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

[Tiggy]

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.

LOL! you're too funny Xena! Look at what I actually said

Well, according to Jorge your are now guilty of distorting scripture, which makes you a God-hater

I did't say Jorge thinks you are a God hater. My point was that under Jorge's normal exhibited criteria for judging, your interpretation of scripture is a distortion that would put you into that category which it would for anyone else.

I then pointed out that because Jorge didn't call you on it that he is guilty of blatant hypocrisy, which he is.

I also supplied multiple examples of this backing up exactly what I said.

But if it makes you happy to flail away at your little strawman, be my guest.

- T

[Red Wine]

Yes RedWine I think it is part of the becoming all things to all men that I might win some. It is something I struggle with greatly as well - though in that context, Paul is speaking of unbelievers, but I still think it is applicable to communications by brethren wherein the stronger (mature) brother becomes all things to all men so as not to stumble the less strong. It is a big struggle for me.

DeeDee, it's your website...and 'we are all here'...Good things, in any universe. Paul was also a great exhorter to fellow brethren like Timothy. So you'll struggle on and 'fight the good fight' with us? Don't be too hard on yourself, just a little bit

[oxmixmudd]

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.

What can I say - you own the board. So far observing his interation with you and his interaction with 99% of those on Nat Sci - you have some special dispensation we do not have.

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

This began with me getting on Jorge for characterizing a scientific conclusion as an insertion into scripture. Such characterisations are wrong. And it takes this debate from a disagreement over the interpretation of scripture between two peers to an accusation of willful corruption of the text. That is how church splits grow and how new denominations form - and we really don't need any more of that mentality in the church. We need to be clear on those aspects of orthodoxy that are agreed fundamentals of the faith, but on issues like this, we are under grace - not law and we should not be accusing one another of some form of blasphemy.

Secondly - It is not a witch hunt on my part. Jorge himself may be on a witch hunt as he converses with me (and really any non-YEC) with more disdain than I would treat a real witch. Jorge has the 'gift' of being able to draw the absolute worst behaviour possible out of an individual. And in every case I have observed, he applies that gift to anyone not YEC, and any YEC that crosses him on issues related to YEC.

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 guess we'll just have to see if it makes any difference - or if you will defend an atheist or non-YEC from Jorge when he does become rude. So far, you seem to think he is justified in his behaviours - so I am not encouraged.

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

That is a characterization of what you saw that is simply incorrect. At least relative to my post. Jorge routinely characterizes me as barely Christian. Why? Because I believe the Earth is old and Yom in Genesis 1 is not a 24 hour day. It is absurd. My guess is if we looked at what we each believe in terms of the core items of the faith and even many peripheral items of the faith - we would find no disagreement. But Jorge evaluates people on their YEC stance, and once one has come down OE or TE, there is essentially no possibility of fellowship - because Jorge will not speak in civil tones or respect with anyone not YEC. Or shall I say, I have not observed Jorge speaking in civil tones with anyone not YEC beyond the first post that said person indicates he/she does not accept whatever claim(s) Jorge is making.

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

What I said was that none of us has ever claimed soul-less proto humans are spoken of in scripture. Jorge implies we have by saying we 'insert' that concept into scripture. That is true. I did not conceive of that statement as 'calling Jorge a lier' - it was you who interpreted it that way. Regardless - the statement is true. I nor anyone I know considers the Bible to teach, or the scripture to speak, of soul-less proto-humans. And I regret having ever borrowed the term from Hugh Ross -it obviously is a loaded term. I am talking about hominids that are morphologically between apes and homo-sapiens. They existed. There are two possibilities for them

1) They were man -> the had a soul
2) they were beast -> they did not have a soul.

We don't have a clue which is correct. We each may have an opinion, but they don't walk the earth anymore, so the above are the possibilities. But they existed. To recognize that is not to insert into scripture. And it is true whether one is YEC,OEC,or TE. For example - even AIG has been known to argue cro-magnon and neanderthal are really just modern man. the are taking option 1 above.

So again, my original statement you got in such a huff over stands: I do not insert this concept into scripture. I do not claim it comes from scripture. It has nothing to do with scripture. It has to do with the fact there are bones in the ground that are not like modern man but are closer to those of modern man than any other non-human bones! And Jorge is wrong to claim I or anyone else is 'inserting' this into scripture.

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 will agree with you on this. I do not like crapping on Jorge, and I usually regret it when I lose my cool with him. It is not who I want to be. I know serveral who simply do not post here because it is essentially impossible to converse with him without being goaded into some kind of rude behavior. My distress with you is that you are blind to this aspect of this situation. It is a lot like when you've got kid in a class picking on you, but they are smart enough to give innoncent little 'who me' eyes to the teacher, or they goad you into some inappropriate behavior just as the teacher walks in.

