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

Holding their feet to the fire ...

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

  • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    Looks like Jorge is just going to ignore me and hope his error disappears into a puff of smoke. When you can't answer, closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming, "Lalalala! I can't hear you!" is a nice alternative.
    "Ignore"??? "Error"???
    My last reply to you was clear as a church bell.
    I'm sorry about your reading comprehension handicap.
    Edited by a Moderator

    Jorge

    Moderated By: Littlejoe

    Jorge, we have repeatedly asked you to stop accusing others of "being under the influence". This needs to stop immediately. Also do not complain in this thread about moderation, take it to the Psychotherapy Room or PM a Mod

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by Littlejoe; 10-02-2014, 09:06 PM.

    Comment


    • Been away for a few days.

      I can't believe we're still discussing YEC.

      This is bizzaro world.

      Pure and simple.

      K54

      P.S. Jorge, since YEC has been thoroughly falsified, and since according to the Jorgian/Cerebrian123/JorganRiverine/Herr Schwarzian Bible-God Interpretation it's conditio sine qua non for True Christianity(tm), is it time for me to convert to Dawkinsian Atheism?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Be Augustine's position "instantaneous", "6 seconds", "12 minutes" or "6 thousand years" - the point remains clear that he was NO friend to Theistic Evolutionists or Old Earth Creationists yet YOU PEOPLE time and time again quote him out of context / without exposing the TRUE picture. You yourself have done this many, many times over the years here at TWeb. Are you FINALLY repenting and correcting? That would be a good step.
        Jorge, them implications of Augustine's treatment of Genesis and his words on the subject stand in opposition to the YEC approach, and lend support to any approach that recognizes those words are NOT directed and producing a scientific/literal understanding of the mechanism for creation. Augustine accepted the non-literal nature of the days, he understood the implications of spouting what would amount to nonsense derived from an overly literal reading relative to confirmed natural knowledge.

        And his words on these issues you would do well to heed.



        Don't trying to toss in a distraction. The point was that many, many Biblical Creationists are experts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin ... etc. And it is by drawing upon that expertise combined with decades of study that their conclusions validate the Biblical Creationist position. What my own studies have revealed is that ONLY by distorting the Bible in some way (as I have defined the term "distort") can a person retain megayears/gigayears in their "Christian" theology. Tap dance all you want, you cannot escape that reality.

        Jorge

        Jorge, you are ignoring the fact that there are many elements of Biblical interpretation which can only be properly realized by accommodating knowledge outside the text itself. The extremely metaphorical nature of Jesus promise to return 'soon' being one of them. But also, and more directly, the real STRUCTURE of the cosmos and the relationship of the Earth to the sun over and against the LITERAL meaning of the OT text as it describes elements of the same.

        SINCE we KNOW the scriptures speak according to cultural convention as it describes the physical world, it is FOOLHARDY to adopt an interpretation that relies on the text NOT speaking according to cultural convention!


        Jim
        My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          I had ALREADY named two of them, Phankestein, thus proving once again your handicap in reading for comprehension. After you've reached a 5th-grade level of reading feel free to post again. Until then I suggest you remain quiet.

          Jorge
          Did that reply make you happier than just repeating the names?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            SINCE we KNOW the scriptures speak according to cultural convention as it describes the physical world, it is FOOLHARDY to adopt an interpretation that relies on the text NOT speaking according to cultural convention!


            Jim
            An excellent point. The authors of scripture wrote what they knew. It's not like they had a source of inspiration for something outside their cultural conventions.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by phank View Post
              An excellent point. The authors of scripture wrote what they knew. It's not like they had a source of inspiration for something outside their cultural conventions.
              Of course they did! There just isn't proof of it to be found by trying to use the Bible to construct scientific theories. That is not its purpose.


              Jim
              My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                Of course they did! There just isn't proof of it to be found by trying to use the Bible to construct scientific theories. That is not its purpose.


