Dendrochronology: Getting at the root of the problem with a young earth

[Tiggy]

dude, seriously, are you smoking crack?

That wasn't your original accusation - you seem to have a bit of a problem. Your original accusation was that Jorge would call ME a god-hater because I have a different YEC time scheme. That is a blatant slander, he would never say that. You producing evidence that he called YOU a God-hater won't do.

Get crackin' Tiggy or retract. Not that I think you care about looking the fool.

You really need to learn to read for comprehension. Remember this exchange?

What did I falsely represent Xena? Jorge has stated in the past that those who don't accept his YEC literal interpretations of the Bible are God-haters. It's a term he has used more than once. And under his definition, your belief in a 10K-15K age of the Earth puts you in that category.

Now I certainly don't think your belief makes you a God-hater, just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.

You want to defend Jorge, fine. Tell us why is it OK for Jorge to apply that term but not me?

Before I respond further I am asking Jorge if you are correctly stating what he does. I do not believe he blanket calls people that as you have represented, but first Jorge can speak for himself, and then I will respond to what you have said (though my answer is the same regardless - I gave it above - I could care less if someone consistently believes in their paradigm that I am a God-hater, I give people the respect and freedom to hold to their beliefs)

You agreed that I said Jorge blanket calls people who disagree with his position God haters. Not YOU specifically, but ANYONE who disagrees with his literal Bible position.

I showed you multiple example of where this is true.

Now YOU'RE the one trying to change the argument from my statement that Jorge calls SOME folks God-haters to Jorge calls YOU a God-hater.

Go back and read you own words above that I have bolded and colored to make them easy for you to find, then tell me what they mean.

If you try real hard, I bet you could get your other foot in to your mouth too

- T

[Dee Dee Warren]

You either are an extremely wily twister or someone without a clue or money to buy one. I will dismantle you tomorrow if my schedule permits [but rest assured, I will, and I will enjoy it very much], but I ask that you please detox before then.

I pity you that you are obsessed with another dude.

[oxmixmudd]

dude, seriously, are you smoking crack?

That wasn't your original accusation - you seem to have a bit of a problem. Your original accusation was that Jorge would call ME a god-hater because I have a different YEC time scheme. That is a blatant slander, he would never say that. You producing evidence that he called YOU a God-hater won't do.

Get crackin' Tiggy or retract. Not that I think you care about looking the fool.

DX - Jorge is rude and insulting to ANYONE who crosses him. Be careful how far you go to defend him. His latest victim was MrManNo1 (here) - a YEC who dared to challange Jorge's behaviour towards Glenn Morton. I mean - even Sylas has lost it with Jorge!

I really am at a loss on your latest series of posts as regards Jorge. He earns just about every cross word he gets. And although unfortunately I can't claim absolute immunity from prosecution in the rudeness category when it comes to Jorge - I can show you pages and pages of exchanges between himself and myself where he tried every trick in the book to insult,demean or otherwise goad me into a rude response and I did not give in to his crap.

He doesn't need people to defend him - he needs people to take him to task and to encourage, even demand he clean up his act. Your defense of him here means the rest of us will have to endure a new confidence on his part to treat us all with even more rudeness and contempt. To that we shall be forever 'indebted' to you.

Of course, you will probably blast me again instead - but you are way off on who is the abuser and who is the abused when it comes to Jorge. WAY off.

Jim

[Tiggy]

You either are an extremely wily twister or someone without a clue or money to buy one. I will dismantle you tomorrow if my schedule permits [but rest assured, I will, and I will enjoy it very much], but I ask that you please detox before then.

Don't be a tease, you big flirt

I pity you that you are obsessed with another dude.

LOL! I'm not the one who jumped into the middle of a thread on dendrochronology to defend the board's pet anti-science gasbag.

- T

[Augustine2004]

1) the importance of MN for doing science – it is the only tool we have found to work so far,
2) the importance of having a universally agreed set of axioms and methodology for doing science and a philosophy of science that is consistent and coherent (which turns out to be MN),

Universally agreed? What about Jorge and people like him? And I think many philosophers, not necessarily Christian, deny that science is self-evident. I doubt we’d ever have universal agreement. That science seems to work - I can’t deny that I am writing this on a computer, a device designed using quantum mechanics and electrodynamics - does not necessarily mean that science gives us absolute incontrovertible truth. We should indeed insist on coherency or consistency, but these are insufficient that science gives us truth. Moreover even if we all agreed on the importance of doing science and how to do it, it does not necessarily ensure that we will really know everything someday.

