Tweet
Originally posted by Jorge
View Post
You have avoided the issues over and over. You will not address the issue of whether or not the quotes themselves have been corrupted and made to say other than the authors intent. I have given you all you need to assess that, and still you refuse. And what all this says about you Jorge is that you would rather play the game than live the truth. If you were interested in the truth, we would be discussing the quotes and what they meant in context, what they meant as used and whether or not they were distorted, and how likely the distortion was to be purposeful.
The Sarfati/Davies 'evidence' for a Young Earth that claims there are no SNR's that appear older than 10,000 years (or rather, that should be more than 10,000 years old based on certain assumptions about how quickly the remnant disperses) is in fact a lie. There never was evidence for missing SNR's >10,000 years of age. There is no a hard cutoff of age, and their never was. The author(s) of this 'evidence' manufactured support for the claim by twisting some suitable quotes out of context and making them imply they had a legitimate case to make. They took information that referred to quantity, not age, and in one case (the 'mystery' quote) they took information that referred to a specific anomaly (fewer SNRs in the magellenic clouds as related to the number FOUND in the milky way) and used it to imply astronomers recognize their claim as valid and have even written papers that profess confusion over the matter. A two-fold distortion of the comment.
Further, you quoted a YEC in support of your own belief that short period comets present a problem for billions of years (though not millions) that the Oort cloud is a manufactured and desperate solution to that problem. And that YEC quoted Carl Sagan out of context to imply that there was no evidence for the Oort cloud and to imply that Sagan believed scientists write papers about the Oort cloud without a shred of evidence, when in fact Sagan covers the evidence in that section of the quoted book, and the quote itself is marveling at the capacity to discover amazing facts about the universe by indirect means, without direct (keyword) observations, not expressing any sort of dismay over the lack of evidence for the Oort cloud.
Both of these instances are deceptions aimed at a trusting audience. Deceptions designed to make that audience believe two things that are false:
1) That powerful scientific evidence for a universe <10,000 years old exists. Evidence that even 'secular' scientists admit is true (which they don't)
2) That 'secular' scientists 'hide' from themselves and others the 'truth' about how 'weak' their case is
BOTH of these messages are lies. Falsehoods. Deceptions designed to trick the people that trust them.
And that is wrong Jorge. It is in a word evil. And it is exactly the kind of thing Christ was addressing in my quote of His words.
And if you can show that somehow I am doing the same thing, then I would be as evil as they are. But I can tell you this, I have never willingly changed the words of another or taken them out of context and made them mean something they never meant to say as part of supporting the reasons I believe what I believe. Never. So the comparison you try to make simply does not exist. I could be wrong, just as you could be wrong. And that is why we must both prayerfully seek God for guidence and freedom from our own personal biases.
But what we are talking about here is clearly documented (though you will not avail yourself of that actual source material and compare it to how it was used). And it is clearly a distortion for the purpose of deception. The only possible caveat is that there is the small theoretical possibility this could be carelessness or negligence as opposed to purposed.
But the continued and purposed JUSTIFICATION of the misquote by Sarfati and others is very, very strong evidence that theoretical possibility simply doesn't exist.
Jim
Comment