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

Moon recession and unjustified extrapolation

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

  • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    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?



    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.



    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?
    You haven't and wouldn't recognize the natural evidence that exists for a creation of "thousands, not billions of years" if this evidence jumped into your arms and called you Mommy. Why, then, do you continue asking for something that has been posted countless times before but that you summarily sweep away the moment you see it? When you were being brought up, weren't you taught that such actions are blatantly dishonest and shouldn't be practiced? My guess is that you were taught, but being immersed with Theistic Evolutionists, Atheists and Humanists for as long as you have you've become one of "them" and forgot all of those good lessons. Too bad ... poor Terror.

    Jorge

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      You haven't and wouldn't recognize the natural evidence that exists for a creation of "thousands, not billions of years" if this evidence jumped into your arms and called you Mommy. Why, then, do you continue asking for something that has been posted countless times before but that you summarily sweep away the moment you see it? When you were being brought up, weren't you taught that such actions are blatantly dishonest and shouldn't be practiced? My guess is that you were taught, but being immersed with Theistic Evolutionists, Atheists and Humanists for as long as you have you've become one of "them" and forgot all of those good lessons. Too bad ... poor Terror.

      Jorge
      Evidently you don't either.

      Otherwise you'd be willing to discuss the natural evidence for thousands, not billions, of years. Correct?

      So do you admit that Biblical Creationism isn't scientific?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        You haven't and wouldn't recognize the natural evidence that exists for a creation of "thousands, not billions of years" if this evidence jumped into your arms and called you Mommy. Why, then, do you continue asking for something that has been posted countless times before but that you summarily sweep away the moment you see it?
        Jorge
        You've never posted any scientific evidence that indicates the world is 'thousands' of years old Jorge. Not once, not ever. Do you think the regulars at TWeb are suddenly going to start believing your lies?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          Evidently you don't either.
          Nonsense.

          Otherwise you'd be willing to discuss the natural evidence for thousands, not billions, of years. Correct?
          Yeah, like I haven't done that.


          So do you admit that Biblical Creationism isn't scientific?
          I have never said that "Biblical Creationism is scientific". I have said that there is (natural) scientific evidence to support Biblical Creationism. Similarly, I have said that Evolution is not pure/true science - it is an intermixing of ('evolution') science with Materialistic ideology, repackaged and labeled as "all science" ('Evolution').

          You can try to trip me up all you want, Santa, you will invariably fail. I notice that you people employ the dishonest, disgusting tactic of lawyers: you force people to repeat themselves over and over and over again until you find a syllable out of place with which to say, "AHA! You've changed your story!" You also ask the same questions time and time again until you get the answers that you want to hear. It's a tactic that gives lawyers the dishonorable reputation that they rightfully deserve. You do it. O-Mudd does it. Terror does it. Roland does it. Roy does it. Others - TEs, Atheists, Humanists, et al. - here do it as well. Well, as you can see, you have plenty of company.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Nonsense.



            Yeah, like I haven't done that.




            I have never said that "Biblical Creationism is scientific". I have said that there is (natural) scientific evidence to support Biblical Creationism. Similarly, I have said that Evolution is not pure/true science - it is an intermixing of ('evolution') science with Materialistic ideology, repackaged and labeled as "all science" ('Evolution').

            You can try to trip me up all you want, Santa, you will invariably fail. I notice that you people employ the dishonest, disgusting tactic of lawyers: you force people to repeat themselves over and over and over again until you find a syllable out of place with which to say, "AHA! You've changed your story!" You also ask the same questions time and time again until you get the answers that you want to hear. It's a tactic that gives lawyers the dishonorable reputation that they rightfully deserve. You do it. O-Mudd does it. Terror does it. Roland does it. Roy does it. Others - TEs, Atheists, Humanists, et al. - here do it as well. Well, as you can see, you have plenty of company.

            Jorge
            Where have you done it? I haven't seen any on TWeb.

            Then what the heck do you mean by "Biblical Scientific Creationism"?

            At least you have a tad of honesty in admitting that "Biblical Creationism" is NOT scientific. And I want the lurkers to know that you have changed your story, not by one syllable -- but BIG TIME.

