Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[oxmixmudd]

To refresh your memory:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post75963

To refresh your memory, I calculated the amount of energy it would have taken to melt the North American ice sheet (technically the Laurentide ice sheet). It was roughly every single Joule sent to Earth by the Sun for 300 years, which is why i felt a 700-year ice age was an impossibility.

EDIT: A further refresher. The calculation was done in response to you suggesting i read up on the creation model of ice ages at one of the sites you're now threatening to send me back to, which is where the 700 year figure came from. So, please don't send me to something that we already know is claiming the physically impossible is a valid scientific model.

Like I said. Jorge has Never given a robust scientific justification of a young Earth. Yet he insists it is possible. THAT is where and why YEC devolves into a pack of lies and deceptions. Many make the same claim Jorge does, yet it is simply a fiction. It's not that they claim someday someone will figure it out and they simply believe for now that it will happen, it is that they knowingly put into the public arena that which simply is NOT a robust justification of YEC and stand back and watch as those incapable of recognizing the flaws in the arguments buy it hook line and sinker.

This is where it crosses the line from simply a matter of conscience, interpretation and/or belief and becomes out and out deception.


Jim

[Jorge]

In other words, you have no substantial criticisms to provide, so you result to the same childish ad hominem attack over-and-over again.

You couldn't handle my "substantial criticism" if I served it with fries and ketchup.

Times like these make me glad you're dead wrong on everything theological. Any God which would accept you as you are as one of His ministers would be an ugly God indeed and completely unworthy of worship.

Coming from a clueless chap like you, I'm taking that as a compliment.

Jorge

[rogue06]

You couldn't handle my "substantial criticism" if I served it with fries and ketchup.




Coming from a clueless chap like you, I'm taking that as a compliment.

Jorge

We need to start up that Jorge stock response/excuse list again. IIRC, they included (in no particular order)

• You're drunk or on drugs

• I already explained this some time in the past so I won't do so now

• You're too stupid to understand my brilliant argument so I won't bother

I believe there were a couple others

[Jorge]

cannotstatement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

While statements of faith and the like are fine in many areas they are not in science. In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."^[1]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderlandad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn't even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.

1. This philosophy is repeated again and again by legitimate scientists. For instance:

• "I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as the facts are opposed to it." --Charles Darwin (who also wrote: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone.")

• "I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away." --Michael Faraday

• "A scientist should every morning eat one of his favorite theories for breakfast." --Konrad Lorenz

• "Any real systematist [or scientist in general] has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence." --Mark Norell (in his "Unearthing the Dragon")

A perfect example of this is Michael Engel co-author of Evolution of the Insects, who when shown fossilized evidence that honeybees were in fact in North America excitedly stated "I got to overturn some of my own stuff."

Keep this low-grade manure up and I will be convinced that you are working for Satan himself - I'm serious. As things stand, I already regard you as being nearly at par with 'Beagle Boy' --- trust me, that is NO compliment! You continuously promote misrepresentations and a distorted reality via many forms -- here you do it by lying through omission. Even you can't be that ignorant or stupid, you MUST know what you're doing.

Here, for example, you conveniently omit the fact that (1) people seek to work at such places PRECISELY BECAUSE their beliefs coincide with those that the institution represents. (2) No one is held against their wishes -- if at any point they have a change in their beliefs, they are free to seek elsewhere. (3) Try getting a job at the National Center for Science Education, Scientific American, American Humanist Society, or at any other place where the institution is based on a set of beliefs WITHOUT subscribing and promoting those beliefs. Go ahead, try it. Imagine a YEC working for the former NCSE leader Eugenie Scott --- what do you think the old witch would have done?

If you were a Catholic, you couldn't chant enough Hail Mary's to erase your vileness.
Repent while you can.

Jorge

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Keep this low-grade manure up and I will be convinced that you are working for Satan himself - I'm serious.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Oh, my! Well, we certainly wouldn't want that...

