Holding their feet to the fire ...

[lilpixieofterror]

If we have no idea what was "really meant" by scripture until independent and outside evidence is sufficient to tell, then what does scripture contribute? Again, I'm baffled. If scripture says a few days, and we now know it was a few billion years, sure we can go back and "reinterpret" days to mean billions of years. But scripture added more to our confusion and misunderstanding than it did to our knowledge - unless we're restricting it to applying to our knowledge of the mythology of a long-lost culture.

Phank, start here, what were the two positions of the age of the earth, pre scientific revolution?

[Truthseeker]

If we have no idea what was "really meant" by scripture until independent and outside evidence is sufficient to tell, then what does scripture contribute? Again, I'm baffled. If scripture says a few days, and we now know it was a few billion years, sure we can go back and "reinterpret" days to mean billions of years. But scripture added more to our confusion and misunderstanding than it did to our knowledge - unless we're restricting it to applying to our knowledge of the mythology of a long-lost culture.

The Hebrew word that is translated to the English word "day" ("yom") may have been mistranslated. In English "day" sometimes means the sun-up part of the 24-hour cycle of day and night, but "yom," according to someone named Whitefield, sometimes means an indefinite period of time; conceivably, billions of years.

[Jorge]

Misrepresentation? Better check that English/Spanish dictionary again.

You position is itself both inconsistent and poorly defined. Purposefully so. Your insistence Genesis 1 can't possibly be anything but literal with direct application to scientific inquiry is not based on ANY self-consistent hermeneutic. And therein lies the problem. You can claim misrepresentation regardless of what is said about your approach, because a fixed definition of your approach simply doesn't exist. It is what you want it to be in the moment, and it is necessarily, in that moment, somehow not properly characterized by whatever logic would be used to show its flaws.

Nevertheless, I use the example of Jesus assurance He is coming soon to make the point that sometimes God does NOT speak clearly to His disciples even when that will cause them to act rashly and even perhaps harmfully based on their misunderstanding of what has been said. The only clarification we have is that after some extended time had passed and Jesus had NOT returned (physical evidence outside the direct words of God), the disciples began to apply what they knew about God to Jesus' words to help people understand why the 'plain' meaning of those words might be expected NOT to be the 'correct' meaning of them!

This is no different that reading Psalms 90:4 and realizing the 'days' of Genesis 1 might not necessarily be 'days' as we understanding them in light of what we know about the age of the Earth (physical evidence).

So the idea that God 'would not' reveal creation in a way that was somehow not straightforward is itself fundamentally flawed. And the idea that physical evidence outside what is said in scripture should not be folded into our understanding of the text is ALSO fundamentally flawed.


Jim

Goebbels would have been proud to name you as his second-in-command.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Easy. The Kitzmiller trial provides a good example, where references to 'creationism' were deliberately changed to 'intelligent design' in order to make an end run around th elaw on educational materials. But there's an even better example - the 'Cornell' conference, where the religious beliefs of the presenters were deliberately and rigorously suppressed:

The BINPS at Cornell University was a purely scientific conference, with no public elements of religion in the presentations or discussion. However, there was a great deal of fruitful private dialogue involving philosophical, theological, and teleological implications among presenters and attendees during our free time. The coordinators decision to eliminate any public religious content was understandable given their sincere commitment as a group to trace only the "science" evidence to its best and most logical conclusion"

"Every paper was scrutinized to be/remain science ... pure science."

So yes, Jorge, you are wrong, and you are lying. You know that religious beliefs were suppressed at that conference. You were there.

Roy

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztt !!! Pay a buck and try again, Duffus.

We were talking about BIBLICAL CREATIONIST ORGANIZATIONS such as AiG, ICR, CMI and so on. The Kitzmiller trial did NOT involve any such organization - no such organization was even present at the trial. Most of the ID community (which were involved in that trial) are OEC. Get a clue.

As for the Cornell event, like you said, I was there. The SCIENTIFIC papers were just that - SCIENTIFIC. What each of us held and/or discussed in private is an entirely different matter. Nonetheless, no one at any time hid their religious beliefs. You're mixing apples with aardvarks, Dodo.

Like I said, pay the lady a buck and do try again.

Jorge

[Jorge]

More of your drooling stupidity, eh Jorge? If they are my 'allies' can you explain why I have so many debates with atheist/humanist if they are my 'allies'? Also, can you explain why many of your fellow YEC's hold you at arms length and even join others in mocking you? The reality is that you've made YEC into the center of your faith instead of Christ and keep debating that if you're not a YEC; you can't be a 'true Christian'. Can you please find where any creed of the church agrees with your insane notion?



There you are, making excuses for groups that you agree with while condemning others for doing the same thing. Too bad that AiG and these other groups make their construction workers sign something saying they are YEC's eh? I somehow doubt most places really care if their construction workers or janitors are YEC's or not. Why does AiG care so much? Dodging the question and calling me a bunch of names doesn't make the question disappear Jorge. Are you going to answer it already or is piles of insults all you got left?



