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

  • klaus54
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • HMS_Beagle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • JonF
    replied
    [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".

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

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