Bill Dembski disillusioned with fundamentalism

[oxmixmudd]

There's nothing about the evidence for asteroid impacts that's inconclusive. We know the composition of asteroids in space, and can see traces of those elements/isotopes in the debris. We can understand the shock/heat process and how it leads to distinctive material properties using lab experiments; we see those in the debris as well. We see asteroids currently hitting other bodies (the moon, Mars, Jupiter), and see the results of past impacts. They're so regular, that we can use their rate of impact as a way of measuring the rate of remodeling of the surfaces of various moons.

There's really no question about it: the earth has been pummeled by asteroids. Repeatedly.

Exactly. Jorge's claim "everybody he's ask gets it" - i.e. that there is sufficient uncertainty about the impacts to keep a Young Earth model alive is meaningless. He's talking to people that are clueless one way or the other - if the claim actually is valid. And his proposed alternatives are ... just preposterous.

The problem is he, like many of his YEC leader buddies, knows this doesn't fly. But if he ever admits that, its all over in terms of whatever status he enjoys in YEC circles over being a fellow 'in the know' as to what is 'wrong with science'.


Jim

ETA: Jorge wrote this 'paper' in direct response to a thread on the old TWEB pointing out the problems Asteroid impacts present for the Young Earth point of view. So he has effectively admitted that if these are asteroid impacts, YEC is in serious trouble. He's going to back away from that I would guess now that I've brought it up, but he wrote the paper. He knows its a serious problem. Just another reason why he won't admit its content is garbage and the case for these being anything but asteroid impacts is closed - or as closed as any scientific conclusion can be.

[Jorge]

I too read that stupid piece of garbage you wrote Clucky. It was so wrong as to be laughable. I still show it to people as an example of just how scientifically clueless you YECsters are.

I would have thought it clearly understood that when I said NO ONE I was referring to individuals without an ax to grind ... you know, clear-minded, objective individuals. In case you haven't been told, you do NOT qualify as such. Neither does O-Mudd.

Jorge

[Jorge]

.
Fortunately for the both of us His Grace does not require we understand everything about Him perfectly.

Jim

I've grown tired of trying to get you to see some things and accept others so I'm not responding to any of your post except for the above which is the only part that you got right.

That said, stop fooling yourself ('cause ya ain't fooling me and you certainly ain't fooling God).
While His Grace is as you state, we will nonetheless
(1) have to answer for spreading false/anti-biblical doctrines.
(2) have to answer for distorting His Word - something that God specifically tells us not to do.
(3) have to answer for those souls that we lead away from God because of our false teachings.

In that knowledge I sleep like a newborn baby. I seriously doubt that TEs/OECs have the same peace of mind when in their heart of hearts they know full well that the ONLY way their beliefs stand is by introducing extra-biblical beliefs and theories and then elevating them above the clear Word of God.

Speaking for myself only, I know that if I even suspected that I was doing as TEs/OECs do, I'd have to take a sleep aid every night - my conscience would be nagging at me like a wife out of hell. But, hey, that's only me - maybe I'm just soft. Some people have learned to silence the voice of their conscience until they can barely hear it any longer.

Jorge

[Jorge]

There's nothing about the evidence for asteroid impacts that's inconclusive. We know the composition of asteroids in space, and can see traces of those elements/isotopes in the debris. We can understand the shock/heat process and how it leads to distinctive material properties using lab experiments; we see those in the debris as well. We see asteroids currently hitting other bodies (the moon, Mars, Jupiter), and see the results of past impacts. They're so regular, that we can use their rate of impact as a way of measuring the rate of remodeling of the surfaces of various moons.

There's really no question about it: the earth has been pummeled by asteroids. Repeatedly.

Either learn to read or remain quiet.

In the paper I never dogmatically stated that there have been NO impacts EVER.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you never read the paper.

Okay, fine. Then do you see what happens when you listen and take as "factual" the rabidly-prejudiced opinions of certain individuals? Let that be a lesson to you: think before you jump on the bandwagon of a less-than-honest report.

Of course, if you DID read the paper yourself then go back to my first sentence in this post.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Either learn to read or remain quiet.

