Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[Truthseeker]

This was published just last year--essentially a copy of Sarfati's article many years before:
Jon A. Covey's Second Look
[my apologies if someone already mentioned that. I searched the thread using "Covey" and "crossfire."]

[oxmixmudd]

Or possibly because he recognizes you as a fellow traveler and is willing to answer?

Right after the discovery of Tiktaalik was announced AnswersinGenesis (AiG) ran an article that among other things described its pelvis and/or hind limbs. I and several other folks found that extremely interesting in that this portion of Tiktaalik had not been discovered (this was rectified several years later) so rjw, TheGreenMan and I all separately wrote AiG asking where they got their information from.

Never got a response. At least the other two got replies saying that they would shortly get an answer though that never came either.

That is at least true in some cases. I had tried to contact Humphreys at one point to ask him some questions about his White Hole Cosmology, and I made no progress till I went through a friend of mine who had enough pull to get a reply where I was 'allowed' to send 1 (one) email. He answered me, but I could not ask any questions about his answers. Jorge will claim 'anyone' could get a response in half a day, but that just isn't the case.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Sniff ... sniff ... sniff ......... I'm getting a whiff of scent that no one is going
to be lining up at the 'apology queue'. Oh well, precisely as expected.

Jorge

one reaps what one sows.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Dr. Sarfati replied. First, two comments from me ...

1. See how easy that was? Why can't / don't you people do the same instead of
constantly attacking a position and the people that advocate that position, most
especially given the obvious fact that you don't understand it in the first place?
ANSWER : because that would not serve your true agenda, that's why.

2. Since Dr. Sarfati is responding to your claims, I presume it's okay for me to post
his response here but do not take any of this material outside without permission.
If you have any doubts or further questions or wish to verify the authenticity of what I'm
posting here then feel free to go to the CMI (US) website and address an email to him.
I've just shown you how easy it is - you have no excuse.
.
.
.
Okay, so the first thing Dr. Sarfati did was to address the Atheists amongst you making these accusations.

He wrote, "... ask them why, under an evolutionary worldview, should they care about dishonesty. Their view entails that it's just bags of chemicals operating in different ways under the same fixed chemical laws.

So no wonder one evolutionist is on record saying that it's OK to deceive young people as long as they end up believing in evolution." http://creation.com/evolutionist-its...ieve-evolution

I will second his words with a caveat: what one (or several) Atheist Evolutionists say does not necessarily reflect what the majority believes / practices. That said, his point remains: since Atheist Evolutionists do not believe in any absolute moral standards, they stand on a vacuum when they demand "honesty". But that would be another topic.

So let me repeat what I've said several times already: I know of not a single Biblical Creationist that would knowingly and deliberately lie / cheat / misquote. Errors have undoubtedly been made but once the errors were pointed out and recognized to be genuine, they were corrected. That recognition is crucial since there are accusations that aren't factual.
.
.
.
He then continues,

"... if it's what I think it was, I addressed that a decade ago as follows:

My short article from 1997 was clearly stated to be based on a paper by Keith Davies, with the expectation that if readers wanted more detail, they should check that.

Conversely, this skeptic charge seems to come from an attack by a non-astronomer called Moore on an atheopathic website. He rails against the way Davies uses some of the unusual phrases found in journals that indicated surprise at the shortfall of galactic SNRs. Moore makes the point that several of these phrases were written in the context of explanations of the problem and that Davies should have made that clear.

He [Moore]Refuting CompromiseassumeIt is, however, necessary to postulate

*****************************************

Final three comments from me:

(1) I noticed that some of the characters did not 'translate' properly from link to link. That's okay because the matter in question here has been resolved regardless.

(2) If anyone here is unsatisfied with this, simply go to the CMI (US) site and post your grievances directed at Dr. Sarfati. He will answer as soon as he's able - in this case the same day. DO NOT ask me to do your work. Also, I kindly ask (and also advise) that you not waste his time.

