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

How much clearer can it get?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    Yep - another instance of modern evangelicalism sacrificing moral integrity for doctrinal 'purity'.

    Jim
    So now you're joining Roy in his rank dishonesty. Why am I not surprised?

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      I always found it incredibly hypocritical the way Jorge is so quick to chastise his fellow Christians when they agree with an atheist over a scientific matter (often going so far to imply that they're closet atheists because of that) but then immediately jumps into bed with some of the more militant ones like Dawkins praising them on how they interpret what the Bible says in opposition to how the majority of Christians read it
      You may think whatever you wish. I have amply explained my reasoning on these matters. Atheist or whatever, right is right and wrong is wrong. An Atheist that opposes abortion is right - period! A "Christian" that endorses and promotes same-sex marriage is wrong - period! On this matter, Zindler is right ... as is Dawkins ... as are many other Atheists (see my previous posts on this thread where I list names and other quote).

      Can you try harder to get that simple principle through your mega-thick skull?

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        As is typical for you, you miss/evade the point.

        Of course Zindler is wrong. His logic is faulty - committing logical fallacies all over.

        That said, ALL of the world's most prominent hardcore Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Stenger, Pennock ... etc) agree that Evolution represents "the death knell of Christianity" and that "Evolution and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible" (not necessarily in those exact words but the essence is the same).

        Now, unless you can explain how they ALL agree on this point then your post is superficial / sophomoric.
        Read their books - I do - and see how they build their case - it's an eye-opener.

        Jorge
        They all agree because:

        1) They hold to a view of scripture that is derived from the fundamental assumption that since "God doesn't exist", the Bible is wholly and simply a humanly derived mythology.

        2) They believe that finding elements of scripture that refer to the earth or the universe in a culturally and scientifically primitive fashion is proof of 1 above.

        My key point is that YOU (and many YECs) ALSO hold (2) to be true. But, you DENY that these references are scientifically inaccurate to avoid following that assumption to its logical consequence. They ACCEPT at face value these inaccuracies. On this point, they are, in fact, more honest than you or other YECs that refuse to face this simple reality.

        My belief is that these 'scientifically inaccurate' references are NOT evidence of a lack of inspiration nor do they invalidate the assumption of divine revelation, but are rather artifacts of the following:

        1) The purpose of the text is to convey spiritual truth, not scientific truth
        2) God inspires through the prophet, not in spite of him. That the writing of scripture is not (necessarily) about God dictating a text, but rather working through the human writer, which means the revelation's spiritual meaning is communicated though a text that also reflects certain incidental characteristics of the human author. It is written in his language, and often communicates through phrasing that is derived from the culture of the writer.

        So these atheists don't look any deeper than the surface as regards the issue of inspiration. They don't believe there is any inspiration to find -so why look? Your mistake is in adopting their same approach, and then compounding the problem by making up fake science to cover up the obvious flaw in that approach (e.g. "Steam explosions can explain the massive asteroid and comet impact craters found in the Earth")

        An analogy: For years paleontologists did not look inside dinosaur bones because they were absolutely convinced there was nothing useful inside to be found. Why ruin a perfectly good fossil since there was nothing useful inside anyway? But Mary Schweitzer dared to look and see if there was anything more there. And we all know the rest of the story.

        So you and the atheists you cite agree on far more than whether or not evolution is incompatible with Christian faith. You agree that the Scripture's use of culturally derived constructs for the form and time frame of creation prove the Bible is not inspired. The ONLY reason you don't join them in their atheism is that you live in denial of the second fact (that the descriptions in Genesis are not scientifically viable representations of the form or timeframe of creation).

        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          So now you're joining Roy in his rank dishonesty. Why am I not surprised?

          Jorge
          Jorge - I watched the conversation unfold -both on the old TWEB and here. I agree with Roy on this - you owe TWEB $150.