I outright challenge you to look at what Tiggy has said in the last few exchanges and defend it.

I can't defend Tiggy - But neither can I defend Jorge. Jorge is not less rude to Tiggy than Tiggy is to Jorge. But on that note - I have tried to defend Jorge on Occasion. It's the missing fingers of my hand that are in Jorge's mouth after such attempts that cause me to leave him to fend for himself. You see - Jorge's disdain for the non-YEC is so intense he would rather lie bleeding in the ditch than accept help from such a low life as I.

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.

Fine - I'll see if I can clean up my end. But hang around for a while (incognito I would recommend) and see who it is who crosses the line first.

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.

At the risk of further sending you over the edge - while what you say is true - you should apply it to yourself in conversations with Glenn Morton. You see, it isn't Jorge that is YOUR pain in the butt, It is Glenn. And how you act toward/feel about Glenn should help you understand the situation between me and Jorge. But it doesn't seem to me you are recognizing this issue is a common weakness - just as you are not recognizing Jorge purposefully exploits that weakness in most with whom he disagrees.

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.

Fine - you clean up your act with Glenn - and I'll clean up mine with Jorge. No, actually, I'll clean up my act with Jorge even if you continue your ways with Glenn. It remains to be seen if Jorge can clean up his act - but that would be welcome as well. I have no desire to be rude or harsh with anyone.


Jim

[rogue06]

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.

Jorge is entirely capable of holding a cordial conversation, especially when he first starts with someone he hasn't debated before. I've watched him go for several pages being courteous and polite, but in the end he has always reverted back to his usual demeanor, answering everything with "sarcastic" comments and such. Awhile back sylas appeared to broker a deal about keeping the conversation civil. Jorge worried he would no longer have fun anymore being that he really, really enjoys making his quips, but nevertheless he did agree. For most of us this, including Jorge, it held for quite some time. There were still those like Tiggy who were either unaware of or didn't care about this agreement and continued in the old manner of exchanging insults (I think in some cases they may actually prefer the old Jorge). Still, the agreement held together fairly well for the rest of us in large part because Jorge remained civil to those who didn't join in the sniping (give credit where credit is due). Now, IMHO, it finally started to fall apart when Jorge posted the following thread where he cast serious doubt on whether those who don't follow his YEC beliefs barely qualify as being Christian (while the name says "Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" the OP makes it clear he was also addressing OEC and others as well):

TAKE TWO : Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?

As I said, at least for me, things went rapidly down hill from that point on so that once again we are back where we were before. Again, this is at least the way I saw things progress to their current state, you can take it for what it's worth. But if all of this has helped to put things back to a more civil discourse then I thank you for "jumping in."

Still, there is one other thing I wish to address.

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.

From this it appears that it is okay for Christians who support Jorge's position to stand by in silence and only respond (and still not publicly) only when someone else has stepped forward whereas those Christians who oppose Jorge's position should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a fellow Christian to be attacked. Why are those who oppose him in the wrong for not defending him when those who support him can't even be troubled to do so? What am I missing here?

[Dee Dee Warren]

n/t

I am not getting into the drama so I have deleted my post

Jim - you have the last word because I got soinsulted at something you said in your post that I would not be able to of any edification in response, so I will simply move on and get over it rather than fuel the flames of drama. If you already saw it, I should have had the ten minute rule of not posting when the heat of emotion is high and cool down before hitting the send key. That is a personal flaw I am working on and generally when one gets insulted it means there might be a kernel of truth in the statement, so I will choose to be humble and consider if that is in fact the case.

[i]A harsh word stir up anger, but a gentle word turns away wrath[i]

The tongue (or fingers as it may be) is a devilish little instrument.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jorge is entirely capable of holding a cordial conversation, especially when he first starts with someone he hasn't debated before. I've watched him go for several pages being courteous and polite, but in the end he has always reverted back to his usual demeanor, answering everything with "sarcastic" comments and such. Awhile back sylas appeared to broker a deal about keeping the conversation civil. Jorge worried he would no longer have fun anymore being that he really, really enjoys making his quips, but nevertheless he did agree. For most of us this, including Jorge, it held for quite some time. There were still those like Tiggy who were either unaware of or didn't care about this agreement and continued in the old manner of exchanging insults (I think in some cases they may actually prefer the old Jorge). Still, the agreement held together fairly well for the rest of us in large part because Jorge remained civil to those who didn't join in the sniping (give credit where credit is due). Now, IMHO, it finally started to fall apart when Jorge posted the following thread where he cast serious doubt on whether those who don't follow his YEC beliefs barely qualify as being Christian (while the name says "Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" the OP makes it clear he was also addressing OEC and others as well):

TAKE TWO : Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?

