Einstein and peer review. (I've never been published in Nature, but...)

[Jorge]

I know what your ultimate point is about peer review. How can I be denying it when I said I was in agreement back in post #23? The problem is, you ran your mouth off, made a couple of blunders and tried desperately to cover them up. That is dishonest. It is also part of the many detestable and anti-scriptural traits you’ve shown here. But rather than face them, you’ve tried to weasel your way out of it and at the same time fling as much muck in the hope that others might think something may have stuck.

It is very evident that your neural wiring is shot to pieces and that you really have a major problem admitting you are wrong. Why else would you engage in trying to do your very best to divert everyone’s attention from your errors, blunders and detestable debating tactics? No matter how much slander, malice, deceit you throw my way, it can never change the wording in your posts. To keep you on the actual points, rather than what you want to shift them to:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable time trying to turn the tables, calling me everything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?

Try answering these questions for a change.

That you now want to restate your position where you now avoid your initial over-generalisation and having swept under the carpet your blunders about those articles is understandable. But why should I let you do so? To me these are not really issues, but it’s how you responded that I take umbrage with. The issue does become about your character when you castigate anyone for not believing the Bible as you do and then you repeatedly demonstrate you ignore clear Biblical commands (do I really need to list them again?). It brings into question your credibility, your honesty, your trustworthiness, which is very important for the message you want to convey in NS301. There’s no way you’ll be able to rely on the rubbish you put in post #80 either; Matthew 7:21-23 shows you are cruising towards rejection.

I can only guess that you are really infuriated that this non-YEC continues to show you up. Let go of your pride, admit you blundered and we can move on. The longer you leave it, the more difficult it will become.

You clearly must have far too much free time on your hands.

I can do just as you - go back and nit-pick every one of your posts searching for a single word or syllable that is out of place, a single ambiguity, a single unclear statement and then saying, "Aha, see, you said ..." when in fact your intended meaning had nothing to do with that out-of-place word or syllable. That practice, in case you don't know, is Pharisee-like Legalism. The funny part is that you then accuse me of what you yourself are practicing. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up. [Yeah ... "sound bites" -- another one of your phrases meant to further your agenda.]

You continue to insist on making this about me - my "trustworthiness" or whatever. Feel free to think the absolute worst of me, OR - thankfully, you won't be my Judge at the appointed time.

Lastly, you say "I know what your ultimate point is about peer review. How can I be denying it when I said I was in agreement back in post #23?" If that's true then you should have left it at that instead of trying to prove me wrong by citing papers that had been published 30-40 years ago. Why not go out and find one paper - a single one - from, say, the last 3 years? (it's probably been much longer than that - I can't recall the last one). Hadn't I stated that things have been getting far, far worse?

THAT was and remains my point - I'll not back down one iota because it's the truth. Due to your pride and ego you have become obsessed with going beyond that simple message and wish to vilify me in the process. Go right ahead, knock yourself out.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

You clearly must have far too much free time on your hands.

I can do just as you - go back and nit-pick every one of your posts searching for a single word or syllable that is out of place, a single ambiguity, a single unclear statement and then saying, "Aha, see, you said ..." when in fact your intended meaning had nothing to do with that out-of-place word or syllable. That practice, in case you don't know, is Pharisee-like Legalism. The funny part is that you then accuse me of what you yourself are practicing. Hollywood couldn't make this stuff up. [Yeah ... "sound bites" -- another one of your phrases meant to further your agenda.]

You continue to insist on making this about me - my "trustworthiness" or whatever. Feel free to think the absolute worst of me, OR - thankfully, you won't be my Judge at the appointed time.

Lastly, you say "I know what your ultimate point is about peer review. How can I be denying it when I said I was in agreement back in post #23?" If that's true then you should have left it at that instead of trying to prove me wrong by citing papers that had been published 30-40 years ago. Why not go out and find one paper - a single one - from, say, the last 3 years? (it's probably been much longer than that - I can't recall the last one). Hadn't I stated that things have been getting far, far worse?

THAT was and remains my point - I'll not back down one iota because it's the truth. Due to your pride and ego you have become obsessed with going beyond that simple message and wish to vilify me in the process. Go right ahead, knock yourself out.

Jorge

It is incredible the lengths you are willing to stoop to in order to save face. What you have done is to detach yourself from your over generalisation, ignore the blunders you made along the way and then tried to attribute my position to your subtly shifted goal posts and ending up with a straw man. A very dishonest tact from you. Moreover, you liberally sprinkle false accusations along the way. A detestable and anti-scriptural practise from you. At no point have I taken your words out of context, as you dishonestly and falsely imply.