3) <snip>and yes, even heliocentricism,

Why not the center of gravity of the whole solar system? Or the center of the Milky Way? Actually, it’s possible to do physics ‘correctly’ in an Earth-center system. The math can be rather complicated then, but we have computers now . . .

[wattsr1]

First, the good news : you actually do at times bring up some excellent points / topics for discussion (as in recent threads).

Now for the bad : I sincerely do not believe that you are capable of and / or willing to understand the POV of someone such as me.
That's the primary reason why I refrain from participating at those times when you bring up good points. It's nothing personal, please believe that.
I've just been burned too many times with you and every time I try again I get burned again and feel stupid for having tried. Can you comprehend that?

Jorge

Dearest Jorge,


I understand that DDW is here questioning our integrity for attacking each other, and so it is important that we maintain an “even keel”, behave politely, and ensure that the perception is “no, no, no, it’s not me, it’s them”.

But goodness, your latest reply really does stink. If it were not so funny, it would be as low as all those silly names you often call me.

So, in the spirit that DDW is here and therefore we must pretend, I shall offer the following insult as nicely as I can:-

When God was giving out integrity, you really were playing hide ‘n seek, weren’t you.


I mean look at your reply:-

“actually do, … , excellent points, … recent threads”.

Why don't you write what you actually say about my posts?

But your not going to reply to those threads, are you because:-

“burned too many times, …feel stupid for having tried”?

Jorge, from day one these points have been among my numerous questions to you. And they have almost always been the main questions I have put to you. So why the sudden pretence about “good questions” and “recently”? The other day I asked you about those two “theology vs science” threads and you told me:-

I haven't bothered. Your material is generally shallow, shortsighted and extremely biased (in a bad way).

It’s sad. I suspect you are my age, and already you suffer from old-timer’s disease, CRAFT – “Can’t Remember A Friggin’ Thing”. Are you a politician or something? You Bill Clinton?

Whether you can admit it to yourself or not, and our “dialogue” on these issues has always been along the lines of:-

Jorge:- Macro is metaphysics because we don’t have 30 million years to observe it.
Roland:- But Jorge, we do not observe the sun’s center. Is astrophysics metaphysics?

Jorge:- 1) Silence.
Jorge:- 2) You are one brick short of a barrow load Roland
Jorge:- 3) You just don’t get it do you!
Jorge:- 4) Asked and answered.
Roland:- 4) Where answered Jorge?
Jorge:- 4) I am not going to go through posts to find out where.
Jorge:- 5) You’re a loony Roland
Jorge:- 6) You’re not worth the effort Roland
Jorge:- 7) By metaphysics I mean “relatively metaphysical”.
Roland:-7) But Jorge, you have told me that God can make the sun shine via his direct action. So surely astrophysics is deeply metaphysical.
Jorge:- 7) Silence
Jorge:- 8) You are a loony Roland
Jorge:- 9) You just don’t get it do you!
Jorge:- 10) Well we can build nuclear reactors on earth. The sun’s energy is of the same quality.
Roland:-10) But Jorge, how do you see the sun’s center to know that?
Jorge:- 10) You are stupid Roland.
Jorge:- 10) Asked and answered and I am not going to show you where.

This exchange about the relationship between metaphysics, “true science” and “false science” has gone no further than your continued silence at point 10) and it took some 4 years to get to point 10).

So given that the above kind of content of my posts has been put to you for years, why the pretence now?

I sincerely do not believe that you are capable of and / or willing to understand the POV of someone such as me.

Well we are even on that point. So no harm there:-

“I sincerely do not believe that you are etc. etc.” – either Jorge. Yet I can continue. I have been waiting for you to continue for years. What’s the problem? Why the excuses?

That's the primary reason why I refrain from participating at those times when you bring up good points. It's nothing personal, please believe that.

I know it is nothing personal against me. It is that you simply cannot answer me. All other posters who engage you complain of the same thing. You are very good at telling them how inferior they are, but when challenged, you go to ground.

I've just been burned too many times with you and every time I try again I get burned again and feel stupid for having tried. Can you comprehend that?

I can understand why you feel stupid. So why not be honest for once, drop the pretence, and start reading all those books you once claimed to have read. Remember, the foundational philosophers of science? Remember, you could discuss the philosophy of science from the perspective of any one of them?

