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

Evolutionists do not understand OOL

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    At a sophomoric level, yes, that is the "important thing".

    At a level beyond puberty a person has to realize that Scripture must be taken in its entirety, not in compartmentalized, isolated pockets. Also, the hermeneutic/exegesis employed must be sound and proper. These are simple lessons that are lost on you et al.
    Would you please point out errors in Rodney Whitefield's exegesis? I have posted the following links before, to which you have not responded:

    about his book: http://www.creationingenesis.com/About.html
    partial summaries of the book: (look on the right-hand panel) http://www.creationingenesis.com/index.html

    I do hope you would mind being the guy who ignores a world's record number of challenges. The Barringer Crater, how to explain that from a Biblical creation perspective?
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      The are not "testing" - they are trying to force-fit observations to comply with their BELIEF in Evolution. Obviously you never learned how to tell the difference.

      Jorge
      Likewise this:-

      http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/atoms.htm

      - is not an image of atoms. Rather it's a pretty picture trying to force fit observations to comply with physicist's BELIEF in Atomic theory.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        At a sophomoric level, yes, that is the "important thing".

        At a level beyond puberty a person has to realize that Scripture must be taken in its entirety, not in compartmentalized, isolated pockets. Also, the hermeneutic/exegesis employed must be sound and proper. These are simple lessons that are lost on you et al.

        Jorge
        Edited by a Moderator
        Last edited by Bill the Cat; 11-03-2014, 01:35 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          Would you please point out errors in Rodney Whitefield's exegesis? I have posted the following links before, to which you have not responded:

          about his book: http://www.creationingenesis.com/About.html
          partial summaries of the book: (look on the right-hand panel) http://www.creationingenesis.com/index.html
          I may not have responded as you would like me to - or with something that you would agree - but I did make some comment in a past post and I did look into Whitefield's writings (as per links you provided). The bottom line is that Whitefield makes the same multiple errors as those before him; i.e., I saw nothing new and everything he presents has been refuted multiple times at sites such as AiG, CMI and ICR. I see no need for me to waste my time re-inventing the wheel. Before you ask me (or any other person) to waste time, you ought to do your homework by examining what the aforementioned sites have written on the subject. That will keep you occupied for months (due to the volume of material). One example to illustrate:

          On the link it says, "Repeatedly he clarifies that the Hebrew word yom does not refer to twenty-four hours regarding the length of the six creation days." There are several hundred articles, papers, books and video presentations by AiG, CMI and ICR (and others) on this topic that soundly refutes that claim regarding yom. Again, why would you ask me (or expect me) to re-invent the wheel for the 300th time?

          I do hope you would mind being the guy who ignores a world's record number of challenges. The Barringer Crater, how to explain that from a Biblical creation perspective?
          I ignore NOTHING and it is an act of rank dishonesty to claim that I do when you (should) know better.

          On the Barringer Crater: I also provided my explanation on that (some time ago - when the "old" TWeb was up) but it was summarily dismissed (no surprise there). Regardless, the same sites that I've referred to earlier contain material on craters. The ultra-condensed version is that Barringer could have been formed sometime after the Fall OR during or shortly after the worldwide Flood. Bottom line: I don't see Barringer as presenting any serious challenge to Biblical Creationism so it's curious why you people are obsessed with it.

          EDITED TO ADD:

          Couldn't get back to sleep so I spent a bit more time on this. Went here: http://www.creationingenesis.com/Gen..._the_Earth.pdf

          Whitefield is even worse than I imagined. He is basically a guy that has bought the Old Age story and is now seeking to justify his beliefs. He commits blunder after blunder. Hopefully they are honest mistakes, not knowingly-deliberate lies.

          One example: I'm no expert in Hebrew but I am fully bilingual and so I easily spotted a serious "mistake" that is key in his argument. He writes:

          "...Nevertheless, there are people who contest the issue and assert that the Bible says that the Earth and universe are about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The argument is typically made by quoting the first part of Exodus 20:11 which is shown below.

          KJV Exodus 20:11 For in six days (yoms) the LORD made (asah) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: . . .

