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

Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

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

  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Nice try at answering the questions.

    Cerebrum -- see what I mean? Were my questions not reasonable?

    Jorge -- again, isn't "Creation Science" necessarily "historical"?

    Reload...

    K54
    I think those questions are reasonable, but given some of your previous posts, I don't think your intentions are. Which is one of many reasons I have decided to limit my posting in this area.

    As for the historical science thing, even CMI acknowledges that that is what they are doing.

    Source: CMI

    We have only one reliable witness who was there—God—and He has given us a written history book—the Bible.

    All science about origins is historical science. By some definitions it is not even science. We all—whether evolutionist or biblical creationist––have the same evidence. It is how we interpret that evidence, which we all do through the ‘glasses’ of our worldview or belief system. And no scientist is without a belief system.

    © Copyright Original Source



    It's from this article.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      I think those questions are reasonable, but given some of your previous posts, I don't think your intentions are. Which is one of many reasons I have decided to limit my posting in this area.

      As for the historical science thing, even CMI acknowledges that that is what they are doing.

      Source: CMI

      We have only one reliable witness who was there—God—and He has given us a written history book—the Bible.

      All science about origins is historical science. By some definitions it is not even science. We all—whether evolutionist or biblical creationist––have the same evidence. It is how we interpret that evidence, which we all do through the ‘glasses’ of our worldview or belief system. And no scientist is without a belief system.

      © Copyright Original Source



      It's from this article.
      What on Earth do my "intentions" have to do with? My "intentions" are none of yours or Jorge's business.

      And if "all science about origins is historical science" then why the subterfuge about "operational" vs. "historical" science?

      I have NEVER seen a YEC interpretation of the mountains of evidence that even contains a tittle of the cogency of the non-YEC interpretation. Care to defend some here and help out your friend Jorge? I'm sure Jim would appreciate a break from the insults.

      Also, perhaps you would care to give a non-ambiguous plain, clear, simple, literal reading of the Ge 1:2-3? Wanna give it a try? I mean that's what strident YECs crow about.

      And that "Eye Witness" thing. God is "eye witness" to everything, including the myriad of evidence of deep time and multiple episodes recorded in Creation itself. That way more than obviates the nonsensical arrogant rhetoric YEC apply to their Genesis interpretation.

      K54

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        I think those questions are reasonable, but given some of your previous posts, I don't think your intentions are. Which is one of many reasons I have decided to limit my posting in this area.

        As for the historical science thing, even CMI acknowledges that that is what they are doing.

        Source: CMI

        We have only one reliable witness who was there—God—and He has given us a written history book—the Bible.

        All science about origins is historical science. By some definitions it is not even science. We all—whether evolutionist or biblical creationist––have the same evidence. It is how we interpret that evidence, which we all do through the ‘glasses’ of our worldview or belief system. And no scientist is without a belief system.

        © Copyright Original Source



        It's from this article.
        Thanks for the 'help', C123, but I doubt very much that it'll do any good.

        Here's something more for 'these' people: as you know they are constantly whining and claiming (falsely, I might add) that "there is no physical evidence pointing towards a young Earth/universe". I've stated on a number of occasions that anyone parroting that claim is either (1) ignorant or, (2) dishonest --- no third alternative exists. Unfortunately, these people never admit to either of those options since it wouldn't serve their agenda.

        Recently I came across a pretty good list of these "non-existent" physical evidences and thought I'd post it here. I know it won't have the desired effect (namely, to educate them and silence them on their false claim) but at least now they'll only have # (2) -- dishonesty -- as their reason for continuing to make that false claim.

        One more thing: I am not saying, nor will I ever, that this seals the case for a young Earth/universe - it doesn't. Nor am I saying that alternative explanations do not exist/cannot be offered for these physical data - they do/may exist. What I AM saying is that (1) their claim is unwarranted, untrue and/or deceptive and, (2) someone has to be genuinely delusional to think that every single item on this list can be conclusively "explained away". On the other hand, a deceived mind can do anything and so they'll go on believing whatever they wish to believe.

        The author of the linked article says one thing that I like very much because it shows where the heart of the Biblical Creationist is in all of this (that includes me). Here's what he says:

        " ... some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events ..."


        Here's the link: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ............. enjoy!
        That provides 101 items to reflect upon, hardly "nothing".

        Jorge

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Good grief, man, don't you ever let up?

          "A cat, being chased by a dog, escaped by climbing a tree."