I mean Jorge. Really.

Now listen sunshine.

I have ordered a truck load of in anticipation of your debate with DDW. It’s not because the debate will take long at all. DDW will skin you in a post or two, leaving you with one of your “I’m out of here”, or “you just don’t get it”, or “you’re a loony” or simply silence – as you beat your usual retreat.

The truck load of will simply be because of the years of excuses that will go by:-

“I have a trip to take”, “I broke my typing finger”, “asked and answered”, “you just don’t get it”, “my missus sent me to the dog house last night before I could post”, “my dog ate my post”, “I have another trip”.

Get cracking on those books and DVDs Jorge. You may as well. You are not going to address my post beyond the point we reached a couple of years ago.

And stop the pretence Jorge. Otherwise I shall have to get quotes (and their associated links) to back myself up. And I can. Bet you cannot find too many. You hate evidence, don’t you.



Regards,
Your respectful atheist,
Roland

[Jorge]

Dearest Jorge,


I understand that DDW is here questioning our integrity for attacking each other, and so it is important that we maintain an “even keel”, behave politely, and ensure that the perception is “no, no, no, it’s not me, it’s them”.

But goodness, your latest reply really does stink. If it were not so funny, it would be as low as all those silly names you often call me.

So, in the spirit that DDW is here and therefore we must pretend, I shall offer the following insult as nicely as I can:-

When God was giving out integrity, you really were playing hide ‘n seek, weren’t you.


I mean look at your reply:-

“actually do, … , excellent points, … recent threads”.

Why don't you write what you actually say about my posts?

But your not going to reply to those threads, are you because:-

“burned too many times, …feel stupid for having tried”?

Jorge, from day one these points have been among my numerous questions to you. And they have almost always been the main questions I have put to you. So why the sudden pretence about “good questions” and “recently”? The other day I asked you about those two “theology vs science” threads and you told me:-



It’s sad. I suspect you are my age, and already you suffer from old-timer’s disease, CRAFT – “Can’t Remember A Friggin’ Thing”. Are you a politician or something? You Bill Clinton?

Whether you can admit it to yourself or not, and our “dialogue” on these issues has always been along the lines of:-

Jorge:- Macro is metaphysics because we don’t have 30 million years to observe it.
Roland:- But Jorge, we do not observe the sun’s center. Is astrophysics metaphysics?

Jorge:- 1) Silence.
Jorge:- 2) You are one brick short of a barrow load Roland
Jorge:- 3) You just don’t get it do you!
Jorge:- 4) Asked and answered.
Roland:- 4) Where answered Jorge?
Jorge:- 4) I am not going to go through posts to find out where.
Jorge:- 5) You’re a loony Roland
Jorge:- 6) You’re not worth the effort Roland
Jorge:- 7) By metaphysics I mean “relatively metaphysical”.
Roland:-7) But Jorge, you have told me that God can make the sun shine via his direct action. So surely astrophysics is deeply metaphysical.
Jorge:- 7) Silence
Jorge:- 8) You are a loony Roland
Jorge:- 9) You just don’t get it do you!
Jorge:- 10) Well we can build nuclear reactors on earth. The sun’s energy is of the same quality.
Roland:-10) But Jorge, how do you see the sun’s center to know that?
Jorge:- 10) You are stupid Roland.
Jorge:- 10) Asked and answered and I am not going to show you where.

This exchange about the relationship between metaphysics, “true science” and “false science” has gone no further than your continued silence at point 10) and it took some 4 years to get to point 10).

So given that the above kind of content of my posts has been put to you for years, why the pretence now?




Well we are even on that point. So no harm there:-

“I sincerely do not believe that you are etc. etc.” – either Jorge. Yet I can continue. I have been waiting for you to continue for years. What’s the problem? Why the excuses?



I know it is nothing personal against me. It is that you simply cannot answer me. All other posters who engage you complain of the same thing. You are very good at telling them how inferior they are, but when challenged, you go to ground.


I can understand why you feel stupid. So why not be honest for once, drop the pretence, and start reading all those books you once claimed to have read. Remember, the foundational philosophers of science? Remember, you could discuss the philosophy of science from the perspective of any one of them?

I mean Jorge. Really.

Now listen sunshine.