As I said before, and perhaps the following highlights will help you...

No matter how much slander, malice, deceit you throw my way, it can never change the wording in your posts. To keep you on the actual points, rather than what you want to shift them to:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable energy trying to turn the tables, calling me anything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?

Try answering these questions for a change.

You don’t want to accept responsibility for your own words and keep harping on about 30 year old papers that directly refuted your initial statement. Had you admitted you made an over generalisation back then, we would not be having this exchange. But that wasn’t the problem. The real problem came next.

You don’t want to admit your blunders by ignoring your incorrect understanding of those papers, but instead have done everything to shift the spotlight away from you. Had you admitted you made a mistake, we would not be having this exchange.

You want to hurt me because you’re angry and prideful. Nothing else can explain why you try and turn the tables and constantly throw as much slander, malice, deceit at me as possible. I’ve highlighted your errors and your blunders and more importantly your anti-scriptural behaviour and that is causing you pain.

Again, as I said before...

The issue does become about your character when you castigate anyone for not believing the Bible as you do and then you repeatedly demonstrate you ignore clear Biblical commands (do I really need to list them again?). It brings into question your credibility, your honesty, your trustworthiness, which is very important for the message you want to convey in NS301. There’s no way you’ll be able to rely on the rubbish you put in post #80 either; Matthew 7:21-23 shows you are cruising towards rejection.

And nothing you have posted to date can over throw that. And so your desperation and ire continue to mount. And all I’ll keep doing is keep you focused on your problems with those 3 posts of yours I’ve linked to above. Until you relinquish your pride, acknowledge your errors and apologise or until you stop responding.

[Omega Red]

If this weren't such a serious matter, you'd be funnier than a room full of clowns. We Biblical Creationists do everything we can to acquire and practice the proper meaning of God's Word - what Christ stated the Pharisees did NOT do. So clearly what you're insinuating is all jackassbackwards from reality.

Compare this with what Theistic Evolutionists such as yourself practice: you willingly / purposefully distort God's Word (including deletions, additions, reinterpretations, classifying as myth, allegory, and so on) just so that God's Word aligns itself with the edicts of a modern "science" establishment, an establishment that is chock-full of declared Humanists and Atheists.

SUMMARIZING: The goal of Biblical Creationists is to be aligned with the actual meaning of God's Word. The goal of Theistic Evolutionists is to make God's Word align itself with what a secular "scientific" establishment has decreed is "Truth". One must then ask: exactly what "god" is it that Theistic Evolutionists serve ... whose side are they truly on?

In an earlier post you ask me if I actually read the posts that I respond to. For the most part, yes, I certainly do. Now I ask you if you even bother to think about what you write. Because let me tell you, many times it appears that you pulled it out from some bodily orifice with nary a thought. And don't take that personally - others here at TWeb practice as you do.

Jorge

If you had said that you would do anything you can to support and defend your interpretation of God’s Word, you might have been closer to the mark. You had already disclosed your approaches to science in hermeneutical methodology:

...science (true science) is in my biblical exegesis/hermeneutic from the start and all throughout.
I do not allow science-falsely-so-called -- the speculations and vain, agenda-loaded imaginations of men -- to dictate how to read God's Word. I constantly remind myself of the difference between operational science and historical science just as I always keep in mind that, when there is conflict or doubt, the vote is cast for God's Word, not for theories and worldly philosophies. In this my logic is irrefutable - it's a win-win strategy (maybe you can figure out why - left as an exercise).

In order to derive understanding of the Biblical passages you use an exegetical method that incorporates science from the start, but in order to determine which science is allowed you only select that which is in harmony with the understanding of the Biblical passage. Circular reasoning, logically fallacious, and wholly inconsistent when you approach issues on interpretation of thura, raqia and the time it took for the creative acts in Genesis 1. To wit, you’ll just dispose of anything that contradicts your interpretation and retain anything that supports your interpretation. So much for science being there from the start and throughout.

I suppose you’ll deny the context of your own post, but I guess that’s why you state “my arguments are quite solid, thank you very much. In fact, they are so solid that they've withstood decades of attacks”. The Black Knight always wins. Bury your head in the sand to the errors and keep up the bluster.

In an earlier post you ask me if I actually read the posts that I respond to. For the most part, yes, I certainly do.

Is this finally an admission you erred and blundered in this thread?

[lilpixieofterror]

You can keep trying to make this an issue about me and my beliefs, Terror.

