Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[Jorge]

I suppose then that is is acceptable from your perspective to misrepresent the words of another and to use them to imply something that is contrary to the intended meaning?

Sagan GAVE THE EVIDENCE. Yet your author used Sagan's words to imply there was NO evidence!

You see, any sensible person reading what Sagan wrote, upon stumbling across this fellows quote, would be able to cite the evidence for the Oort cloud and ask, "What is he talking about? Of course there is evidence, Sagan was marveling at how we can learn about things indirectly through examination of the evidence!".

BUT, and this is the critical element, anyone who had never read "comets" by Sagan and who didn't understand how the Oort cloud was discovered would think that Sagan was lamenting the inability to show this Oort cloud existed. That is how the author staged the quote. And that has NOTHING to do with where it came from.

That is just wrong Jorge. It's evil and deceptive. And it's all over YEC literature. Sarfati did it talking about Super Nova remnants and continued to do it in book after book over and over again in spite of being confronted over his misuse of the researchers quote over and over again.

It is one thing to be negligent and misuse the quote and then discover one's mistake. It is another to misuse the quote and then after being shown it is a misquote over and over again to continue to use it in published work after published work! One has to have 'no scruples" to do stuff like that.

Hence my comment.

The YEC misquoting of the scientific literature is in fact legendary. There are in fact entire websites devoted to the phenomenon. It is most shocking when one reads how they have done this over and over again. And in many cases it is virtually impossible it could have been by 'accident'. It is well documented here for others who might be interested in checking out or understanding the phenomena itself. It represents a stain on the church that these things are being done in the name of Christ. And it says a lot about Jorge that he would defend the practice as he does here, defending this fellow's misquote rather than first seeking the truth in the matter. Jorge has been around YEC a long time. He knows about these misquotes and should know enough to go validate the source before standing behind what could very easily be an invalid use of the quote.

Jim

Your post (above) supports my previous claim to a 'T'. The extreme exaggeration and false claim that "YECs very often misquote / take quotes out of context" is one of those Urban Myths that are mindlessly parroted by folk like yourself.

That said, have errors been made by YECs when they've quoted others? Yes, I'm sure that there have been some errors. But to say the things you say above can only be the product of a rabid, agenda-and-rage-filled person. I've been at this for a very long time and I do not know of a single Biblical Creationist that makes it a practice to misquote. A few of those errors that I'm aware of were corrected as soon as they were brought to the author's attention with the evidence that they were, in fact, misquotes (keep in mind that an accusation of a misquote does not necessarily mean that a misquote actually took place). IOW, your accusations above have ZERO credibility as far as I am aware of.

The last thing that I'll say about this is state my position on the matter (I'll bold and color so that you don't miss it):
Any Biblical Creationist that knowingly, deliberately takes not just a quote but anything out of context is essentially lying. This brings shame upon himself and, more importantly, does not honor God. If I personally detect this happening, I will immediately point it out to the author and expect a prompt correction.

Was that simple and plain enough for you? Be sure to read that LITERALLY!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

I've been at this for a very long time and I do not know of a single Biblical Creationist that makes it a practice to misquote.
Jorge

Jorge, YEC leader Henry Morris published a whole book of dishonestly quote-mined quotes from scientists for YECs to use in debates.

That Their Words May Be Used Against Them

In sifting through the shifting sands of evolutionary thought, one can be forgiven for feeling tangled up in a plethora of conflicting statements. A very great secret kept from the public is that evolutionary scientists are far from unanimity when it comes to naturalism. There are so many competing theories that collide, how can anyone call evolution more than a theory? This vast storehouse of quotes, compiled by Dr. Henry M. Morris and divided into sections, gives much food for thought to those confused by evolutionary theory. Each of the 15 chapters are useful for defending creation against evolution in explaining origins. These relevant quotations bring to light the fatal weaknesses of the entire structure of evolutionism - inadvertently exposed by its own promoters!

