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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    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).
    Jorge falls back on his only argument: "the Bible is 100% true because the Bible says it is 100% true"

    Utter nonsense! Beyond saying that, I'll not dignify your rank intellectual dishonesty any further.
    We both know you have no scientific evidence to back up your big mouthed claims so you run away. Same as always.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      Jorge falls back on his only argument: "the Bible is 100% true because the Bible says it is 100% true"
      And if he knew how to read, he would know that the Bible makes no such claim.
      1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
        Ambiguous, yes; unspecific in a few ways, yes. But it seems to me you are quibbling.


        Please explain in unambiguous, specific detail.


        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?
        Genius,

        Ask a YEC these questions. They're the ones who claim an unambiguous reading of the Genesis stories. Not me. They are so cock-sure that they're right that they call it a "reading" rather than "interpretation". But of course NONE of them have an unambiguous reading.

        Personally I take the ANE historical-critical approach -- which by far makes the most sense and is the clear "literal" interpretation.

        Your fiddling around with various concordist approaches is NOT my point. I would wager I know them better than you do. I've been in this game a LONG time and have a very good science background.

        K54

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          And if he knew how to read, he would know that the Bible makes no such claim.
          And if he had a lot more Bible knowledge, he would know that the Bible is a compilation of many books over long periods of time, and the NT canon wasn't jelled at least until the second century A.D.

          Fundies like Jorge are bad scientists and bad theologians and bad church historians.

          K54
          Last edited by klaus54; 07-27-2014, 02:58 PM. Reason: addition of "he"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jorge 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.
            Wrong again! Man-oh-man, you are one consistent little devil, aren't you!
            Lying again, Jorge?

            Here is the talk.origins FAQ summary page, with links to more in-depth discussion. For example:

            Q: Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
            A: No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.


            Here is your dishonest drivel, which responds to the above thus:

            Q: “Don’t you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?”
            A: “No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity.”
            R: Two points here...


            Note that Jorge has omitted the links - despite claiming to have quoted the FAQ answers "verbatim" - exactly as I stated. Jorge's 'response' to this question concludes:

            The Bible contains numerous other assertions that cannot be reasonably answered under the paradigm of evolution unless the Bible receives ‘special’ interpretation—the kind that denigrates the historical validity of the biblical record in order to accommodate popular contemporary beliefs. This then is the bottom line: the Bible has to be distorted in order to accommodate the edicts of evolution. TO never mentions any of this, preferring instead to shamelessly assert that evolution and Christianity are somehow ‘compatible.’.

            But one of the links Jorge omitted contains a list of the re-interpretations Jorge claims are never mentioned. So not only did Jorge omit the links, he then criticised the talk.origins FAQ for not mentioning areas they had actually referred to. Jorge's article was and is dishonest drivel, and he has no response except empty bluster and coccydynia.

            Roy

            P.S. It's worth mentioning that once on the pre-crash when 'quoting' his drivel Jorge reinserted the references to specific FAQs that his drivel omits. Jorge doesn't even quote himself honestly.
            Last edited by Roy; 07-27-2014, 02:41 PM. Reason: added PS
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

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

            Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
              Jorge falls back on his only argument: "the Bible is 100% true because the Bible says it is 100% true"
              I don't think the Bible even says that.

              Roy

              Aargh! Ninjaed.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

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

              Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                I don't think the Bible even says that.

                Roy

                Aargh! Ninjaed.
                I believe the Fundies usually refer to II Timothy 3:16.

                Originally posted by II Tim 3:16, AKJV1611
                All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
                I see no mention of it being a "profitable" guide to understanding how nature works.

                Bzzzzzzttt!!!

                K54

                P.S. I know this is irrelevant to the Genesis creation stories, but Paul's letter to Timothy was written long before the NT canon was ossified.

                Comment


                • #38
                  FYI, here's the trueorigin.org article "Deception by Omission" by the expert Deceiver by Omission himself.

                  http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    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."
                    You've mentioned before that you use the KJV. The author of the linked PDF says that the KJV is faulty. What did you do with such a claim if at all--go to the original Hebrew at least with Genesis to determine to your own satisfaction that such a claim is wrong? If you say you do not read the Bible in the original languages--or if you do not read Genesis in the original language (ancient Hebrew)--I want to ask you specific questions about what the PDF author says.
                    Last edited by Truthseeker; 07-27-2014, 04:57 PM.
                    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                    [T]he truth Im after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                      Jorge falls back on his only argument: "the Bible is 100% true because the Bible says it is 100% true"
                      I was under the impression that the Dodo had gone extinct. Beagle Boy proves me wrong.

