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
See more
See less

Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    Are you thinking that it is wrong for people to be Christian? That scientists who are Christians like Oxmixmudd try to see how to square the Genesis account with present scientific theories? Are you thinking that "scientific facts" are indeed facts, not mere theories?
    Actually facts are very different from theories. In science theories explain facts. Without them facts are merely isolated data points with no relation to one another. Science without theory is useless since facts without explanatory principles are meaningless. This is why that in science theories occupy the highest tier of knowledge.

    Perhaps I should start a thread on this...


    ETA: Done. What "theory" means in science. Essentially a response to the old "only a theory" canard
    Last edited by rogue06; 05-29-2014, 03:44 PM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      These threads tend to wander off topic when the YEC being questioned about his claims responds with nothing but lies, evasions, and insults.

      We all know who that is.
      I fixed it for you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
        Are you thinking that it is wrong for people to be Christian? That scientists who are Christians like Oxmixmudd try to see how to square the Genesis account with present scientific theories? Are you thinking that "scientific facts" are indeed facts, not mere theories?
        Obviously not. One could be Christian and a scientist but couldn't practice scientific creationism because there is no such thing to be practiced.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          Genesis 1-2 gives us no timing clue at all. We are not told how much time had passed before God began to refashion Earth. Nor how many years had passed when God said, let there be light. I am not suggesting you rewrite Genesis, so that the general narrative is substantially altered. I am asking what your assumption as to the timing is.
          Zero assumptions. The direct reading of the narrative speaks of "the beginning" and then lists a sequence of events with a "day" separating one period from the other. All indications are that "day" is meant literal. There is nothing in the text that even hints at "day" meaning millions/billions of years. That's without getting into the theological implications.


          What preceding paragraph? Oh, maybe you meant the time before God started to refashion Earth?
          I meant the "preceding paragraph" that I had written in that post. Only by grievously distorting the plain, direct narrative is it possible to insert gigayears into the chronology. Needless to say, many people have no problem at all doing just that. The theological implications of that are legion and profound. In my view, such actions amount to creating a new 'Christianity' - one that has its own 'Bible' version. Again, many people have no problem with that, either. As long as at the end of the day Evolutionism remains standing then they are more-than-happy to oblige.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JonF View Post
            Obviously not. One could be Christian and a scientist but couldn't practice scientific creationism because there is no such thing to be practiced.
            Clearly you haven't understood a word about the difference between operational science and historical science. You think that when a Biblical Creationist combines 2 H and 1 O atom, he gets, say, table salt? What about a Hindu? A Muslim? You think that ONLY an Atheist/Humanist/Theistic Evolutionist/... will get H2O (water)? Where did you attend school? Be sure to demand a refund!

            Jorge

            Comment


            • Jorge, have your creationists done any research gieger counters and atomic clocks? I would assume, since radioactive dating is based on these concepts that you could reason if that there were flaws in them, including background noise.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                Are you implying that YEC's are "cultists"? Or is this a Jorge specific charge?
                Just Jorge and any ilk of his stringency. Not all YECs.

                Don't you think Jorge's stubborn recalcitrance to answer questions, particularly when challenged by Scripture is cult-like? His origins views (which so far are not even completely ascertainable) drive his entire theology.

                From his behavior "cult-like" certainly seems like an accurate description to me. What do you think? Have you been reading all his screed?

                K54

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Clearly you haven't understood a word about the difference between operational science and historical science. You think that when a Biblical Creationist combines 2 H and 1 O atom, he gets, say, table salt? What about a Hindu? A Muslim? You think that ONLY an Atheist/Humanist/Theistic Evolutionist/... will get H2O (water)? Where did you attend school? Be sure to demand a refund!

                  Jorge
                  But isn't "Creation Science" about studying the past scientifically? I mean according to YECs, Creation happened and was completed a few millennia ago. If it doesn't deal with evidence of the past, how is Creation Science any different from what you confusingly refer to as "operational" science?

                  Don't you claim to have evidence of YEC from the past? Yes or no? If so, isn't that "historical" science??

                  You are one very confusing geezer!

                  Santa

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    A invalid comparison to the Grand Canyon for numerous reasons, principally the sediments that the water carved through on Mt. St. Helen's was nothing but unconsolidated volcanic ash which is nothing even remotely similar to having to carve through solid rock including granite and basalt. If you don't believe it dump a large pile of ash onto the ground and spray a stream of water from a hose at it and see how fast you can cut through it. Next place a slab of granite (or even the much softer limestone or sandstone) on the ground and spray a stream of water at it from the same hose. Get back to me when you've carved through it

                    Some YEC "flood geologists" claim that the Grand Canyon formations were originally mud and not rock when the flood carved through it, but the ridiculousness of this argument is exposed by the fact that carving through mud or other soft material will cause the walls to slope (like those seen at the Mt. St. Helen's canyon which slope 45 degrees) rather than leave the near vertical walls seen along the Grand Canyon. Such vertical walls can only be accomplished when you cut through solid stone not soft unconsolidated mud.

                    The geology of the region clearly reveals that what would later become the Grand Canyon formations were originally deposited near a flat coastal marine environment periodically inundated by tropical seas over a space of many millions of years. Then, this region, later known as the Colorado Plateau, began to be uplifted (and slightly tilted) at the end of the Paleozoic era (roughly 250 mya). During this period the already existing meandering river systems[1] slowly started to cut down into the rock, keeping pace with the uplift over the ensuing millions of years.








                    1. And a raging flood spreading over a level plain will also not create rivers with multiple tributaries and form meanders with numerous U turns like those seen below.


                    Instead of carving canyons that are a mile deep such a raging flood will actually create formations like those seen in the Channeled Scablands that cover much of the state of Washington
                    I won't spend my time on something that scientists in the field have already spent tens of thousands of manhours answering. If you go to the ICR, AiG and CMI websites you will find many hundreds of articles responding to the points you bring up above. That's why I always write that for people to say some of the things that they do, they must be (1) ignorant (of what has been investigated and reported on the matter) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., they know about these findings but either pretend that it does not exist or flat-out lie about it) -- no third option exists. So which is it for you, R06 - ignorant or dishonest?

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      I won't spend my time on something that scientists in the field have already spent tens of thousands of manhours answering. If you go to the ICR, AiG and CMI websites you will find many hundreds of articles responding to the points you bring up above. That's why I always write that for people to say some of the things that they do they must be (1) ignorant (of what has been investigated and written on the matter) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., they know this stuff but either pretend that it does not exist or flat-out lie about it) -- no third option exists. So which is it for you, R06 - ignorant or dishonest?

                      Jorge
                      Stop being a retard. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that during the days of Job, God was still doing strange things to the planet; so your flood hypothesis needs revision. Now answer my question.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Zero assumptions. The direct reading of the narrative speaks of "the beginning" and then lists a sequence of events with a "day" separating one period from the other. All indications are that "day" is meant literal. There is nothing in the text that even hints at "day" meaning millions/billions of years. That's without getting into the theological implications...
                        Jorge
                        If there are "ZERO" assumptions, then how come you can't give a non-ambiguous "direct" (as you refer to it now) reading of the first few verses of Genesis 1? I was hoping you could get through the whole chapter, but you stalled out at verses 2 and 3 with the "mystery" defense.

                        Not a very sound basis for throwing out all of "historical" science as a help in interpretation.

                        Nature -- "The other book of Creation".

                        I want you to admit the "ZERO assumptions" claim is false. Please be honest with yourself and with us.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          But isn't "Creation Science" about studying the past scientifically? I mean according to YECs, Creation happened and was completed a few millennia ago. If it doesn't deal with evidence of the past, how is Creation Science any different from what you confusingly refer to as "operational" science?

                          Don't you claim to have evidence of YEC from the past? Yes or no? If so, isn't that "historical" science??

                          You are one very confusing geezer!

                          Santa
                          You call ME a "confusing geezer"? If that doesn't take the cake, I don't know what does.

                          You are amongst the most uninformed, misinformed, biased and confused puppy on these matters that I've ever run across.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            You call ME a "confusing geezer"? If that doesn't take the cake, I don't know what does.

                            You are amongst the most uninformed, misinformed, biased and confused puppy on these matters that I've ever run across.

                            Jorge
                            Nice try at answering the questions.

                            Cerebrum -- see what I mean? Were my questions not reasonable?

                            Jorge -- again, isn't "Creation Science" necessarily "historical"?

                            Reload...

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              If there are "ZERO" assumptions, then how come you can't give a non-ambiguous "direct" (as you refer to it now) reading of the first few verses of Genesis 1? I was hoping you could get through the whole chapter, but you stalled out at verses 2 and 3 with the "mystery" defense.

                              Not a very sound basis for throwing out all of "historical" science as a help in interpretation.

                              Nature -- "The other book of Creation".

                              I want you to admit the "ZERO assumptions" claim is false. Please be honest with yourself and with us.

                              K54
                              Good grief, man, don't you ever let up?

                              "A cat, being chased by a dog, escaped by climbing a tree."

                              Think of what you understood that preceding sentence was saying.
                              What assumptions did you make to come to that understanding?
                              Did you or did you not merely employ your knowledge of the English
                              language (this includes a hermeneutic/exegesis framework) combined
                              with the overall context?

                              Okay, for properly interpreting Scripture it's essentially the same thing.

                              So if you want me to admit that "ZERO" doesn't mean a literal zero
                              then I must because no reading/interpretation can occur in a vacuum.
                              I meant zero in the sense that I did not extract anything other than
                              what the direct reading of the text conveys (like my cat-dog sentence).

                              Compare that with what Theistic Evolutionists do - they insert millions/
                              billions of years into Scripture - something that is not even HINTED at
                              by any part of the Bible. They can ONLY do that via blatant distortion
                              and extra-biblical insertions. Catch the difference?

                              Now go back to your Looney Tunes show.

                              Jorge
                              Last edited by Jorge; 05-29-2014, 05:20 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                                Just Jorge and any ilk of his stringency. Not all YECs.

                                Don't you think Jorge's stubborn recalcitrance to answer questions, particularly when challenged by Scripture is cult-like? His origins views (which so far are not even completely ascertainable) drive his entire theology.

                                From his behavior "cult-like" certainly seems like an accurate description to me. What do you think? Have you been reading all his screed?

                                K54
                                I wouldn't call it cult-like. I've had similar treatment, although on different subjects(well, a bit on this subject too, but I'd rather not get into that) from others. In some cases it seems like willful ignorance, in others it seems to be mere obnoxiousness. I think everyone from all sides do this to a degree.

                                Having been called a heretic for being a YEC, I wanted to make sure what you meant by your statement, rather than jump to conclusions.

                                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 Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X