There's also the TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project which documents hundreds of examples of Creationists deliberately misrepresenting the words of scientists.

Jorge Jorge pants on fire.

[rogue06]

Your post (above) supports my previous claim to a 'T'. The extreme exaggeration and false claim that "YECs very often misquote / take quotes out of context" is one of those Urban Myths that are mindlessly parroted by folk like yourself.

No it is not an urban legend. In fact, you provided an example of just the thing you want to pretend doesn't exist here in this thread. It is something that has been meticulously documented again and again for several decades. Back in the early 1970s the respected geneticist and biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote about the problem in his celebrated essay Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution:

Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Jorge, YEC leader Henry Morris published a whole book of dishonestly quote-mined quotes from scientists for YECs to use in debates.





There's also the TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project which documents hundreds of examples of Creationists deliberately misrepresenting the words of scientists.

Jorge Jorge pants on fire.

While some YECs acknowledge that the practice is wrong others stand by the practice and defend it. Henry Morris (the "father of the modern creationist movement") founded the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) which hand waves away "mistakenly" taking a quote out of context as being nothing more than a "smoke screen."

Likewise the Intelligent Design shill Denyse O'Leary (who claims that paleontologist, biologist and staunch supporter of evolutionary theory Stephen Jay Gould actually didn't support evolution based on, ironically, a few carefully selected quote mines) completely dismisses the concept of quote mining (quoting out of context) declaring that:

Source: Quote mining: Classic old media vs. new media

"Quote mining" is just telling the public what the privileged, salaried, tenured elite admit to each other - and always assumed that the public that supports them would never find out.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[TheLurch]

Sorry for the delay in responding (I was at the World Science Festival in NYC and a few associated events for most of the remainder of last week). I realize that discussion's moved way beyond this, but I'd love to return to this if you're willing.

I thought I had answered that - when an extrapolation crosses a certain boundary (I provided sound through water as an example) then that extrapolation falls apart.

Yes, and to be clear, i agree that we can identify cases where physical or chemical processes prevent or limit extrapolations. But there are plenty of cases where we don't know of any such processes. And you yourself accept that extrapolation is appropriate in some cases. What i'm trying to understand is where/how you draw the line between the two. When do you consider extrapolation acceptable, when do you object to it? Since this is science we're talking about, ideally we'd want some objective standard that can be applied consistently.

My point was to illustrate how the cart is preceded by the horse, not the other way around. What I'm picking up from your words is a reliance on what the observations/measurements tell you - you wish to follow the hard, physical evidence. Okay, try this on for size (I've written a good chunk on this - this is a condensed version): I don't know what your beliefs are but based on what you wish to follow there is NO WAY that you could ever believe in any of the miracles spoken of in the Bible and, with that, the game, set and match is over.

Whatever i feel about the reality of the miracles of the Bible, i'm trying to approach this from a scientific perspective. There's simply no way for science to evaluate the probability of a miracle vs. the probability of a natural process. So, to take an example that came up at the World Science Festival, the Kepler telescope was designed to image dips in stellar brightness caused by planetary transits. Its analysis pipeline had to evaluate the relative probabilities of a planetary transit, the equivalent of sunspots on the star, eclipsing binaries, etc. before making the "exoplanet" call. There is no possible way for that pipeline to insert a probability value for "miraculous dimming" and insert that into the analysis.

To generalize that, science can't do miracles. It's not the right tool to evaluate them. And, should a miracle have happened in the past or presently be occurring, science will necessarily get the wrong answer. it's a known limitation of the process.

So, since i'm interested in discussing the science, i'm not especial interested in discussing miracles. If that's not in keeping with your interests, all i can do is apologize.

If I'm understanding what you're saying, the problem is that we cannot be "time-agnostic" because time changes all things. Only by way of a metaphysical assumption could you deny that. And, in case you're wondering, that claim I just made holds true for Materialism every bit as much as for Biblical Creationism.