          The advocate then notes that both heaven and Earth are mentioned and said to have been made
          “in six days.” The “in” is interpreted as placing all the making of heaven and Earth within the
          six creative times. Subsequently, it is asserted that the “asah”of Exodus 20:11 includes the
          “bara” creation of Genesis 1:1. This assertion is based on a claimed full equivalence of “bara”
          (the word used in Genesis 1:1) and “asah,” making these different Hebrew words interchangeable. In fact, both of these argumentative steps fail for reasons (1) and (2) as explained below.
          (1) The assertion based on the word “ in” fails. The word “ in” does not appear in the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:11 (or Exodus 31:17). The word “in” is a word added by the KJV translators. The KJV writes the word “in” in italics indicating that this word does not exist in the Hebrew text. But, the “in” is not italicized in most other English translations or in some recent printings of the KJV. Typically, the reader of Exodus 20:11 is unaware that the “in” is not in the Hebrew text. The insertion of the word “in” into the translation of Exodus 20:11 significantly distorts the meaning. The absence of the “in” removes the interpretation that all making must take place within the six creative times and voids the asserted inclusion of the “bara” of Genesis 1:1......"


          That is what Whitefield says. Obviously he makes a very big deal of this. Well, he is w-r-o-n-g and while I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know this, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and grant that it is an "innocent, honest" mistake. Here's why...

          Translating from one language to another very often requires the insertion of a word (or more) to compensate for the different language structures. If done properly there is NO DISTORTION to the original intended meaning - as Whitefield claims happens in the KJV.

          Example:
          ?Cuando vienes aqui?
          Word-for-word Translation: When coming here?
          'Proper' Translation : When ARE YOU coming here?

          Note the insertion of the words (ARE YOU). This is necessary because of the language structure differences between Spanish and English. Whitefield makes his argument based on a commonly-encountered event when translating between languages. Specifically, while "in" does not explicitly appear in the Hebrew, the translation into English demands its insertion.

          That's just one of the legion of errors that Whitefield makes. Case closed!

          Jorge
          Last edited by Jorge; 10-17-2014, 03:59 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by phank View Post
            Which scripture might that be? Why does it need to be yours? Certainly there are people at least as intelligent and knowledgeable as you who feel the same way about different scripture. Some of THEM believe it enough to voluntarily become human bombs. They don't express their belief like wusses, choosing to insult others to "prove" their faith.

            Have you considered emulating them? If you did, we'd respect that you took your beliefs seriously.
            From the above I am forced to conclude that you've just
            guzzled down an entire gallon of 100-proof Russian vodka.
            I mean, there simply cannot be any other explanation.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by rwatts View Post
              Likewise this:-

              http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/atoms.htm

              - is not an image of atoms. Rather it's a pretty picture trying to force fit observations to comply with physicist's BELIEF in Atomic theory.
              Here you're not making any new mistakes.
              You're simply repeating past ones.
              You're beyond my help, Duffus.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                On the Barringer Crater: I also provided my explanation on that (some time ago - when the "old" TWeb was up) but it was summarily dismissed (no surprise there).
                That's hardly surprising since the explanation:
                In our (YEC) worldview there was indeed a major catastrophic event: the universal Flood (Genesis 7-8). I hypothesize that in Genesis 7:11 - when "the fountains of the great deep" were broken up - there were a series of geologic events not unlike volcanic eruptions (recall the maars craters) except that they were significantly more energetic. These could have formed many of the geologic features that today are interpreted as having been caused by impacts upon the Earth.
                requires a time-travelling crater that appeared in sediments laid down after the incident that caused it.

                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Here you're not making any new mistakes.
                  You're simply repeating past ones.
                  You're beyond my help, Duffus.

                  Jorge
                  So you assert.

                  Naturally, you are incapable of demonstrating that my "mistakes" are in fact so. Just make the assertion then hobble away.

                  Well done Jorge.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    ... requires a time-travelling crater that appeared in sediments laid down after the incident that caused it.

                    Roy
                    Jorge writes science fiction?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      That's hardly surprising since the explanation:requires a time-travelling crater that appeared in sediments laid down after the incident that caused it.

                      Roy
                      While I figure out why I waste time responding to the likes of you, let me just ask if there is no possibility of a sediment-laying event after the crater (whenever it may have occurred with the Biblical Creationist time frame)?

                      Regardless, as I ended my earlier post, the Barringer Crater is no 'heavy-hitter challenge' to Biblical Creationism. Nothing even close to the HUMONGOUS problems - such as abiogenesis - facing Materialists like yourself. Yet you move merrily along, not paying attention to your own problems while tossing stones at folk like me. WOW - how you manage to sleep at night has got to be among the world's unsolved mysteries.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        While I figure out why I waste time responding to the likes of you, let me just ask if there is no possibility of a sediment-laying event after the crater (whenever it may have occurred with the Biblical Creationist time frame)?


