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 Jorge View Post
    Strongest cases? That would be something I'd have to think about. Just keep in mind what I wrote in that post (the post where I linked to the list) - no single or even group of 'evidences' seals the case for a young OR and old Earth/universe. Also, and most important of all, God's Word trumps ALL of these 'evidences'. Sadly, that's a lesson that you et al. just do not seem able to grasp.

    Jorge
    So give us what "God's 'Word'" says literally and unambiguously about Ge 1:2?

    And BTW, why do you capitalize "Word" when that only applies to the Logos not a book? Do we need to teach you theology as well? The word of God is not the same as the Word of God. Got it?

    Of course you're stuck in 1611 King James English where ALL nouns are capitalized. Were you aware of that? I know it sounds more sanctimonious and highfalutin, but it's neither theologically nor grammatically correct.

    K54

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      I must interject. Denying something is true is not refuting it. It is well known what the ancient conceptions of the cosmos were, and there is not one text in the scripture that is contrary to it. That the raqia refers to a dome one need only look at its use in Ezekiel as it describes a crystal dome in a vision. Further, one need only ask what its function was - to separate the waters above from the waters below - or ask what these windows or sluices where and which were translated into the Greek as 'waterfalls' from the Hebrew BY the Hebrews! The history of the understanding of this text as far back as we can go is that the sky was viewed as a dome. This is what the text is clearly referring to. And there was not one doubt in the church as to that it referred to some sort of fixed dome until after Galileo pointed his telescope at the stars. Indeed, we have records of Luther and Calvin taking exception to the then new ideas regarding the orbit of the Earth and the openness of the heavens.

      I understand that for the YEC interpretation to persist, these texts can't be referring to what they are referring to and so it will be impossible to persuade you otherwise. Nevertheless, the text and its interpretation are obvious outside that set of blinders.

      Jim
      Nonsense. I refer you to the CSR, AiG and CMI websites (as a start) where you will find scores of articles that demolish your above claims - just type the key words in their 'Search' window. As I keep repeating, there are but two (2) options: you and people like you are either (a) ignorant of what's out there or, (b) you do know but aren't honest about it.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        Except of course in the clearly falsifiable (and falsified) interpretation of the Genesis Creation stories.
        Hey, where did any YEC put up a theory to explain Genesis 1-2 complete with predictions that could be checked?
        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 klaus54 View Post
          So give us what "God's 'Word'" says literally and unambiguously about Ge 1:2?

          And BTW, why do you capitalize "Word" when that only applies to the Logos not a book? Do we need to teach you theology as well? The word of God is not the same as the Word of God. Got it?

          Of course you're stuck in 1611 King James English where ALL nouns are capitalized. Were you aware of that? I know it sounds more sanctimonious and highfalutin, but it's neither theologically nor grammatically correct.

          K54
          This is actually a really astute observation.
          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

          Comment


          • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            So give us what "God's 'Word'" says literally and unambiguously about Ge 1:2?

            And BTW, why do you capitalize "Word" when that only applies to the Logos not a book? Do we need to teach you theology as well? The word of God is not the same as the Word of God. Got it?

            Of course you're stuck in 1611 King James English where ALL nouns are capitalized. Were you aware of that? I know it sounds more sanctimonious and highfalutin, but it's neither theologically nor grammatically correct.

            K54
            How are them colors doing, Duffus?

            Jorge

            Comment


            • Originally posted by square_peg View Post
              This is actually a really astute observation.
              True, it's "astute" as per the New Age Dictionary definition of "astute".

              Jorge

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                Hey, where did any YEC put up a theory to explain Genesis 1-2 complete with predictions that could be checked?
                Oops, I left out something.
                Genesis 1:1-2 is what I had in mind.
                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 Truthseeker View Post
                  Hey, where did any YEC put up a theory to explain Genesis 1-2 complete with predictions that could be checked?
                  They don't have a theory. But they do have hypotheses, such the Cosmos being <10,000 years old. That's a real scientific hypothesis since it is testable. But the problem for YEC science, it that HAS been tested by tens of thousands of consilient data points and has been FALSIFIED in a similar manner as geocentrism, etc.

                  Another hypothesis would be Ye Greate Fludde as explanation of all or some (depending on the creation "scientist" of the fossil record, yet they can't agree on the stratigraphic boundaries of the pre-Cambrian/Cambrian, K-T, or even which parts of the geologic column are pre-, during, or post- Mabbul.

                  What makes matters worse for them, they can't seem to come up with an unambiguous literal reading of the stories, but that doesn't stop them from crowing that a straightforward reading is a tenet of the Christian faith. It's all very hypocritical and confusing.

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    Oops, I left out something.
                    Genesis 1:1-2 is what I had in mind.
                    Bingo - From my attempt at querying Jorge, YECs don't have an unambiguous, straightforward, clear, literal reading of this.

                    He says he does but I'm not worthy of an answer.

                    Too bad.

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      How are them colors doing, Duffus?

                      Jorge
                      Jorge,

                      How are your explanations coming, Bloviatus maximus?

                      None yet? Not surprising...

                      Santa

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by phank View Post
                        [snip] physical reality and biblical speculations of millennia ago cannot be reconciled EXCEPT in two ways. Either reality must be discarded (or nearly everything we have ever learned must be horribly wrong), or else these ancient writings must be placed into rational context, AS the speculations, preferences, and misunderstandings of a primitive people.
                        Our perceptions of reality are not the same as reality, and our thoughts about "reality" are only working theories (for the want of a better phrase, pace rogue06). And if the God of the Bible does exist, he is part of reality if he is not reality itself. And reality cannot be rejected. We can only change our working theories as we see the need to do so.