          Think of what you understood that preceding sentence was saying.
          What assumptions did you make to come to that understanding?
          Did you or did you not merely employ your knowledge of the English
          language (this includes a hermeneutic/exegesis framework) combined
          with the overall context?

          Okay, for properly interpreting Scripture it's essentially the same thing.

          So if you want me to admit that "ZERO" doesn't mean a literal zero
          then I must because no reading/interpretation can occur in a vacuum.
          I meant zero in the sense that I did not extract anything other than
          what the direct reading of the text conveys (like my cat-dog sentence).

          Compare that with what Theistic Evolutionists do - they insert millions/
          billions of years into Scripture - something that is not even HINTED at
          by any part of the Bible. They can ONLY do that via blatant distortion
          and extra-biblical insertions. Catch the difference?

          Now go back to your Looney Tunes show.

          Jorge
          So Jorge finally admits a mistake. "Zero" doesn't mean "zero". Cool. So there ARE assumptions. Why can't you tell us what those are, and then regale us with your reading of Ge 1:2-3?

          Cerebrum repeats the canard of interpretation of the physical evidence vis-a-vis interpretation of the Genesis stories. I claim you boys have it backwards, or you're both so blind to see that the Genesis stories have various interpretations that include cultural/historical context. Whereas, the OEC, TEC, and vast majority scientific consensus interpretation of nature is exceedingly consilient, unlike YEC interpretations which are ad hoc.

          And I'll beat you to it: that's a fact, Fact, FACT!!!

          Completely backwards. What color is the sky in Bizzaro Land??

          K54

          P.S. Jim -- is it ok to invite Cerebrum into the discussion of physical evidence?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Thanks for the 'help', C123, but I doubt very much that it'll do any good.

            Here's something more for 'these' people: as you know they are constantly whining and claiming (falsely, I might add) that "there is no physical evidence pointing towards a young Earth/universe". I've stated on a number of occasions that anyone parroting that claim is either (1) ignorant or, (2) dishonest --- no third alternative exists. Unfortunately, these people never admit to either of those options since it wouldn't serve their agenda.

            Recently I came across a pretty good list of these "non-existent" physical evidences and thought I'd post it here. I know it won't have the desired effect (namely, to educate them and silence them on their false claim) but at least now they'll only have # (2) -- dishonesty -- as their reason for continuing to make that false claim.

            ...
            Jorge
            Number 2 is your specialty, Jorge.

            Now, maybe you can take, point-by-point, these 101 evidences and bring them to this thread.

            I'm sure Jim would appreciate it!

            Don't chicken out now. We're watching you! And I'm going to stay on you like ugly on a ape until you answer simple questions.

            K54

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post

              Here's something more for 'these' people: as you know they are constantly whining and claiming (falsely, I might add) that "there is no physical evidence pointing towards a young Earth/universe". I've stated on a number of occasions that anyone parroting that claim is either (1) ignorant or, (2) dishonest --- no third alternative exists. Unfortunately, these people never admit to either of those options since it wouldn't serve their agenda.
              The third alternative with probability 1.0 is that they're correct and you're a deluded ignoramus.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                Zero assumptions. The direct reading of the narrative speaks of "the beginning" and then lists a sequence of events with a "day" separating one period from the other. All indications are that "day" is meant literal. There is nothing in the text that even hints at "day" meaning millions/billions of years. That's without getting into the theological implications.
                The "weeks" in Daniel are literally weeks, not years? How would you interpret Revelation, literally? You try to interpret the psalms literally? The stars, do they actually say things?
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jorge View Post


                  Compare that with what Theistic Evolutionists do - they insert millions/
                  billions of years into Scripture - something that is not even HINTED at
                  by any part of the Bible. They can ONLY do that via blatant distortion
                  and extra-biblical insertions. Catch the difference?
                  Pot. Meet Kettle.

                  As I noted in this post:
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  You rebuke those you see as adding to and distorting Scripture yet you have no problem doing exactly what you condemn others for.

                  You support the YEC contention that after Noah's Flood the planet's landscape was radically changed (entire mountain ranges were created, canyons were gouged out not to mention everything had been buried under thousands of feet of sediment[1]). Where is this said or even suggested in the Bible?

