, I do not employ Uniformitarianism or any Copernican-like Principle in their interpretation. What I do use is a historical narrative provided to me by a Book that I regard as True. I am able to use some operational science in all of this - in fact, I use the SAME operational science as you do. It's in the foundation where we differ.

                      Are there some 'apparent inconsistencies' and 'unanswered questions' between observations and this Book? Yes. But exactly the same applies to all other positions including Materialism/Naturalism/Humanism (although this is not readily admitted). These epistemological issues will always exist because we are finite beings with incomplete knowledge, incomplete understanding and inherent flaws (such as biases) in our inner being and perceptions.

                      So how does someone like myself overcome these limitations? Easy - I trust the Words that are in the Book and move on. I employ faith where it is needed. But I have enough physical evidence to support that faith; in other words, it is not a "blind faith", suspended in mid-air, supported by nothing. It is a rational, 'scientific' (proper definition) stance - not as you people like to portray it ("irrational and unscientific").

                      Here's my pet peeve with people like you: You too have serious epistemological limitations. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that you too must employ FAITH to keep you going. You maintain that faith plays no role in your Materialism - obviously this can only be one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty. This denial is obviously motivated because you wish to be in some sort of 'Elitist' / 'Superior' position guided "solely by the power of science and intellect". Hogwash!!

                      Now, there really isn't a way for me to continue without turning this into a dissertation. But I've made my point. ANY of the physical evidences listed by Santa Klaus or any others that you people would like to list may be given alternative "explanations / interpretations". As one example, the "salt in the oceans" evidence was never meant to "prove" a 10,000 year old Earth but only to show that the oceans cannot be billions of years old - something doesn't add up. That is countered by artifacts introduced for the purpose of explaining how the salt level "could be" what we observe in a "billions of years old ocean". Okay, on to the next one: short-period comets (SPC). No problem: simply introduce an "Oort Cloud" to explain how those SPCs could exist. But, something never observed has been introduced as an "explanation". Okay, shall we call that "science"? Sure, why not. Let's now introduce little green men to explain how DNA got to Earth. Oops - too late, someone's already beat us to that "scientific explanation". On and on and on it goes - I could go through the entire list and the net result with you people would be ... drum roll ... NADA!!!

                      Is any of this sinking in?

                      Got'ta go ...

                      Jorge
                      Last edited by Jorge; 05-26-2014, 02:17 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                        NO physical data will 'seal the case' for any position - not for 10,000 years, not for 10 million years and not for 14 billion years.
                        For the scientific community the consilience of the evidence sealed the case a century ago.

                        Why? Because in order to arrive at dates regarding origins we are talking about historical science - not operational science. In the former you make observations but must then interpret according to some paradigm and from the outset you had to make assumptions/presuppositions. For Materialists like yourself, Uniformitarianism is one of these. The Copernican (or Copernican-like) Principle is another.
                        There's no difference in the method the science is done. That's your usual blustering Creationist hand-wave.

                        Simply change the paradigm, assumptions and presuppositions and THE SAME observations yield a different result. I see the same starlight as you do; I see the same fossils as you do; I observe the same geological features on Earth as you do. However, I do not employ Uniformitarianism or any Copernican-like Principle in their interpretation. What I do use is a historical narrative provided to me by a Book that I regard as True. I am able to use some operational science in all of this - in fact, I use the SAME operational science as you do. It's in the foundation where we differ.
                        Change the foundation from scientific intellectual honesty to Creationist lies and bluster and of course you can 'manufacture' support for your presuppositions. That's not how science works however.

                        Are there some 'apparent inconsistencies' and 'unanswered questions' between observations and this Book? Yes. But exactly the same applies to all other positions including Materialism/Naturalism/Humanism (although this is not readily admitted). These epistemological issues will always exist because we are finite beings with incomplete knowledge, incomplete understanding and inherent flaws (such as biases) in our inner being and perceptions.
                        Except the scientific position explains all the evidence in a single consilient manner. You have to make up a different BS story for every piece.

                        So how does someone like myself overcome these limitations? Easy - I trust the Words that are in the Book and move on.
                        OK, you admit your position has no scientific evidence to support it.