Because it is all about you and your beliefs Jorge. Anybody, who dares to disagree with you, is labeled as not being a 'True Christian^TM'. Why do you suppose so many of your YEC brethren avoid talking to you, distance themselves from you, and even actively go against you? It is because you're an embarrassment to them and they don't want to be associated with such an embarrassment to the faith. I can't blame them either.

I have amply explained / demonstrated that it is nowhere near being about me or my personal beliefs, it is all about being properly aligned with what GOD says.

Than why hasn't YEC become a critical doctrine of the faith and why is it that in 2,000 years, not a single church council has made it a center piece argument of the faith? You'd think if it really was what 'God says' instead of what Jorge thinks God says, it would be much more central to the doctrines of the church, yet it isn't. So the answer seems to be that you're worshiping a false idol and attempting to make the age of the earth the center of your faith instead of Christ. What does the Bible say about making anything, but Christ, the center of your life?

Biblical Creationism is, Theistic Evolution is not - period ... end of story ... go home. Until you both accept and publicly acknowledge that fact, you will remain immersed in that delusional world that you reside in.

Than you're welcome to demonstrate the above, but you can't and fail to do so, over and over again. What does the Bible say about making anything, but Jesus, the center of your faith? I thought it was pretty much condemning it. Funny, I try to actually follow what Christ teaches and make him the center of my faith and my life. When will you do the same?

P.S. As you know, you have plenty of company in that delusional world so you shouldn't worry about being lonely.

The only delusional one here, is yourself. Why do even your fellow YEC's avoid you and avoid associating themselves with you? Can you explain why many of them do that?

[lilpixieofterror]

If this weren't such a serious matter, you'd be funnier than a room full of clowns. We Biblical Creationists do everything we can to acquire and practice the proper meaning of God's Word - what Christ stated the Pharisees did NOT do. So clearly what you're insinuating is all jackassbackwards from reality.

AKA the meaning that Jorge agrees with.

Compare this with what Theistic Evolutionists such as yourself practice: you willingly / purposefully distort God's Word (including deletions, additions, reinterpretations, classifying as myth, allegory, and so on) just so that God's Word aligns itself with the edicts of a modern "science" establishment, an establishment that is chock-full of declared Humanists and Atheists.

Irony at its finest, since you've been caught, several times, attempting to add things into the Bible, beyond its 'plain meaning' and than trying to weasel your way out of admitting you are doing just what you attack others for doing. What did Jesus say about hypocrites, Jorge?

SUMMARIZING: The goal of Biblical Creationists is to be aligned with the actual meaning of God's Word. The goal of Theistic Evolutionists is to make God's Word align itself with what a secular "scientific" establishment has decreed is "Truth". One must then ask: exactly what "god" is it that Theistic Evolutionists serve ... whose side are they truly on?

No Jorge, the goal of a TE is to attempt to understand faith in light of the physical evidence vs trying to write off all the physical evidence before us. If you think this is wrong, go ahead and just tell everybody why radioactive isotopes samples continue to support an old earth and not a single one supports a young earth? Why are we able to see star light from objects far further than 6,000 light years away? Why do the geological features we see around the world show a history of being laid down in layers that is inconsistent with a 6,000 year old earth? These are just a few things you need to provide answers for instead of just calling everybody, who dares to disagree with you, a bunch of names and failing to address what they say (while of course, complaining when people do what you do, I thought the Bible condemned hypocrisy, guess Jorge's version doesn't).

In an earlier post you ask me if I actually read the posts that I respond to. For the most part, yes, I certainly do. Now I ask you if you even bother to think about what you write. Because let me tell you, many times it appears that you pulled it out from some bodily orifice with nary a thought. And don't take that personally - others here at TWeb practice as you do.

Your delusions are quite amazing. Perhaps you could next explain why many of your fellow YEC's find you as an embarrassment to their cause and tend to avoid you.

[Jorge]

.
.
.
.
.
.
Blah ... blah ... blah ...................
.
.
.

... And so your desperation and ire continue to mount.

"... desperation and ire ..." Bwahahahahahaha!!!


Thanks for brightening up my day, OR ... I really needed a good laugh!!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Because it is all about you and your beliefs Jorge.

Thank you so much, Terror, for coming out and helping me prove my claim.
Too bad that your comrade Omega Red isn't as forthcoming.

Anyway: Your Honor, I rest my case!

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

Thank you so much, Terror, for coming out and helping me prove my claim.
Too bad that your comrade Omega Red isn't as forthcoming.

Anyway: Your Honor, I rest my case!

Jorge

Well, since you rip the Bible out of context, ignore parts of it you don't want to hear, and make up things about it as you go along; guess I shouldn't be surprised when you do the same thing to my entire paragraph. Can't be honest for a second, eh Jorge?

