Originally posted by Wally
View Post
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
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
-
I thought I would bring this post over from the parent thread of this one, and I'm going to give Jorge 1/2 point for it. It is a response I would have credited him with a full point for had he posted it in this thread. It does address the issues of why he is to a great extent unwilling to debate science, but it also points out some of the major cognitive dissonance associated with his position. I'll go through it in a post following my repetition of its content here:
Originally posted by JorgeI will waste more minutes (sigh!) of my life and succinctly "make my position clear" (AGAIN!!!).
NO physical data will 'seal the case' for any position - not for 10,000 years, not for 10 million years and not for 14 billion years.
Why? Because in order to arrive at dates regarding origins we are talking about historical science - not operational science. In the former you make observations but must then interpret according to some paradigm and from the outset you had to make assumptions/presuppositions. For Materialists like yourself, Uniformitarianism is one of these. The Copernican (or Copernican-like) Principle is another.
Simply change the paradigm, assumptions and presuppositions and THE SAME observations yield a different result. I see the same starlight as you do; I see the same fossils as you do; I observe the same geological features on Earth as you do. However, I do not employ Uniformitarianism or any Copernican-like Principle in their interpretation. What I do use is a historical narrative provided to me by a Book that I regard as True. I am able to use some operational science in all of this - in fact, I use the SAME operational science as you do. It's in the foundation where we differ.
Are there some 'apparent inconsistencies' and 'unanswered questions' between observations and this Book? Yes. But exactly the same applies to all other positions including Materialism/Naturalism/Humanism (although this is not readily admitted). These epistemological issues will always exist because we are finite beings with incomplete knowledge, incomplete understanding and inherent flaws (such as biases) in our inner being and perceptions.
So how does someone like myself overcome these limitations? Easy - I trust the Words that are in the Book and move on. I employ faith where it is needed. But I have enough physical evidence to support that faith; in other words, it is not a "blind faith", suspended in mid-air, supported by nothing. It is a rational, 'scientific' (proper definition) stance - not as you people like to portray it ("irrational and unscientific").
Here's my pet peeve with people like you: You too have serious epistemological limitations. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that you too must employ FAITH to keep you going. You maintain that faith plays no role in your Materialism - obviously this can only be one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty. This denial is obviously motivated because you wish to be in some sort of 'Elitist' / 'Superior' position guided "solely by the power of science and intellect". Hogwash!!
Now, there really isn't a way for me to continue without turning this into a dissertation. But I've made my point. ANY of the physical evidences listed by Santa Klaus or any others that you people would like to list may be given alternative "explanations / interpretations". As one example, the "salt in the oceans" evidence was never meant to "prove" a 10,000 year old Earth but only to show that the oceans cannot be billions of years old - something doesn't add up. That is countered by artifacts introduced for the purpose of explaining how the salt level "could be" what we observe in a "billions of years old ocean". Okay, on to the next one: short-period comets (SPC). No problem: simply introduce an "Oort Cloud" to explain how those SPCs could exist. But, something never observed has been introduced as an "explanation". Okay, shall we call that "science"? Sure, why not. Let's now introduce little green men to explain how DNA got to Earth. Oops - too late, someone's already beat us to that "scientific explanation". On and on and on it goes - I could go through the entire list and the net result with you people would be ... drum roll ... NADA!!!
Is any of this sinking in?
Got'ta go ...
JorgeMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostWhy do we even bother with him? Why can't Jorge just admit he isn't trained in Physics or Engineering? I am surprised Jorge is an American.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostWhy do we even bother with him? Why can't Jorge just admit he isn't trained in Physics or Engineering? I am surprised Jorge is an American.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostWhat Jorge has said above is a lie.
I answered his comments directly and succinctly. There is no testable data that can shed light on the events he mentions.
No data to test the claim in scripture that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. No testable data to test the claim Jesus walked on water. No testable data to support the claim the thousands were fed from a few loaves of bread and fish. They are believed or rejected without the capacity to directly test the claims made. This is the third time now that I have answered this.
To top the whole scam off you claim to be "based solely on physical scientific data" to REJECT a 6-day creation thereby handing on a silver platter the billions of years that are essential for Materialism's worldview. Are you so far below on the IQ scale that you cannot understand what I've been saying? I personally do not think so. I think it is actually a matter of willful ignorance, selective data gathering, ... basically an overall less-than-honest intellectual attitude.
So Jorge, stop lying about that. Lying is a sin.
This thread, however, is not about trying to find data to support miracles or the claims of arbitrary miracles.