                Jim
                There might be a difference between people writing what they thought they knew about, and people writing externally-inspired material entirely consistent with what they thought they knew, but the distinction between the indetectible and the nonexistent is probably too subtle for me. Instead, I wonder: If they got all the science dead wrong, why should we place full confidence in their theology? After all, they had the same inspiration for both, did they not?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  Of course they did! There just isn't proof of it to be found by trying to use the Bible to construct scientific theories. That is not its purpose.


                  Jim
                  I think I agree.
                  The Bible's 'HOW TO' refers to salvation.

                  It's not there to 'scientifically' deduce what happened or how things happen.

                  It mostly tells us WHAT HAPPENED.

                  It's History makes a good TEST, though, to test other scientific "theories".

                  My position is, if somebody comes up with some interesting theory,
                  My response would be:
                  "Saay, that's an interesting theory...
                  ....I wonder if that really happened. ..
                  ....I know! I'll go check MY BIBLE"

                  Usually I probably wouldn't find any conflict
                  Like, not with Faraday
                  Not with Newton
                  Not with Kepler OR Galileo

                  ....mostly not with Darwin
                  ....just a problem with Adam and Eve' creation
                  .....that's all....
                  To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    "Ignore"??? "Error"???
                    My last reply to you was clear as a church bell.
                    I'm sorry about your reading comprehension handicap.
                    You may also want to lay off the 'hard' stuff'.
                    I can actually read at a college level Jorge, so my reading comprehension skills are quite good, which is too bad for you. Now how do you explain claiming that you need to believing in a 6,000 year old earth to be a 'true Christian' vs your own source that says that Augustine didn't believe the earth would be around 6,000 years old today? Is Augustine not a 'true Christian', using your own arguments and source against you?
                    "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 phank View Post
                      But the "distraction" he tossed in was, you know, actual names of specialists. And you counter with "many many", naming none of them. And this is too bad, because I would really like to find a YEC expert in the ancient languages. Hopefully, they would use their knowledge of these languages and the cultures that spoke them, to do more than call everyone else idiots in them.
                      This may be a first, but I agree with BOTH Jorge and Jim on this.

                      An old friend of mine is a Hebrew scholar and a YEC. He knows the Hebrew language extremely well, and has studied the other pertinent ANE (ancient near eastern) cognate languages. But his expertise is restricted to language, and does not extend to ANE culture or archaeology. He discounts and rejects non-linguistic arguments such as those raised by John Walton or Paul Seely.
                      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        Explain why yom in the context of Genesis 1 must mean the 24 hour cycle (sunlit part followed by night or the other way around), despite evidence in the Bible that sometimes yom means the sunlit part of the 24-hour cycle ("day and night," where day is understood to be the sun-lit 12 hours) and other times it means an indefinite period of time if not preceded by a number as in, "40 yoms and 40 nights." Want to see more evidence? If so, I will have to buy Whitefield's book and read it. I believe I will be loaded for bear by the time I finish.
                        At least do some basic research before asking such ill-posed questions.
                        As resource assistance (all you'll need) I suggest the ICR, AiG and CMI websites.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by phank View Post
                          Did that reply make you happier than just repeating the names?

                          Somebody
                          has to point out your errors and I'm happy to assist in that function.

                          A better post from you would have been, "Oops, I missed that!" But heaven forbid that any
                          one of you jokers should ever concede a point - that amounts to defeat and expulsion from
                          the Evo-Faithful Flock.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by phank View Post
                            There might be a difference between people writing what they thought they knew about, and people writing externally-inspired material entirely consistent with what they thought they knew, but the distinction between the indetectible and the nonexistent is probably too subtle for me. Instead, I wonder: If they got all the science dead wrong, why should we place full confidence in their theology? After all, they had the same inspiration for both, did they not?
                            I would not assume that. When communicating important truths to an audience, one needs to make sure one does at least two things:

                            a) one communicates in a language the audience understands
                            b) one does not introduce 'rabbit trails' or 'side issues' that detract from the main point.

