Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[klaus54]

You don't understand what orthodox in this sense means do you? Also, much of your post is merely It's basically the same as one of the bad atheist memes I have seen floating around.

I wonder if Jorge sent Omni here to stink up and divert this thread? Not like it's been going anywhere anyhow.

He sure has a strange notion of "orthodox". What baseline is he using? Pantheism?

Corn-fused...

K54

[klaus54]

I want a God who is stupid and incompetent too.

Then you've evidently met your goal.

K54

[klaus54]

I find that out on facebook too. YECs mostly hate discussing their own ideas. They only want to discuss yours, and mostly distort them, and argue to those distortions, as if that somehow automatically makes them correct.

That's the main reason I was trying to get Jorge to give his unambiguous literal reading of the Genesis stories.

I figured if he stuck to YEC exegesis and the AKJV1611 that it would be a lead pipe cinch. I was wrong.

I was told he knew but wouldn't tell us because we were not worth the time, and we wouldn't understand it anyhow.

Frustrating, this one...

K54

[oxmixmudd]

That's the main reason I was trying to get Jorge to give his unambiguous literal reading of the Genesis stories.

I figured if he stuck to YEC exegesis and the AKJV1611 that it would be a lead pipe cinch. I was wrong.

I was told he knew but wouldn't tell us because we were not worth the time, and we wouldn't understand it anyhow.

Frustrating, this one...

K54

Very. But he likes it that way.


13 pages. So far only the slightest mention of data in a post borrowed from another thread by Jorge. Jorge claims science supports his views. Jorge claims that to show that is the case he needs to take the data points one by one and show how different starting assumptions can lead to the conclusion the Earth and Universe are < 10000 years old. But when given a thread where he has full reign to do just that, he abstains. The only logical conclusion is that Jorge can't support his views with science.

Further, and much more sadly, the vigor and creativity with which he avoids supporting his views can only be conscious, purposed evasion.

This leads to the direct conclusion he simply can't support his views with science, which tends to imply that when he claims he can, he is not telling the truth.

Jorge, feel free to make that ever elusive demonstration of science supporting any time now. But pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

Remember , at this point the floor is open to any one who thinks science can be used to show the world or universe are less than 10000 years old.

[Jorge]

Gidday Jorge,

You realize of course, that your "true science" has as many metaphysical underpinnings as does your "false science"?

I have no idea what you're blathering about, and neither do you.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, why not assume that billions of years passed before Genesis 1 and then billions more years passed in Genesis 1-2?

The only way to do that would require distorting Scripture to the point where, in essence, I've re-written it. Oh, wait ... that's precisely what Theistic Evolutionists have done. Sorry, my bad.

Seriously, the amount of time that passed BEFORE our beginning (Genesis 1:1) is unknown and is not a factor here. The amount of time that passed in Genesis 1-2 is most definitely a factor. "Billions of years" would bring the preceding paragraph into play.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Very. But he likes it that way.


13 pages. So far only the slightest mention of data in a post borrowed from another thread by Jorge. Jorge claims science supports his views. Jorge claims that to show that is the case he needs to take the data points one by one and show how different starting assumptions can lead to the conclusion the Earth and Universe are < 10000 years old. But when given a thread where he has full reign to do just that, he abstains. The only logical conclusion is that Jorge can't support his views with science.

Further, and much more sadly, the vigor and creativity with which he avoids supporting his views can only be conscious, purposed evasion.

This leads to the direct conclusion he simply can't support his views with science, which tends to imply that when he claims he can, he is not telling the truth.

Jorge, feel free to make that ever elusive demonstration of science supporting any time now. But pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

Remember , at this point the floor is open to any one who thinks science can be used to show the world or universe are less than 10000 years old.

You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into that hole of intellectual dishonesty, O-Mudd.
Never forget, the deeper you you, the longer will be your journey to climb out.
That assumes, of course, that you wish to get out of that hole - maybe you like it there.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper into that hole of intellectual dishonesty, O-Mudd.
Never forget, the deeper you you, the longer will be your journey to climb out.
That assumes, of course, that you wish to get out of that hole - maybe you like it there.

Jorge

If you devoted just 1/2 the time you spend avoiding sensible replies that actually serve to bolster rather than undermine your position, you would have actually done something useful - assuming you actually can support your position.

As it is, you have driven more away from YEC than you have convinced of its viability.


At least on these pages.

How's that for a legacy?



Jim

[Omniskeptical]

Then you've evidently met your goal.

K54

A trinitarian god is exactly that.

[klaus54]

A trinitarian god is exactly that.

I'm confused. So you have attained your goal, or you haven't?

Answer that, and then PLEASE stay on the thread topic.

We need no more diversions.

Thanks!

K54

[robrecht]

I'm confused. Why is a thread in Natural Science about evolution vs creationism discussing the Trinity?

[klaus54]

I find that out on facebook too. YECs mostly hate discussing their own ideas. They only want to discuss yours, and mostly distort them, and argue to those distortions, as if that somehow automatically makes them correct.

That's the main reason I was trying to get Jorge to give his unambiguous literal reading of the Genesis stories.

I figured if he stuck to YEC exegesis and the AKJV1611 that it would be a lead pipe cinch. I was wrong.

I was told he knew but wouldn't tell us because we were not worth the time, and we wouldn't understand it anyhow.

Frustrating, this one...

K54

Jorge,

Ready to have another go at explaining how YEC science is really science?

If you can't, then are you prepared to discard the notion that "Biblical Scientific Creation" is NOT scientific?

If you can't provide at least some literal unambiguous details of your view, and yet attack modern astronomy, geology, and biology as metaphysically-driven frauds, then your typographical emetics are mere unpleasantly pungent dross.

Thanks!

K54

[Jorge]

Jorge,

Ready to have another go at explaining how YEC science is really science?

If you can't, then are you prepared to discard the notion that "Biblical Scientific Creation" is NOT scientific?

If you can't provide at least some literal unambiguous details of your view, and yet attack modern astronomy, geology, and biology as metaphysically-driven frauds, then your typographical emetics are mere unpleasantly pungent dross.

Thanks!

K54

I'm at a loss for what part of I DO NOT PARTICIPATE WITH INTELLECTUALLY-DISHONEST FOLK LIKE YOURSELF you fail to comprehend.

I can, as you say, do a quick "drive by" and rattle your cage just to watch you go ape-wild (as I am doing here) but, other than that, you aren't worth the time due to your lack of scholarly ethics. And please don't take it personally. As you've undoubtedly noticed by now, I feel the same way about several others here at TWeb.

Also, lest you go off on one of your rabid generalizations in order to support vilification, compare that with the recent exchange between myself and "The Lurch" individual. How much (or how little) this individual agrees/disagrees with me is not important. What matters is that so far, he is behaving in a sincere, mature, open-minded, respectable way and that makes for a good, constructive exchange. Now compare that with recent posts by Beagle, yourself and others here - it's night and day!

Is any of this sinking in?

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

A trinitarian god is exactly that.

OS, you are welcome to participate in a discussion, but no more drive by potshots at the Christian concept of God or I'll ask the mods to ban you from the thread.

Jim

[Jorge]

If you devoted just 1/2 the time you spend avoiding sensible replies that actually serve to bolster rather than undermine your position, you would have actually done something useful - assuming you actually can support your position.

As it is, you have driven more away from YEC than you have convinced of its viability.


At least on these pages.

How's that for a legacy?

Jim

Uhmmm ... from your reply I can only gather that you DO like it there. Oh well ...

Jorge