            So why all the hub-bub? Why argue loudly and vacuously of the vast body of evidence for Deep Time?

            It's apparent you've gone off the deep end. You can't give an unambiguous Genesis interpretation. You wag around the term "God's Word" like you are the arbiter of truth with your interpretations. You ignore mountains of evidence, which you are not able to discuss since you don't have a viable theory. Instead you substitute a sanctimonious haughty attitude and fling insults like a dog shaking off water.

            But you say you have "... (natural) scientific evidence to support Biblical Creationism"

            Ignoring for the moment that this statement appears to contradict the sentence immediately before it, how about you start a thread to discuss some of these (natural) scientific evidences?

            BTW, "(natural) scientific" is redundant, isn't it?

            K54

            Comment


            • Originally posted by [COLOR="#DAA520"
              Jorge[/COLOR]]...
              You also ask the same questions time and time again until you get the answers that you want to hear.
              ...
              You mean like your unambiguous, plain, clear, straightforward, direct, literal reading of the Genesis creation stories on which you base your entire rejection of modern geology, biology, and astrophysics?

              For the record, you never answered that question. You mentioned that you could, but you wouldn't because we weren't worthy or worth the effort.

              Since this exegesis is the reason you reject mountains of evidence which fit together in a consistent manner, one would think this is to your advantage to give.

              K54

              Comment


              • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                Where have you done it? I haven't seen any on TWeb.

                Then what the heck do you mean by "Biblical Scientific Creationism"?

                At least you have a tad of honesty in admitting that "Biblical Creationism" is NOT scientific. And I want the lurkers to know that you have changed your story, not by one syllable -- but BIG TIME.

                So why all the hub-bub? Why argue loudly and vacuously of the vast body of evidence for Deep Time?

                It's apparent you've gone off the deep end. You can't give an unambiguous Genesis interpretation. You wag around the term "God's Word" like you are the arbiter of truth with your interpretations. You ignore mountains of evidence, which you are not able to discuss since you don't have a viable theory. Instead you substitute a sanctimonious haughty attitude and fling insults like a dog shaking off water.

                But you say you have "... (natural) scientific evidence to support Biblical Creationism"

                Ignoring for the moment that this statement appears to contradict the sentence immediately before it, how about you start a thread to discuss some of these (natural) scientific evidences?

                BTW, "(natural) scientific" is redundant, isn't it?

                K54
                Essentially all of the above is pure, unadulterated, unprocessed, virgin c - r - a - p!

                Just one comment: "BTW, "(natural) scientific" is redundant, isn't it?"

                That question just goes to prove how thoroughly indoctrinated into a Materialistic worldview you are. The answer is NO. Science is about knowledge and knowledge is not about the natural world only.
                Of course, for the Materialist, "science" is synonymous with "natural" because the "natural" (mass-energy) universe is all that exists for them - there is nothing else. But for the Biblical Christian-Creationist "science" also encompasses the non-material world. Atheistic/Humanistic Materialists have usurped the word "science" so that it now refers solely to the mass-energy realm thereby injecting their religious worldview into the quest for knowledge. Then, uninformed, unthinking Christians have unwittingly adopted that definition thereby becoming in some ways 'allies' with Materialism. Thus, when I use the word "science" I always distinguish between natural science (pertaining to only the mass-energy universe) and science (in general) pertaining to all knowledge.

                But why am I wasting my time trying to educate an arrogant ignoramus like you?

                Jorge

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  You haven't and wouldn't recognize the natural evidence that exists for a creation of "thousands, not billions of years" if this evidence jumped into your arms and called you Mommy. Why, then, do you continue asking for something that has been posted countless times before but that you summarily sweep away the moment you see it?
                  Are you really that deluded that you think you're ranting and insults towards anybody, who dares to disagree with you, isn't a Christian, really is 'presenting evidence'? No Jorge, you don't present evidence nor do you answer what other people say. What you really end up doing is ignoring anything you can't refute, calling anybody who disagrees with you a bunch of names, pretending your personal interpretation is equal to what God says, and puff... you have your 'argument'. Perhaps you might want to see a psychologist about your clear delusional state.