Well, yes, time changes liquid rock at ambient temperatures into solid rock, which is what i've been saying. :)
The key thing is that, to the best of our ability to measure, it does so through a regular, understandable, quantifiable process. I think if you're going to say that our understanding of those processes are unreliable, then it would be good to be scientific about it, and explain why and how this unreliability kicks in. Because the extrapolation of know processes through time is rather important to most areas of science. The LHC doesn't actually detect the Higgs; it detects the particles it decays into, and reconstructs the (extremely recent) past using them. A biologist doesn't watch bacterial growth rates directly; they look at the results of 24 hours of growth, and infer the past. So, if this process is inherently unreliable, most of science goes out the window.

Suppose - just to illustrate my point - that the fundamental constants are 'interlinked' in such a way that if one changed then the others would change in such a way as to 'compensate' for that change thereby allowing the structure of space-time-mass-energy to remain.

This is well beyond my ability to explain well. But my understanding is that you can't compensate for these sorts of changes without leaving some sort of indication - something in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background would look different if the Universe was different at the time, or galaxies wouldn't appear the way they do at all distances, etc. In other words, you can change the physics so that everything still makes mathematical sense, but you don't end up withe the same Universe if you do.

With all this, what is the "Rock" that you choose to be founded upon?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

NOTE: did minor edits for clarity and grammar.

[oxmixmudd]

Your post (above) supports my previous claim to a 'T'. The extreme exaggeration and false claim that "YECs very often misquote / take quotes out of context" is one of those Urban Myths that are mindlessly parroted by folk like yourself.

That said, have errors been made by YECs when they've quoted others? Yes, I'm sure that there have been some errors. But to say the things you say above can only be the product of a rabid, agenda-and-rage-filled person. I've been at this for a very long time and I do not know of a single Biblical Creationist that makes it a practice to misquote. A few of those errors that I'm aware of were corrected as soon as they were brought to the author's attention with the evidence that they were, in fact, misquotes (keep in mind that an accusation of a misquote does not necessarily mean that a misquote actually took place). IOW, your accusations above have ZERO credibility as far as I am aware of.

The last thing that I'll say about this is state my position on the matter (I'll bold and color so that you don't miss it):
Any Biblical Creationist that knowingly, deliberately takes not just a quote but anything out of context is essentially lying. This brings shame upon himself and, more importantly, does not honor God. If I personally detect this happening, I will immediately point it out to the author and expect a prompt correction.

Was that simple and plain enough for you? Be sure to read that LITERALLY!

Jorge

Jorge,

All you have to do to 'confirm' my accusations is look up the quote section online in google books and READ. Further, the well know Sarfati quote is everywhere. He took a paper where scientists discussed the new research that had helped to fill in the fact there were less (in number) SNR's than expected and butchered is so that it appeared they supported his contention there were NO SNR's older than a certain AGE. The butchering was so blatant as to be unconscionable. The line as quoted by Sarfati we "the mystery of the missing super nova remnants", and the actual quote was "the mystery of the missing supernova remnants IS SOLVED" (emphasis my own).

Source: talk origins

As already mentioned in Section 10.3, Clark & Caswell's suspicion was subsequently proved to be correct. But Davies totally ignores this. The second quote from this paper that Davies uses:

The mystery of the missing supernova remnants

is actually lifted from this sentence in the original paper:

It appears that with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of Eo/n differing greatly from those in the Galaxy, and the mystery of the missing supernova remnants is also solved.

Both quotes have been lifted out of context and mean something completely different than what Davies says it does. Sarfati uses these two quotations in, what appears to be at first glance, an even more dishonest manner. He states:

As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say: 'Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?' and these authors refer to 'The mystery of the missing remnants'.