I have ordered a truck load of in anticipation of your debate with DDW. It’s not because the debate will take long at all. DDW will skin you in a post or two, leaving you with one of your “I’m out of here”, or “you just don’t get it”, or “you’re a loony” or simply silence – as you beat your usual retreat.

The truck load of will simply be because of the years of excuses that will go by:-

“I have a trip to take”, “I broke my typing finger”, “asked and answered”, “you just don’t get it”, “my missus sent me to the dog house last night before I could post”, “my dog ate my post”, “I have another trip”.

Get cracking on those books and DVDs Jorge. You may as well. You are not going to address my post beyond the point we reached a couple of years ago.

And stop the pretence Jorge. Otherwise I shall have to get quotes (and their associated links) to back myself up. And I can. Bet you cannot find too many. You hate evidence, don’t you.



Regards,
Your respectful atheist,
Roland

See what I mean ... Your Honor, I rest my case.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

See what I mean ... Your Honor, I rest my case.

Jorge

Well Jorge, I presume you deny the truth of what I wrote. Clearly then I am way out on a limb. Here we go on this challenge again.

I have put my neck on the chopping block.

Deny what I have written. Take the point you most object to and show that I am wrong.

It should not be a big task for you. And it would be a good way to shut me up. I hate being proved wrong, most particularly when I have leveled a somewhat serious charges against an opponent. Egg on my face is bad enough. Egg on my face when I have pointed the finger is terrible.

Jorge, that post was a "con job". You have always thought my posts stupid and have never been backward in telling me so, when you have not had me on ignore that is. And you effectively told me my last lot were stupid. So exactly what is your complaint? You want to play meek and mild when you have been anything but that, even right up to those last posts.

So here is your chance. Seize it Jorge. Clearly, from what I have written, it is not out of some inherent niceness that you simply shake your head and “rest your case”.

I shall start eating the





Regards, Roland

[Dee Dee Warren]

DX - Jorge is rude and insulting to ANYONE who crosses him.

Exaggerate much? I have disagreed and openly challenged Jorge about four times now and he has yet to be rude and insulting to me. I have treated him with respect and gotten the same in return, despite the fact that I have with all due respect said he was distorting the Bible. He may end up being rude to me - I tend to have that way with people when I debate them, my fault I am entirely sure. However, his being rude is irrelevant to my points. I will get to that, rest assured.

Be careful how far you go to defend him. His latest victim was MrManNo1 (here) - a YEC who dared to challange Jorge's behaviour towards Glenn Morton. I mean - even Sylas has lost it with Jorge!

I don't really care to be a part of the witch-hunt mentality here towards Jorge. He has agreed and in fact encouraged the fact that if I see him behaving like a bonehead I should challenge him on it. I don't think it is far for me to go and play Monday Quarterback on older threads. If I see something in the future, I will certainly challenge him. And Glenn is an enigmatic case. I like Glenn but I can understand how people could freak out on him, he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Jupiter towards YECs.

I really am at a loss on your latest series of posts as regards Jorge.

Really? I think this thread has demonstrated the limited area of my concern.

1. Christians are jumping into bed with godless theories and posters to beat up their own

2. Jorge is being unfairly attacked as a liar when what is at hand is a fundamental difference of opinion

NOWHERE in this thread have I defended Jorge's overall behaviour. In fact I have gone out of my way not to, but the general hue and cry just over a very narrow observation that I am not joining with the stoning of the board leper is telling to me.

Let me tell you something that may surprise you - ever since entering this thread, I have gotten multiple thank yous from mild-mannered gentle brethren because quite frankly other people are sick of what I noted above.

Jorge could be the meanest, rudest, son of a gun that ever breathed - and what I still said above could be correct.

He earns just about every cross word he gets.

I outright challenge you to look at what Tiggy has said in the last few exchanges and defend it. Tell me anyone has "earned" that sort of misrepresentation. And because it is against "Jorge the Terrible" who will all know is so deserving of this, none of the Christians defend him. Well you know what? Loving the unlovable and defending them when wronged is a very Christian thing to do. Tiggy's statements against Jorge are abominable.

And although unfortunately I can't claim absolute immunity from prosecution in the rudeness category when it comes to Jorge - I can show you pages and pages of exchanges between himself and myself where he tried every trick in the book to insult,demean or otherwise goad me into a rude response and I did not give in to his crap.

I invite you to show me future exchanges as said above. However, all of that could be true and doesn't change the very NARROW scope of what I have noted.