                  When you were being brought up, weren't you taught that such actions are blatantly dishonest and shouldn't be practiced?
                  Your psychological projection is quite an interesting thing since I was taught not to act like you act. AKA like an arrogant jerk, who only sees what he wants to see and ignores anything that everything that disagrees with him. While I'm sure you could ignore the evidence against your YEC beliefs forever, I can't ignore what the evidence plainly says and your lack of ability to answer it, tells me all I need to hear about your ability to refute or address any of it.

                  My guess is that you were taught, but being immersed with Theistic Evolutionists, Atheists and Humanists for as long as you have you've become one of "them" and forgot all of those good lessons. Too bad ... poor Terror.
                  That's right because anybody who dares to disagree with Jorge, must be terrible people. Are you done with your delusions yet or do you want to keep seeing whatever you want to see and ignoring what you don't want to hear? So Jorge, what is my political positions or do you want to keep pretending that your delusions are reality?
                  "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                  GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    That question just goes to prove how thoroughly indoctrinated into a Materialistic worldview you are. The answer is NO. Science is about knowledge and knowledge is not about the natural world only.
                    Of course, for the Materialist, "science" is synonymous with "natural" because the "natural" (mass-energy) universe is all that exists for them - there is nothing else. But for the Biblical Christian-Creationist "science" also encompasses the non-material world.
                    This kind of gets back to where our last conversation trails off. I'm curious as to how the Christian-Creationist "science" (as you term it) operates. Specifically, how does one evaluate the relative probabilities of a miracle vs. a natural explanation? Because natural science is all about evaluating the relative probabilities of different options (i.e. - for Kepler exoplanet data, the analysis pipeline weighs the probabilities of eclipsing binaries vs. planets). How does one weigh the probability of a miracle?

                    I'm also somewhat curious about the existence of a sectarian science. does Christian-Creationist "science" necessarily exclude anyone who does not subscribe to Christian beliefs?
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • As Stacey pointed out (Stacey, 1977, pages 102-103) it makes more sense to assume that the oceanic tidal dissipation was smaller in the past, which would have the effect of making the calculation that of a minimum age, as opposed to the maximum age proposed by DeYoung.
                      Do we have an explanation for why the gravitational effect of the moon on the tides was less when it was closer to Earth than now?
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Essentially all of the above is pure, unadulterated, unprocessed, virgin c - r - a - p!

                        Just one comment: "BTW, "(natural) scientific" is redundant, isn't it?"

                        That question just goes to prove how thoroughly indoctrinated into a Materialistic worldview you are. The answer is NO. Science is about knowledge and knowledge is not about the natural world only.
                        Of course, for the Materialist, "science" is synonymous with "natural" because the "natural" (mass-energy) universe is all that exists for them - there is nothing else. But for the Biblical Christian-Creationist "science" also encompasses the non-material world. Atheistic/Humanistic Materialists have usurped the word "science" so that it now refers solely to the mass-energy realm thereby injecting their religious worldview into the quest for knowledge. Then, uninformed, unthinking Christians have unwittingly adopted that definition thereby becoming in some ways 'allies' with Materialism. Thus, when I use the word "science" I always distinguish between natural science (pertaining to only the mass-energy universe) and science (in general) pertaining to all knowledge.

                        But why am I wasting my time trying to educate an arrogant ignoramus like you?

                        Jorge
                        Ah, so you have a different definition of "science" than everyone else. BTW, for your edification, when people in chemistry, physics, geology, etc. say "science" they mean NATURAL science. I have NO idea what you mean.

                        EVERYBODY knows that "science" (scientia) means knowledge, but "science" as used by chemists, etc. ALWAYS refers to NATURAL science and Scientific Method. Nice try at a red herring, you're not going to fool anyone but the most ignorant. Hey, it's surprising you didn't quote I Tim. 6:20 in the Authorized King Jimmy 1611.

                        Oh, and the evidence for Deep Time/Deep History/Cosmic and Biological Evolution are all based on the same analysis of physical principle of matter-energy and the regularities (laws?) of nature.