                        Of course there is that possibility. But:
                        (i) there's no evidence for any such sediment event
                        (ii) there's lots of evidence against one (e.g. the crater not having been filled in)
                        (iii) that'd mean the crater had to time-travel past that event too.

                        Regardless, as I ended my earlier post, the Barringer Crater is no 'heavy-hitter challenge' to Biblical Creationism.
                        Anything that hasn't been answered - and time-travelling craters doesn't count as an answer - is not just a 'heavy-hitter challenge', but a successful one. Until it is resolved, then regardless of any supposed holes in any other worldview, YEC/flood is dead in the (lack of) water.

                        Roy
                        Last edited by Roy; 10-17-2014, 01:30 PM. Reason: typo
                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          I may not have responded as you would like me to - or with something that you would agree - but I did make some comment in a past post and I did look into Whitefield's writings (as per links you provided). The bottom line is that Whitefield makes the same multiple errors as those before him; i.e., I saw nothing new and everything he presents has been refuted multiple times at sites such as AiG, CMI and ICR. I see no need for me to waste my time re-inventing the wheel. Before you ask me (or any other person) to waste time, you ought to do your homework by examining what the aforementioned sites have written on the subject. That will keep you occupied for months (due to the volume of material). One example to illustrate:

                          On the link it says, "Repeatedly he clarifies that the Hebrew word yom does not refer to twenty-four hours regarding the length of the six creation days." There are several hundred articles, papers, books and video presentations by AiG, CMI and ICR (and others) on this topic that soundly refutes that claim regarding yom. Again, why would you ask me (or expect me) to re-invent the wheel for the 300th time?



                          I ignore NOTHING and it is an act of rank dishonesty to claim that I do when you (should) know better.

                          On the Barringer Crater: I also provided my explanation on that (some time ago - when the "old" TWeb was up) but it was summarily dismissed (no surprise there). Regardless, the same sites that I've referred to earlier contain material on craters. The ultra-condensed version is that Barringer could have been formed sometime after the Fall OR during or shortly after the worldwide Flood. Bottom line: I don't see Barringer as presenting any serious challenge to Biblical Creationism so it's curious why you people are obsessed with it.

                          EDITED TO ADD:

                          Couldn't get back to sleep so I spent a bit more time on this. Went here: http://www.creationingenesis.com/Gen..._the_Earth.pdf

                          Whitefield is even worse than I imagined. He is basically a guy that has bought the Old Age story and is now seeking to justify his beliefs. He commits blunder after blunder. Hopefully they are honest mistakes, not knowingly-deliberate lies.

                          One example: I'm no expert in Hebrew but I am fully bilingual and so I easily spotted a serious "mistake" that is key in his argument. He writes:

                          "...Nevertheless, there are people who contest the issue and assert that the Bible says that the Earth and universe are about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The argument is typically made by quoting the first part of Exodus 20:11 which is shown below.

                          KJV Exodus 20:11 For in six days (yoms) the LORD made (asah) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: . . .

                          The advocate then notes that both heaven and Earth are mentioned and said to have been made
                          “in six days.” The “in” is interpreted as placing all the making of heaven and Earth within the
                          six creative times. Subsequently, it is asserted that the “asah”of Exodus 20:11 includes the
                          “bara” creation of Genesis 1:1. This assertion is based on a claimed full equivalence of “bara”
                          (the word used in Genesis 1:1) and “asah,” making these different Hebrew words interchangeable. In fact, both of these argumentative steps fail for reasons (1) and (2) as explained below.
                          (1) The assertion based on the word “ in” fails. The word “ in” does not appear in the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:11 (or Exodus 31:17). The word “in” is a word added by the KJV translators. The KJV writes the word “in” in italics indicating that this word does not exist in the Hebrew text. But, the “in” is not italicized in most other English translations or in some recent printings of the KJV. Typically, the reader of Exodus 20:11 is unaware that the “in” is not in the Hebrew text. The insertion of the word “in” into the translation of Exodus 20:11 significantly distorts the meaning. The absence of the “in” removes the interpretation that all making must take place within the six creative times and voids the asserted inclusion of the “bara” of Genesis 1:1......"


                          That is what Whitefield says. Obviously he makes a very big deal of this. Well, he is w-r-o-n-g and while I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know this, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and grant that it is an "innocent, honest" mistake. Here's why...

                          Translating from one language to another very often requires the insertion of a word (or more) to compensate for the different language structures. If done properly there is NO DISTORTION to the original intended meaning - as Whitefield claims happens in the KJV.

