Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[Roy]

Be careful with what you say, O-Mudd. I am not a liar.

The evidence indicates otherwise.

Here is a particularly blatant example from before the reboot:

I KNEW that DeHart had used Of Pandas and People and I never denied that fact.

Really?

How about this:

As in the case of Roger DeHart, when he brought materials from SECULAR sources that mentioned problems in Evolution, he ended up being EXPELLED from his long-held job.

Or this:

Of Pandas and People is a secular source?

I see that you're demonstrating your i-g-n-o-r-a-n-c-e yet again, Roy. DeHart brought articles from Science, Nature, Scientific American and other secular sources. He was EXPELLED nonetheless.

Or this:

DeHart was EXPELLED and he used secular supplementary materials - period!

All of these are denials that DeHart used anything other than secular materials, and hence denials that DeHart used Of Pandas and People. The last one is particularly clear. None of those posts include any suggestion that Jorge is talking only about the period after DeHart was told to cease and desist. None of those posts include any hint that DeHart had previously been using Of Pandas and People, despite that book being specifically named. But then, such a hint would completely deflate Jorge's point:

DeHart was EXPELLED and he used secular supplementary materials after he was caught using non-secular supplementary materials and told to stop - period!

Jorge says he knew DeHart had used non-secular supplementary material.
When asked about that specific material, Jorge said DeHart used secular sources.
Jorge then stated that DeHart used secular supplementary material - period!
Jorge lied.

Here's another example. In the article at http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp, Jorge wrote this (my emphasis):

The Talk.Origins FAQ page (http://www.Talk.Origins.org/origins/faqs-qa.htmlselected entries (Qs & As) taken verbatim from the TO FAQ page

However, examination of the FAQ referred to showed that the entries were not verbatim at all, and Jorge was the one deliberately omitting essential facts.

Jorge's lies are legion.

Roy

[robrecht]

Especially the parts about the unicorns. It's literal and inerrant for sure!

Actually, unicorn was just the Latin word for rhinoceros, as can be seen from this description by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History (8,31,76):

asperrimam autem feram monocerotem, reliquo corpore equo similem, capite cervo, pedibus elephanto, cauda apro, mugitu gravi, uno cornu nigro media fronte cubitorum duum eminente. hanc feram vivam negant capi.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/..._Elder/8*.html

But that the fiercest animal is the Monocerotem (Unicorn), which in the rest of the body resembles a horse, but in the head a stag, in the feet an elephant, and in the tail a boar, and has a deep bellow, and a single black horn three feet long projecting from the middle of the forehead. They say that it is impossible to capture this animal alive.
http://www.theoi.com/Thaumasios/HippoiMonokerata.html

Correction: rhinoceros!

[oxmixmudd]

Be careful with what you say, O-Mudd. I am not a liar.

You lied about whether or not I had answered you. I did.

And that was PRECISELY my point - there is NO OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC DATA yet you choose to believe these things because they are MIRACLES. Yet you REJECT ALL OF THE OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC DATA that testifies AGAINST the miracles that you DO choose to believe in. You literally want your cake and to eat it too.

Jorge, I am so sorry you are too stupid to understand the difference between what is possible and what actually happened, but there is very little I can do to correct that problem. It has been explained to you many, many times, and you just can't seem to grasp it. Science can't say a miracle CAN"T happen. It can only say IF an event was possible by NATURAL processes - it can only CLASSIFY an event as potentially miraculous. You are so confused on this it is ridiculous. The scientific FACT a man can't rise (on his own) from the dead does NOT mean the resurrection didn't happen. It only means that it was a miracle since it happened. However, IF there were bones in Jesus' grave that we could know were in fact those of Jesus, THEN science could say the resurrection did not happen. I simply can't believe you are so thick headed as to be unable to parse the difference, but it clearly is the case.


Further, I am so sorry you are unable to grasp the difference between postulates and conclusions, but again, you seem incapable of processing these concepts. IF Genesis 1 is technical and literal, THEN Genesis claims a miraculous creation in 6 days. IF genesis 1 is figurative or in some way NOT technical, THEN a 6 day creation is a metaphor and the mode of creation is undefined. I can't make it any simpler than that, but I doubt it will help.

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.

This is very close to the most idiotic thing you say on this topic Jorge. You don't deny TRUTH simply because it makes it harder for you to support your BELIEFS!!! Good grief!


