Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[Jorge]

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?

Phankestein comes out of his cave with ... what else? ... utter nonsense!

Jorge

[Omniskeptical]

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?

He can't. He's a TOOL.

[klaus54]

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

Except of course in the clearly falsifiable (and falsified) interpretation of the Genesis Creation stories.

How does your foot taste, Jorge?

K54

P.S. I wonder what it's like to live in Bizzaro World? They do have a theme park in Petersburg, KY. Perhaps I should pop a few Valium and take the wife there for a visit?

[klaus54]

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

Cerebrum,

Here's an example of what I referred to as Jorge's "cult-like" behavior.

K54

[klaus54]

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

The truth hurts, don't it, Jor?

K54

[klaus54]

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?

Jorge,

Phank's post was 100% accurate. That fact that you dismiss it out of hand is another example of your "cult-like" behavior.

And that's a fact, Fact, FACT!!!

Santa Klaus

P.S. If you keep up this behavior, you're gonna get a lump of coal and a Francis Collins book this Christmas.

[Jorge]

Jorge,

Phank's post was 100% accurate. That fact that you dismiss it out of hand is another example of your "cult-like" behavior.

And that's a fact, Fact, FACT!!!

Santa Klaus

P.S. If you keep up this behavior, you're gonna get a lump of coal and a Francis Collins book this Christmas.

It seems to me that you are on some kind of hallucinogenic drug like LSD or similar.
Tell me, how are those colors, Santa?

Jorge

[klaus54]

It seems to me that you are on some kind of hallucinogenic drug like LSD or similar.
Tell me, how are those colors, Santa?

Jorge

Hmm..., still no discussion of your 101 data points? I wonder why...

That's right --- Bizzaro Cult World!!!

Isn't that a fact, Fact, FACT???!!!

Oops, there goes another YEC kid, oops! there goes another YEC kid...

Keep it up and you'll hold the world record for converting teens to New Atheism.

K54

P.S. Sorry I forgot the colors: fact, Fact, FACT!!!

Or in your case: fart, Fart, FART!!!

[HMS_Beagle]

Jorge (AKA "Captain Clucky") is the best spokesman for YEC that science could ever hope for.

[klaus54]

OK, Cluckster:

Here are two points. One is exegetical, the other scientific. Please choose one.

1) Discuss polonium halos.

OR

2) Give your unambiguous physically literal reading of Ge 1:2.

On your mark, get set, GO!!!

K54

[rogue06]

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

What it does is expose your blatant hypocrisy in this matter. YECs such as yourself engage in exactly the sort of behavior that you are so quick to condemn. I provided multiple examples of just this sort of sanctimonious double standard and as usual you cannot even begin to refute any of them.

[Roy]

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

Since Jorge shows no sign of attempting to discuss the data (preferring instead to argue by link) despite claiming he could and posting in a thread set up for that very purpose, I'll have a go at discussing of the items on his list:

Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim.

I don't know much about the Morrison firmation, but I do know a bit about the Coconino sandstone. It does contain trackways. It also contains formations resembling wind-blown dunes. The rocks are compacted sandstones containing angular grains. The question then, is whether there actually are ecosystems with these features.

sand.jpeg

Oh, look. Trackways, but no plants. Also angular sand grains in wind-blown dunes. There are ecosystems with these features, and we call them deserts. The implication is not that the Coconino sandstone is not an ecosystem, but that it is an ancient desert.

The entry continues:

The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day.

Bovine faeces. Catastrophic transport would not preserve animal trackways.

Also, catastrophic transport would obliterate the shapes of dunes and ripples, as well as rounding off the grains. In any case, no-one claims that ecosystems are buried in situ except Floodites. Geologists claim that such rocks are the result of successive deposition of sediment. On reflection, this evidence does not point to a young Earth with a catastrophic flood. It points to the former existence of a desert.

Roy

[Jorge]

What it does is expose your blatant hypocrisy in this matter. YECs such as yourself engage in exactly the sort of behavior that you are so quick to condemn. I provided multiple examples of just this sort of sanctimonious double standard and as usual you cannot even begin to refute any of them.

Of course I didn't try to refute any of them. "Trying to refute them" might suggest that they are in some way 'valid' and need to be refuted. You get it? ... they aren't even worthy of such an attempt.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Of course I didn't try to refute any of them. "Trying to refute them" might suggest that they are in some way 'valid' and need to be refuted. You get it? ... they aren't even worthy of such an attempt.

Jorge

You are a first rate hypocrite Jorge. You engage in just the sort of behavior that you so gleefully seek to condemn others for.

[Jorge]

Since Jorge shows no sign of attempting to discuss the data (preferring instead to argue by link) despite claiming he could and posting in a thread set up for that very purpose, I'll have a go at discussing of the items on his list:

Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim.

I don't know much about the Morrison firmation, but I do know a bit about the Coconino sandstone. It does contain trackways. It also contains formations resembling wind-blown dunes. The rocks are compacted sandstones containing angular grains. The question then, is whether there actually are ecosystems with these features.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]544[/ATTACH]

Oh, look. Trackways, but no plants. Also angular sand grains in wind-blown dunes. There are ecosystems with these features, and we call them deserts. The implication is not that the Coconino sandstone is not an ecosystem, but that it is an ancient desert.

The entry continues:

The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day.

Bovine faeces. Catastrophic transport would not preserve animal trackways.

Also, catastrophic transport would obliterate the shapes of dunes and ripples, as well as rounding off the grains. In any case, no-one claims that ecosystems are buried in situ except Floodites. Geologists claim that such rocks are the result of successive deposition of sediment. On reflection, this evidence does not point to a young Earth with a catastrophic flood. It points to the former existence of a desert.

Roy

I'm not saying that you have refuted this item but, just for the sake of argument, let's say that your "explanation" has refuted it. Okay, that means that from the list you only have 100 more to go. Get hopping, Hop-Along Cassidy!

Jorge