(3) The 'apologizing queue' starts right here ---> _________________

Jorge

That is an interesting answer, but it doesn't really deal with the issues at hand. One element that is very glaring here but which has not been discussed is that the paper by Caswell and Clark address the issue of less than the expected number. Davies and Sarfati are dealing with a claim of "none older that 10,000 years". These are NOT the same! Yet they use the quotes as if they are the same thing. A smaller number has two causes: not enough time OR the expected average interval between SN is to short. There are many SNR's that are older than 10,000 years. There were when the original article was written. But the articles push on the number as if it was necessarily an indicator of not enough time has passed. And that is based on a ESTIMATED average interval between events.

Another very,very nasty caveat is that this quote (even the larger portion Sarfati mentions above) is referring ONLY TO A STATISTICALLY LOW NUMBER SEEN IN THE MAGELLANIC CLOUDS over what the authors would expect based on the parameters found in our own galaxy! To apply that quote generically to the entire milky way, or the universe as a whole is grossly negligent.

These and other considerations are critical. And the reason is simple. These men function as trusted filters of the scientific data for their audience. When the are not ruthlessly honest, when they shade the truth, when they are incompetent or careless, they lead people astray. They cause their listeners to base their opinions on errors and falsehoods. And as Jesus said "Woe to those who lead any of these little ones astray".

What has happened here is that someone, Davies primarily and Sarfati secondarily, simply at best scanned the paper and took what they wanted from it, omitting even portions of sentences to make it say what they wanted it to say. At BEST that is what they did. And it is inexcusable, especially given their trusted position. What the paper finds is that there is good reason to believe the number of SNR's expected to be observable is just too high (matters of expected surface brightness, direction of observation, stellar population in various parts of the galaxy and so on).

It in no way supports the YEC authors contention that there are not enough OLD SNR's. Yet that is what is was used to do, and Sarfati makes no apologies for that. He just has reasons he feels their use of the article content was justified, as if all that had been done was to improperly copy the quotes from the paper.

This is, in fact, not all that different from the Sagan quote you used Jorge. Words ripped out of context and made to say something unrelated, even the antithesis of the original context and content.



Jim

[Roy]

Sniff ... sniff ... sniff ......... I'm getting a whiff of scent that no one is going
to be lining up at the 'apology queue'. Oh well, precisely as expected.

No-one is lining up at the apology queue because no-one else needs to:

Taking this at face value without any verification, it seems to me that DAVIES (not Sarfati) would be the guilty party with Sarfati committing the mistake of not verifying his sources. That seems to clearly be what Setterfield is (allegedly) here saying. Even still, was Sarfati informed of the truth? Did Sarfati acknowledge this? Did Sarfati disregard the evidence and refuse to make any needed corrections? Otherwise, you people are just blowing smoke.

Yes. He's known the quote was misleading for years. Jorge is merely the latest in a long line of people pointing this out.
Yes. He included the fuller quote ion other articles, and in his reply to Jorge.
Yes. The article with the truncated version has been posted on the new creation.com website with nothing at all to indicate that the quote is misleading.

That Sarfati is capable of producing a spurious excuse that avoids the point, and that Jorge is capable of swallowing it so fast the reel sticks in his teeth, changes nothing.

Case closed.

Roy

[Jorge]

When the are not ruthlessly honest, when they shade the truth, when they are incompetent or careless, they lead people astray. They cause their listeners to base their opinions on errors and falsehoods. And as Jesus said "Woe to those who lead any of these little ones astray".

Jim

You do realize, of course, that by making statements such as the one above you bring condemnation upon yourself and all other Theistic Evolutionists. What I mean is, Atheists can at least claim the excuse* of not knowing God and God's Word whereas Theistic Evolutionists claim to know God and His Word yet they "shade the truth", they are "incompetent and careless" and as a result they "lead many people astray" (little ones and big ones). Ergo, I would advise you to be much more careful of what you say, O-Mudd, lest you condemn yourself.