          And if you actually agree with "Yea though he slay me I will serve Him" and the Biblical injunction to avoid even the appearance of evil, you will pay up.

          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            You may think whatever you wish. I have amply explained my reasoning on these matters. Atheist or whatever, right is right and wrong is wrong. An Atheist that opposes abortion is right - period! A "Christian" that endorses and promotes same-sex marriage is wrong - period! On this matter, Zindler is right ... as is Dawkins ... as are many other Atheists (see my previous posts on this thread where I list names and other quote).

            Can you try harder to get that simple principle through your mega-thick skull?

            Jorge
            Except that you allow the 'right is right' paradigm to apply only to yourself. Any time a non-YEC Christian agrees with a non-believer on issues of science that you disagree with, you disallow that same argument, chastising that Christian for 'agreeing with atheists'.

            THAT is your hypocrisy Jorge. You apply one standard to yourself

            -- right is right, wrong is wrong - I'll agree with an atheist if they are right --

            and another to everyone else:

            -- Jorge is a Christian, if another Christian sides with an atheist against him they are wrong, even if they believe the atheist is right on the point in question --



            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


            • #21
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              They all agree because:

              1) They hold to a view of scripture that is derived from the fundamental assumption that since "God doesn't exist", the Bible is wholly and simply a humanly derived mythology.

              2) They believe that finding elements of scripture that refer to the earth or the universe in a culturally and scientifically primitive fashion is proof of 1 above.

              My key point is that YOU (and many YECs) ALSO hold (2) to be true. But, you DENY that these references are scientifically inaccurate to avoid following that assumption to its logical consequence. They ACCEPT at face value these inaccuracies. On this point, they are, in fact, more honest than you or other YECs that refuse to face this simple reality.

              My belief is that these 'scientifically inaccurate' references are NOT evidence of a lack of inspiration nor do they invalidate the assumption of divine revelation, but are rather artifacts of the following:

              1) The purpose of the text is to convey spiritual truth, not scientific truth
              2) God inspires through the prophet, not in spite of him. That the writing of scripture is not (necessarily) about God dictating a text, but rather working through the human writer, which means the revelation's spiritual meaning is communicated though a text that also reflects certain incidental characteristics of the human author. It is written in his language, and often communicates through phrasing that is derived from the culture of the writer.

              So these atheists don't look any deeper than the surface as regards the issue of inspiration. They don't believe there is any inspiration to find -so why look? Your mistake is in adopting their same approach, and then compounding the problem by making up fake science to cover up the obvious flaw in that approach (e.g. "Steam explosions can explain the massive asteroid and comet impact craters found in the Earth")

              An analogy: For years paleontologists did not look inside dinosaur bones because they were absolutely convinced there was nothing useful inside to be found. Why ruin a perfectly good fossil since there was nothing useful inside anyway? But Mary Schweitzer dared to look and see if there was anything more there. And we all know the rest of the story.

              So you and the atheists you cite agree on far more than whether or not evolution is incompatible with Christian faith. You agree that the Scripture's use of culturally derived constructs for the form and time frame of creation prove the Bible is not inspired. The ONLY reason you don't join them in their atheism is that you live in denial of the second fact (that the descriptions in Genesis are not scientifically viable representations of the form or timeframe of creation).

              Jim
              Yeah, sure, I remember all-too-well your "... writings of a primitive culture" schtick.

              I always get a kick out of you guys. The Bible is "primitive" every time it disagrees with your Evolutionary presuppositions --- otherwise the Bible is "God's Holy Word". Not even among hardcore Atheists do I find a more blatant exhibition of hypocrisy.

              What I mean is, at least Atheists are consistent in their rejection of the Bible - they 'spit out' the entire Text. Theistic Evolutionists want their cake and eat it too -- embracing whatever they deem "acceptable" in Scripture and rejecting everything else. It's got to be seen to be believed!