In the paper I never dogmatically stated that there have been NO impacts EVER.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you never read the paper.

Okay, fine. Then do you see what happens when you listen and take as "factual" the rabidly-prejudiced opinions of certain individuals? Let that be a lesson to you: think before you jump on the bandwagon of a less-than-honest report.

Of course, if you DID read the paper yourself then go back to my first sentence in this post.

Why is that piece of garbage article still up at TrueOrigins Clucky? If you know it's wrong why haven't you had it taken down?

[oxmixmudd]

I've grown tired of trying to get you to see some things and accept others so I'm not responding to any of your post except for the above which is the only part that you got right.

That said, stop fooling yourself ('cause ya ain't fooling me and you certainly ain't fooling God).
While His Grace is as you state, we will nonetheless
(1) have to answer for spreading false/anti-biblical doctrines.
(2) have to answer for distorting His Word - something that God specifically tells us not to do.
(3) have to answer for those souls that we lead away from God because of our false teachings.

As for (3) - there are many that upon learning that the YEC 'science' is total made up garbage walk away from faith in God. So there will be plenty of blame to go around on that front.

(1) and (2) are elements I have strived hard to avoid. But I am not so bold as you as to proclaim there is no possible flaw in my current position.

That said, I have never knowingly or purposefully 'distorted' God's word. Nor have I have knowingly taught something I knew to be false - except when I was a YEC and I knew there were problems with YEC 'science' but I'd been asked to teach a high school evening Sunday class on the subject. To be fair, this was the early phase of my understanding relative to the problems with YEC. Nevertheless, I still regret going along with that.

In that knowledge I sleep like a newborn baby.

They do say ignorance is bliss ...

I seriously doubt that TEs/OECs have the same peace of mind when in their heart of hearts they know full well that the ONLY way their beliefs stand is by introducing extra-biblical beliefs and theories and then elevating them above the clear Word of God.

If by that you mean I'm not absolutely sure everything I have come to accept is absolutely correct. You'd be right about that. I'm not. And there are times the whole thing is disturbing, unsettling. But in all I strive to keep it consistent, and I absolutely do continually seek to understand any element I have wrong and am ready to immediately adjust my position should I find some element of it is incorrect. I'm even willing to be taught by ... subjects such as yourself Jorge ... should anything ever come out of your mouth that reveals an element of my position that needs to be corrected.

But what I do that you almost never do Jorge is that I admit the truth about the areas of conflict where they exist. I don't pretend the evidence for an old Earth is anything but what it is - substantial. And I don't pretend I'm able to fully reconcile all the theological elements with that reality. So while you prance around with absolute certainty you are right, I must trust God each day to guide me into the truth, and in that I depend on all those around me - even you - to call my attention to possible areas where I am not where I should be.

Speaking for myself only, I know that if I even suspected that I was doing as TEs/OECs do, I'd have to take a sleep aid every night - my conscience would be nagging at me like a wife out of hell. But, hey, that's only me - maybe I'm just soft. Some people have learned to silence the voice of their conscience until they can barely hear it any longer.

Jorge

I've always said you should follow your conscience Jorge. I've only asked you to be honest about the evidence itself. And clearly, the part or your conscience that would motivate you to tell the truth about asteroid impact evidence (and more) has been seriously if not permanently damaged ...


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Either learn to read or remain quiet.

In the paper I never dogmatically stated that there have been NO impacts EVER.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you never read the paper.

Okay, fine. Then do you see what happens when you listen and take as "factual" the rabidly-prejudiced opinions of certain individuals? Let that be a lesson to you: think before you jump on the bandwagon of a less-than-honest report.

Of course, if you DID read the paper yourself then go back to my first sentence in this post.

Jorge

The problem is not 'some' impacts Jorge. And you know it - so stop pretending that is what is being discussed. The problem is the 30 or more impacts that left craters 20 km (IIRC) or larger, the largest of which are holes in the crust hundreds of kilometers across! To have events like that (regardless of their source BTW) compressed into a 6000 year history of the Earth (actually <2000 based on extant written records and a 6000 year age) , with no physical memory of it in any culture, and for the largest ones to have been so completely erased by time as to be invisible without modern instruments and techniques is absolute lunacy. And you know that. That is why you went searching for 'an answer', and that is why you continue to pretend that paper you wrote presents some hope the problem isn't really a problem.