* It's just an 'excuse' because God tells us that "they (all) are without excuse" (Romans 1)

Jorge

[Ladybug823]

First I would like to apologize for jumping in the middle of the thread like this I have had time for casual observation but not response to any threads as of late. Now that that has been said:

*disclaimer* I have friends who are Young Earth who respect my view of Theistic Evolution as a valid biblical view but not as their own view and I do not have any issues with their beliefs, I only take issue with those who demean others for their beliefs on this point

You do realize, of course, that by making statements such as the one above you bring condemnation upon yourself and all other Theistic Evolutionists. What I mean is, Atheists can at least claim the excuse* of not knowing God and God's Word whereas Theistic Evolutionists claim to know God and His Word yet they "shade the truth", they are "incompetent and careless" and as a result they "lead many people astray" (little ones and big ones). Ergo, I would advise you to be much more careful of what you say, O-Mudd, lest you condemn yourself.

* It's just an 'excuse' because God tells us that "they (all) are without excuse" (Romans 1)

Jorge

You claim that a theistic evolutionist (I assume that you envelop all those under the banner of OEC whether evolutionist or not as those that lead others astray) leads people "astray" yet all we do is to recognize that the Genesis creation story was written for another people with another purpose than to explain in detail how the universe came into being. You have heard the arguments before, but I think you need to understand the reasons one ought not hold an antagonistic position towards those who do not hold to the young earth position

1) the society of the time was one that believed the created things were the creators, this had to be combated with a story which listed one creator, who is outside the natural realm.
2) these same people who believed in a "sun god" would not have understood nor believed a creation story that involves the speed of light, quantum physics, and the theory of relativity so the story had to be within their realm of understanding.
3) with the first two notes why can we not understand Genesis within the context of modern science? Because to many it is a threat to the comfort of the false premise that the bible not only holds moral truths but scientific truths as well when it was never meant to be scientific.

Jorge, I believe that God could have used any method to create the universe. based on what I currently know I believe God MOST LIKELY used the big bang, natural processes and some form of evolution, because it does not contradict the Genesis story (see points 1 and 2 for reference) and because these are our best scientific theories at the moment. If I die and find out that God did it some other way who am I to argue, but until then Theistic Evolution is my best guess.

In the meant time however why do you not just hold to your own belief of young earth and accept that many others differ from you. This is NOT a salvation issue and does not deserve this kind of defense.

[Jorge]

First I would like to apologize for jumping in the middle of the thread like this I have had time for casual observation but not response to any threads as of late. Now that that has been said:

*disclaimer* I have friends who are Young Earth who respect my view of Theistic Evolution as a valid biblical view but not as their own view and I do not have any issues with their beliefs, I only take issue with those who demean others for their beliefs on this point




You claim that a theistic evolutionist (I assume that you envelop all those under the banner of OEC whether evolutionist or not as those that lead others astray) leads people "astray" yet all we do is to recognize that the Genesis creation story was written for another people with another purpose than to explain in detail how the universe came into being. You have heard the arguments before, but I think you need to understand the reasons one ought not hold an antagonistic position towards those who do not hold to the young earth position

1) the society of the time was one that believed the created things were the creators, this had to be combated with a story which listed one creator, who is outside the natural realm.
2) these same people who believed in a "sun god" would not have understood nor believed a creation story that involves the speed of light, quantum physics, and the theory of relativity so the story had to be within their realm of understanding.
3) with the first two notes why can we not understand Genesis within the context of modern science? Because to many it is a threat to the comfort of the false premise that the bible not only holds moral truths but scientific truths as well when it was never meant to be scientific.

Jorge, I believe that God could have used any method to create the universe. based on what I currently know I believe God MOST LIKELY used the big bang, natural processes and some form of evolution, because it does not contradict the Genesis story (see points 1 and 2 for reference) and because these are our best scientific theories at the moment. If I die and find out that God did it some other way who am I to argue, but until then Theistic Evolution is my best guess.

In the meant time however why do you not just hold to your own belief of young earth and accept that many others differ from you. This is NOT a salvation issue and does not deserve this kind of defense.

Hello, LB823:

It's always dangerous "jumping into" the middle of a discussion because there could be many years of preceding events. That is certainly the case here.

Some Theistic Evolutionists are 'palatable' because they are genuinely seeking answers and are actually 'lost' - at least for the moment. These people are most often merely confused, brainwashed by a corrupt "education" system and ignorant of a great many things. I know this well because as a young teenager I was one of those lost creatures.