© Copyright Original Source

YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS MISQUOTE JORGE. It has been discussed on this site over and over. I can only conclude based on that FACT and what you wrote above, the fact you have not even tried to determine if what I said about the Sagan quote is true, the fact you never apologized to Sylas, and what you have said about me in this thread as part of avoiding dealing with the points I've raised: that you have no scruples either. You have no conscience Jorge, or a seriously broken one, or worse. How else can you explain what you've put in bold and red with the fact that you will not and have not ever dealt with these misquotes other than to propagate them yourself?

On second thought, I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt here (it means you are grossly incompetent but the only other option is blatant liar). You'd better take the time to read the information on these misquotes Jorge that have been linked to by myself and beagle and rogue. You need to become familiar with them, and NEVER take a quote from a YEC site without checking it out yourself first. Otherwise you are as guilty as they are.


Jim

ETA: It is interesting that the prevalence of this misquote on the AIG and other pages appears to have diminished in recent years (I went looking for the quotes on their website) but the misuse is well documented and persisted for over a decade. It is possible the heat just got to be a little too much. I know of several YEC's I told about this issue that contacted them directly themselves. MOST people, YEC or not, recognize the eggregious nature of these dishonest tactics. But it usually takes someone outside YEC to point it out.

[Jorge]

Sorry for the delay in responding (I was at the World Science Festival in NYC and a few associated events for most of the remainder of last week). I realize that discussion's moved way beyond this, but I'd love to return to this if you're willing.

Sure - you're the only decent, worthwhile discussion that I'm having here.

Yes, and to be clear, i agree that we can identify cases where physical or chemical processes prevent or limit extrapolations.

Okay, good.

But there are plenty of cases where we don't know of any such processes. And you yourself accept that extrapolation is appropriate in some cases.

Yes, extrapolation is okay up to a limit -- beyond that limit we don't know and must therefore assume that we are able to extrapolate. It is here where metaphysics may and does enter the picture.

What i'm trying to understand is where/how you draw the line between the two.

That's easy - I draw the line at the absolute boundary, namely, when things came into existence and/or when there was a critical change (a 'discontinuity') in the very structure of the universe.

When do you consider extrapolation acceptable, when do you object to it? Since this is science we're talking about, ideally we'd want some objective standard that can be applied consistently.

That question was answered just above and the objective standard you seek is also there.
Succinctly, regardless of metaphysical position there exists an absolute boundary for
extrapolating (or regressing) all physical laws and processes.

Whatever i feel about the reality of the miracles of the Bible, i'm trying to approach this from a scientific perspective.

I appreciate that. The problem - which I hope you both grasp and acknowledge - is that what you refer to as the "scientific perspective" (which I presume to mean from a purely mass-energy POV) has its limitations in space-time.

There's simply no way for science to evaluate the probability of a miracle vs. the probability of a natural process.

Not sure what you mean by that but, in any event, I'm guessing that evaluating that probability isn't necessary.

So, to take an example that came up at the World Science Festival, the Kepler telescope was designed to image dips in stellar brightness caused by planetary transits. Its analysis pipeline had to evaluate the relative probabilities of a planetary transit, the equivalent of sunspots on the star, eclipsing binaries, etc. before making the "exoplanet" call. There is no possible way for that pipeline to insert a probability value for "miraculous dimming" and insert that into the analysis.

Not necessary to make such a call. Just remind yourself that the problems begin to occur when
wanting to take present observations into the distant past under the metaphysical assumption
that what is observed now (rates, processes, laws) was exactly the same then.
Therein lies the rub.

To generalize that, science can't do miracles. It's not the right tool to evaluate them. And, should a miracle have happened in the past or presently be occurring, science will necessarily get the wrong answer. it's a known limitation of the process.

Again, by science you mean purely natural science. Okay, I would agree with you.
And once again, the point to never forget is that present observations may be
extrapolated (or regressed) but only so far. It is by metaphysical assumption that
space-time limitations are removed; regression is given a free hand.