He doesn't need people to defend him - he needs people to take him to task and to encourage, even demand he clean up his act. Your defense of him here means the rest of us will have to endure a new confidence on his part to treat us all with even more rudeness and contempt. To that we shall be forever 'indebted' to you.

That is a really bad attitude quite frankly. If someone is wronged, including the nastiest person on the planet, justice says we defend them in that specific area of wrong. The impression you leave is that because Jorge has behaved like a jerk towards you it is okay that we say that he kicks puppies and steal grandma's purses too because apparently it is impossible for anyone to sin against Jorge, because jerks can't be sinned against.

ALL OF MY OBSERVATIONS ARE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER JORGE IS A JERK OR NOT. I can accept for sake of argument that he is a Big Fat Jerk^tm and my position remains.

So coming back with "but, but..... he is mean!" does not impress me. Nor does the complete ignoring of the fact that I have counseled Jorge multiple times on this thread that he should humble himself and become all things to all people help.

[Jorge]

I pity you that you are obsessed with another dude.

Hey, now wait a minute ... ... you don't think that Tiggy is ... you know ... "obsessed" with me in some ... you know ... "inappropriate" way, do you?

Come to think of it, he does seem to have a sort've "special place" for me. Yikes! Somebody, please


On a more serious note, here's what El Dumbo wrote responding to my request :

My request : I would like Tiggy to show ONE place in my over 6,200 posts where I've written,
"If you do not accept my YEC literal interpretation of the Bible then you are a God-hater."


El Dumbo (aka, Tiggy) : Gladly Jorge. I can show many places where you expressed that idea.

In a thread about creationism and ID, you responded to Barry D with

Originally posted by Jorge
Hmmm ... from what I've read, I don't see how that (troll) conclusion could have been arrived at - not enough evidence.
But then, when has a lack of evidence ever stopped a pro-evo / God-hater / fanatical anti-ID?

It's easy to see that poor ol' Tiggy flunked Reading Comprehension for Idiots. The last sentence clearly states :

But then, when has any lack of evidence ever stopped a pro-evo / God-hater / fanatical anti-ID?

For those of us with any measure of reading comprehension skills, we know to read that sentence as a statement (in the form of a question) claiming that pro-evos, God-haters and / or fanatical anti-IDers are not stopped by a lack of evidence. Barry D is indeed pro-evo and anti-ID.

As for the God-hater part, I have plainly expressed the point that God doesn't allow neutrality in this area -- a person is either for God or against Him, there is no 'middle-ground', no 'gray zone'. Tiggy doesn't seem to like that fact but a fact it remains nonetheless.

In any event, I have never said, nor will I ever say that, "If you do not accept my YEC literal interpretation of the Bible then you are a God-hater."
Tiggy is simply out of his freagin' mind. Or maybe it's that ... you know ... that "infatuation" thing. Ugghhhh ...


Jorge

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey, now wait a minute ... ... you don't think that Tiggy is ... you know ... "obsessed" with me in some ... you know ... "inappropriate" way, do you?

Come to think of it, he does seem to have a sort've "special place" for me. Yikes! Somebody, please


On a more serious note, here's what El Dumbo wrote responding to my request :

My request : I would like Tiggy to show ONE place in my over 6,200 posts where I've written,
"If you do not accept my YEC literal interpretation of the Bible then you are a God-hater."


El Dumbo (aka, Tiggy) : Gladly Jorge. I can show many places where you expressed that idea.

In a thread about creationism and ID, you responded to Barry D with

Originally posted by Jorge
Hmmm ... from what I've read, I don't see how that (troll) conclusion could have been arrived at - not enough evidence.
But then, when has a lack of evidence ever stopped a pro-evo / God-hater / fanatical anti-ID?

It's easy to see that poor ol' Tiggy flunked Reading Comprehension for Idiots. The last sentence clearly states :

But then, when has any lack of evidence ever stopped a pro-evo / God-hater / fanatical anti-ID?

For those of us with any measure of reading comprehension skills, we know to read that sentence as a statement (in the form of a question) claiming that pro-evos, God-haters and / or fanatical anti-IDers are not stopped by a lack of evidence. Barry D is indeed pro-evo and anti-ID.

As for the God-hater part, I have plainly expressed the point that God doesn't allow neutrality in this area -- a person is either for God or against Him, there is no 'middle-ground', no 'gray zone'. Tiggy doesn't seem to like that fact but a fact it remains nonetheless.