                      The Bible does indeed say that it is 100% true but it's not just the Bible that testifies to that. Millions upon millions of people's lives throughout history also serve as a witness. Fulfilled prophesy also serves as a witness. Historical correlations also serve as a witness. But the Dodo keeps denying it all.



                      We both know you have no scientific evidence to back up your big mouthed claims so you run away. Same as always.
                      Yeah, sure ... whatever you say, Dodo.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        You've mentioned before that you use the KJV. The author of the linked PDF says that the KJV is faulty. What did you do with such a claim if at all--go to the original Hebrew at least with Genesis to determine to your own satisfaction that such a claim is wrong? If you say you do not read the Bible in the original languages--or if you do not read Genesis in the original language (ancient Hebrew)--I want to ask you specific questions about what the PDF author says.
                        I once conducted a fairly intensive 7-plus-year study on English translations of the Bible. When I concluded that the AKJV1611 is the 'best', it wasn't just because I felt like it. BTW, I plan (someday soon, I hope) to update my study.

                        As for what you wish to ask, go ahead. Depending on how much effort / time is required to answer, I'll at least try. If it's too much, I'll let you know (some of these thing simply cannot be adequately answered without a 'dissertation-length' treatment.

                        For starters, I immediately knew that the PDF author was somewhere out in left field (and may not even know it) because of his reference to, and use of, the Septuagint. As you may know, the Hebrew source texts used for the Septuagint differ from the Masoretic Hebrew texts (chosen as Canonical by the Jewish rabbis). I believe that God has preserved His Word for us (as best as possible, all things considered) via the Masoretic texts. There's a looooooong story behind that. Bottom line: since the PDF author uses the Septuagint then he is bound to arrive at conclusions that I would consider faulty.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          I once conducted a fairly intensive 7-plus-year study on English translations of the Bible. When I concluded that the AKJV1611 is the 'best', it wasn't just because I felt like it. BTW, I plan (someday soon, I hope) to update my study.

                          As for what you wish to ask, go ahead. Depending on how much effort / time is required to answer, I'll at least try. If it's too much, I'll let you know (some of these thing simply cannot be adequately answered without a 'dissertation-length' treatment.

                          For starters, I immediately knew that the PDF author was somewhere out in left field (and may not even know it) because of his reference to, and use of, the Septuagint. As you may know, the Hebrew source texts used for the Septuagint differ from the Masoretic Hebrew texts (chosen as Canonical by the Jewish rabbis). I believe that God has preserved His Word for us (as best as possible, all things considered) via the Masoretic texts. There's a looooooong story behind that. Bottom line: since the PDF author uses the Septuagint then he is bound to arrive at conclusions that I would consider faulty.
                          Behold, a person who is able to spot a weak place in an argument within milliseconds and attack it with all the savagery of a hungry orca.

                          Do you agree that Genesis 1:1-2 does not preclude deep time? I think a while ago you did grudgingly allow that. If you do, we can then move on to the rest of the chapter.
                          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                          [T]he truth Im after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            As you may know, the Hebrew source texts used for the Septuagint differ from the Masoretic Hebrew texts
                            And the Samaritan texts, which aren't even written in Hebrew, and have a stronger line of provenance to the Paleo-Hebrew texts that predate all of them.

                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                            Behold, a person who is able to spot a weak place in an argument within milliseconds and attack it with all the savagery of a grungy ocarina.
                            FIFY NC
                            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I like the LXX since it was translated by Rabbis who were fluent in both Koine Greek and Ancient Hebrew, so I would assume the result is very good -- plus they were hundreds of years closer to the putative history than say St. Jerome and his Vulgate.

                              The Vulgate of course translated "raqia" as "firmamentum" just as the LXX translates it "stereoma" (something solid.) And of course the meaning of raqia is a huge point of contention for Jorgian YECs.

                              I have no idea why on Earth Fundies prefer the AJKV1611.

                              It's yet another example of Jorge's recalcitrant ignorance and arrogance.

                              K54

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                The Bible does indeed say that it is 100% true but it's not just the Bible that testifies to that. Millions upon millions of people's lives throughout history also serve as a witness. Fulfilled prophesy also serves as a witness. Historical correlations also serve as a witness. But the Dodo keeps denying it all.
                                Jorge trots out his second dumbest argument: "since some parts of the Bible are historically accurate that means ALL of the Bible must be historically accurate".

                                That's how we know Godzilla was a real 300' tall monster, because Tokyo is a real place. Right Jorge?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 01-07-2022, 08:37 PM
                                2 responses
                                25 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 01-07-2022, 08:59 AM
                                23 responses
                                139 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-02-2022, 01:44 PM
                                7 responses
                                37 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 12-31-2021, 10:07 AM
                                5 responses
                                68 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-28-2021, 09:58 AM
                                5 responses
                                30 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Working...
                                X