So, since i'm interested in discussing the science, i'm not especial interested in discussing miracles. If that's not in keeping with your interests, all i can do is apologize.

Apology not needed. I've responded with science and, necessarily, with some science philosophy. The necessity is because whenever the issue of origins enters the picture, as it does here, then natural science by itself doesn't suffice (once again, except by metaphysical assumption). Ontological Materialists, such as the late Carl Sagan, make the metaphysical assumption that Sagan expressed so well: "The Cosmos [mass-energy] is all that is, and ever was, and ever will be." Okay, if that's your position then you are right, nothing more can be said. Just as long as you recognize that you have transcended natural science with that position, thereby contradicting your desire to remain in "science".

Well, yes, time changes liquid rock at ambient temperatures into solid rock, which is what i've been saying.
The key thing is that, to the best of our ability to measure, it does so through a regular, understandable, quantifiable process. I think if you're going to say that our understanding of those processes are unreliable, then it would be good to be scientific about it, and explain why and how this unreliability kicks in. Because the extrapolation of know processes through time is rather important to most areas of science. The LHC doesn't actually detect the Higgs; it detects the particles it decays into, and reconstructs the (extremely recent) past using them. A biologist doesn't watch bacterial growth rates directly; they look at the results of 24 hours of growth, and infer the past. So, if this process is inherently unreliable, most of science goes out the window.

I think that by now you should have a clear(er) understanding of what I've been saying. Extrapolation/regression of physical processes is fine, but there are limits and, in any event, requires certain assumptions. Even today, as you may know, the value of the "universal constants" has been questioned. Experiments are being performed routinely to validate the constancy of their values.

This is well beyond my ability to explain well. But my understanding is that you can't compensate for these sorts of changes without leaving some sort of indication - something in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background would look different if the Universe was different at the time, or galaxies wouldn't appear the way they do at all distances, etc. In other words, you can change the physics so that everything still makes mathematical sense, but you don't end up withe the same Universe if you do.

I know what you're trying to say.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

I had said, "With all this, what is the "Rock" that you choose to be founded upon?"
Given incalculable levels of ignorance, theories that are here today and either revised or gone tomorrow, "science" that is chock-filled with political agendas and economic agendas, biases, cheating and similar common occurrences, my question to you was, which is smarter: to be founded upon the Rock that is God's Word, or is it better to be founded upon the "rock" of the reigning scientific establishment? That's what I was asking.

Operational science - the kind that you and I and anyone can do in a laboratory and come up with the same results - that science (mostly) does not rely on your metaphysic. That's why an Atheist, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim or a Hindu may all work, side-by-side, at the Jet Propulsion Lab and all be productive. The matters that are addressed where ORIGIN is involved, on the other hand, depend very much on the metaphysical foundations of each individual. The aforementioned individuals may observe and measure the same thing in the lab, but their interpretation of those observations is going to be dictated by their foundations.

As a concrete example, no Atheist is going to observe the preserved red blood cells in T-Rex fossils (discovered over the last few years) and from this conclude that "this simply CANNOT be millions of years old - it MUST be much younger than that." No. Rather, this Atheist will contort himself into a pretzel devising all sorts of auxiliary (rescuing) hypotheses in order to retain the 65-million-years (give or take) that is part of his metaphysical worldview. That or simply ignore what he is observing. In any event, this Atheist will never, ever, no-way-Jose publish anything that casts doubt on "millions of years". The Biblical Creationist, however, making exactly the same observation, comes to and publishes a totally different conclusion - a scientific conclusion.

Hope that at least some of this is 'clicking' for you.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

As a concrete example, no Atheist is going to observe the preserved red blood cells in T-Rex fossils (discovered over the last few years) and from this conclude that "this simply CANNOT be millions of years old - it MUST be much younger than that." No. Rather, this Atheist will contort himself into a pretzel devising all sorts of auxiliary (rescuing) hypotheses in order to retain the 65-million-years (give or take) that is part of his metaphysical worldview. That or simply ignore what he is observing. In any event, this Atheist will never, ever, no-way-Jose publish anything that casts doubt on "millions of years". The Biblical Creationist, however, making exactly the same observation, comes to and publishes a totally different conclusion - a scientific conclusion.

