Will You Go on Record

[klaus54]

More of your "original" thinking, I see.

I'd bet you haven't had an original thought in a 'coon's age.

Jorge

Just holding the mirror up in front of your projector lens.

Speaking of a 'coon's age -- are you and your YEC Bible-God compadre JR now going to posit a Raccoon in the Roadian?

K54

[klaus54]

You are a ROYAL BORE, Santa Klaus.



Jorge

And you, Sir, are most entertaining!

YOU are a ROYAL JESTER, as it were.

Dont'cha need to change the projector lamp soon?

K54

[klaus54]

I am trying to figure out how it go down.

I predict headline,

'SCIENTISTS RETHINK DATING'
A rock which was assumed to be 'Precambrian' has been misdated according to scientists.
"We know the rock cannot be "Precambrian" because of its traces of bunny rabbit fossilization, and we know mammals did not exist in the Precambrian...
and we know it is not unusual for a mistake to have occurred on that particular rock..."

As one scientist put it, "we date a lot of rocks, and we know, occasionally human error or malfunction will cause an incorrect date, ...and that is why we depend on a consilience of the evidence, the appearance of bunny rabbit fossils helped us to correct the dating on the rock!"

JR,

Do you have an explanation for why a Cambrian Coney has never be found?

A fortiori, what's the YEC Bible God "History not Science" explanation for no pollen in the geologic column below the Cretaceous? Heck, that's MUCH more likely to be found than a Opossum in the Ordovician.

No need for headlines. YEC Bible-God "History not Science" has been dead-as-doorknob since 1800.

We might as well have tomorrow's headline be "Beauregard's Artillery Bombards Fort Sumter!"

Your Fideist Fantasy thread has been fun though.

K54

[klaus54]

Beagle "Bozo" Boy opens his pie-hole once again!

Never fear, you remain the standard by which I measure all dishonesty here on TWeb.

Jorge

What's dishonest about reminding you of a question that you refused to answer in the past?

It's annoying to you of course, but definitely NOT "dishonest".

Does a drooling adherence to a risible Genesis interpretation cause one to misunderstand common words?

If so, it helps to explain lots of wacky Jorgian YEC logic.

K54

[jordanriver]

Continued avoidance it is then.

Roy

Not how I see it.
it's the same as your "...with the understanding that it's genuine. .."

[Roy]

So, for the final time, will you go on record as stating what genuine evidence, if any, would be necessary to cause you to rethink your beliefs?

Or will you continue to avoid doing what you request of others?

the word "compelling" is SUFFICIENT.

IF the any evidence convinced me Jesus never ascended to 'Heaven',
then why would I bother with the Bible anymore.

I could just go back to where I left off and assume my 'born-again' event was just some delusion.

Continued avoidance it is then.

Roy

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah ... right ... whatever.

I did arrive at a decision: Terror and Roy should be equally ranked.
That decision is the one that best correlates with reality.

Translation: "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, THE KNOWER OF ALL THERE IS!"

And thus, Jorge just shows his real issue is people disagreeing with him and daring to show his assertions are wrong.

[HMS_Beagle]

buk buk BWAAAAAK! BWAAAAAK! buk buk buk BWAAAAAK!

Jorge, what caused the formation of Barringer Meteor Create in Arizona?

If you don't know just say so, no need to cluck your beak off.

[jordanriver]

I would bet the farm ten times over - make that one-hundred times over - that if any such thing were to ever happen, (1) it would be covered up or, (2) if it couldn't be covered up then one of the Evo-Faithful would concoct some 'just-so story' to save the day for Evolutionism.

Let us never forget the historical cases where this has already happened, my favorite example being E&G's Punctuated Equilibrium concoction. Nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g that is pulled out of the ground has a snowball's chance in Hell of disproving Evolutionism. As I have said a thousand times before, this isn't about empirical science, this is about ideological belief.

Jorge

I am trying to figure out how it go down.

I predict headline,

'SCIENTISTS RETHINK DATING'
A rock which was assumed to be 'Precambrian' has been misdated according to scientists.
"We know the rock cannot be "Precambrian" because of its traces of bunny rabbit fossilization, and we know mammals did not exist in the Precambrian...
and we know it is not unusual for a mistake to have occurred on that particular rock..."

As one scientist put it, "we date a lot of rocks, and we know, occasionally human error or malfunction will cause an incorrect date, ...and that is why we depend on a consilience of the evidence, the appearance of bunny rabbit fossils helped us to correct the dating on the rock!"

[Jorge]

Punk Eek is an explanation that fits the fossil record where long periods of stasis are interlaced with periods of "rapid" evolution.

What's the Jorgian YEC explanation for these observations?

K54

P.S. FYI, just in case y'all hadn't noticed, Jor's final sentence is an example of his mastery of projection.