                  You've previously declared that mankind had scattered all over the planet (even saying there were billions of people) before the Flood in order to justify the necessity of it being global in scope. Nowhere does it say anything even remotely like this in the Bible but you see nothing wrong with adding it in order to support YEC dogma. In fact, in the account of the Tower of Babel it suggests that if anything prior to God dispersing mankind all over the face of the earth (Gen. 11:8) we tended to congregate together in close proximity.

                  At the same place I'm debating the YEC who said that Christ didn't die on the cross I brought this up in a discussion on the Flood pointing out how YECs change any of the details provided in order to make it match their beliefs such as claiming that the animals brought aboard the Ark were either babies (or in some cases in egg form)[2] to explain away overcrowding the Ark despite the fact that the animals were described as being the "male and his mate" (Gen. 7:2) and leaving in families (Gen. 8:19) which implies that they were old enough to reproduce.

                  Another YEC chimed in excusing such changes saying that
                  As far as adding to the Bible we all do that to some extent. especially in Genesis. It began way back in the Talmud. They added Lilith and a Nephalim stowed away on top of the Ark.

                  So it is always fine and dandy when YECs engage in the behavior that they caustically condemn in others just like when you agree with atheists about how Scripture should be read and understood while simultaneously criticizing just that sort of conduct when you think someone else does it.







                  1. Many YECs even support the notion that there had been a single landmass prior to the Flood which got broken apart with the continents zipping across the planet to their present locations (despite the fact that the resultant friction would be more than enough to produce sufficient heat that would reduce the planet's crust to molten slag).

                  2. This is also a view you espoused in threads on the pre-crash Tweb. And please note, that nowhere does it say that animals came to the ark and then laid some eggs and then wandered off

                  YECs engage in the exact same sort of thing that you oh so eagerly delight in condemning others for.

                  Where is it "HINTED at by any part of the Bible" that the landscape of the world was changed by the Flood? If anything it appears that the rivers mentioned earlier are still in the same locations that they were in. So why isn't this a "blatant distortion[1] and extra-biblical insertions"?

                  Where is it "HINTED at by any part of the Bible" that humanity had spread across the entire planet prior to the Flood? If anything it appears that prior to the Tower of Bable (post-Flood) mankind stayed relatively close together until God dispersed us all over the face of the earth. So why isn't this a "blatant distortion and extra-biblical insertions"?

                  Where is it "HINTED at by any part of the Bible" that Noah took infants and eggs aboard the Ark? If anything it appears to say that the animals were old enough to be capable of reproducing. So why isn't this a "blatant distortion and extra-biblical insertions"?

                  And those were just a couple examples of this blatant hypocrisy and double standard that you established that I could think of off the top of my head. There are many other examples.

                  For instance, I've run across many YECs who proclaim that some animals survived the Flood by living on floating mats of vegetation despite what we read in Gen 7:21-23:
                  And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

                  It says that nothing outside the Ark survived. But that doesn't stop YECs, who declare that this is the literal account of a worldwide deluge and that if you disagree with that view you are calling God a liar, from proposing that creatures outside the Ark survived. So why isn't this a "blatant distortion and extra-biblical insertions"?







                  1. Actually you supplied the answer to this on the pre-crash Tweb when you proclaimed that distortion ("as I have defined ‘distort’") is only something that non-YECs are capable of doing. No matter how much a YEC may twist, warp, bend, pervert and change what is written (and they declare must be taken in the plain, literal manner) it isn't "distorting." Instead it's exegesis

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Jorge mentioned 101 physical data points in a YEC "science" document that support a 6,000 - 10,000 year old Cosmos.

                    To continue Jim's challenge with this new factoid, Jorge - as a start, are you willing to pick one of these 101 and discuss it on this thread?

                    Cerebrum appears to be on "your side", so perhaps he can chime in as well.

                    Also, Cerebrum might want to participate in another thread started a couple of months ago asking for the unambiguous, plain, straightforward, direct reading of the first Genesis creation story. Jorge admitted there might be multiple meanings of 1:3 and barfed completely on 1:2, leaving a trail of flatulence and insults. He said he did have an answer but was unwilling to tell it because I wasn't worthy.

                    This two-flank approach has a lot of potential to air out the truth. Too bad no one has been willing to take the challenge.

                    K54
                    Last edited by klaus54; 05-30-2014, 10:33 AM. Reason: missing space

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                      So Jorge finally admits a mistake. "Zero" doesn't mean "zero". Cool. So there ARE assumptions. Why can't you tell us what those are, and then regale us with your reading of Ge 1:2-3?