The rest of what you wrote is just a consequence of the fundamental misunderstanding I have outlined above.


Jim.

[Truthseeker]

Those are YOUR words, not mine, and also your attempts at vilification.

I wonder if you need to check your sarcasm/satire detection gear.

I agree - many passages are indeed difficult. Many others - MOST - are NOT.
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

Thanks for something that made me chuckle. But I wonder if you really think you correctly understand everything in the Bible.

[HMS_Beagle]

Actually, the unicorns were hippopotami, as can be seen from this description by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History (8,31,76):

asperrimam autem feram monocerotem, reliquo corpore equo similem, capite cervo, pedibus elephanto, cauda apro, mugitu gravi, uno cornu nigro media fronte cubitorum duum eminente. hanc feram vivam negant capi.

But that the fiercest animal is the Monocerotem (Unicorn), which in the rest of the body resembles a horse, but in the head a stag, in the feet an elephant, and in the tail a boar, and has a deep bellow, and a single black horn three feet long projecting from the middle of the forehead. They say that it is impossible to capture this animal alive.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/..._Elder/8*.html

I've always read that the proper translation for re'em is auroch, a type of extinct large bovine ancestral to modern cattle.

[oxmixmudd]

I 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.

Science is not about absolute proof Jorge. We agree.

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.

First, the distinction you attempt to make above between operational and historical science does not exist per se. There is a difference between applying knowledge of the physical world to recreate the events of the past and discovering knowledge of the physical world. But that is not the distinction you make. You are going for assumptions/presumptions driving conclusions. This is true of all of science.

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.

No Jorge, it's just not that simple. You are trying to describe science in terms that hides the differences between YEC attempts to use science in support of a belief and conclusions derived from data using science. They are not the same thing. In fact, they are vastly different. You observe the geological features and decide how to map them into your pre-existing conclusion of what they represent. A scientists looks at the geological data and asks what natural processes could have produced what is being observed. He then makes predictions from that hypothesis and then makes predictions concerning what other properties that formation should have if his hypothesis is correct and then tests those predictions against additional observations of the formation.

They are COMPLETELY different. One is science. The other is not.

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.

Again, you try to use similar terms to mask huge differences. It is not that way Jorge. On the YEC side, the unanswered questions are things like, "why is the Earth still here if decay rates were more than 1,000,000 times greater in the past than they are now". Or "how can we see ANY of the galaxies, or even the Milky way". Or "How can we still be here if all the impact craters happened in just a few 100 years". Not only are the questions fundamenatally basic, none of the explanations fit together. On the one hand "There are no Supernova remnants older than 10,000 years" because, of course, the universe is only 10,000 years old. But on the other, to get starlight to where we can see it, most of the universe is in fact many millions of years old". The entire universe is full of structures and objects that take millions of years to form like tidal tails on galaxies or shockwaves from galactic collisions. You struggle with the most basic of questions because virtually NONE of the physical structures associated with life and death (fossils, coral reefs, chalk deposits, coal, old) or sedimentation fit into a 10,000 year time frame or can be explained by a single global flood. It's all this massive mishmash of self-contradictory hopeful constructs trying to force fit data 100% consistent will millions and billions of years of time into an ASSUMED interpretive framework for the Bible and a 6000 year timeframe indirectly thus derived.

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").

IF there was evidence to support your POV, you would do it the very same way I support my views. You present the data and the physical principles by which you interpret that data and you show that it makes sense. And you take multiple data samples around those events and you show how your interpretation is consistent with all of them, simultaneously. IF you had a case, it would not be all that hard. It is hard because it doesn't add up, because it isn't consistent, and because science doesn't support your beliefs.

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!!

Jorge, in terms of how the science is applied, you simply can't make any real comparison. It's not all arbitrary and relative. An 80 mile wide crater in the Chesapeake bay buried under muiltiple layers of sediment has implications both in time and space. Some conclusions fit the data,others simply do not. That thing formed by an impact <6,000 years ago just does not fit ANY of the data. And it formed by anything other than an asteroid ALSO does not fit any of the data. But it is consistent with everything we know about the solar system and Geology if it happened around 30,000,000 years ago (IIRC). THAT fits the facts Jorge. That lines up, not only with the data from the crater, but with the data from around the crater, out to the extent of its ejecta.