[Omega Red]

"... desperation and ire ..." Bwahahahahahaha!!!


Thanks for brightening up my day, OR ... I really needed a good laugh!!!

Jorge

Yup. Your pride and ego got in the way of you admitting you made mistakes in this thread. Your anger has been boiling over for several posts now because this non-YEC highlighted your blunders and also explains why you are so desperate to turn the tables, escape the spotlight and keep venting as much slander, malice and deceit my way. It’s easily understood why you would take this exit track. You may think it is a good laugh, but you leave your errors, your blunders, your detestable debating tactics and your anti-scriptural practises for all to see, which will hound you for the remainder of your time in NS301.

[Jorge]

Well, since you rip the Bible out of context, ignore parts of it you don't want to hear, and make up things about it as you go along; guess I shouldn't be surprised when you do the same thing to my entire paragraph. Can't be honest for a second, eh Jorge?

For a "second"? I've been honest all along!
That you do not wish to acknowledge this is not my problem.

By the way, check out my new thread " ... best answers ever".
It may be able to help you.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Yup. Your pride and ego got in the way of you admitting you made mistakes in this thread. Your anger has been boiling over for several posts now because this non-YEC highlighted your blunders and also explains why you are so desperate to turn the tables, escape the spotlight and keep venting as much slander, malice and deceit my way. It’s easily understood why you would take this exit track. You may think it is a good laugh, but you leave your errors, your blunders, your detestable debating tactics and your anti-scriptural practises for all to see, which will hound you for the remainder of your time in NS301.

"desperation ... ire ... boiling over ... anger ... slander ... malice ... deceit"
Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Keep 'em comin', Mr. Red ... please don't stop!

By the way, check out my new thread " ... best answers ever".
It may be able to help you (I doubt it but, hey, what the heck).


Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

For a "second"? I've been honest all along!

Sure you have.

That you do not wish to acknowledge this is not my problem.

By the way, check out my new thread " ... best answers ever".
It may be able to help you.

Ran to yet another thread because you couldn't deal with all the errors you were caught in on other threads? Well, that shouldn't be a surprise...

[Jorge]

Sure you have.

Yes, I have. As I wrote previously, "that you do not wish to acknowledge this is not my problem".

Ran to yet another thread because you couldn't deal with all the errors you were caught in on other threads? Well, that shouldn't be a surprise...

Terror: "Give me answers ... give me answers ... I demand answers!!!"

Jorge: "Sure, Terror, here you go ..."

Terror: [not bothering to read/study answers] "Give me answers ... I demand answers!!!"

Jorge: Huh?

Terror: "You never give any answers ... I demand answers!!!"

Jorge:


That about sums it up.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

"desperation ... ire ... boiling over ... anger ... slander ... malice ... deceit"
Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Keep 'em comin', Mr. Red ... please don't stop!

By the way, check out my new thread " ... best answers ever".
It may be able to help you (I doubt it but, hey, what the heck).


Jorge

Yup. All traits you have amply demonstrated in this thread. Seeing as they did not work, you’ve switched tracks and are now trying to laugh away you errors and blunders, or you’ve simply forgotten them, so I’m guessing you need a reminder:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable time trying to turn the tables, calling me everything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?
Do you deny you tried to attribute my position against your goal shifted position and created a straw man?

Try answering these questions for a change. The rest of NS301 readers just laugh at how you erred and blundered in your rabid attack on a non-YEC and stated that those papers were in support of the evolutionary paradigm when anyone who had done an ounce of checking would have known they were the opposite. But you didn’t just claim it once, but twice! When it was finally explained to you, you had to back track with dishonest debate tactics and venom. Quite simply, you cannot take the fact that you made a mistake and your pride prevents you from admitting it. The longer you maintain this attitude, the closer you are to rejection - see Matthew 7:23. Try practicing what you preach for a change; exercise some honesty in answering those questions.

[HMS_Beagle]

Yes, I have. As I wrote previously, "that you do not wish to acknowledge this is not my problem"

NS301 posters: "Please give us answers Jorge"

Jorge: "I already did, I just won't tell you where"

NS301 posters: Where Jorge? No one can find them.

Jorge: Listen you poopy heads I said I already provided them!!

NS301 posters: You say a lot of things that aren't true Jorge. Just link to answers you say you gave, or post them again.

Jorge: You won't accept MY TROOTH!! so I'm not wasting time on all you who HATE JESUS!!

NS301 posters: Yeah Jorge, whatever...


That really sums it up.