              If I were an Atheist I would be sneering behind the backs of TEs -- temporarily accepting them in the spirit of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- employing them as useful idiots to create dissension, doubt and chaos. Later, when they were of no more use, I'd toss them out with yesterday's garbage.

              You perform in that role extremely well, O-Mudd.

              Jorge

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                Except that you allow the 'right is right' paradigm to apply only to yourself. Any time a non-YEC Christian agrees with a non-believer on issues of science that you disagree with, you disallow that same argument, chastising that Christian for 'agreeing with atheists'.

                THAT is your hypocrisy Jorge. You apply one standard to yourself

                -- right is right, wrong is wrong - I'll agree with an atheist if they are right --

                and another to everyone else:

                -- Jorge is a Christian, if another Christian sides with an atheist against him they are wrong, even if they believe the atheist is right on the point in question --

                Jim
                I've supported my position HUNDREDS of times - not that you would mention that fact even once.

                Your intellectual dishonesty continues setting new records, O-Mudd.

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  I've supported my position HUNDREDS of times - not that you would mention that fact even once.

                  Your intellectual dishonesty continues setting new records, O-Mudd.

                  Jorge
                  Correction: You have tried hundreds of times to justify your use of a double standard on this issue.

                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    I just finished replying to a PM by Sparko. The essence of my reply was for him to recognize that you are an unrepentant liar and the he needs to direct his attention at you, not at me.

                    I provided a more-than-adequate explanation of my phrase, the one that you took out of context.
                    "Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."
                    Your problem, welcher, is that you didn't challenge me that you could provide an explanation of your phrase. What you challenged me on was this:

                    Unless I'm mistaken, the TWeb rules don't require rogue to prove you wrong . They require that you prove yourself right - which you have not done, since you have failed to demonstrate (not claim) any background/context that differs from rogue's version.

                    I don't think you can.
                    You willing to bet $150.00 on that?
                    Come on, be a man, put your money where your fat mouth is.
                    You have not demonstrated (not claimed) any background/context that differs from rogue's version, so you owe TheologyWeb $150.00.

                    If you couldn't be bothered to read the statement you issued your challenge against, or you misinterpreted, misunderstood or missed the implication of it, that is your error, your responsibility, and your "fat mouth" that has landed you $150.00 in debt.

                    Now, formally I demand that you stop posting at me - I do not interact with identified liars.
                    Failure to comply and I will have to report you to Big Brother.
                    You can formally demand whatever you like, but your "fat mouth" also produced this:
                    Call me out if the money doesn't arrive.
                    and that is what I am doing. I see no reason to stop. If you don't like it, you only have your "fat mouth" to blame.

                    So go ahead and report me to Big Brother. Don't forget to report your own unsupported "unrepentant liar" accusation while you're about it.
                    Last edited by Roy; 04-06-2016, 11:43 AM.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Nope - I'm not "making a mountain out of a molehill". Perhaps it is YOU that isn't aware of what has been and is going on. Evolution has long been recognized by BOTH sides as the 'wedge' - a sort of 'Trojan Horse' - for inserting doubt and false doctrine into orthodox Christianity.

                      It is the fact of this stealthy, satanic strategy that has captured many a hapless sheep (aka, uninformed Christians) and made them easy prey.

                      Here's what Dawkins said on this Evolution matter:

                      "Oh well, by far the most important [reason for rejecting God - denying His existence] was understanding evolution. I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen." [my emphasis]

                      Like I said, even hardcore Atheists get it. The fact that many "Christians" don't get it is a large part of the reason why it's been a steady downhill slide for a long time - and it'll get worse.

                      Jorge
                      All you are doing is simply re-iterating the fact you and Dawkins approach the scripture from effectively the same place. You base your assessment of its authenticity not upon the Cross and the Resurrection, but upon your capacity to reconcile the textual descriptions of certain physical and historical elements with a scientific understanding of those same elements. If the lack of apparent scientific consistency is real, then you both conclude the text is false - merely a myth.