In any event, I have never said, nor will I ever say that, "If you do not accept my YEC literal interpretation of the Bible then you are a God-hater."
Tiggy is simply out of his freagin' mind. Or maybe it's that ... you know ... that "infatuation" thing. Ugghhhh ...


Jorge

I openly challenge all of those who so gladly sit in silence when Tiggy makes statements such as he did to defend them. Remember the context my friends, Tiggy said that Jorge would think I am a God-hater because I believe the earth could be 12-15K old due to incomplete genealogies.

That was Tiggy's claim. He is now trying to squirm, but his tail is firmly caught on my foot. I think he got used to being able to just flail wild accusations against Jorge because he is the unpopular kid on the block and he could get away with it. That is what I am tired of.

[Jorge]

Exaggerate much? I have disagreed and openly challenged Jorge about four times now and he has yet to be rude and insulting to me. I have treated him with respect and gotten the same in return, despite the fact that I have with all due respect said he was distorting the Bible. He may end up being rude to me - I tend to have that way with people when I debate them, my fault I am entirely sure. However, his being rude is irrelevant to my points. I will get to that, rest assured.

Yup. Furthermore, as is very plain to anyone that can read, you (DX) have no compunction about "blasting away" when you feel that this is called for. I always remind people that Christ Himself "blasted away" at others (including His disciples) when this was called for (I then get accused of "thinking myself to be Christ" -- can you believe these people?). There's nothing wrong with "blasting away" as long as it's done appropriately and with the right heart.

I don't really care to be a part of the witch-hunt mentality here towards Jorge.

Don't tell me you've also perceived this mentality ... reeeeeeeaaaaaally?

He has agreed and in fact encouraged the fact that if I see him behaving like a bonehead I should challenge him on it. I don't think it is far for me to go and play Monday Quarterback on older threads. If I see something in the future, I will certainly challenge him.

And Glenn is an enigmatic case. I like Glenn but I can understand how people could freak out on him, he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Jupiter towards YECs.

Yup, ol' gr is on a personal jihad against YECs. I once asked him if maybe a YEC stole his girlfriend or something similar -- no answer ...

Really? I think this thread has demonstrated the limited area of my concern.

1. Christians are jumping into bed with godless theories and posters to beat up their own

2. Jorge is being unfairly attacked as a liar when what is at hand is a fundamental difference of opinion

NOWHERE in this thread have I defended Jorge's overall behaviour. In fact I have gone out of my way not to, but the general hue and cry just over a very narrow observation that I am not joining with the stoning of the board leper is telling to me.

Let me tell you something that may surprise you - ever since entering this thread, I have gotten multiple thank yous from mild-mannered gentle brethren because quite frankly other people are sick of what I noted above.

Jorge could be the meanest, rudest, son of a gun that ever breathed - and what I still said above could be correct.


I outright challenge you to look at what Tiggy has said in the last few exchanges and defend it. Tell me anyone has "earned" that sort of misrepresentation. And because it is against "Jorge the Terrible" who will all know is so deserving of this, none of the Christians defend him. Well you know what? Loving the unlovable and defending them when wronged is a very Christian thing to do. Tiggy's statements against Jorge are abominable.


I invite you to show me future exchanges as said above. However, all of that could be true and doesn't change the very NARROW scope of what I have noted.


That is a really bad attitude quite frankly. If someone is wronged, including the nastiest person on the planet, justice says we defend them in that specific area of wrong. The impression you leave is that because Jorge has behaved like a jerk towards you it is okay that we say that he kicks puppies and steal grandma's purses too because apparently it is impossible for anyone to sin against Jorge, because jerks can't be sinned against.

ALL OF MY OBSERVATIONS ARE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER JORGE IS A JERK OR NOT. I can accept for sake of argument that he is a Big Fat Jerk^tm and my position remains.

So coming back with "but, but..... he is mean!" does not impress me. Nor does the complete ignoring of the fact that I have counseled Jorge multiple times on this thread that he should humble himself and become all things to all people help.

"Jorge the Terrible" -- I like that ... I think (?).


Jorge

[wattsr1]

Hey, now wait a minute ... ... you don't think that Tiggy is ... you know ... "obsessed" with me in some ... you know ... "inappropriate" way, do you?