As I said, at least for me, things went rapidly down hill from that point on so that once again we are back where we were before. Again, this is at least the way I saw things progress to their current state, you can take it for what it's worth. But if all of this has helped to put things back to a more civil discourse then I thank you for "jumping in."

Still, there is one other thing I wish to address.

From this it appears that it is okay for Christians who support Jorge's position to stand by in silence and only respond (and still not publicly) only when someone else has stepped forward whereas those Christians who oppose Jorge's position should be ashamed of themselves for allowing a fellow Christian to be attacked. Why are those who oppose him in the wrong for not defending him when those who support him can't even be troubled to do so? What am I missing here?

Rogue, I am sorry but I read that last paragraph several times and I am - can you reword it because I can not follow what you are asking. Thanks!

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am going to answer the few questions posed by Rogue, and take Tiggy behind the woodshed in the Boiler Room and I am done with this thread. One's point does not become stronger by the tedious repitition of it, and that is where this has gone.

[Dee Dee Warren]

DeeDee, it's your website...and 'we are all here'...Good things, in any universe. Paul was also a great exhorter to fellow brethren like Timothy. So you'll struggle on and 'fight the good fight' with us? Don't be too hard on yourself, just a little bit

I think I deserve to be a bit hard - and need to follow my own advice of not hitting "post" until ten minutes have passed and to seek every way possible to not be insulted. Thanks for your words of encouragement.

[rogue06]

I'm still having trouble finding words to express this...

It seems you are scolding the Christians who disagree with Jorge for standing by and allowing him to be unfairly attacked, yet it appears that you have no problem with the Christians who support Jorge's position from also standing by and allowing him to be unfairly attacked. I see a startling lack of consistency here if that is indeed the case.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Umm, I am still a bit lost - are you asking me why I don't insist that the non-posters (i.e. thread lurkers) aren't jumping in?

[rogue06]

Sorry, I was under the impression that they weren't lurkers but fellow twebers.

[FreezBee]

Umm, I am still a bit lost - are you asking me why I don't insist that the non-posters (i.e. thread lurkers) aren't jumping in?

Oh, don't worry, we're just too busy watching the show. Please carry on ...

[oxmixmudd]

n/t

I am not getting into the drama so I have deleted my post

Jim - you have the last word because I got soinsulted at something you said in your post that I would not be able to of any edification in response, so I will simply move on and get over it rather than fuel the flames of drama. If you already saw it, I should have had the ten minute rule of not posting when the heat of emotion is high and cool down before hitting the send key. That is a personal flaw I am working on and generally when one gets insulted it means there might be a kernel of truth in the statement, so I will choose to be humble and consider if that is in fact the case.

[i]A harsh word stir up anger, but a gentle word turns away wrath[i]

The tongue (or fingers as it may be) is a devilish little instrument.

I didn't see it - but thanks for taking this route. What you have said so far has hit home with me in terms of behavior - If I had been keeping my nose clean with Jorge I would have had a much stronger case overall. But it is hard, for all of us, to maintain absolute control emotionally when something hits home or finds its way into that set of things we find offensive. My personal belief is that Jorge exploits that for some reason - making reasoned discourse with him especially difficult. Rogue summarizes the current state of things fairly well. I do not fault you for whatever you wrote - but I do applaud you for backing off and clearing it. I intend to try to follow your example in that regard the next time I find myself in a similar emotional state over something written my way.

God Bless,


Jim

[Jorge]

What can I say - you own the board. So far observing his interation with you and his interaction with 99% of those on Nat Sci - you have some special dispensation we do not have.





This began with me getting on Jorge for characterizing a scientific conclusion as an insertion into scripture. Such characterisations are wrong. And it takes this debate from a disagreement over the interpretation of scripture between two peers to an accusation of willful corruption of the text. That is how church splits grow and how new denominations form - and we really don't need any more of that mentality in the church. We need to be clear on those aspects of orthodoxy that are agreed fundamentals of the faith, but on issues like this, we are under grace - not law and we should not be accusing one another of some form of blasphemy.

Secondly - It is not a witch hunt on my part. Jorge himself may be on a witch hunt as he converses with me (and really any non-YEC) with more disdain than I would treat a real witch. Jorge has the 'gift' of being able to draw the absolute worst behaviour possible out of an individual. And in every case I have observed, he applies that gift to anyone not YEC, and any YEC that crosses him on issues related to YEC.



I guess we'll just have to see if it makes any difference - or if you will defend an atheist or non-YEC from Jorge when he does become rude. So far, you seem to think he is justified in his behaviours - so I am not encouraged.