Then there are the Theistic Evolutionists that are what I refer to as "hard-core militant". Unless and until such folk openly tell us that they are Christians - sinful, yet redeemed into eternal life by Jesus Christ their LORD and Savior - it is often times nearly impossible to tell them apart from your typical Materialist/Atheist/Humanist. I've been at this for quite a while - you will have to trust me on this (or not, your choice).

As for your ending ("This is NOT a salvation issue ..."), I recently wrote something towards that point which I will re-post here (but first I have to find it and so I will EDIT this post in a few minutes to do that). Assuming you are a young person, just keep an open mind and learn - then you make your own decision. I am not here to "twist" your arm into submission - read, learn and then you decide.

EDITED TO ADD :

Took a while but I found it ...

A guy named "LeonHard" wrote:

"... I don't deny the creation of Adam and Eve, the Fall, or their lines of descendants. Many other details are
up for personal interpretation. No one will be held accountable for failing to be a yec or a gigayearist."


That is essentially the same as what you are saying.
My response to LeonHard (and to you) was/is as follows:

Perhaps you missed the many (many!) times in the past where I stated that it's NOT about failing to be a YEC. God, I'd expect, wouldn't care much or at all about that. What God WOULD care about is if you are trusting in Him / His Word or, if in essence, you are doubting His Word (maybe even calling God a "liar") just so that the words, theories and vain imaginations of men may remain standing. But there's more...

... it's not ONLY about the age of the Earth being 10,000 years or 4.5 billion years or 2 microseconds or 26 trillion years - God is not limited by time. What DOES matter is that God gave us His Word and that Word tells us about the beginning, an END, and what happened-happens in between (sin ... the Fall ... and God's plan for redeeming us from eternal death). If we change from 10,000 years (whatever the exact number is) and introduce 4.5 billion years in which pain, suffering and death occurred throughout, what results is that what God says throughout the Bible becomes incoherent.

To wit: why would God want to redeem us from death if death is a 'good' thing? (since death was the mechanism that He used to bring man from the "earlier, lower species"). Why would God call His creation "very good" if it had pain, suffering and death from the very moment that life began hundreds of millions of years ago? Why would God painstakingly provide us with chronological and genealogical details since Adam and Eve only to leave billions of years and thousands of human generations (before Adam and Eve) unaccounted for? These are just a few of hundreds of logical paradoxes that billions of years would introduce into the Bible.

In case you don't know, why else do you think that many Christian gigayear/Evolution-promoters have essentially 'eliminated' Genesis 1-11 from their Bible? (note the quotes). I'll tell you why: because by doing so they erase all of these embarrassing (for them) questions for which they have no good, honest answers.

... I do agree with Atheists that 2+4=6 and that lead is denser than aluminum. But those matters do NOT impact God's Word or the Christian faith. But when an Atheist says, "The Bible must be wrong because the Earth is billions of years old, not thousands" - that Atheist has just called God a liar (after all, it was GOD that gave Moses the Words that are found in Genesis). And if I agree with this Atheist then what have I just done? Go on, answer that - it's easy.

I agree wholeheartedly that the MOST important thing in Christianity is Christ, the Cross and our relationship with God. But it is childishly naive to think that one facet of our Christian faith is isolated from all others. A Christian would never vote FOR "the right to have an abortion", right? Why? A Christian would never vote FOR "the validity of same-sex marriage", right? Why? A Christian would never vote in FAVOR of adultery or illegally taking someone's property, right? Why? Hey, if all that matters is that Christ died for me and that I'm going to heaven then the hell with everything and everyone else - just allow all things to happen regardless of what the Bible says. Obviously, that would not be correct as per God. Agreed?

EVERY aspect of our life must be viewed within the context of God's Word. Compartmentalization isn't allowed. God is LORD of all areas, not just the area of grace and spiritual salvation. So we must see the interconnectedness of what we believe - how believing in one thing impacts another.