Jim

[TheLurch]

Either learn to read or remain quiet.

In the paper I never dogmatically stated that there have been NO impacts EVER.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you never read the paper.

Okay, fine. Then do you see what happens when you listen and take as "factual" the rabidly-prejudiced opinions of certain individuals? Let that be a lesson to you: think before you jump on the bandwagon of a less-than-honest report.

Of course, if you DID read the paper yourself then go back to my first sentence in this post.

Jorge

I have read the "paper." I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by filling in the blanks of your argument for you, as you don't bother to specify it there. The argument, as oxmixmudd spells out down thread, is that a sufficient number of impact craters have been misidentified so that there are very few - few enough, and conveniently the small enough ones, that they could have been expected to have gone unmentioned in what you believe is a very compressed historic and archeological record.

That's simply laughable on both counts (again, as he pointed out).

1) We have identified a large number of events that were clearly impacts, based on the evidence described in my original post.
2) Some of the things that are clearly impacts are among the largest features of the type.

And, given the evidence i mentioned earlier, you could add a third point:
3) How did all the impact craters on other bodies in the solar system get there while the earth was spared?

Your paper does nothing to help your argument in the face of the evidence i mentioned. It's little more than an argument by insinuation - since untrained amateurs that look at your pictures can be mistaken about the source of a crater, then so can geologists. You dress it up a bit by mentioning tektites from non-impact sources, but it's again insinuating that geologists can't identify types of tektites, or gather non-tektite evidence.

Not only is my reading ability fine, i think my reading comprehension's pretty good, too.

[Jorge]

As for (3) - there are many that upon learning that the YEC 'science' is total made up garbage walk away from faith in God. So there will be plenty of blame to go around on that front.

This isn't about "blame", you Dodo, this is about right vs. wrong, truth vs. falsehoods.
You never did quite grasp that fact during the time you were a YEC.
No wonder you left YEC to become a TE/OEC.
As you know, I have long predicted that your next station stop will be Materialist/Humanist/Atheist.
It is the only remaining logical step as the Bible becomes less and less "believable" to you.

(1) and (2) are elements I have strived hard to avoid. But I am not so bold as you as to proclaim there is no possible flaw in my current position.

Ah, yes indeed! But my "boldness" does not originate within me (i.e., as "ego" or anything like that). By myself I am fallible, finite, weak and sinful. My boldness stems from outside of myself, from standing on the Word of God. But I have very far to go. I strive to one day have the boldness of the Apostles who died boldly standing on the truth and knowledge of (biblical) Christ. I'd like to think that, if the time came, I would die for that Christ as gladly as did the martyred Apostles. But for the "Christ" of TEs/OECs I wouldn't give a plugged nickel.

That said, I have never knowingly or purposefully 'distorted' God's word. Nor have I have knowingly taught something I knew to be false - except when I was a YEC and I knew there were problems with YEC 'science' but I'd been asked to teach a high school evening Sunday class on the subject. To be fair, this was the early phase of my understanding relative to the problems with YEC. Nevertheless, I still regret going along with that.

You have clearly deluded yourself into believing the above. I will grant that you sincerely believe what you say. So what? The Snake Worshiper that has sincere faith in his false beliefs - beliefs even onto death - is still wrong in what he believes. From day one I have told you that you never - not then and not now - understood Biblical Creationism. That you abandoned it was predictable.

They do say ignorance is bliss ...

Yes, it's true, which makes you the happiest person on Earth.

If by that you mean I'm not absolutely sure everything I have come to accept is absolutely correct. You'd be right about that. I'm not. And there are times the whole thing is disturbing, unsettling. But in all I strive to keep it consistent, and I absolutely do continually seek to understand any element I have wrong and am ready to immediately adjust my position should I find some element of it is incorrect. I'm even willing to be taught by ... subjects such as yourself Jorge ... should anything ever come out of your mouth that reveals an element of my position that needs to be corrected.