[Jorge]

To refresh your memory:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post75963

To refresh your memory, I calculated the amount of energy it would have taken to melt the North American ice sheet (technically the Laurentide ice sheet). It was roughly every single Joule sent to Earth by the Sun for 300 years, which is why i felt a 700-year ice age was an impossibility.

EDIT: A further refresher. The calculation was done in response to you suggesting i read up on the creation model of ice ages at one of the sites you're now threatening to send me back to, which is where the 700 year figure came from. So, please don't send me to something that we already know is claiming the physically impossible is a valid scientific model.

Fine. I honestly don't recall - I have many things on my mind. Regardless...

Write up your calculations - better yet, write up your entire case - and email it to the places that I suggested [ICR, CMI, AiG, CRS]. If you can't handle that, send it to me and I'll do it for you. Rest assured that your case has been addressed and answered.

Now, whether or not you accept the answer is quite another matter.

Jorge

[Jorge]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Oh, my! Well, we certainly wouldn't want that...

If only you were 'only' being sarcastic. We all know you're not.

For a lost soul like yourself, yes indeed, that would be a trivial, laughing matter.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Keep this low-grade manure up and I will be convinced that you are working for Satan himself - I'm serious. As things stand, I already regard you as being nearly at par with 'Beagle Boy' --- trust me, that is NO compliment! You continuously promote misrepresentations and a distorted reality via many forms -- here you do it by lying through omission. Even you can't be that ignorant or stupid, you MUST know what you're doing.

Here, for example, you conveniently omit the fact that (1) people seek to work at such places PRECISELY BECAUSE their beliefs coincide with those that the institution represents. (2) No one is held against their wishes -- if at any point they have a change in their beliefs, they are free to seek elsewhere. (3) Try getting a job at the National Center for Science Education, Scientific American, American Humanist Society, or at any other place where the institution is based on a set of beliefs WITHOUT subscribing and promoting those beliefs. Go ahead, try it. Imagine a YEC working for the former NCSE leader Eugenie Scott --- what do you think the old witch would have done?

If you were a Catholic, you couldn't chant enough Hail Mary's to erase your vileness.
Repent while you can.

Jorge

What you demonstrate here, yet again, is that you do not understand what science is. No legitimate scientist would sign a declaration defining what his scientific work's results will be before the research is done and the results tabulated. That is NOT to say all science is unbiased. But ICR and AIG claim that science backs up their beliefs. Yet from the outset they squash all real science from it's employees by explicitly and overtly limiting the results that are possible, and the results that will be published. Thus science is NOT its goal, and all of their scientific conclusions must be regarded as suspect.

Jim

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Fine. I honestly don't recall - I have many things on my mind. Regardless...

Write up your calculations - better yet, write up your entire case - and email it to the places that I suggested [ICR, CMI, AiG, CRS]. If you can't handle that, send it to me and I'll do it for you. Rest assured that your case has been addressed and answered.

Now, whether or not you accept the answer is quite another matter.

Translation: "I can't be bothered to actually defend the claims that I have made, so I'm going to go ahead and pretend that there exists some reasonable answer somewhere despite the fact that I am entirely unaware of that reasonable answer's existence."

Seriously, Jorge, is it truly that difficult to simply say "I don't know" when you are asked a question for which you have no answer? Certainly, that'd be a far more reasonable response than just pretending that someone else has already answered the question.

[Jorge]

We need to start up that Jorge stock response/excuse list again. IIRC, they included (in no particular order)

• You're drunk or on drugs

• I already explained this some time in the past so I won't do so now

• You're too stupid to understand my brilliant argument so I won't bother

I believe there were a couple others

Go ahead and start that "list" again -- I always got a laugh out of it. I realized that it gave the IQ-starved folks here an easy way out every time they feel cornered. Like witless brat teenagers that say, "whatever" every time they can't come up with a rational answer, at TWeb we had
"Item 3 from the list" ... "Item 1 from the list" as their brain-dead "whatever".