                        For the sake of argument, please accept the hypothesis of the God of the Bible for a while. There is then the problem of determining which part of the events reported in the Bible is "natural," another part comprises acts by human beings, and the rest "miraculous" (acts by God that affect Earth or its inhabitants). The "natural" part can be treated with science. The other parts--? We have praxeology (the science of human action, of which economics is a part), but really people are unpredictable--that is, we can't predict what they will do in a given situation (consider how difficult it is to make money in the financial markets)--so science can't do much more than economics with the phenomena of human action. And outside the Bible, who can know what God is doing and will do?
                        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
                          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!
                          Coward.

                          Roy
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Omega Red View Post


                            Jump back a bit further in time. The kicker is that those who thought they had used proper interpretation methodologies of Biblical texts were entirely consistent in not letting any amount of science (okay much did not exist back then to help the situation) influence their interpretation. As Paul H. Seeley wrote “The basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqia in Genesis 1 is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid. This concept did not begin with the Greeks.” (P.H. Seeley, WTJ, 53, 227-40 (1991). I will mention the counter to this from J.P. Holding “Seely’s conclusion is both presumptuous and untenable, and he fails to recognize that the description of the raqiya‘ is so equivocal and lacking in detail that one can only read a solid sky into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place.” (https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...-a-solid-dome/)
                            AFAICT all of the Early Church Fathers and theologians on up through the Middle ages saw the firmament as being a solid structure.

                            Theophilus of Antioch (d.185); Clement of Alexandria (d.215); Origen (d.253); Novatian (d.258); Hilary of Poitiers (d.368); Athanasius (d.373); Basil the Great (d.379); Cyril of Jerusalem (d.386); Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus (d.394); Ambrose (d.397); John Chrysostom (d.407); Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d.408); Augustine (d.430); Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th cent.); John Philoponus (a.k.a., John the Grammarian of Alexandria) (d. 570); Isidore, bishop of Seville (d.636); Venerable Bede (d. 735); Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (d. 1253); Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) all either explicitly or implicitly stated that the firmament was a solid, physical structure. The same with such books like "Apostolic Constitutions" (or "Constitution of the Holy Apostles"), Book of Enoch, Book of Baruch, Genesis Rabbah and the pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions."

                            Martin Luther was probably the last great theologian to accept a watery, solid firmament above the clouds and sky.


                            frontispiece from Martin Luther’s
                            translation of the Bible (solid firmament)

                            None of this means that this view was the correct one but rather it is the result of an overly literal translation of the text

                            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)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              It is just as likely that had they not done this you would be living in a much, much harsher and difficult world. A great deal of what we take for granted in terms of the civilization we enjoy derives in some part from the concepts and ideals which derive directly from what those 'goat herders' wrote down. And your bigotry will keep you from acknowledging the source of so much you enjoy. This is not to say all is good. (As I'm sure your response to this will include some recounting of various ills done in the name of Christ). But you need to go back and look at the good that has come from people who believe in Christ. As your knowledge of that is woefully lacking and your view of this is horribly imbalanced. You forget I think people like Mother Theresa, or organizations like the red CROSS, or Florence Nightengale, The Salvation Army, the thousands of people that came from churches around the world to help those in the massive Tsunami, those who give their lives to help the poor and hungry all across the world because of their faith in Christ. You need to look at the whole picture Phank, not just feed whatever bitterness you have towards some subset of the Christian faith.



                              Jim
                              Jim, you may be right. I note, however, that there are some major cultures in the world that did NOT have the bible as the background noise, and they seem different but it's hard to say they're worse for the lack. And I hope you note that there have been genuinely outstandingly good people in every culture. I wouldn't consider it bigotry to step back and notice that good and evil are not particularly tied to religious tradition anywhere, and never have been.

                              It would have been more worth reading if you had commented on the Kurt Wise dilemma.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post



                                Rescuing Devices

                                Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets (comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets (comets with orbits over 200 years).

                                Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past twenty years astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion."


                                Now, all you'd have to do to prolong that topic, thereby allowing you to retain your beliefs, is to either introduce a new auxiliary hypothesis or to doggedly maintain your stance regarding the Kuiper Belt and/or the Oort Cloud (remember, there is NO observable evidence that an Oort Cloud is there). Round and round we'd go with no end to it. That's not science - not in my book - that's an ideological debate.
                                The last I heard was that most YECs have quietly dropped their claim that the Kuiper belt is an ad-hoc fantasy -- which is probably a good thing considering that there are now over a thousand documented Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) since the first one was detected in 1992.

                                The fact is that being it is so far from the sun the Oort cloud is quite dark making the detection of objects belonging to it difficult. I mean detecting Kuiper belt objects has not been easy -- and everyone now agrees that they exist. But that still doesn't mean it is impossible to detect Oort cloud objects.

                                To date we know of seven potential Oort cloud objects including Sedna (aka, 2003 VB12), which is very possibly a dwarf planet or planetoid and not a comet). It will make its closest approach to the sun in the mid 2070s and won't be back for roughly 12,000 years (it travels in an extremely elliptical orbit ranging from 76 AU to 937 AU from the Sun).

                                The others are 2000 CR105, 2006 SQ372, 2008 KV42 (for a bit about 2008 KV42 see HERE), 2010 GB174 and most recently 2012 VP113 (nicknamed "Biden" after the current Vice President).

                                As an aside, a radio broadcast from 2006 put out by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) acknowledges that "what look like" Oort clouds have been seen around other stars (not quite 5½ minutes in) It is easier to spot things when the light source is between you and them.

                                Given the above evidence for a cometary reservoir such as the Oort cloud, in order to establish their point YECs should be providing evidence against it rather than merely relying upon personal incredulity.
                                Last edited by rogue06; 05-30-2014, 08:30 PM.

                                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)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                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
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X