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.

No Jorge. Think inputs and outputs. The salt story applied to other elements sets limits of a few hundred years. The logic is flawed. Salt goes into the ocean and it also comes out of the ocean. Without knowing all the variables, Salt input alone is USELESS as a clock.

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.

And yet we observe such clouds around countless stars Jorge. They are an artifact of star formation. Our own kuiper belt is another such artifact, and dealt with the EXACT same way you deal with the Oort cloud UNTIL THE OBJECTS WERE OBSERVED. Comets come from somewhere Jorge. We see it all the time. They wonder in from HUGE orbits. It's not just a manufactured hypothesis. It is based on observation. Your characterisation of how the theory was derived is wrong. Your characterization of the observational evidence is wrong. You characterizations of the motivations is wrong.

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!!!

Again, your characterization of the hypthesis and its source are wrong.

Is any of this sinking in?

Got'ta go ...

Jorge

Well yes, you like to treat as equivalent ideas that are not even close to the same, you do not understand basic differences in concepts or facts, you in a short sense just don't really understand any of this very well at all. Thus you conclude science supports you.

If you disagree, then you'll need to do much better than the above. Because this is just all confused. Go do what you said needed to be done. Pick some data, show what the assumptions are and how different assumption produce different but valid conclusions.

But do it with real logic and the actual data, not synthesized summaries sipped through genericised word pipes that give the appearance of similarity.


Jim

[robrecht]

I've always read that the proper translation for re'em is auroch, a type of extinct large bovine ancestral to modern cattle.

Could well be, in Hebrew, but 'unicorn' in the KJV comes from unicornis in the Vulgate, which was translating μονόκερως in the LXX. Despite the attempt to translate from the original languages, a surprising amount of the KJV is indebted to older English translations, which were in many parts still based on the Latin. Translators almost always cheat.

[HMS_Beagle]

Could well be, in Hebrew, but 'unicorn' in the KJV comes from unicornis in the Vulgate, which was translating μονόκερως in the LXX. Despite the attempt to translate from the original languages, a surprising amount of the KJV is indebted to older English translations, which were in many parts still based on the Latin. Translators almost always cheat.

Interesting! Thanks for the info.

[Jedidiah]

I miss Socrates.

[Carrikature]

Actually, the unicorns were hippopotami, as can be seen from this description by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History (8,31,76):

asperrimam autem feram monocerotem, reliquo corpore equo similem, capite cervo, pedibus elephanto, cauda apro, mugitu gravi, uno cornu nigro media fronte cubitorum duum eminente. hanc feram vivam negant capi.

But that the fiercest animal is the Monocerotem (Unicorn), which in the rest of the body resembles a horse, but in the head a stag, in the feet an elephant, and in the tail a boar, and has a deep bellow, and a single black horn three feet long projecting from the middle of the forehead. They say that it is impossible to capture this animal alive.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/..._Elder/8*.html

In what world is that a description of hippopotami?

[robrecht]

In what world is that a description of hippopotami?

Oops, I meant rhinoceros. One horn, feet like an elephant, body like a horse.

[klaus54]

Especially the parts about the unicorns. It's literal and inerrant for sure!

And let's not forget "Science falsely so called."

K54

[rogue06]

I miss Socrates.

As caustic as Jorge but at least he would occasionally try to answer questions.

[Jedidiah]

As caustic as Jorge but at least he would occasionally try to answer questions.

He was intelligent if misguided. Caustic, but not as much so as Jorge. And he did respond to specifics with specifics - sort of. I think of him when I read Jorge. Our loss.

[Jorge]

Science is not about absolute proof Jorge. We agree.



First, the distinction you attempt to make above between operational and historical science does not exist per se. There is a difference between applying knowledge of the physical world to recreate the events of the past and discovering knowledge of the physical world. But that is not the distinction you make. You are going for assumptions/presumptions driving conclusions. This is true of all of science.



No Jorge, it's just not that simple. You are trying to describe science in terms that hides the differences between YEC attempts to use science in support of a belief and conclusions derived from data using science. They are not the same thing. In fact, they are vastly different. You observe the geological features and decide how to map them into your pre-existing conclusion of what they represent. A scientists looks at the geological data and asks what natural processes could have produced what is being observed. He then makes predictions from that hypothesis and then makes predictions concerning what other properties that formation should have if his hypothesis is correct and then tests those predictions against additional observations of the formation.