                            "a)" involves both language and culture. It is obvious that if one uses a different language from what the audience understands the point will be lost, but cultural conceptions, idioms, etc are also very important. If my idioms are all wrong, or my illustrations violate cultural standards or are complicated, my main point is lost

                            "b)" There is a lot of information in what we understand about the world that would have been both challenging and distracting to an ANE audience. Can you imagine the pre-Galileo debates and guffaws associated with the Earth declared as a round ball that floats in space and inexplicable orbits the Sun? And even if one could get past the challenges, those that took the information to heart would hardly be able to see the main point (i.e. these things the pagans worship are just things God made).

                            And there are other consequences. One is that IF the Bible had this provable scientific edge and accuracy, that is where the focus would be. Who would be believing because a dead guy is claimed to have risen from the dead? How could that CENTRAL truth of scripture REMAIN the key point in a situation like that? Just look at Jorge and so many others. How often do they ignore Christ's central teachings on truth and behavior just trying to prove the Bible can be viewed in this way? What would it be like if it REALLY was that way?

                            As it is, those of us that follow Christ, YEC, OEC, TE etc., MUST remain focused on Him regardless of our position on this issue. And as difficult as that is for those who want objective proof before they can believe, that is not what God requires or desires. He wants our focus to be Christ and Him crucified, and He wants us 'to believe' as opposed to 'to know'.

                            "For without Faith, it is impossible to please Him".

                            We must first believe, and then we can know Him, which is FAR more important that knowing about the things He has made.


                            Jim
                            My 'faith' designation is 'Christian'. But I do not want the label "Christian" leading to mockery of faith in Christ. Consequently, I apologize to those of you reading words of mine written here that reflect poorly on the what Faith in Christ means, or what Faith in Christ can in fact do in terms of bringing Grace, Mercy, and Love into the world.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              A better post from you would have been, "Oops, I missed that!"
                              Or you could insult everyone, try to divert attention, and then insult everyone again. Like Jorge would.

                              Roy
                              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


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                IAnd there are other consequences. One is that IF the Bible had this provable scientific edge and accuracy, that is where the focus would be. Who would be believing because a dead guy is claimed to have risen from the dead? How could that CENTRAL truth of scripture REMAIN the key point in a situation like that? Just look at Jorge and so many others. How often do they ignore Christ's central teachings on truth and behavior just trying to prove the Bible can be viewed in this way? What would it be like if it REALLY was that way?

                                As it is, those of us that follow Christ, YEC, OEC, TE etc., MUST remain focused on Him regardless of our position on this issue. And as difficult as that is for those who want objective proof before they can believe, that is not what God requires or desires. He wants our focus to be Christ and Him crucified, and He wants us 'to believe' as opposed to 'to know'.
                                I suppose Occam's Razor says that IF we deem that those ancient people wrote what they thought was true about both their world and their gods, because both fit neatly within their cultural models and idioms, this is orders of magnitude more plausible than to speculate that the theological stuff was somehow Absolute Truth, and all the rest was just cultural baggage. Especially when their cultural truths require belief in what we know ain't so. It's full of fantastical claims related third-hand (or worse), with the sources never provided -- that is, the flimsiest excuse for evidence possible, in support of claims which are so extraordinary as to require evidence as solid as anything on which science rests.

                                I'm not demanding objective proof of anything, I'm only suggesting that if someone were to tell you, today, that they knew someone who knew someone who knew someone (no names provided, so you can't check it out) who flapped his arms and flew to the moon, you might (in the further words of Mark Twain) see fit to gird your loins to doubt this tale. Alternatively, it might be honest to admit that you believe it because believing it makes you feel good, and has made many others feel good.

                                So I have this invisible friend, who "wants your focus to be on sensible skepticism of preposterous accounts". Should be good enough for you, right?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-23-2021, 02:51 PM
                                7 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2021, 07:42 AM
                                43 responses
                                202 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
                                19 responses
                                95 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
                                23 responses
                                87 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X