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

Will You Go on Record

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Before I respond to your post:

    I wrote "evolutionary theory", but you quoted me as writing "evolutioho honary theory". Why is that?

    Roy
    didn't notice it.
    My "smart phone" thinks it has to correct me
    ...but I didn't know it messes up direct quotes too.

    something else I'll have to double check
    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
      a thousand pardons.

      you say it like its a bad thing,
      nevertheless, I am going to try to remember not to use that 'D' word anymore.
      Why, thank you my Dear.

      "Darwinist" in the scientific sense, rather than in the sense used by evolution-mockers, refers specifically to Darwin's theory of common descent and speciation my natural selection. The modern theory of evolution is much deeper and well-founded than Darwin's.

      You also have to consider the even broader concepts of Historical Geology, which both preceded and subsumed Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory, with which it is entirely consilient.

      Uh oh -- there's that nasty "C"-word again!

      Also, just in case we ever DO find a Coney in the Cambrian - I mean that's actually lithified inside a stratum, your anti-evolution explanation would be...?

      K54

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
        didn't notice it.
        My "smart phone" thinks it has to correct me
        ...but I didn't know it messes up direct quotes too.

        something else I'll have to double check
        "Evolution Ho" -- Hey, you just might have come up with the new pejorative term for the evolution-mockers to use!

        Is Jorge reading this???

        K54

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
          Jorge, how was Meteor Crater in Arizona formed?
          1) Demons throwing boulders at Archangels in their great battle in the time between Ge 1:1 and 1:2. (Oops! YECs don't even accept the "gap" -- Sorry!)

          OR

          2) Flatulence from the giants that roamed the eretz before the time of Noah d'Ark.

          K54

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View Post
            What counts as a bunch? 5? 10? Graham's number?
            Well, since YEC has like an Avogadro's Number of counter-evidence, you should cut us evolution guys and gals a LITTLE slack.

            Thank you.

            K54

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
              A better interpretation of the Bible.
              I've 'adjusted' my worldview before and said the "I stand corrected"

              ....
              Yes, Historical Criticism -- trying to get it through the concrete crania of YECs that the ANE didn't understand science from Sen-Sens, that the message is theological for all time, and that the language is phenomenological.

              Duh...

              K54

              P.S. But you likely think Roman Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA), United Methodist, Anglican, etc., etc., etc. theologians and Bible scholars are misguided and spiritually-blinded fools.

              Fair enough.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                1) Demons throwing boulders at Archangels in their great battle in the time between Ge 1:1 and 1:2. (Oops! YECs don't even accept the "gap" -- Sorry!)

                OR

                2) Flatulence from the giants that roamed the eretz before the time of Noah d'Ark.

                K54
                Impact Craters: Alleged Creation Challenge to Biblical Creationism

                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Boy someone sounds bitter this morning. Get up on the wrong side of the bed? Mrs. Fernandez catch you dreaming about Eugenie Scott again?

                  You are either unwilling or incapable of understanding that all scientists, whatever field they are in, modify their theories as new data emerges. That is the way that science works. That is the way it is supposed to work.

                  If the new data cannot fit into the current theories those theories are either modified or in some cases scrapped altogether. But so far, despite desperate attempts by YECs and other evolution deniers, nothing has come along that has falsified evolutionary theory and forced it to be tossed aside for a better explanation.

                  There are a very few YECs who are honest enough to admit this. One would be the "baraminologist," Director of the Center for Origins Research and an Associate Professor of Science at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, Todd Wood. He wrote an article for his blog a couple years back where he tried to explain this:

                  Source: The truth about evolution


                  I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

                  Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

                  I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)



                  Source
                  *Emphases in the original*

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  I made sure to include a link so that anyone can see for themselves that I'm not selectively quoting him or altering his words in any way (one poster in this thread is quite notorious for doing both of these things). Still, he makes it clear despite saying that "evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory" that he still does not accept it -- he is a YEC after all. But even so Wood reiterated what he said roughly a year later.
                  This is interesting, it reminds me somewhat of Glen Morton's view. The post leaves me hanging to some extent as to where he was going with this . . .

                  I am reading more of his posts to try and see where this goes. So far it is mostly an attack on ICR and Creationist scientific proposals.