It's much simpler for me - try to follow: I know with 100% certainty that the God of the Bible is real. Hypothetically, if He isn't real then I want to die right now - this very instant - because nothing else matters. But since He is real then His Word is also real. There are fairly simple rules for reading comprehension. I read, I understand. There is a great deal of historical and observational evidence that supports what I read and understood. That evidence is more than enough to BOLDLY stand on that 100% certainty that I stated a minute ago. I don't let anything else bother me. Period, end of story.

Everything after that rock-solid foundation follows logically.

But what I do that you almost never do Jorge is that I admit the truth about the areas of conflict where they exist. I don't pretend the evidence for an old Earth is anything but what it is - substantial. And I don't pretend I'm able to fully reconcile all the theological elements with that reality. So while you prance around with absolute certainty you are right, I must trust God each day to guide me into the truth, and in that I depend on all those around me - even you - to call my attention to possible areas where I am not where I should be.

How the HELL would you know what I do or don't do?

My (biblical) God says to me, "Come and let us reason together." My God doesn't turn away from sincere questions. My God understands perfectly my doubts and fears. As long as I'm sincere and trust in Him through those doubts and fears, He is cool with that. You think that, maybe perhaps, Abraham (Abram) didn't 'doubt and fear' when he was asked to sacrifice his son (Isaac)? Yet Abraham trusted God and God's Word to him through his doubts and fears.

No, our real difference is that when you doubt you INVARIABLY side with Evolution and giga-years: "knowledge" that you have set ABOVE the plain, direct meaning of God's Word. Me, I INVARIABLY trust that God's Word is correct --- THAT is our real difference. Thank God that Abraham's "faith" was not that of a TE/OEC!!!

I've always said you should follow your conscience Jorge. I've only asked you to be honest about the evidence itself. And clearly, the part or your conscience that would motivate you to tell the truth about asteroid impact evidence (and more) has been seriously if not permanently damaged ...

Jim

You wish to believe that - you HAVE to believe that - because the alternative would pop your bubble.
And that is something that you will not allow - no way, no how!
Believe whatever you will but it is that simple.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

This isn't about "blame", you Dodo, this is about right vs. wrong, truth vs. falsehoods.
You never did quite grasp that fact during the time you were a YEC.
No wonder you left YEC to become a TE/OEC.
As you know, I have long predicted that your next station stop will be Materialist/Humanist/Atheist.
It is the only remaining logical step as the Bible becomes less and less "believable" to you.

How sad it is that you would rather predict my fall from grace than examine your notion that YEC is the only way to be faithful to God.

Ah, yes indeed! But my "boldness" does not originate within me (i.e., as "ego" or anything like that). By myself I am fallible, finite, weak and sinful. My boldness stems from outside of myself, from standing on the Word of God. But I have very far to go. I strive to one day have the boldness of the Apostles who died boldly standing on the truth and knowledge of (biblical) Christ. I'd like to think that, if the time came, I would die for that Christ as gladly as did the martyred Apostles. But for the "Christ" of TEs/OECs I wouldn't give a plugged nickel.

But you don't stand on the word of God on this issue. You've invented your own interpretation of the text where the conversation about the dome of the sky and the waters above are simply ignored, mapped into something convenient that fits your materialistic view of the structure of the Earth and the cosmos. You put science above the text in exactly the same way you claim is so evil in my view of the text. The text is clear Jorge. You just interpret away what it says.

The reality is that BOTH the time frame AND the structure of the cosmos as described in Genesis 1 is NOT a factual description. The only legitimate way to deal with that is to recognize its message is NOT to define history in a technically accurate form.

You have clearly deluded yourself into believing the above. I will grant that you sincerely believe what you say. So what? The Snake Worshiper that has sincere faith in his false beliefs - beliefs even onto death - is still wrong in what he believes. From day one I have told you that you never - not then and not now - understood Biblical Creationism. That you abandoned it was predictable.