Hope that at least some of this is 'clicking' for you.

Jorge

Yet another real scientists whose work has been co-opted and distorted by the YEC crowd. Mary Schweitzer, who is herself a Christian - though not by any means YEC.

Those aren't 'preserved red blood' cells Jorge. Not in the sense you are trying to make them out to be.


Do you have no interest at all in being accurate or in reflecting the actual content of the actual work???


Jim

[rogue06]

Rogue's ... almost perfect.

[klaus54]

...
The last thing that I'll say about this is state my position on the matter (I'll bold and color so that you don't miss it):
Any Biblical Creationist that knowingly, deliberately takes not just a quote but anything out of context is essentially lying. This brings shame upon himself and, more importantly, does not honor God. If I personally detect this happening, I will immediately point it out to the author and expect a prompt correction.

Was that simple and plain enough for you? Be sure to read that LITERALLY!

Jorge

But what if, like you, the Biblical Creationist can't even give the plain, simple, direct, unambiguous reading of the first Genesis story?

And what if - just maybe - the creation stories are supposed to be read in the context of the knowledge of nature of the ancient Hebrews?

In that case you would be essentially lying.

The flashlight that you're trying to shine on putative apostasy has bounced off a mirror and hit you directly in the eyes.

K54

[Roy]

That said, have errors been made by YECs when they've quoted others? Yes, I'm sure that there have been some errors. But to say the things you say above can only be the product of a rabid, agenda-and-rage-filled person. I've been at this for a very long time and I do not know of a single Biblical Creationist that makes it a practice to misquote. A few of those errors that I'm aware of were corrected as soon as they were brought to the author's attention with the evidence that they were, in fact, misquotes...

Implying that the majority that he is aware of weren't.

When one of Jorge's own errors was brought to his attention - his 'quote' of a 1975 paper about a discovery not made until 1977 - he not only didn't correct it, he refused to check the evidence, he refused to identify his actual source, he refused to discuss the matter further, and he either silently vanished or erupted in a cloud of squawks and feathers on every occasion that the matter has been raised since.

Roy

[Roy]

On second thought, I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt here (it means you are grossly incompetent but the only other option is blatant liar). You'd better take the time to read the information on these misquotes Jorge that have been linked to by myself and beagle and rogue. You need to become familiar with them, and NEVER take a quote from a YEC site without checking it out yourself first. Otherwise you are as guilty as they are.

Jim,

Have you forgotten this? Jorge isn't just as guilty as the misquoters, he is one of the misquoters.

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

Jim,

Have you forgotten this? Jorge isn't just as guilty as the misquoters, he is one of the misquoters.

Roy

No, I haven't forgotten. But one of the things Jorge is guilty of is never admitting he is wrong or even allowing for the possibility that he is wrong. And I just don't want to be like that, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Jim

[Omega Red]

No PM - not now - since I want your ideologically-driven beliefs exposed for all to see.

No you fruitcake. I wanted you to let me know (if) when you wrote a post in response so I wouldn’t miss it.

What you people do is bring up the same stuff over and over and over again, perhaps thinking that you will bore us into submission.

You’re projecting Jorge. Please stop.

Once and for all you need to accept that if you are going to be led by physical data then you must do so consistently - not picking and choosing as you please.

You had asked at what point is the science allowed to influence the exegetic methods / conclusions. That's a loaded question in multiple ways. What is "science"? What is "influence"? Influence how? Setting aside those important questions, science (true science) is in my biblical exegesis/hermeneutic from the start and all throughout.