                      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


                      • #26
                        Perhaps you forgot the suggestion that you are reading the Bible wrong. A particular example is the meaning of the word yom. As a rule you interpret it to mean a period of 24 hours or less. But someone (Whitefield, IIRC) argued that, depending on the context, yom can mean an indefinite timespan, say 1 billion years. AIR you did not try to refute Whitefield's reasoning or interpretation.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Correction: You have tried hundreds of times to justify your use of a double standard on this issue.

                          Jim
                          Got'ta love the way you simply ignore the substance of my post. Here it is again:

                          Yeah, sure, I remember all-too-well your "... writings of a primitive culture" schtick.

                          I always get a kick out of you guys. The Bible is "primitive" every time it disagrees with your Evolutionary presuppositions --- otherwise the Bible is "God's Holy Word". Not even among hardcore Atheists do I find a more blatant exhibition of hypocrisy.

                          What I mean is, at least Atheists are consistent in their rejection of the Bible - they 'spit out' the entire Text. Theistic Evolutionists want their cake and eat it too -- embracing whatever they deem "acceptable" in Scripture and rejecting everything else. It's got to be seen to be believed!

                          If I were an Atheist I would be sneering behind the backs of TEs -- temporarily accepting them in the spirit of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- employing them as useful idiots to create dissension, doubt and chaos. Later, when they were of no more use, I'd toss them out with yesterday's garbage.

                          You perform in that role extremely well, O-Mudd.


                          Enjoy!

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                            Perhaps you forgot the suggestion that you are reading the Bible wrong. A particular example is the meaning of the word yom. As a rule you interpret it to mean a period of 24 hours or less. But someone (Whitefield, IIRC) argued that, depending on the context, yom can mean an indefinite timespan, say 1 billion years. AIR you did not try to refute Whitefield's reasoning or interpretation.
                            I've been here at TWeb for at least 12 years - perhaps longer (?).

                            Do you have any idea how many times I've done what you say above I have "not" done?

                            I cannot re-invent the wheel every time a skeptic pokes his head into the room, Truthseeker.
                            Surely you can grasp what I'm saying. The best I can do is point you to several sites that
                            contain literally hundreds of articles answering what you ask. There are also scores of books.
                            One of my favorites is Coming to Grips with Genesis edited by Mortenson and Ury.
                            In short, what you ask has been more-than-adequately answered many, many times before.
                            The upshot is that the 'yom' argument is used by the ignorant or the intellectually dishonest.
                            There is no third alternative.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              I just finished replying to a PM by Sparko. The essence of my reply was for him to recognize that you are an unrepentant liar and the he needs to direct his attention at you, not at me.

                              I provided a more-than-adequate explanation of my phrase, the one that you took out of context.
                              "Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

                              Of course, Hell will freeze over before you will ever admit as much.

                              Now, formally I demand that you stop posting at me - I do not interact with identified liars.
                              Failure to comply and I will have to report you to Big Brother.

                              Jorge
                              You lost a bet and welshed on it. It's no surprise to anyone you're going to lie your butt off to cover the embarrassment. You've been doing it here for the better part of a decade.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                The best I can do is point you to several sites that
                                contain literally hundreds of articles answering what you ask.
                                *gasp* All those articles concern the meaning of yom and/or the first part of Genesis 1?



                                There are also scores of books.
                                One of my favorites is Coming to Grips with Genesis edited by Mortenson and Ury.
                                In short, what you ask has been more-than-adequately answered many, many times before.
                                The upshot is that the 'yom' argument is used by the ignorant or the intellectually dishonest.
                                There is no third alternative.
                                I very much doubt Rodney Whitefield is ignorant and dishonest. In any case which of the books that you mention examines READING GENESIS ONE: Comparing Biblical Hebrew with English Translation truth-claim by truth-claim?
                                Last edited by Truthseeker; 04-06-2016, 08:05 PM.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 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