                          Example:
                          ?Cuando vienes aqui?
                          Word-for-word Translation: When coming here?
                          'Proper' Translation : When ARE YOU coming here?

                          Note the insertion of the words (ARE YOU). This is necessary because of the language structure differences between Spanish and English. Whitefield makes his argument based on a commonly-encountered event when translating between languages. Specifically, while "in" does not explicitly appear in the Hebrew, the translation into English demands its insertion.

                          That's just one of the legion of errors that Whitefield makes. Case closed!

                          Jorge
                          Your argument on translation by analogy to your own bilingual facility fails for the following reason: the missing words are clarifiers. All languages have ambiguous elements. These ambiguous elements may be filled in by convention or colloquial understanding, but they may also simply leave open the precise meaning of the text. IF the context of the text strongly implies 'in' based on culture and convention, then the argument is weak because it depends on an obscure rendering - UNLESS Jewish tradition OFTEN takes advantage of such ambiguities in interpreting the heberw text (which is does). Thus the text may well be regarded (in culture) as purposefully ambiguous, and then the alternate rendering he relies on is just as valid as the typical rendering (which is based on English conventions which do not leave the relationship ambiguous). So you can't just grab what you know as a bilingual Spanish/English speaker and conclude he 'must' be wrong. You must apply the conventions of the ancient Hebrew AND the cultural approach to this specific text to evaluate the argument.

                          Jim
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                            On the Barringer Crater: I also provided my explanation on that (some time ago - when the "old" TWeb was up) but it was summarily dismissed (no surprise there). Regardless, the same sites that I've referred to earlier contain material on craters.
                            Ah, the standard YEC lie and dodge: "I already answered, I just can't show you where or answer again".

                            The ultra-condensed version is that Barringer could have been formed sometime after the Fall OR during or shortly after the worldwide Flood.
                            So Barringer formed before, during, or after Da Flud. That sure narrows it down. I see you're still too afraid to tell us how the crater was formed. What a surprise.

                            Bottom line: I don't see Barringer as presenting any serious challenge to Biblical Creationism so it's curious why you people are obsessed with it.
                            We're just still amazed that anyone could be so stupid and deluded as to claim Barringer wasn't caused by an Earth impactor. Here's a hint Clucky: why do you suppose it's called Barringer Meteor Crater?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              Ah, the standard YEC lie and dodge: "I already answered, I just can't show you where or answer again".



                              So Barringer formed before, during, or after Da Flud. That sure narrows it down. I see you're still too afraid to tell us how the crater was formed. What a surprise.



                              We're just still amazed that anyone could be so stupid and deluded as to claim Barringer wasn't caused by an Earth impactor. Here's a hint Clucky: why do you suppose it's called Barringer Meteor Crater?
                              Aren't there a couple dozen other impact structures in various states of erosion?

                              Also impact structures have certain geological signatures, namely shocked quartz and shatter cones.

                              It's interesting that Jorge says the Barringer crater poses no serious problem for "Biblical Creationism". Why? Because NOTHING does. I surmise if Jesus Christ returned today and told Jorge that YEC was wrong, he would think it's a trick.

                              K54
                              Last edited by klaus54; 10-17-2014, 10:36 AM. Reason: "surmise" instead of "doubt"

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                                Aren't there a couple dozen other impact structures in various states of erosion?

                                Also impact structures have certain geological signatures, namely shocked quartz and shatter cones.

                                It's interesting that Jorge says the Barringer crater poses no serious problem for "Biblical Creationism". Why? Because NOTHING does. I surmise if Jesus Christ returned today and told Jorge that YEC was wrong, he would think it's a trick.

                                K54
                                There are hundreds of them. 20 with diameters >= 40km (~25 miles). Anything that large or larger would have created havoc on a budding human civilization. Jorge is just hiding his head in the sand. He has no (non - ridiculously absurd) way to explain them in a YEC paradigm. There are two problems:

                                A) what mechanism can produce them and their identification criteria (e.g. shocked quartz, shatter cones) that is NOT an asteroid impact
                                B) No matter what made them, humanity still has to survive the fallout of that much energy released in so short a time!

                                And it gets much worse than that. The Moon is COVERED with massive craters. Now he has to allow those to form yet have the Earth, a mere 250,000 miles hence, be mostly missed! And also not be affected by the debris which leaves lunar orbit post the collision.

                                Asteroid impacts undo YEC utterly and completely.

                                He is sunk, but just doesn't know it yet.

                                Jim
                                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 10-17-2014, 12:43 PM.
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

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