I do not allow science-falsely-so-called -- the speculations and vain, agenda-loaded imaginations of men -- to dictate how to read God's Word. I constantly remind myself of the difference between operational science and historical science just as I always keep in mind that, when there is conflict or doubt, the vote is cast for God's Word, not for theories and worldly philosophies. In this my logic is irrefutable - it's a win-win strategy (maybe you can figure out why - left as an exercise).

Why are you reticent to define “science” and “influence” wrt your exegetical method? If you are not going to lay out the “proper” method (that many others supposedly follow) and instead rely on this vague approach that you use in exegesis, then what hope do you have of getting anyone to accept your interpretation of Genesis or any other part of the Bible? Why wont you put thura through the same treatment? Please explain why the exegesis says it is a physical door and yet it is taken metaphorically. Please explain raqia using the same technique.

Perhaps it because you have just demonstrated reliance on circular reasoning. In order to derive understanding of the Biblical passages you use an exegetical method that incorporates science, but in order to determine which science is allowed you only select that which is in harmony with the understanding of the Biblical passage. So I do not see that you have a consistent approach to using science from the outset in exegesis, despite what you said. I would be grateful if you could clear up your inconsistencies.

On raqia, here's a bit that I easily found:

"The context of Genesis 1:6–8, 14–22 makes it clear that Moses intended his readers to understand raqia simply as the sky (atmosphere and heavens or space) above the earth, as even the sun, moon, and stars were placed in them. In fact, in modern Hebrew raqia is the word used for sky, and there is no connotation of hardness.

Genesis 1 is perfectly worded for what the author wanted to communicate. It says nothing more than God created the sky and its constituent elements, while remaining completely silent about what those elements were. It really depends upon where one starts: if one starts with the presumption of a solid dome, one will read that into the text. However, if one starts with a modern conception of sky, the text permits that understanding as well, and, hence, there is no contradiction."

SOURCE : https://answersingenesis.org/contrad...h-a-solid-sky/

Many researchers have investigated this 'raqia' topic, answered it conclusively, and it is by now (it should be!) a dried-up corpse.

Yet again, the point was never about the definitive meaning of raqia (which is far from over anyway). The point was whether knowledge of the world around them was used to influence the exegetical methodology and/or its conclusions when interpreting the Bible? You answered in the affirmative.

1. The ancients believed raqia was solid.
2. This view pervaded all descriptions until 200AD in China and much later elsewhere.
3. At some point since that time has raqia been re-interpreted in Gen 1 to be non-solid.

Conclusion 1 - the ancients used their knowledge to interpret raqia as a solid dome.
Conclusion 2 – the moderns used their knowledge to reinterpret raqia as a non-solid expanse and found support in equivocal meanings of raqia (now “modern Hebrew” translation).

What is apparent is that science was allowed to inform exegesis in both cases to come up with different cosmologies, but yours relies on science when it needs to fit a predetermined translation.

What you have yet to do is define a clear and concise rationale for your “proper” exegetical method, but instead rely on circular reasoning as to when science can be used in understanding Biblical texts. This at least explains why you cannot entertain the discussion of certain data, because you have already determined what the Message is and if any new data doesn’t fit that Message then that data is always wrong. So no, you are not always learning and Holding was wrong to say "One can, however, justifiably understand Genesis to be in harmony with what we presently know about the nature of the heavens” and neither should Holding have said "But it was not beyond God’s ability to present the truth without any mix of error. Equivocal language, terms left precisely undefined, served until such time as our own understanding was sufficient to comprehend the wonders of God’s creation" because what we presently know is different to what was known and your selection criteria will dismiss what is presently known because you have already determined what the Message is. Alas, you appeal to these vacuous YEC labels of "true" and "false" science, which only serve your circular reasoning.

But as I began by saying in this post, you people practice the strategy of digging up these corpses thereby wasting our time on long-dead issues. Okay, so you've wasted some minutes of my time. Pat yourself on the back and now move on to the next one.

Jorge

No. You misread what the question actually was and instead prattled on extensively and projected greatly.