That is a characterization of what you saw that is simply incorrect. At least relative to my post. Jorge routinely characterizes me as barely Christian. Why? Because I believe the Earth is old and Yom in Genesis 1 is not a 24 hour day. It is absurd. My guess is if we looked at what we each believe in terms of the core items of the faith and even many peripheral items of the faith - we would find no disagreement. But Jorge evaluates people on their YEC stance, and once one has come down OE or TE, there is essentially no possibility of fellowship - because Jorge will not speak in civil tones or respect with anyone not YEC. Or shall I say, I have not observed Jorge speaking in civil tones with anyone not YEC beyond the first post that said person indicates he/she does not accept whatever claim(s) Jorge is making.



What I said was that none of us has ever claimed soul-less proto humans are spoken of in scripture. Jorge implies we have by saying we 'insert' that concept into scripture. That is true. I did not conceive of that statement as 'calling Jorge a lier' - it was you who interpreted it that way. Regardless - the statement is true. I nor anyone I know considers the Bible to teach, or the scripture to speak, of soul-less proto-humans. And I regret having ever borrowed the term from Hugh Ross -it obviously is a loaded term. I am talking about hominids that are morphologically between apes and homo-sapiens. They existed. There are two possibilities for them

1) They were man -> the had a soul
2) they were beast -> they did not have a soul.

We don't have a clue which is correct. We each may have an opinion, but they don't walk the earth anymore, so the above are the possibilities. But they existed. To recognize that is not to insert into scripture. And it is true whether one is YEC,OEC,or TE. For example - even AIG has been known to argue cro-magnon and neanderthal are really just modern man. the are taking option 1 above.

So again, my original statement you got in such a huff over stands: I do not insert this concept into scripture. I do not claim it comes from scripture. It has nothing to do with scripture. It has to do with the fact there are bones in the ground that are not like modern man but are closer to those of modern man than any other non-human bones! And Jorge is wrong to claim I or anyone else is 'inserting' this into scripture.



I will agree with you on this. I do not like crapping on Jorge, and I usually regret it when I lose my cool with him. It is not who I want to be. I know serveral who simply do not post here because it is essentially impossible to converse with him without being goaded into some kind of rude behavior. My distress with you is that you are blind to this aspect of this situation. It is a lot like when you've got kid in a class picking on you, but they are smart enough to give innoncent little 'who me' eyes to the teacher, or they goad you into some inappropriate behavior just as the teacher walks in.





I can't defend Tiggy - But neither can I defend Jorge. Jorge is not less rude to Tiggy than Tiggy is to Jorge. But on that note - I have tried to defend Jorge on Occasion. It's the missing fingers of my hand that are in Jorge's mouth after such attempts that cause me to leave him to fend for himself. You see - Jorge's disdain for the non-YEC is so intense he would rather lie bleeding in the ditch than accept help from such a low life as I.



Fine - I'll see if I can clean up my end. But hang around for a while (incognito I would recommend) and see who it is who crosses the line first.



At the risk of further sending you over the edge - while what you say is true - you should apply it to yourself in conversations with Glenn Morton. You see, it isn't Jorge that is YOUR pain in the butt, It is Glenn. And how you act toward/feel about Glenn should help you understand the situation between me and Jorge. But it doesn't seem to me you are recognizing this issue is a common weakness - just as you are not recognizing Jorge purposefully exploits that weakness in most with whom he disagrees.



Fine - you clean up your act with Glenn - and I'll clean up mine with Jorge. No, actually, I'll clean up my act with Jorge even if you continue your ways with Glenn. It remains to be seen if Jorge can clean up his act - but that would be welcome as well. I have no desire to be rude or harsh with anyone.


Jim

I did a very quick read of the above and found soooooooo much 'junk' (the only word I can think of to summarize the entire mess) that I decided to not even attempt to address it lest I spend considerable time on what will most likely be a complete waste of time.

Just know that it's not accepted, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

I did a very quick read of the above and found soooooooo much 'junk' (the only word I can think of to summarize the entire mess) that I decided to not even attempt to address it lest I spend considerable time on what will most likely be a complete waste of time.

Just know that it's not accepted, O-Mudd.

Jorge

Nor did I expect it to be. But I will offer you an olive branch going forward. The above (though primarily addressed to DX) constains some of my opinions of your past behaviour. If you want to prove me wrong, or if you want to turn over a new leaf - you have all the opportunity in the world to do so. I will not bring up past offenses prior to this day in any future conversations. I reserve the right to reference past conversations on specific points of science or theology as relates to scientific or biblical content in future discussions, but statements of attack on me personally are 'forgotten'.


Jim