You are a ROYAL BORE, Santa Klaus.



Jorge

[Jorge]

Replace Darwinism with Jorgian YECism, and send it right back at'cha.

K%4

More of your "original" thinking, I see.

I'd bet you haven't had an original thought in a 'coon's age.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, what caused the formation of Barringer Meteor Create in Arizona?

Beagle "Bozo" Boy opens his pie-hole once again!

Never fear, you remain the standard by which I measure all dishonesty here on TWeb.

Jorge

[jordanriver]

No, I don't. Nor does anything I have said in this thread indicate any such thing.

I would expect you to be initially skeptical; to demand full details; to wait for further investigation; to withhold judgment until a solid case was made. You could even refuse to accept any evidence until it was confirmed by the pope.

But that's irrelevant here, because the question is not the quality or authenticity of the evidence, but what that evidence consists of.

You asked those accepting evolution to go on record that finding a Cambrian rabbit would cause them to rethink their worldview. Many did, some with qualifications regarding species or number of 'rabbits'.
Not one chose to question the authenticity of the evidence; all answered on the understanding that it was genuine.

But when I ask you to go on record stating what evidence would cause you to rethink your worldview, you start querying whether the evidence is uncompelling, and whether it might be questionable. That's evasion.

This isn't a question of sides. It wouldn't matter whether the Cambrian rabbit was unearthed by Ken Ham, Ken Miller or Ken Dodd, the answer would be the same. Sure, if some-one like Kent Hovind made the claim there would be a lot more skepticism, but since we're talking about a genuine Cambrian rabbit here, not a shabby fraud, it would ultimately make no difference. But if you think the identity of the discoverer makes a difference to whether genuine evidence is acceptable, feel free to assume that any evidence has been personally unearthed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and verified by the chief rabbi, the council of elders of the United Church, the reincarnated souls of Ghandi and Mother Theresa, and whoever becomes the new global caliph.

So, for the final time, will you go on record as stating what genuine evidence, if any, would be necessary to cause you to rethink your beliefs?

Or will you continue to avoid doing what you request of others?

Roy

the word "compelling" is SUFFICIENT.

IF the any evidence convinced me Jesus never ascended to 'Heaven',
then why would I bother with the Bible anymore.

I could just go back to where I left off and assume my 'born-again' event was just some delusion.

[klaus54]

...
Let us never forget the historical cases where this has already happened, my favorite example being E&G's Punctuated Equilibrium concoction. Nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g that is pulled out of the ground has a snowball's chance in Hell of disproving Evolutionism. As I have said a thousand times before, this isn't about empirical science, this is about ideological belief.

Jorge

Punk Eek is an explanation that fits the fossil record where long periods of stasis are interlaced with periods of "rapid" evolution.

What's the Jorgian YEC explanation for these observations?

K54

P.S. FYI, just in case y'all hadn't noticed, Jor's final sentence is an example of his mastery of projection.

[Roy]

Your side didn't roll over the minute somebody claimed human footprints with dinosaurs.

Yet you expect my side to accept a claim without question.

No, I don't. Nor does anything I have said in this thread indicate any such thing.

I would expect you to be initially skeptical; to demand full details; to wait for further investigation; to withhold judgment until a solid case was made. You could even refuse to accept any evidence until it was confirmed by the pope.

But that's irrelevant here, because the question is not the quality or authenticity of the evidence, but what that evidence consists of.

You asked those accepting evolution to go on record that finding a Cambrian rabbit would cause them to rethink their worldview. Many did, some with qualifications regarding species or number of 'rabbits'.
Not one chose to question the authenticity of the evidence; all answered on the understanding that it was genuine.

But when I ask you to go on record stating what evidence would cause you to rethink your worldview, you start querying whether the evidence is uncompelling, and whether it might be questionable. That's evasion.

sorry, but I don't trust the people on your side any more than you trust the people on my side.

This isn't a question of sides. It wouldn't matter whether the Cambrian rabbit was unearthed by Ken Ham, Ken Miller or Ken Dodd, the answer would be the same. Sure, if some-one like Kent Hovind made the claim there would be a lot more skepticism, but since we're talking about a genuine Cambrian rabbit here, not a shabby fraud, it would ultimately make no difference. But if you think the identity of the discoverer makes a difference to whether genuine evidence is acceptable, feel free to assume that any evidence has been personally unearthed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and verified by the chief rabbi, the council of elders of the United Church, the reincarnated souls of Ghandi and Mother Theresa, and whoever becomes the new global caliph.

So, for the final time, will you go on record as stating what genuine evidence, if any, would be necessary to cause you to rethink your beliefs?

Or will you continue to avoid doing what you request of others?

Roy