                        I reiterate that you admitted that Creationism is not scientific in the accepted sense of the word, and hopefully you will cease using the adjective "scientific" as per "Biblical Scientific Creationism".

                        Thank you in advance for that.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          This kind of gets back to where our last conversation trails off. I'm curious as to how the Christian-Creationist "science" (as you term it) operates. Specifically, how does one evaluate the relative probabilities of a miracle vs. a natural explanation? Because natural science is all about evaluating the relative probabilities of different options (i.e. - for Kepler exoplanet data, the analysis pipeline weighs the probabilities of eclipsing binaries vs. planets). How does one weigh the probability of a miracle?

                          I'm also somewhat curious about the existence of a sectarian science. does Christian-Creationist "science" necessarily exclude anyone who does not subscribe to Christian beliefs?
                          Good points. What Jorge seems to not understand is the theology of Biblical miracles. They all have a targeted PURPOSE. You either believe they happened or not. However attributing all the accumulated evidence from geology, astronomy, and biology as miracle (which they must do to force it into a 6Ka/6day/24hour Genesis 1 interpretation) makes their version of God a great Deceiver -- it requires miracle upon miracle with no other PURPOSE than to deceive the (natural!) scientifically literate of the past two centuries.

                          I would like Jorge to explain God's PURPOSE in creating a Cosmos with an appearance of age and history.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Do we have an explanation for why the gravitational effect of the moon on the tides was less when it was closer to Earth than now?
                            I thought that was addressed by varying continental configuration due to plate tectonics. The tides at certain points on shorelines were less in magnitude even though tidal gravitational effect would have been more.

                            A physics person could correct me on this.

                            K54

                            [source=TalkOrigins (that Atheist Rag - LOL)
                            Hansen had already all but eliminated Slichter's dilemma with his integrated model of continents and tides. Kagan & Maslova (1994) treat the oceanic tidal dissipation with fully mobile and arbitrary continents. Like Hansen, their models show time scales that are not a problem for matching the radiometric age of Earth with the dynamic age of the Earth-moon system. Kagan & Maslova (1994), Kagan (1997), and Ray, Bills & Chao (1999) have continued the study in even more detail, with plate tectonics fully integrated into their models of Earth-moon tidal evolution. Touma & Wisdom (1994) do the calculation in a fully integrated multi-planet chaotically evolving solar system.
                            [/source]

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              Ah, so you have a different definition of "science" than everyone else. BTW, for your edification, when people in chemistry, physics, geology, etc. say "science" they mean NATURAL science. I have NO idea what you mean.
                              That you have "NO idea of what I mean" is the understatement of the decade!

                              OF COURSE in physics, chemistry, etc. "science" means "natural science" - that is so by definition. When I wrote "(natural) science" I was specifying a restriction to the natural domain - not the entire domain of science. Again, why am I even bothering with this? I may as well be trying to teach a rusty nail how to add fractions.

                              EVERYBODY knows that "science" (scientia) means knowledge, but "science" as used by chemists, etc. ALWAYS refers to NATURAL science and Scientific Method. Nice try at a red herring, you're not going to fool anyone but the most ignorant. Hey, it's surprising you didn't quote I Tim. 6:20 in the Authorized King Jimmy 1611.
                              Yaaaawwwnnnn !!!

                              Oh, and the evidence for Deep Time/Deep History/Cosmic and Biological Evolution are all based on the same analysis of physical principle of matter-energy and the regularities (laws?) of nature.
                              Nope, you've now entered into metaphysics - you're just too ignorant and dumb to know it.

                              I reiterate that you admitted that Creationism is not scientific in the accepted sense of the word, and hopefully you will cease using the adjective "scientific" as per "Biblical Scientific Creationism".

                              Thank you in advance for that.

                              K54
                              Nope ... what we have here is yet another instance in which when you start paying
                              my bills then I'll do as you wish. Until that day you will have to suffer my words.

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • Thanks for that Klaus - the only thing I could think of was that maybe ocean levels had something to do with it ... but that didn't seem to fit well enough.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 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
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X