                  As I read further the confusion deepens. Todd's Blog becomes quite odd as far as his science goes. I will have to into this in another post.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-14-2014, 04:03 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


                  • #39
                    So craters in supposedly flood-deposited sediments were formed by events that preceded the flood?

                    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


                    • #40
                      Sure, now what would dislodge you from what you believe?
                      "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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post

                        P.S. But you likely think Roman Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA), United Methodist, Anglican, etc., etc., etc. theologians and Bible scholars are misguided and spiritually-blinded fools.

                        Fair enough.
                        not at all. We can learn from eachother.
                        When I first accepted that I had been wrong most of my life, and that the Bible really was the Word of God, I went to the extreme YEC position (this is THE FIRST TIME my Bible interpretation) , a day is a day is a day is a day...
                        a Catholic friend showed me in one of Peter's epistles (2nd one) the verse letting us know that "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day...."
                        So I stood (actually I was probably sitting down at the time) corrected , and considered that perhaps there is some flexibility.

                        When my Catholic friend insisted the True Church was founded on Peter, I showed him what my Pastor had explained to us , that when Jesus said "on this Rock I will build my church" He (Jesus) was referring to Himself (Jesus) , He called Peter "Petros" which means little rock or stone, and "on this Rock" was not the same 'Petros' but "Petra" which defined as a projecting rock, a planted major big rock
                        and my Catholic friend 'stood corrected'

                        (that was figure of speech, we were both sitting actually)
                        from other post 32
                        "Also, just in case we ever DO find a Coney in the Cambrian - I mean that's actually lithified inside a stratum, your anti-evolution explanation would be...?"

                        K54
                        ah well, then I guess I was right THE FIRST TIME .......
                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          Nice try, JR, but your attempt here is the proverbial attempt at nailing a jellyfish to a wall.
                          These people are like greased eels in a barrel of oil - they have to be!
                          Looking in that mirror again Jorge?

                          They are promoting a falsehood and, as such, this falsehood gets shown up time and time again.
                          Ad yet, time after time again, you fail to show this 'falsehood' and just keep showing that you're looking into a mirror.

                          And what does the Darwinist do when that happens? Simple! They redefine ... they readjust ... they introduce ad hoc definitions or concepts ... they rewrite/revise history ... they do whatever they have to do EXCEPT to do as you are asking them to do here - they will NEVER, EVER give up their belief in their Sacred Cow - Evolution.
                          More foaming at the mouth ranting? What actually happens Jorge is that something comes along that shows some element is either wrong or misunderstood and things are slightly changed around to account for the new evidence. Unlike your method, in which you pronounce judgment on anybody who dares to disagree with you and question their integrity and motives for daring to disagree with you. Can you give some specific examples to support your assertion with because I always thought that throwing out the baby with the bathwater was a foolish thing to engage in and a far better solution is to just refill your bathtub with clean water. Can you show how these adjustments disprove TOE or are you just going to keep asserting it does because you said so.

                          The part that really gets me is that they never admit to this. It's like they KNOW that they
                          aren't being honest but you can pull their fingernails out with pliers before they'll confess.
                          Foaming at the mouth again?

                          Their deceptive tactics know no limits AND THEN they rationalize / justify whatever they do!
                          Just one example: They long promoted the idea of "gradual Evolutionary change".
                          Many fossils were expected / predicted to be found showing this "gradual change".
                          A bald assertion again? Examples would be nice, so where are your examples at?

                          It didn't happen. As fossils were unearthed, the exact opposite was being proven.
                          "Oh man ... we're in trouble .. our Sacred Evolution needs help!"
                          "What to do? What to do? We cannot, NO WAY, abandon Evolution!"
                          Along come Eldredge and Gould: enter Punctuated Equilibrium.
                          Drooling again? Can you please give an example to support your assertion with or explain why they are wrong. Let me guess, they are wrong because Jorge said so, correct?

                          People like myself said, "Hey, wait a minute, that's cheating ... that's revisionism!"
                          So changing up a theory because the evidence doesn't match up is a bad and terrible thing? Now, go ahead and show how this should disprove that evolution happens. I'm waiting...

                          They rationalized and justified their actions by saying, "You simply don't understand
                          science. In science nothing is cast in concrete - theories are always being modified
                          in order to accommodate new findings."
                          And that is wrong because....