                        But I've made my point. ANY of the physical evidences listed by Santa Klaus or any others that you people would like to list may be given alternative "explanations / interpretations".
                        Not a consilient cross-correlating one it can't. That's why your Creationist hand waves are so much chicken poo.

                        As one example, the "salt in the oceans" evidence was never meant to "prove" a 10,000 year old Earth but only to show that the oceans cannot be billions of years old - something doesn't add up. That is countered by artifacts introduced for the purpose of explaining how the salt level "could be" what we observe in a "billions of years old ocean". Okay, on to the next one: short-period comets (SPC). No problem: simply introduce an "Oort Cloud" to explain how those SPCs could exist. But, something never observed has been introduced as an "explanation". Okay, shall we call that "science"? Sure, why not. Let's now introduce little green men to explain how DNA got to Earth. Oops - too late, someone's already beat us to that "scientific explanation". On and on and on it goes - I could go through the entire list and the net result with you people would be ... drum roll ... NADA!!!
                        Thanks for proving my point. You make up one BS story for the first set of data, then a different BS story for the second set of data that contradicts your first BS story. Later you'll make up a third BS story that contradicts the first two. Science has one, count 'em, one consilient explanation that fits ALL the data.

                        Is any of this sinking in?
                        The fact that you have nothing but chicken poo to fling sunk in long ago.
                        Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 05-26-2014, 04:11 PM. Reason: typo

                        Comment


                        • 1) Pure and simple: Ad hoc vis-a-vis consilience. Which do you prefer?

                          2) Without an unambiguous, plain, simple, straightforward "reading" of the Genesis creation stories, even the ad hoc explanations have no meaning. Of course Jorge can't even get through Ge 1:2 without choking.

                          3) What if Jorge's particular unambiguous, plain, simple, straightforward "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is not what Scripture means by "inspired"? What if another unambiguous, plain, simple, straightforward "reading" of the Genesis creation stories is what's inspired? What if an historical-critical approach is the correct one from a standpoint of inspiration?

                          It's much more complicated than Chicken Little and his ilk are spouting, at least in my opinion.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            That would also mean the not only is the YEC interpretation exegetically as well as scientifically wrong, but it means they are doing the same thing to God's word that they accuse non-YECs of.

                            Has anyone ever taken that tack?

                            K54
                            Posted again for your perusal. Is this a valid debate point?

                            Thanks!

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              Posted again for your perusal. Is this a valid debate point?

                              Thanks!

                              K54
                              I have tried to point it out, but it goes over the head like most other attempts at reason. With Jorge and others like him, the end justifies the means. There is no reason to be concerned about the logical consistency of the argument, or even that attitude with which it is delivered, because what they are telling you is true, therefore it's your fault if you don't get it, self-examination is unnecessary, and self-doubt verboten.

                              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 HMS_Beagle View Post
                                For the scientific community the consilience of the evidence sealed the case a century ago.



                                There's no difference in the method the science is done. That's your usual blustering Creationist hand-wave.



                                Change the foundation from scientific intellectual honesty to Creationist lies and bluster and of course you can 'manufacture' support for your presuppositions. That's not how science works however.



                                Except the scientific position explains all the evidence in a single consilient manner. You have to make up a different BS story for every piece.



                                OK, you admit your position has no scientific evidence to support it.



                                Not a consilient cross-correlating one it can't. That's why your Creationist hand waves are so much chicken poo.



                                Thanks for proving my point. You make up one BS story for the first set of data, then a different BS story for the second set of data that contradicts your first BS story. Later you'll make up a third BS story that contradicts the first two. Science has one, count 'em, one consilient explanation that fits ALL the data.



                                The fact that you have nothing but chicken poo to fling sunk in long ago.
                                You're a moron, Tiggy-Beagle. What in heaven's name possessed me to believe that I could 'reason' with you. Shame on me ... let that be a lesson to me and to any reader. I may as well have tried to present my argument to a sea slug.

                                Jorge

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-23-2021, 02:51 PM
                                7 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2021, 07:42 AM
                                45 responses
                                231 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