This thread is about analyzing the data which drives assessment of the age of the universe and which is potentially contrary to or in support of the INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1-11 that would derive an age for the Earth and the Universe of <10,000 years.
So we are not talking about the possibility of miracles. We are not trying to decide if the miracles in the Bible are true. We are not trying to establish an objective criteria for evaluating the traditional interpretations of the whole of scripture.
We are discussing the data which either supports or contradicts a results derived from a specific INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1.
As per Jorge's definition of what "needs to be discussed"
Let's please keep the topic focussed on that, at least for now.
And also please remember Jorge can't handle more than a few hundred words at a time.
And that he wants to take 'each of those "data points" one at a time'.
Let's not overload him.
Jim
SPELLING IT OUT FOR YOU: If you want to follow the observable, testable, physical scientific data then you must do so CONSISTENTLY . Specifically, if you reject the 6-day creation on the basis of observable, testable, physical scientific data that testifies against it then you must also reject the other miracles on the basis of the observable, testable, physical scientific data that testifies against those miracles. YOU GOT THAT? Selectively picking and choosing isn't allowed - not if you're an honest person.
Hey, who knows, maybe this is the time when you want to tell the world that in your heart of hearts you are actually a Materialist? What say ye?
JorgeLast edited by Jorge; 05-27-2014, 11:38 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostWhy do we even bother with him?
Why can't Jorge just admit he isn't trained in Physics or Engineering?
I am surprised Jorge is an American.
Plus, your logic is, as Spock would say, "illogical". To wit: what would "being an American" have to do with whether or not I had any training in Physics or Engineering or Mathematics or Philosophy or basket-weaving? I mean, did you learn your logic in Bozo-Land?
Anyway, I've had what I consider to be a successful career (and counting) applying all of the above disciplines (errr ... minus basket-weaving) and so, as the expression goes, THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING. IOW, I don't have to "talk" about knowing those disciplines, I have PROVEN myself in the real world. Have you? Ergo, you go on yapping like a sissy-girl all you want, Mr. Omni. All you will achieve is to make a bigger jackass out of yourself.
Jorge
Comment
-
Jorge, you appear to be 100% certain you know all the Word of God in the Bible. So, you read ancient Hebrew, koine Greek, Aramaic better than anyone else on Earth. Many Hebrew passages in the OT have been declared by eminent scholars to be "difficult." Yet all is clear to you. Crystal clear. Pellucid.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
-
If God had wanted us to learn foreign languages, he wouldn't have smashed the Tower of Babel, scattered us over the face of the earth, and confused our language! It is better to concentrate on the English of King James, because that was good enough for Jesus and Martin Luther.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostIf God had wanted us to learn foreign languages, he wouldn't have smashed the Tower of Babel, scattered us over the face of the earth, and confused our language! It is better to concentrate on the English of King James, because that was good enough for Jesus and Martin Luther.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostIf God had wanted us to learn foreign languages, he wouldn't have smashed the Tower of Babel, scattered us over the face of the earth, and confused our language! It is better to concentrate on the English of King James, because that was good enough for Jesus and Martin Luther.
"If English was good enough for the Bible, it's good enough for me."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostJorge, you appear to be 100% certain you know all the Word of God in the Bible. So, you read ancient Hebrew, koine Greek, Aramaic better than anyone else on Earth.
Many Hebrew passages in the OT have been declared by eminent scholars to be "difficult." Yet all is clear to you. Crystal clear. Pellucid.
What you and people like you wish to do is lump them all into one group so that
you can declare them "ALL" difficult/incomprehensible/subject-to-interpretation
so that you can pursue your agenda.
Sorry, you can practice that transparent strategy on your idiot friends.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostIf God had wanted us to learn foreign languages, he wouldn't have smashed the Tower of Babel, scattered us over the face of the earth, and confused our language! It is better to concentrate on the English of King James, because that was good enough for Jesus and Martin Luther.
Seriously, and what's more important, the pure/original AKJV1611 has not been subjected to centuries of corruption for all kinds of reasons. All things considered, the AKJV1611 is the best English version that exists today. 'Nuff said.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostMartin Luther übersetzte seine eigene Version der Bibel in deutscher Sprache.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostYou have my vote.
Seriously, and what's more important, the pure/original AKJV1611 has not been subjected to centuries of corruption for all kinds of reasons. All things considered, the AKJV1611 is the best English version that exists today. 'Nuff said.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
136 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment