Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

[Jorge]

What you fail to understand Jorge is that my position on these matters is the result of doing just that.

From first-hand observations, I will strongly disagree.

Where you and I do NOT find any common ground is in the fact that you wish to present the falsehood that scientifically one can support a YE interpretation of the text.

Kindly stop misrepresenting my position, especially given the fact that I have explained it to you countless times. First, you have to understand that what you call "scientific" isn't necessarily so - in fact, it often isn't so. Much of what is sold today as "science" is actually ideology disguised as science. HOW MANY TIMES do you need this repeated to you? I personally do not believe that your lack of comprehension is due to stupidity. My money says it's due to ego/pride/bullheadedness. Second, I have often and clearly explained that interpretation of the facts plays a gigantic role in what eventually gets called "scientific evidence". You seem unwilling or unable to grasp this concept. Third, with an alternate, plausible interpretation of the observations, scientific evidence does indeed support the Biblical Creationist position. That people like you do not wish to accept those alternate, plausible interpretations is another matter but they remain there nonetheless. The list of these evidences is vast - not too long ago I provided a link listing over one-hundred of them. Again, they exist but you do not wish to accept them -- you either dismiss them or you come up with an alternative explanation to make them go away. But to say that they don't exist is dishonesty at its worst.

And those that in ignorance or deception try to convince others it is possible to back this up scientifically are creating HUGE stumbling blocks for faith.

Not too long ago I wrote words to the effect that, "Logically, which creates a greater stumbling block of faith - when man's theories get questioned, distorted and/or re-interpreted OR when God's Word gets questioned, distorted and/or re-interpreted? The answer is obvious to all but to those that live in denial.

You think I compromise my faith. But what greater compromise is there than to deny the truth on such a huge scale as YEC requires in regard to what science can support? When one lives a lie, it erodes the heart and conscience.

You do not know what you are saying. Your adherence to
Materialistic Darwinism has spiritually blinded you, O-Mudd.

The solution as I see it is to follow what the scriptures teach where it is clear. Recognize where there is mystery and potential grace where it is vague. And be honest about what modern science and scholarship supports or refutes.

Fool others but don't try to fool me, O-Mudd. In the final analysis you invariably place "what modern science and scholarship supports or refutes" ABOVE what God's Word says. That is what ALL Theistic Evolutionists do - invariably. Whenever there is doubt or conflict TEs invariably side with "modern science" since, according to these people, "you cannot rely on a book of ancient people".

You simply refuse to come to terms with and/or openly acknowledge that fact.

In the end, we all come to a line of faith. A line where we can not support what we believe with objective data. No-one follows Christ in the absence of that leap. So the important part is that we maintain the nature of Christ in that process.

Jim

You are untrainable, O-Mudd. Many times I have pointed out and explained the grievous error of your faulty thinking as expressed by what you say above. You just REFUSE to 'get it' --- because you know that it totally demolishes your position and you cannot have that, can you. Enjoy!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Cow droppings at least have utility as fertilizer.
You do not even rate that high, Beagle Boy.

You'd be very wise to give me a wide berth, kiddo.
Of course, we know that "wise" is one thing that you're not.

Jorge

Nah Jorge, I'll just keep pointing out your scientific ineptitude and blunders then laughing when you get caught trying to lie your way out of them too.

That's laughing at you, not with you.

[Omniskeptical]

That's laughing at you, not with you.

[lilpixieofterror]

[B]Uh-huh, whatever ...

I did run into this today and thought it very appropriate for you,
Terror and other TWebbers. It concerns Lottie Moon, one of the
greatest female Christian missionary evangelists of all times,
who lived in the late 19th and early 20th century....

Oh yes, another one of Jorge's ways of avoiding admitting to defeat, attempt to change the topic, of course you ignore several things with your argument:

1. The same thing can be used against you. I could easily search around and find people who were very conservative believers, who once they were exposed that the evidence wasn't for their views, turned into non believers. Bart Ehrman is a famous recent example of this. I could also look around at web sites, such as ex Christian.net and find many of their stuff exposes the same thing.
2. Much as changed in many of these fields since the mid to late 19th century. Science isn't quite so rigid in its views of the universe anymore and the universe isn't viewed in the same light today as it was in the 19th and early 20th century. I also happen to know much understanding has changed in the Greek/Hebrew language dept too and we have discovered that some words don't quite have the same rigid views either. Take these two facts together and we have you ignoring what you don't want to hear, yet again.

Take these two things together and we have Jorge being Jorge again, ignoring all evidence against his position and trying to pretend that X view leads to an apostate when reality shows a totally different story that is automatically rejected for not being what he really wants to be true. You're sure pretty amusing with your piles of assertions, that is for sure.

[lilpixieofterror]

Kindly stop misrepresenting my position, especially given the fact that I have explained it to you countless times. First, you have to understand that what you call "scientific" isn't necessarily so - in fact, it often isn't so. Much of what is sold today as "science" is actually ideology disguised as science. HOW MANY TIMES do you need this repeated to you? I personally do not believe that your lack of comprehension is due to stupidity.

Go ahead than, show this ideology and why it is specifically wrong. Of course, you don't do that and instead choose to call people a bunch of names, question believers of their commitment to Christ for daring to disagree with, just insult non believers for not agreeing with you, and continue to dodge anything and everything you can't answer. Please do the world a favor and stop embarrassing Christ and Christians with your nonsense. As for myself, I've never was a YEC because I found the evidence against a young earth position just didn't exist and yes Jorge, I have read AIG and other sources and find they often make lots of mistakes with their arguments and/or lie about what they say, just to make their position seem more believable. One example I could think of is in carbon dating, they ignore that carbon dating is only accurate to about 300 or so years, they ignore that nuclear bomb test over the past 70 years have skewed the carbon cycle and it is not nearly as accurate for recently dead creatures, they also ignore it isn't accurate for situations where something has been under water for long periods of time, and they also ignore other isotopes can be used for radiometric dating too. Do you think that does Christ any favors when potential believers run into either misinformed believers who use this material or even informed ones that outright lie about stuff, such as this?

My money says it's due to ego/pride/bullheadedness.

Another pot trying to call the kettle black.

Second, I have often and clearly explained that interpretation of the facts plays a gigantic role in what eventually gets called "scientific evidence". You seem unwilling or unable to grasp this concept.

If you count making a ton of assertions and ignoring the data against your position, sure, you could claim that, but again Jorge. Go right ahead and explain the data and how it leads to a YEC view of the earth and try not to make as many basic mistakes as you keep making (IE quoting works from the 1960's that since have been superseded by more accurate and more modern techniques).

Third, with an alternate, plausible interpretation of the observations, scientific evidence does indeed support the Biblical Creationist position. That people like you do not wish to accept those alternate, plausible interpretations is another matter but they remain there nonetheless. The list of these evidences is vast - not too long ago I provided a link listing over one-hundred of them. Again, they exist but you do not wish to accept them -- you either dismiss them or you come up with an alternative explanation to make them go away. But to say that they don't exist is dishonesty at its worst.

No Jorge, that is your delusion of what you do. What you actually do is just what I pointed out above, either ignore it or try to change the topic away from your failed arguments. Why are you so desperate to change the topic from discussing the Moon's recessions to just personally attacking any Christian who doesn't agree with you? Are your arguments really that poor?

Not too long ago I wrote words to the effect that, "Logically, which creates a greater stumbling block of faith - when man's theories get questioned, distorted and/or re-interpreted OR when God's Word gets questioned, distorted and/or re-interpreted? The answer is obvious to all but to those that live in denial.

Yet again, your personal interpretation of the Bible is the same as 'God's word' eh?

[klaus54]

When you start paying my bills, I'll stop using "God's Word";
until that day you can just go whistle Dixie.
I hope that's okay with you. If not, I don't care.

Jorge

It's not just science you're ignorant of (or care nothing about) ...

So you don't care about linguistic historical facts either?





K54

P.S. Hey Klownie, what are you going to tell the Logos when he reminds you you've been conflating Him with a book?

[Omniskeptical]

It's not just science you're ignorant of (or care nothing about) ...

So you don't care about linguistic historical facts either?





K54

P.S. Hey Klownie, what are you going to tell the Logos when he reminds you you've been conflating Him with a book?

You really told him there.

[Omega Red]

Kindly stop misrepresenting my position, especially given the fact that I have explained it to you countless times. First, you have to understand that what you call "scientific" isn't necessarily so - in fact, it often isn't so. Much of what is sold today as "science" is actually ideology disguised as science. HOW MANY TIMES do you need this repeated to you? I personally do not believe that your lack of comprehension is due to stupidity. My money says it's due to ego/pride/bullheadedness. Second, I have often and clearly explained that interpretation of the facts plays a gigantic role in what eventually gets called "scientific evidence". You seem unwilling or unable to grasp this concept. Third, with an alternate, plausible interpretation of the observations, scientific evidence does indeed support the Biblical Creationist position. That people like you do not wish to accept those alternate, plausible interpretations is another matter but they remain there nonetheless. The list of these evidences is vast - not too long ago I provided a link listing over one-hundred of them. Again, they exist but you do not wish to accept them -- you either dismiss them or you come up with an alternative explanation to make them go away. But to say that they don't exist is dishonesty at its worst.
...
Jorge

Good grief. You pump out enough sound bites that only an unsuspecting carp could be convinced it is stripped bare with only its skeleton left intact.

Providing links does not equate to demonstrating the veracity of the arguments. Anyone can play the elephant hurl game and arguments via weblinks:

You want to argue that the Earth is flat
You want to argue that the Earth is the centre of the universe
You want to argue that the universe is in a steady state

Do they contain some scientific data? Yes. Are they accurately using all data available? No. So your post of 101 pieces of evidence is nothing more than an empty tool for the unsuspecting, given that is is also dispensed with quite easily when considering all the pertinent data available:

You want the supposed scientific arguments you linked to for a young earth debunked

Your cries of "dishonesty" are truly astounding. How is it you can castigate anyone not following your interpretation of the Biblical text, you know the one where you cannot consistently involve science in hermeneutics without involving circular arguments, and in the next breath refuse to follow clear commands, i.e. James 5:16, Proverbs 28:13, Psalm 34:13, 1 Peter 2:1, Ephesians 4:31-32, when you blunder or engage in detestable debate tactics.

[Jorge]

Oh yes, another one of Jorge's ways of avoiding admitting to defeat, attempt to change the topic, of course you ignore several things with your argument:

1. The same thing can be used against you. I could easily search around and find people who were very conservative believers, who once they were exposed that the evidence wasn't for their views, turned into non believers. Bart Ehrman is a famous recent example of this. I could also look around at web sites, such as ex Christian.net and find many of their stuff exposes the same thing.
2. Much as changed in many of these fields since the mid to late 19th century. Science isn't quite so rigid in its views of the universe anymore and the universe isn't viewed in the same light today as it was in the 19th and early 20th century. I also happen to know much understanding has changed in the Greek/Hebrew language dept too and we have discovered that some words don't quite have the same rigid views either. Take these two facts together and we have you ignoring what you don't want to hear, yet again.

Take these two things together and we have Jorge being Jorge again, ignoring all evidence against his position and trying to pretend that X view leads to an apostate when reality shows a totally different story that is automatically rejected for not being what he really wants to be true. You're sure pretty amusing with your piles of assertions, that is for sure.

When asked by a relative in later years if she had ever been in love, Lottie Moon replied, “Yes, but God had first claim on my life, and since the two conflicted, there could be no question about the result.”

She returned to China heart-broken, never to return home to America, never to marry, and died in the Orient, lonely in soul and pouring out her life in ministry to the Chinese people. Later in China, more letters arrived, and she wrote, “The temptation is great. The professor, however, now espouses theories that do not square with God’s Word. … My cross is loneliness.”

Now there was a woman that knew the score! You, Terror, do NOT!

Hey, what is your position on the NOW (Feminist) movement? I'll bet I know.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Good grief. You pump out enough sound bites that only an unsuspecting carp could be convinced it is stripped bare with only its skeleton left intact.

Providing links does not equate to demonstrating the veracity of the arguments. Anyone can play the elephant hurl game and arguments via weblinks:

You want to argue that the Earth is flat
You want to argue that the Earth is the centre of the universe
You want to argue that the universe is in a steady state

Do they contain some scientific data? Yes. Are they accurately using all data available? No. So your post of 101 pieces of evidence is nothing more than an empty tool for the unsuspecting, given that is is also dispensed with quite easily when considering all the pertinent data available:

You want the supposed scientific arguments you linked to for a young earth debunked

Your cries of "dishonesty" are truly astounding. How is it you can castigate anyone not following your interpretation of the Biblical text, you know the one where you cannot consistently involve science in hermeneutics without involving circular arguments, and in the next breath refuse to follow clear commands, i.e. James 5:16, Proverbs 28:13, Psalm 34:13, 1 Peter 2:1, Ephesians 4:31-32, when you blunder or engage in detestable debate tactics.