[Jorge]

Jorge,

All you have to do to 'confirm' my accusations is look up the quote section online in google books and READ. Further, the well know Sarfati quote is everywhere. He took a paper where scientists discussed the new research that had helped to fill in the fact there were less (in number) SNR's than expected and butchered is so that it appeared they supported his contention there were NO SNR's older than a certain AGE. The butchering was so blatant as to be unconscionable. The line as quoted by Sarfati we "the mystery of the missing super nova remnants", and the actual quote was "the mystery of the missing supernova remnants IS SOLVED" (emphasis my own).

Source: talk origins

As already mentioned in Section 10.3, Clark & Caswell's suspicion was subsequently proved to be correct. But Davies totally ignores this. The second quote from this paper that Davies uses:

The mystery of the missing supernova remnants

is actually lifted from this sentence in the original paper:

It appears that with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of Eo/n differing greatly from those in the Galaxy, and the mystery of the missing supernova remnants is also solved.

Both quotes have been lifted out of context and mean something completely different than what Davies says it does. Sarfati uses these two quotations in, what appears to be at first glance, an even more dishonest manner. He states:

As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say: 'Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?' and these authors refer to 'The mystery of the missing remnants'.

© Copyright Original Source

YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS MISQUOTE JORGE. It has been discussed on this site over and over. I can only conclude based on that FACT and what you wrote above, the fact you have not even tried to determine if what I said about the Sagan quote is true, the fact you never apologized to Sylas, and what you have said about me in this thread as part of avoiding dealing with the points I've raised: that you have no scruples either. You have no conscience Jorge, or a seriously broken one, or worse. How else can you explain what you've put in bold and red with the fact that you will not and have not ever dealt with these misquotes other than to propagate them yourself?

On second thought, I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt here (it means you are grossly incompetent but the only other option is blatant liar). You'd better take the time to read the information on these misquotes Jorge that have been linked to by myself and beagle and rogue. You need to become familiar with them, and NEVER take a quote from a YEC site without checking it out yourself first. Otherwise you are as guilty as they are.


Jim

ETA: It is interesting that the prevalence of this misquote on the AIG and other pages appears to have diminished in recent years (I went looking for the quotes on their website) but the misuse is well documented and persisted for over a decade. It is possible the heat just got to be a little too much. I know of several YEC's I told about this issue that contacted them directly themselves. MOST people, YEC or not, recognize the eggregious nature of these dishonest tactics. But it usually takes someone outside YEC to point it out.

Quit your childish quibbling, will you! NO, I do not know about this alleged misquote and I am definitely NOT taking your word for it. I would have to learn more before I rule for or against. As for you "giving me the benefit of the doubt", why change now? I mean, you never have.

Furthermore, and sorry to be so blunt but, ...
What I do know about Sarfati does not support your position.
What I do know about you does not support your position.

Based solely on what I read above, if an Atheist wrote, "The Mystery of the Origin of Life is Solved" and I subsequently wrote, "The Mystery of the Origin of Life" then I am not misquoting said Atheist, I am merely stating that, for me, that "mystery" remains (despite the claim to the contrary by this Atheist).

In addition, what you cite: "As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say: 'Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?' and these authors refer to 'The mystery of the missing remnants'." tells me that "these authors refer to the mystery of the missing remnants" WHICH THEY DO.

Last but not least, let's say that a misquote did in fact occur. Okay, so has anyone pointed this out to Sarfati? Did he accept that he did indeed misquote? Did he refuse to make a correction after the notification and accepting this error? If that's the case, then you'd be right and there would be a black spot on Sarfati's resume. But as I stated earlier, with what I know of Sarfati my money would bet against that being the case.

You are so blinded by the RAGE against YECs that you can't even see the obvious but rather you constantly seek to detect YEC malfeasance even where none is present in which case you fabricate it. I pity you, O-Mudd.

Jorge