Come to think of it, he does seem to have a sort've "special place" for me. Yikes! Somebody, please


On a more serious note, here's what El Dumbo wrote responding to my request :

My request : I would like Tiggy to show ONE place in my over 6,200 posts where I've written,
"If you do not accept my YEC literal interpretation of the Bible then you are a God-hater."


El Dumbo (aka, Tiggy) : Gladly Jorge. I can show many places where you expressed that idea.

In a thread about creationism and ID, you responded to Barry D with

Originally posted by Jorge
Hmmm ... from what I've read, I don't see how that (troll) conclusion could have been arrived at - not enough evidence.
But then, when has a lack of evidence ever stopped a pro-evo / God-hater / fanatical anti-ID?

It's easy to see that poor ol' Tiggy flunked Reading Comprehension for Idiots. The last sentence clearly states :

But then, when has any lack of evidence ever stopped a pro-evo / God-hater / fanatical anti-ID?

For those of us with any measure of reading comprehension skills, we know to read that sentence as a statement (in the form of a question) claiming that pro-evos, God-haters and / or fanatical anti-IDers are not stopped by a lack of evidence. Barry D is indeed pro-evo and anti-ID.

As for the God-hater part, I have plainly expressed the point that God doesn't allow neutrality in this area -- a person is either for God or against Him, there is no 'middle-ground', no 'gray zone'. Tiggy doesn't seem to like that fact but a fact it remains nonetheless.

In any event, I have never said, nor will I ever say that, "If you do not accept my YEC literal interpretation of the Bible then you are a God-hater."
Tiggy is simply out of his freagin' mind. Or maybe it's that ... you know ... that "infatuation" thing. Ugghhhh ...


Jorge

I think the point is moot Jorge.

You did lay out the challenge - so what do you think?

I searched this forum under “Jorge” and “God-haters”.

17 threads were returned. However, that was not necessarily conclusive.

I selected a few and searched in them.

Converting to YEC:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ight=God-hater
You used the term at post #20. You were called on it at post #23. At post #28 you attempted to justify it. That was in 2005.

10 Years for Dr Dino
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rs#post1866086
You used the term at post #46. That was this year.

Is ID Scientific
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rs#post1592420
You use the term there in post #26 and define it – perhaps in the way DDW uses it.

USA Owes UK Billions of Dollars
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rs#post1536458
In post #14. You use the term and name organizations as “God-Haters”.


I did not see you directly call anyone a “God-hater”. But then I no-where near searched all threads. However, given the context of some arguments, your opponents would have known they were “God-haters” or siding with “God-haters”.

So from what I saw, how much is context worth? At the very least you need to be careful.





Regards, Roland

[Tiggy]

As for the God-hater part, I have plainly expressed the point that God doesn't allow neutrality in this area -- a person is either for God or against Him, there is no 'middle-ground', no 'gray zone'. Tiggy doesn't seem to like that fact but a fact it remains nonetheless.

But you conveniently omit the fact that you define "against God" as anyone who doesn't accept your personal interpretation of scripture.

Trying to split the logical connection to hide your claims isn't very honest, now is it Jorge? Suppose I make the following two claims:

Jorge is a frabbldyglop.
All frabbldyglops are big fat booger-eating liars.

But according to Jorge-logic, I never directly said Jorge is a liar, right? So those statements are both OK, right?

Honesty just isn't your thing, is it Horhay.

BTW, can you please tell us how much distortion of scripture you think is acceptable? If I think Biblical scholars skipped enough generations in their Creation date calculations to make the world 15K years old, you say that is OK. What if I think they skipped enough generations to make it 20K years old? 50K years old? 100K years old?

Please old Great Fraudnandez, tell us how much distortion of scripture is OK.

Finally, there are other "inerrant" versions of the Bible out there but this doesn't tell the complete story. If I took the AKJV1611 and deleted four Books from it, the remainder would continue to be inerrant but, as I hope is obvious, it's not kosher.

Which other versions of the Bible besides the 1611 AKJV are inerrant Jorge?

If all those versions of the Bible did skip generations that put a great uncertainty into Biblical dating, how can they all be inerrant?

- T

[Red Wine]

Probably be best to wait to continue this discussion until after you've read the link provided by SteveF. It's a bit long but seems to cover things more than adequately. Hopefully it'll provide a least some of the historical data that you're seeking.

Will do Rogue, and thanks for the link Steve.