The word for today is 'honesty', OR.
Here, let me spell it out for you: h - o - n - e - s - t - y
I can use upper-case letters if you prefer.

I never cease to be amazed at the DIShonesty that you people practice.

Here you essentially give us all a lesson in Straw Man 101.

Furthermore, you lie by omission. The casual reader would not get from anywhere
in your post the hundreds upon hundreds of posts where I provided far more than
what you say and insinuate I've provided. That's lying by omission, OR.

You top it all of by accusing me of "detestable debate tactics". That has to be the
leading contender for MOTHER OF ALL IRONIES.

Finally, you totally ignored (for obvious reasons) this:

"First, you have to understand that what you call "scientific" isn't necessarily so - in fact, it often isn't so. Much of what is sold today as "science" is actually ideology disguised as science. HOW MANY TIMES do you need this repeated to you? Second, I have often and clearly explained that interpretation of the facts plays a gigantic role in what eventually gets called "scientific evidence". You seem unwilling or unable to grasp this concept. Third, with an alternate, plausible interpretation of the observations, scientific evidence does indeed support the Biblical Creationist position. That people like you do not wish to accept those alternate, plausible interpretations is another matter but they remain there nonetheless."

Wow! You people are amazing (NOT in a good way).

Jorge

[Jorge]

P.S. Hey Klownie, what are you going to tell the Logos when he reminds you you've been conflating Him with a book?

I will tell HIM that I tried my best to share the truth with certain
idiots but, being the idiots they are, they were wholly untrainable.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

The word for today is 'honesty', OR.
Here, let me spell it out for you: h - o - n - e - s - t - y
I can use upper-case letters if you prefer.

Sound bite

I never cease to be amazed at the DIShonesty that you people practice.

Sound bite

Here you essentially give us all a lesson in Straw Man 101.

Sound bite

Furthermore, you lie by omission. The casual reader would not get from anywhere
in your post the hundreds upon hundreds of posts where I provided far more than
what you say and insinuate I've provided. That's lying by omission, OR.

If what you are saying is true then indeed I would be lying. However, let’s run your posts through the logic test. Do your links and claims and hand waves involve some science? Yes. Do your links and claims and hand waves accurately use all data available? No.

Looks like you blundered. Again.

You top it all of by accusing me of "detestable debate tactics". That has to be the
leading contender for MOTHER OF ALL IRONIES.

Sound bite

Jorge

Wow. You got something correct for a change! Well done you. When you want to actually deal with the actual content of my post, the links are all there for you to deal with. Go and correct the error of your ways, you lost little man, before its too late.

[klaus54]

I will tell HIM that I tried my best to share the truth with certain
idiots but, being the idiots they are, they were wholly untrainable.

Jorge

Now you're trying to outdo your hubris with ALL CAPS.

LOL

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

(snip the usual lies and posturing)

Jorge

Same ol' same ol from the Blunderbuss.

"I provided the evidence, I just can't tell you where"
"I'm right because I said I'm right"
"I'm more right because I said it twice"

[lilpixieofterror]

When asked by a relative in later years if she had ever been in love, Lottie Moon replied, “Yes, but God had first claim on my life, and since the two conflicted, there could be no question about the result.”

She returned to China heart-broken, never to return home to America, never to marry, and died in the Orient, lonely in soul and pouring out her life in ministry to the Chinese people. Later in China, more letters arrived, and she wrote, “The temptation is great. The professor, however, now espouses theories that do not square with God’s Word. … My cross is loneliness.”

Repeating yourself and just outright ignoring all answers given doesn't make what others say disappear Jorge. Now do you have evidence for a young earth or not? It is a very simple question, why all the dodging and questioning the devotion of people who dare disagree with you?

Now there was a woman that knew the score! You, Terror, do NOT!

Of course I don't because I dare to question Jorge, in anyway, so naturally I do not 'know the score' because if I did, I would agree with Jorge.

Hey, what is your position on the NOW (Feminist) movement? I'll bet I know.

If you ever bothered to stick your head out of Natural Science, you would know what my political positions on a wide range of topics are. Assuming others who disagree with you, are all the things you hate, is an easier position to take though, eh?