                      Cerebrum repeats the canard of interpretation of the physical evidence vis-a-vis interpretation of the Genesis stories. I claim you boys have it backwards, or you're both so blind to see that the Genesis stories have various interpretations that include cultural/historical context. Whereas, the OEC, TEC, and vast majority scientific consensus interpretation of nature is exceedingly consilient, unlike YEC interpretations which are ad hoc.

                      And I'll beat you to it: that's a fact, Fact, FACT!!!

                      Completely backwards. What color is the sky in Bizzaro Land??

                      K54

                      P.S. Jim -- is it ok to invite Cerebrum into the discussion of physical evidence?
                      Yes - any YEC is welcome.
                      He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                      "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        The "weeks" in Daniel are literally weeks, not years? How would you interpret Revelation, literally? You try to interpret the psalms literally? The stars, do they actually say things?
                        Huh?

                        Don't you know that Scripture contains all literary constructs, not merely literal narrative? The parables of Christ, for instance, intentionally contain allegorical/figurative language. Why don't you people educate yourselves before going off on a rampage? What in blazes is the matter with you people?

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Pot. Meet Kettle.

                          As I noted in this post:

                          YECs engage in the exact same sort of thing that you oh so eagerly delight in condemning others for.

                          Where is it "HINTED at by any part of the Bible" that the landscape of the world was changed by the Flood? If anything it appears that the rivers mentioned earlier are still in the same locations that they were in. So why isn't this a "blatant distortion[1] and extra-biblical insertions"?

                          Where is it "HINTED at by any part of the Bible" that humanity had spread across the entire planet prior to the Flood? If anything it appears that prior to the Tower of Bable (post-Flood) mankind stayed relatively close together until God dispersed us all over the face of the earth. So why isn't this a "blatant distortion and extra-biblical insertions"?

                          Where is it "HINTED at by any part of the Bible" that Noah took infants and eggs aboard the Ark? If anything it appears to say that the animals were old enough to be capable of reproducing. So why isn't this a "blatant distortion and extra-biblical insertions"?

                          And those were just a couple examples of this blatant hypocrisy and double standard that you established that I could think of off the top of my head. There are many other examples.

                          For instance, I've run across many YECs who proclaim that some animals survived the Flood by living on floating mats of vegetation despite what we read in Gen 7:21-23:
                          And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

                          It says that nothing outside the Ark survived. But that doesn't stop YECs, who declare that this is the literal account of a worldwide deluge and that if you disagree with that view you are calling God a liar, from proposing that creatures outside the Ark survived. So why isn't this a "blatant distortion and extra-biblical insertions"?







                          1. Actually you supplied the answer to this on the pre-crash Tweb when you proclaimed that distortion ("as I have defined ‘distort’") is only something that non-YECs are capable of doing. No matter how much a YEC may twist, warp, bend, pervert and change what is written (and they declare must be taken in the plain, literal manner) it isn't "distorting." Instead it's exegesis
                          I cannot believe what I just read above.

                          It appears that you will say ANYTHING in order to retain your beliefs.
                          With that you have joined the list of Most Intellectually Dishonest - congrats, R06.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                            The third alternative with probability 1.0 is that they're correct and you're a deluded ignoramus.
                            Wow - I'll bet you stayed up all night thinking up that 'clever' post. But I fully understand, you need to toss something into the wind to try to cover up the fact that in your case it's both: ignorance and dishonesty.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              Wow - I'll bet you stayed up all night thinking up that 'clever' post. But I fully understand, you need to toss something into the wind to try to cover up the fact that in your case it's both: ignorance and dishonesty.

                              Jorge
                              Wow, I only answer the questions of orthodox christians, because I'm a tool.


                              Comment


                              • Here's an interesting puzzle.

                                1) Start with a whole raft of utterly, completely unsupportable a priori conclusions, not based on or capable of being influenced by evidence. Note that it's perfectly OK for those conclusions to be mutually exclusive or wildly inconsistent.
                                2) Construct a defense of these conclusions against those who both have and respect the evidence. Actually learning anything is prohibited.

                                Seriously, could YOU do better than endless evasion, lies, insults, redirection/misdirection, and more insults?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                                3 responses
                                41 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Terraceth  
                                Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                                4 responses
                                37 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                                0 responses
                                12 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                                5 responses
                                52 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Seeker
                                by Seeker
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                                5 responses
                                74 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X