They are COMPLETELY different. One is science. The other is not.



Again, you try to use similar terms to mask huge differences. It is not that way Jorge. On the YEC side, the unanswered questions are things like, "why is the Earth still here if decay rates were more than 1,000,000 times greater in the past than they are now". Or "how can we see ANY of the galaxies, or even the Milky way". Or "How can we still be here if all the impact craters happened in just a few 100 years". Not only are the questions fundamenatally basic, none of the explanations fit together. On the one hand "There are no Supernova remnants older than 10,000 years" because, of course, the universe is only 10,000 years old. But on the other, to get starlight to where we can see it, most of the universe is in fact many millions of years old". The entire universe is full of structures and objects that take millions of years to form like tidal tails on galaxies or shockwaves from galactic collisions. You struggle with the most basic of questions because virtually NONE of the physical structures associated with life and death (fossils, coral reefs, chalk deposits, coal, old) or sedimentation fit into a 10,000 year time frame or can be explained by a single global flood. It's all this massive mishmash of self-contradictory hopeful constructs trying to force fit data 100% consistent will millions and billions of years of time into an ASSUMED interpretive framework for the Bible and a 6000 year timeframe indirectly thus derived.



IF there was evidence to support your POV, you would do it the very same way I support my views. You present the data and the physical principles by which you interpret that data and you show that it makes sense. And you take multiple data samples around those events and you show how your interpretation is consistent with all of them, simultaneously. IF you had a case, it would not be all that hard. It is hard because it doesn't add up, because it isn't consistent, and because science doesn't support your beliefs.



Jorge, in terms of how the science is applied, you simply can't make any real comparison. It's not all arbitrary and relative. An 80 mile wide crater in the Chesapeake bay buried under muiltiple layers of sediment has implications both in time and space. Some conclusions fit the data,others simply do not. That thing formed by an impact <6,000 years ago just does not fit ANY of the data. And it formed by anything other than an asteroid ALSO does not fit any of the data. But it is consistent with everything we know about the solar system and Geology if it happened around 30,000,000 years ago (IIRC). THAT fits the facts Jorge. That lines up, not only with the data from the crater, but with the data from around the crater, out to the extent of its ejecta.



No Jorge. Think inputs and outputs. The salt story applied to other elements sets limits of a few hundred years. The logic is flawed. Salt goes into the ocean and it also comes out of the ocean. Without knowing all the variables, Salt input alone is USELESS as a clock.




And yet we observe such clouds around countless stars Jorge. They are an artifact of star formation. Our own kuiper belt is another such artifact, and dealt with the EXACT same way you deal with the Oort cloud UNTIL THE OBJECTS WERE OBSERVED. Comets come from somewhere Jorge. We see it all the time. They wonder in from HUGE orbits. It's not just a manufactured hypothesis. It is based on observation. Your characterisation of how the theory was derived is wrong. Your characterization of the observational evidence is wrong. You characterizations of the motivations is wrong.



Again, your characterization of the hypthesis and its source are wrong.



Well yes, you like to treat as equivalent ideas that are not even close to the same, you do not understand basic differences in concepts or facts, you in a short sense just don't really understand any of this very well at all. Thus you conclude science supports you.

If you disagree, then you'll need to do much better than the above. Because this is just all confused. Go do what you said needed to be done. Pick some data, show what the assumptions are and how different assumption produce different but valid conclusions.

But do it with real logic and the actual data, not synthesized summaries sipped through genericised word pipes that give the appearance of similarity.


Jim

You seem to have forgotten about Elephant Hurling. Nahhh ... you didn't forget.

Regardless, everything you wrote above sidesteps the basic point that you refuse to accept (let me try putting it in color - maybe that will help): if you are going to reject the 6-day creation based on the observable, testable, physical scientific data, then in order to remain consistent and intellectually honest you have to apply the same standard to the other biblical miracles. BUT YOU DO NOT. You selectively choose to reject the ONE biblical point which opens the floodgates for Materialism. Once that Pandora's Box is open, the course has been determined (if not now, later).

Unless and until you acknowledge that point you will remain deeply immersed in your legion of errors and, making matters worse, you won't even be able to comprehend why you are in error.

Jorge