Sorry Jorge, but AiG promotes plenty of unscientific ideas along with the rest of those groups you list. You keep calling it 'lies', but you fail to prove, over and over again, how it is lies or where these other groups are wrong. Do you think repeating yourself over and over again and just ignoring that you haven't actually demonstrated what you claim will make you look better?



I wasn't aware that Christendom hinged on the age of the earth. Are you reading the Jorge Authorized Version again, which you just add in things you want to hear and ignore anything and everything that proves you wrong? Go ahead Jorge, name for everybody what doctrine of the faith hinges on the age of the earth. I'm waiting or are you just going to call me a bunch of names again and pretend that is an answer?



Irony at its finest. Can you show me where the NCSE requires its construction workers to sign letters saying they have to be evolutionist to build for them or do they not really care, as long as their a competent builders? Does having non YEC's build things for AiG somehow bring the entire project to its knees? Your hypocrisy is quite amusing to watch, in action. You make excuses for groups you agree with, while condemning groups who you disagree with. How amusing.




I've long been educated on your stupidity and inability to refute anything brought forth. YEC is the center of your faith, not Christ. And thus why disagreeing with YEC ideals, in your world view at least, is equal to disagreeing with God. Can you show where YEC should be place in importance that you place it in?

Okay, the contest is between you and O-Mudd for being named second-in-command to Goebbels. I'm quite sure that he would have had a devil of a time choosing between you and O-Mudd for that position. Bwahahaha

Jorge

[Roy]

We were talking about BIBLICAL CREATIONIST ORGANIZATIONS such as AiG, ICR, CMI and so on. The Kitzmiller trial did NOT involve any such organization - no such organization was even present at the trial. Most of the ID community (which were involved in that trial) are OEC. Get a clue.

Just because you think old-earth creationists aren't biblical creationists doesn't mean that they don't consider themselves biblical creationists.

As for the Cornell event, like you said, I was there. The SCIENTIFIC papers were just that - SCIENTIFIC. What each of us held and/or discussed in private is an entirely different matter. Nonetheless, no one at any time hid their religious beliefs.

If religious beliefs were discussed in private but deliberately eliminated from the public record then they were, by definition, hidden. You have just confirmed that a group of creationists - which included you - suppressed their religious beliefs. Something you claimed never happens.

You lied.

Roy

[Jorge]

Just because you think old-earth creationists aren't biblical creationists doesn't mean that they don't consider themselves biblical creationists.

You are so fanatical about promoting your position that, like a mindless fool, you don't even think about what you're saying/writing. OEC's cannot - by definition - be Biblical Creationists because Biblical Creationists uphold the literal chronology of Genesis giving us an age of circa 6,000 years.

If religious beliefs were discussed in private but deliberately eliminated from the public record then they were, by definition, hidden. You have just confirmed that a group of creationists - which included you - suppressed their religious beliefs. Something you claimed never happens.

You lied. Roy

Yeah, sure ... change the rules of logic and sound reasoning just to make your point stand. That's a great strategy, RRRRoy. If you ever tried speaking the truth I'm quite sure that your tongue would spontaneously burst into flames and then explode so it's best if you just continue with your lies.

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

Okay, the contest is between you and O-Mudd for being named second-in-command to Goebbels. I'm quite sure that he would have had a devil of a time choosing between you and O-Mudd for that position. Bwahahaha

Nice one Jorge. Ignore all of your errors, ignore that you misrepresented everything I say or believe, ignore your hypocrisy, and tie it all up with the not so subtle link to the Nazi's and you got another rant filled, substance free, post by Jorge. Now do you care to address your failed arguments now or do you think calling me enough names will make all those nasty argument and fact things disappear into a puff of smoke?

[lilpixieofterror]

You are so fanatical about promoting your position that, like a mindless fool, you don't even think about what you're saying/writing. OEC's cannot - by definition - be Biblical Creationists because Biblical Creationists uphold the literal chronology of Genesis giving us an age of circa 6,000 years.

And yet, Augustine didn't think that at all, so I guess Augustine wasn't a 'true Christian', eh? Back to bodly declaring that only YEC's are 'True Christians', eh?

[Roy]

You are so fanatical about promoting your position that, like a mindless fool, you don't even think about what you're saying/writing. OEC's cannot - by definition - be Biblical Creationists because Biblical Creationists uphold the literal chronology of Genesis giving us an age of circa 6,000 years.

By your definition. Not by theirs. OECs do not consider their views to be unbiblical.

If religious beliefs were discussed in private but deliberately eliminated from the public record then they were, by definition, hidden. You have just confirmed that a group of creationists - which included you - suppressed their religious beliefs. Something you claimed never happens.

You lied.

Yeah, sure ... change the rules of logic and sound reasoning just to make your point stand. That's a great strategy, RRRRoy. If you ever tried speaking the truth I'm quite sure that your tongue would spontaneously burst into flames and then explode so it's best if you just continue with your lies.

So you have no actual refutation, just vague and empty allegations. My evidence that you lied stands.

If you wish to claim I am lying, provide evidence that I stated something I knew was false, as I did above for you. Otherwise you are violating TWeb terms.