That, in a tiny nutshell, is why we will all be held accountable for our position in this matter just as in our position towards abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and so on. Furthermore, if we side with the wrong position -- a position that opposes the truth that God has revealed to us in His Word -- and we promote that wrong position, and due to this lead others into paths of unrighteousness and unbelief, then we will be facing accountability for those lost souls as well. This is no trivial matter and to say that "it has nothing to do with our salvation" is, IMHO, myopic.

Hope you are now a bit clearer on all of this.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Hello, LB823:

It's always dangerous "jumping into" the middle of a discussion because there could be many years of preceding events. That is certainly the case here.

Some Theistic Evolutionists are 'palatable' because they are genuinely seeking answers and are actually 'lost' - at least for the moment. These people are most often merely confused, brainwashed by a corrupt "education" system and ignorant of a great many things. I know this well because as a young teenager I was one of those lost creatures.

Then there are the Theistic Evolutionists that are what I refer to as "hard-core militant". Unless and until such folk openly tell us that they are Christians - sinful, yet redeemed into eternal life by Jesus Christ their LORD and Savior - it is often times nearly impossible to tell them apart from your typical Materialist/Atheist/Humanist. I've been at this for quite a while - you will have to trust me on this (or not, your choice).

As for your ending ("This is NOT a salvation issue ..."), I recently wrote something towards that point which I will re-post here (but first I have to find it and so I will EDIT this post in a few minutes to do that). Assuming you are a young person, just keep an open mind and learn - then you make your own decision. I am not here to "twist" your arm into submission - read, learn and then you decide.

EDITED TO ADD :

Jorge

Nice sermon, Jorge.

Where's the science, history, literary analysis, and theology to back it up? You can't even give a plain, simple, straightforward, direct reading of Ge 1:2-3.

AND, the interpretative approach that Ladybug is taking is not only more "literal" but makes a LOT more sense in the context of the audience to which it was written. The essential theology remains almost the same, with yours being the distorted one.

K54

P.S. Welcome to the Natural Science forum, Ladybug823!

BTW, you didn't miss ANYTHING by jumping into the middle of the conversation. Jorge's posts have been repetitive and content-less preaching all the way through.

[Omniskeptical]

Did you expect him to give a respectful answer, or say something other than something which has already been refuted?

[Jorge]

Nice sermon, Jorge.

Where's the science, history, literary analysis, and theology to back it up? You can't even give a plain, simple, straightforward, direct reading of Ge 1:2-3.

AND, the interpretative approach that Ladybug is taking is not only more "literal" but makes a LOT more sense in the context of the audience to which it was written. The essential theology remains almost the same, with yours being the distorted one.

K54

P.S. Welcome to the Natural Science forum, Ladybug823!

BTW, you didn't miss ANYTHING by jumping into the middle of the conversation. Jorge's posts have been repetitive and content-less preaching all the way through.

Shut up, you silly Baboon ... I'm trying to have a decent chat here.



Jorge

[Jorge]

Did you expect him to give a respectful answer, or say something other than something which has already been refuted?

Point out where I was disrespectful, you Soiled Diaper.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Once again Jorge tries to cover up his scientific ignorance and lack of support for his arguments with gratuitous insults.

Jorge didn't get his reputation as the board's biggest blustering coward for no reason.

[klaus54]

Shut up, you silly Baboon ... I'm trying to have a decent chat here.



Jorge

LadyBug,

See what I mean? LOL

K54

P.S. Jorge, I'm going to continue to hound you about your "literal" Genesis 1. And, I as well as others will continue to hound you on your poor science.

[Truthseeker]

Jorge, I'm thinking now that it is wrong for Christians to attempt a scientific defense of the Bible (science = methodological naturalism, no "act by God"). We should rather say, "The Bible cannot give us every detail--there may be an infinity of them!-- and answer all the questions that we may ask--an infinity also! Just because someone comes up with a theory that appears to contradict in some way the Bible, that does NOT disprove it. One reason is that we cannot entirely account for what God may have done in the past and is doing now. Until we know in every detail what God did in the past, it is vain to make a scientific defense of the Bible. Also, it is not logical to reject the Bible just because someone has a theory that appear to be a good one that contradicts the Bible in some way."