Bwahahahahaha !!! .......... "whatever"

Jorge

[Jorge]

Translation: "I can't be bothered to actually defend the claims that I have made, so I'm going to go ahead and pretend that there exists some reasonable answer somewhere despite the fact that I am entirely unaware of that reasonable answer's existence."

Seriously, Jorge, is it truly that difficult to simply say "I don't know" when you are asked a question for which you have no answer? Certainly, that'd be a far more reasonable response than just pretending that someone else has already answered the question.

Here are two simple words, kindly apply: shut up.

Do have yourself a nice day.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Here are two simple words, kindly apply: shut up.

Do have yourself a nice day.

Jorge

translation:

"You got me. I don't have a clue how to scientifically justify a young Earth, but I am absolutely committed to the propagation of the deception that it can be scientifically justified, so you need to be quiet!"


Jim

[Jorge]

What you demonstrate here, yet again, is that you do not understand what science is. No legitimate scientist would sign a declaration defining what his scientific work's results will be before the research is done and the results tabulated. That is NOT to say all science is unbiased. But ICR and AIG claim that science backs up their beliefs. Yet from the outset they squash all real science from it's employees by explicitly and overtly limiting the results that are possible, and the results that will be published. Thus science is NOT its goal, and all of their scientific conclusions must be regarded as suspect.

Jim

"Jorge does not understand what science is"

What is that? The 589th time?

Funny thing : Jorge "doesn't understand science", yet he 'mysteriously' worked within science, engineering and maths for well over 40 years (and counting), received (in 1979)) the Air Force's Scientific Achievement Award, then (in 1983) the Air Force's Meritorious Service Award primarily for his scientific work with Dr. Joseph Foster, and has been successful in his own science-applications work. I confess, no Nobel but, hey ... mea culpa!

Go figure .................

Keep repeating the "Jorge knows no science", O-Mudd. You know what your pal Adolf said, "If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it!"

Bwahahahahaha !!!

Jorge

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Here are two simple words, kindly apply: shut up.

Mayhaps you should take your own counsel, here. After all, Proverbs 12:23 proclaims, "One who is clever conceals knowledge, but the mind of a fool broadcasts folly." Similarly, there's a lovely passage from the Wisdom literature of my own religion:

Source: H�vam�l 27 & 28

For the unwise man ’tis best to be mute
when he come amid the crowd,
for none is aware of his lack of wit
if he wastes not too many words;
for he who lacks wit shall never learn
though his words flow ne’er so fast.

Wise he is deemed who can question well,
and also answer back:
the sons of men can no secret make
of the tidings told in their midst.

© Copyright Original Source

Do have yourself a nice day.

I intend to do so! Same wishes to you, friend!

[oxmixmudd]

"Jorge does not understand what science is"

What is that? The 589th time?

Funny thing : Jorge "doesn't understand science", yet he 'mysteriously' worked within science, engineering and maths for well over 40 years (and counting), received (in 1979)) the Air Force's Scientific Achievement Award, then (in 1983) the Air Force's Meritorious Service Award primarily for his scientific work with Dr. Joseph Foster, and has been successful in his own science-applications work. I confess, no Nobel but, hey ... mea culpa!

Go figure .................

Keep repeating the "Jorge knows no science", O-Mudd. You know what your pal Adolf said, "If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it!"

Bwahahahahaha !!!

Jorge

The answer there is simple Jorge. Your work with the Air Force never required you understand science in the aspect where you demonstrate ignorance here. And it likely never put you at odds with your YEC beliefs (that is, the work you were doing never had an outcome that required you to evaluate age beyond 6-10000 years or supported biological evolution - or was done before you adopted YEC itself).

So tell me Jorge, exactly how far would you have gotten with Dr. Foster had you produced a signed document telling him what the conclusions would be before you ran the tests and analyzed the data?

Jim