Roy

[rogue06]

You are so fanatical about promoting your position that, like a mindless fool, you don't even think about what you're saying/writing. OEC's cannot - by definition - be Biblical Creationists because Biblical Creationists uphold the literal chronology of Genesis giving us an age of circa 6,000 years.

Actually OECs most definitely think that their beliefs are in accord with what the Bible expressly says. You are once again confusing the overly narrow, woodenly literal YEC interpretation of what we read in Scripture with the Biblical account itself. They are not the same thing no matter how often you claim otherwise.

What's more while you are so quick to wrap yourself in the mantle of the term "Biblical Creationist" as if that somehow in some way gives your position more legitimacy and authority, as has been explained to you multiple times the person who coined the term would not consider you a Biblical Creationist.

Henry Morris, regarded by his fellow YECs as the "father of the modern Creationist movement," was the one to come up with the term and he defined it as someone who only uses the Bible to support his view of creationism. Since you also attempt to use science to support your nonsense Morris would say you weren't a Biblical Creationist. He called folks like you Scientific Biblical Creationists.

Just something to keep in mind the next time you decide to try to set limits on who is and isn't a Biblical Creationist.

That's a great strategy, RRRRoy.

Calm down Jorge. You're getting so upset you're stuttering.

[rogue06]

And yet, Augustine didn't think that at all, so I guess Augustine wasn't a 'true Christian', eh? Back to bodly declaring that only YEC's are 'True Christians', eh?

While several of the Early Church Fathers held that the creation account described six literal, sequential 24 hour long days, many did not. Augustine is perhaps the best known. A number, for various reasons, held that each day represented a thousand years in length.

[rogue06]

Okay, the contest is between you and O-Mudd for being named second-in-command to Goebbels. I'm quite sure that he would have had a devil of a time choosing between you and O-Mudd for that position. Bwahahaha

Jorge

As usual Jorge does a face plant in his response. Completely unable to refute anything stated he squawks out an insult or two and acts like it was somehow an intelligent response. Abraham Lincoln offered some sage advice in such matters:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Of course you could demonstrate I'm wrong and show that NCSE requires construction workers and the like to accept evolutionary theory before they can be employed by them. But let's face it, you know they don't. That sort of behavior is limited to paranoid fanatics who seem so insecure in their beliefs they fear that some guy laying dry wall might shake up their beliefs.

[Jorge]

And yet, Augustine didn't think that at all, so I guess Augustine wasn't a 'true Christian', eh? Back to bodly declaring that only YEC's are 'True Christians', eh?

I have been kind and gentlemanly in asking you to NOT misrepresent my position. By your continuous refusal to do so, is it that you are WANTING me to get nasty? Is that your objective? Go on, tell me here and now.

You rank high here in TWeb on the list of Ignorance and also on the list of Irrational/Illogical - I have mentioned that to you more than once. In the above post you provide additional evidence supporting my claim.

As for your bringing up Augustine (as Theistic Evolutionists often do in ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty) below is an excerpt from an article (link below that). But first let me just say that if you people stuck to the facts about Augustine and his beliefs - instead of the created fictions, distortions and misrepresentations regarding him - then you would wisely never bring him up again in defense of your heretical beliefs.

Note that this article is from 2009 and these facts have been known for a lot longer than that which is why the only two possible defenses for you people are IGNORANCE or DISHONESTY. No third alternative exists.

"As his theology matured, Augustine abandoned his earlier allegorizations of Genesis that old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists have latched onto in an attempt to justify adding deep time to the Bible. Furthermore, he always believed in a young earth."

Link to article: http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist


There -- you may no longer use the "ignorance" excuse.

Jorge

[Roy]

Actually, it's worse than that. They also oblige anyone who takes one of their courses to sign such documents before the course begins. IOW, their students have to agree with their tutors' ideas before knowing what the 'evidence' for those ideas is.

You're a brainwashed blathering buffoon, RRRRoy.

And if that weren't enough, your statement is extremely dishonest in that it doesn't reveal the complete picture.

Ok, so what piece(s) of the picture am I not revealing? Let's see:

Not to mention the fact that if a person is to work for, say, NCSE, ...

Ok, so Jorge can't think of any. Looks like Jorge is spreading galliturd as usual.

So let's look at the complete picture. This is from the ICR's admissions website:

General Requirements for Admission into the B.C.Ed. Program
Written testimony showing belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Savior, as well as showing belief in the Holy Bible as the written Word of God
Evidence of high school education completion, preferable with written evidence of serious study and/or ministry service activies that are focused on the Holy Bible and the Great Commision
Full payment of the non-refundable application processing fee
Demonstrated mastery of English (e.g., as shown by the application process)
(www.icr.org/tenets)
Two references (academic, workplace, church, ministry or personal)
Adequate technical skills and computer equipment for using Microsoft Word

And those tenets include this:

There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.

Students applying to the ICR have to agree that there is evidence that the Earth is young and that rocks were laid down by the flood before taking the courses on Global Flood Evidences and Creationist Analysis of the Age of the Earth.

Roy