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

Why not deep time?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    If all else is excluded then (and only then) you would have an argument. Here's the problem you face: honesty compels us to include what some would arbitrarily exclude in order to fulfill an agenda.
    So AiG, CMI, ICR and other organisations that decide in advance that arbitrarily exclude any evidence that cannot exist according to their beliefs are, according to Jorge, acting dishonestly.
    What are those things that need to be included? For starters try historically-recorded events including eyewitness testimony. If that isn't enough then consider also the many verifiable scientific observations and logical deductions that support orthodox Biblical Creationism while opposing Materialism and all other religions.
    Honesty would also compel us to include the many verifiable scientific observations and logical deductions that support deep time.

    Jorge has arbitrarily excluded these in order to fulfil his agenda.

    Jorge is dishonest by his own criteria.

    Roy
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      If all else is excluded then (and only then) you would have an argument. Here's the problem you face: honesty compels us to include what some would arbitrarily exclude in order to fulfill an agenda.

      What are those things that need to be included? For starters try historically-recorded events including eyewitness testimony. If that isn't enough then consider also the many verifiable scientific observations and logical deductions that support orthodox Biblical Creationism while opposing Materialism and all other religions.

      When the entire picture is included -- not just the parts of the picture that people wish to include while trashing the rest -- it's orthodox Biblical Christianity hands down every day and twice on Sundays.

      Pay the lady a buck and do try again, Roy.

      Jorge
      "Eyewitness accounts" of the creation are one of THE most dishonest rhetorical tactics that YECs like you take.

      1) It assumes that Genesis are directly dictated to a scribe.

      2) It assumes that the accounts can be unambiguously read, like an historical narrative.

      3) You YECs additionally assume that the PURPOSE of the stories is give an accurate physical account of creation.

      4) You ignore the many other interpretations of the stories over the history of Judaism and the Church by Tanach and Scriptural scholars of high qualification.

      5) You ignore the culture of the ANE.

      Asserting that all of these 5 are correct is the epitome of arrogance.

      Now, combine that with what modern astrophysics, biology, geology, genetics, and paleo-anthropology have "unearthed" and generated consilient theories, THEN you are BEYOND arrogant and have stepped over the line to mental illness.

      If you weren't such an unlikable twit, I would feel very sorry for you.

      K54

      P.S. For the lurkers, I'm still waiting for Jorge to have a crack at number 2.

      Comment


      • #18
        Jorge,

        What's more scientifically dishonest than this?

        Originally posted by Excerpt from Section 4 of AiG's statement of faith
        By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
        And note the most absolute form of hypocrisy in the use of "interpretation". Science has to be interpreted (of course!) but SO DOES SCRIPTURE!!!

        Jorge -- that reminds of the title of article you wrote which included "Lying By Omission".

        Remember that?

        K54

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post

          What are those things that need to be included? For starters try historically-recorded events including eyewitness testimony.
          You don't have any "historically-recorded events including eyewitness testimony" for the events listed in Genesis. You need independent corroboration, not "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. You don't have any independent corroboration of any kind.

          If that isn't enough then consider also the many verifiable scientific observations and logical deductions that support orthodox Biblical Creationism while opposing Materialism and all other religions.
          You also don't have a single verifiable scientific observations or logical deduction that support orthodox Biblical Creationism. People have been after you for the better part of a decade to provide such evidence and you've failed and run away every last time. You do however have an amazingly big mouth that runs incessantly while spewing insults and claims you can't back up.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            1) These interpretations are not unique.
            Ambiguous, yes; unspecific in a few ways, yes. But it seems to me you are quibbling.


            2) They don't take into account the ANE culture's understanding of the Cosmos -- which is VASTLY different from ours.

            3) They contradict what creation itself tell us.
            Please explain in unambiguous, specific detail.


            4) They don't take into account various ideas about the purpose of the stories.
            I wonder, did you read carefully any of the various pdfs linked on the website? Or are you trying to discourage people from reading them or the book itself?
            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
              Here is a nice website on the issue of Genesis one

              And here is another article by the same author on a similar tangent.
              I wish Jorge would read any of the various pdfs on the website or even the book itself. If he still disagrees, I wish he would explain in detail why not agree. Thank you!
              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

              Comment


              • #22
                By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

                evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
                (except when the people who are interpreting the scriptures in the way we like are concerned) We should assume that these people infallibly interpret the evidence of scripture and possess all the information necessary to so interpret scripture because ......?
                Last edited by tabibito; 07-26-2014, 10:42 PM.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  [COLOR="#DAA520"]

                  What's more scientifically dishonest than this?
                  You and people like you willingly choose to view it as "dishonest" not realizing/accepting that you yourselves are the ones not being honest. To illustrate, what you do is put on red-tinted spectacles and then express indignation because we "color all things red".

                  And note the most absolute form of hypocrisy in the use of "interpretation". Science has to be interpreted (of course!) but SO DOES SCRIPTURE!!!
                  Any and all perceptions are 'interpreted' - this is unavoidable.
                  Once again you display indignation after distorting certain truths.

                  -- that reminds of the title of article you wrote which included "Lying By Omission".