                          See how it works? They utilize a truth (yes, we always learn new things and therefore
                          we must be willing to change our scientific theories) in order to grant themselves a blank
                          check that enables them to make Evolution into infinitely-malleable "science".
                          So a theory can never change to new evidence and must always be the same or else the entire thing comes crashing down? Wow, no wonder most people find you're an idiot because I always thought modifying things to meet new evidence instead of throwing it all in the garbage was a way better way to go about things. Do engineers just throw an entire design out the window because something doesn't work quite right or do they seek a way to modify what they have to make it work better? Your insanity is rather entertaining, but shows you really don't understand what you're talking about.

                          That's another way of saying that they CANNOT be nailed down - there is always
                          a crack for them to crawl through and when there isn't, they'll simply create one!
                          Foaming at the mouth again? Than you shouldn't have a problem demonstrating this because I seem to find that is how the world actually works. Somebody finds they are wrong and changes up where they were wrong at vs just throwing everything out the window and starting all over. Yet when science does this, that's wrong, but when YEC's do this (IE adding things into the Bible to make their arguments work) that's ok. Remember, such as how you are trying the discovery that it is possible we have a whole lot of water under the earth surface as proof the entire world was flooded when there is no Bible verse that says God sent the remaining water down beneath the surface and you just add that in to make your arguments work? Your hypocrisy is quite amusing. Keep it up.

                          The bottom line of this "infinitely-malleable science" is that it is impossible to nail
                          them - IMPOSSIBLE!!! Any test - a rabbit in the Cambrian or whatever - that is
                          devised to 'nail them' will be overcome by these shysters as easily as Houdini
                          escaped from his shackles.
                          So what would convince you that you are wrong than? Nothing, correct?
                          "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


                          • #43
                            Ah ha! I see -- just put scare quotes around 'impact craters' and attribute them to gas explosions.

                            But, wade-a-minnut! Them gas explosion would also release tremendous amounts of energy, causing all kinds of nasty things, whether pre-Fall, post-Fall/pre-Fludde, or post-Fludde.

                            Wouldn't they?

                            But the genius who wrote this opus is our friend Jorge.

                            Jorge, could you please clarify the energy issue for us?

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                              not at all. We can learn from eachother.
                              When I first accepted that I had been wrong most of my life, and that the Bible really was the Word of God, I went to the extreme YEC position (this is THE FIRST TIME my Bible interpretation) , a day is a day is a day is a day...
                              a Catholic friend showed me in one of Peter's epistles (2nd one) the verse letting us know that "...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day...."
                              So I stood (actually I was probably sitting down at the time) corrected , and considered that perhaps there is some flexibility.

                              When my Catholic friend insisted the True Church was founded on Peter, I showed him what my Pastor had explained to us , that when Jesus said "on this Rock I will build my church" He (Jesus) was referring to Himself (Jesus) , He called Peter "Petros" which means little rock or stone, and "on this Rock" was not the same 'Petros' but "Petra" which defined as a projecting rock, a planted major big rock
                              and my Catholic friend 'stood corrected'

                              (that was figure of speech, we were both sitting actually)


                              ah well, then I guess I was right THE FIRST TIME .......
                              I don't know what you mean by "right THE FIRST TIME" -- what was your explanation THE FIRST TIME? I musta missed it.

                              Yes, we can learn from each other.

                              In particular I learned that trying to force the Bible into a scientific explanation of Earth's geological and biological history is a fool's errand. And we know what the Bible sez about fools -- oh, and genealogies and that there kinda stuff.

                              And I'd really HATE to think of the Christian God as a deceiver to those interested in a deep study of His creation as manifest in Creation itself.

                              That would make a nasty, nasty taste in my mouth --- and pity for the Christians who are gullible enough to believe their God would do such a thing.

                              But as I've heard YEC fideists spout "Though He slay me, yet I will trust Him."

                              JR, does this last sentence describe you?

                              I hope not.

                              K54

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                BTW, I LOVE the "greased eel" analogy.

                                Jorge may be the finest projectionist the world has ever seen, but he certainly IS creative!



                                K54

                                film-projector.jpg

                                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
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X