                  Remember that?

                  K54
                  I remember it very well. Talk.origins had kittens when I wrote it and one of their 'Priests' wrote a pitiful response almost immediately. My article, predictably, had no effect. If anything they've 'doubled-down'.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Any and all perceptions are 'interpreted' - this is unavoidable.
                    Once again you display indignation after distorting certain truths.

                    Jorge
                    The big difference being that scientific interpretations are based on well established and verified scientific laws and principles. Your YEC interpretations are based on ignoring those scientific facts in lieu of your preconceived notions of what you want to be true.

                    That's why science is correct and you're just blithering.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      For starters try historically-recorded events including eyewitness testimony.
                      The standard view is that Moses is the author. I guess you think he preceded Adam since the latter wasn't around until the sixth day and could not be an eyewitness to the first five.

                      Now there is a tradition that Moses merely acted as a scribe for what God told him but nowhere in the Bible does it say this except for when Moses went up upon Mt. Sinai to receive the Decalogue.

                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        -- that reminds of the title of article you wrote which included "Lying By Omission".

                        Remember that?
                        I remember it very well. Talk.origins had kittens when I wrote it and one of their 'Priests' wrote a pitiful response almost immediately. My article, predictably, had no effect.
                        That'll be the article based on the talk.origins FAQ summaries, which not only failed to address the contents of the various FAQs but even pretended they didn't exist. It had no effect because it was trivially easy to point out exactly why it was dishonest drivel.

                        Roy
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          You don't have any "historically-recorded events including eyewitness testimony" for the events listed in Genesis. You need independent corroboration, not "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. You don't have any independent corroboration of any kind.
                          An Atheist would, of course, parrot the above in blatant denial of the facts. The Bible is a historically-recorded narrative of the Author and Eye-Witness of creation, namely, God Himself. That recorded history is confirmed by subsequent chronologies and many other supporting events which individually may not be sufficient but taken together are compellingly conclusive (except for people who are anti-truth and anti-honesty in which case nothing will suffice).



                          You also don't have a single verifiable scientific observations or logical deduction that support orthodox Biblical Creationism. People have been after you for the better part of a decade to provide such evidence and you've failed and run away every last time. You do however have an amazingly big mouth that runs incessantly while spewing insults and claims you can't back up.
                          Utter nonsense! Beyond saying that, I'll not dignify your rank intellectual dishonesty any further.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                            I wish Jorge would read any of the various pdfs on the website or even the book itself. If he still disagrees, I wish he would explain in detail why not agree. Thank you!
                            I linked there and took a quick look - nothing beyond a quick look was needed. It's nothing more than a re-hash of arguments that I've seen hundreds of times before PLUS the critical points (see below) aren't really addressed.

                            In post number 8, this thread, I provided all the
                            "explanation" (sans details) that you need. Here it is again:

                            "I've provided hundreds of details over the last ten-plus years, so I'll just summarize:

                            Why not deep time? Simple: there cannot (cannot!) be deep time when we integrate three things: (1) the direct meaning of the narrative in Genesis; (2) the other Books of Scripture and; (3) the theological implications to Christianity if millions/billions of years (with its associated 'Evolution') actually did occur. When this integration is done in an honest manner, deep time becomes an impossibility if orthodox Christianity is to be retained. When this integration is not done properly or honestly, the result is a version of "Christianity" which is anything but orthodox and is often a different 'gospel' than that given by Christ. In spite of the desires/attempts of many, they cannot have it both ways.

                            That's it - it really is that simple. The rest are the details."


                            Which, for you, is the most compelling argument for deep time? "The most" would be one.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              That'll be the article based on the talk.origins FAQ summaries, which not only failed to address the contents of the various FAQs but even pretended they didn't exist. It had no effect because it was trivially easy to point out exactly why it was dishonest drivel.

                              Roy
                              Wrong again! Man-oh-man, you are one consistent little devil, aren't you!

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                                Apparently, YECs take Genesis 1:3-5 as a description of what God did in the first day of the universe, "day" being literally 24 hours, even though the Sun did not exist then. And so on until the first Sabbath (the seventh day, Genesis 2:2), when God was finished with his work. If that statement is correct, we have an apparently irreconcilable conflict with the findings of modern science, which claims evidence for deep time (billions of years).

                                Could that exegesis by YECs be wrong? If so, what is the correct exegesis?


                                Is there any argument against regarding Genesis 1:1-2 as a summary (or, if you like, executive summary)?

                                One argument against the YEC exegesis is that God is timeless (forever and ever; if you like, out of time). The universe's creation had to occur in an infinitesimal instant. Any planning, any decision for the universe, had to be done in that instant.

                                [I think that's enough of a start for now. I may have more argument later.]
                                Why not simply science? why should there need be a correct exegesis for the description of creation in ancient literature, for which there are many different from different ancient cultures of the world? All these creation stories are simply the limited understanding of 'How things happened?' from the perspective of ancient literature. Besides it is actually how they believed it happened, and not figuratively, nor allegorically, nor intended it to be shoe horned into modern science.
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-27-2014, 12:36 PM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                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