I have never understood the concept that if I am 'truly faithful' I must ignore reality. I never understood it when the "Faith healing only" crowd tried to tell me that the only reason Christians get sick is that they don't have enough faith. And that the only reason people with chronic or terminal illness are not healed is because they do not have enough faith. And I never understood it when people like you try to tell me that I'm not faithful unless I ignore the meaning of the text as regards the raqia while at the same time ignoring the massive evidence for great age in the universe. It's just all around stupid. Ultimately, the disciples believed because they saw the risen Christ. And we believe on account of their testimony. There is no body. We do not believe in spite of the fact there are bones in the grave. What you require is the equivalent of the Disciples going to the tomb, finding the body there, and then saying, "well Jesus said he would rise again, I'm just going to ignore this body sitting here and believe it anyway." It would be idiotic if they did it that way, and it is idiotic when you do it as regards both the text concerning the raqia and the science concerning the age of the Earth.

It's much simpler for me - try to follow: I know with 100% certainty that the God of the Bible is real. Hypothetically, if He isn't real then I want to die right now - this very instant - because nothing else matters. But since He is real then His Word is also real. There are fairly simple rules for reading comprehension. I read, I understand. There is a great deal of historical and observational evidence that supports what I read and understood. That evidence is more than enough to BOLDLY stand on that 100% certainty that I stated a minute ago. I don't let anything else bother me. Period, end of story.

No Jorge - there is not enough, nowhere near enough, to justify the way you interpret Genesis. But - the fact you are convinced what the scripture actually says and what science actually shows are impossible to reconcile, it is just as well you stay YEC. I'd rather deal with you like this now and see you in Heaven than have you agree with me and lose your Faith in Christ.



But that doesn't mean I'm going to ease off on my insistence your paper on impact craters is false, misleading, and deceptive. It is what it is.



Jim

[Jorge]

How sad it is that you would rather predict my fall from grace than examine your notion that YEC is the only way to be faithful to God.




But you don't stand on the word of God on this issue. You've invented your own interpretation of the text where the conversation about the dome of the sky and the waters above are simply ignored, mapped into something convenient that fits your materialistic view of the structure of the Earth and the cosmos. You put science above the text in exactly the same way you claim is so evil in my view of the text. The text is clear Jorge. You just interpret away what it says.

The reality is that BOTH the time frame AND the structure of the cosmos as described in Genesis 1 is NOT a factual description. The only legitimate way to deal with that is to recognize its message is NOT to define history in a technically accurate form.





I have never understood the concept that if I am 'truly faithful' I must ignore reality. I never understood it when the "Faith healing only" crowd tried to tell me that the only reason Christians get sick is that they don't have enough faith. And that the only reason people with chronic or terminal illness are not healed is because they do not have enough faith. And I never understood it when people like you try to tell me that I'm not faithful unless I ignore the meaning of the text as regards the raqia while at the same time ignoring the massive evidence for great age in the universe. It's just all around stupid. Ultimately, the disciples believed because they saw the risen Christ. And we believe on account of their testimony. There is no body. We do not believe in spite of the fact there are bones in the grave. What you require is the equivalent of the Disciples going to the tomb, finding the body there, and then saying, "well Jesus said he would rise again, I'm just going to ignore this body sitting here and believe it anyway." It would be idiotic if they did it that way, and it is idiotic when you do it as regards both the text concerning the raqia and the science concerning the age of the Earth.







No Jorge - there is not enough, nowhere near enough, to justify the way you interpret Genesis. But - the fact you are convinced what the scripture actually says and what science actually shows are impossible to reconcile, it is just as well you stay YEC. I'd rather deal with you like this now and see you in Heaven than have you agree with me and lose your Faith in Christ.



But that doesn't mean I'm going to ease off on my insistence your paper on impact craters is false, misleading, and deceptive. It is what it is.

Jim

You are undoubtedly an advocate of the saying that, "If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough,
people will believe it." So go on, O-Mudd, continue repeating your lies over and over - I'm sure
that you'll sucker some people into believing you (especially those with an predisposition to do so
because of their ideological allegiance with you). Now ask me if I care.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

You are undoubtedly an advocate of the saying that, "If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough,
people will believe it." So go on, O-Mudd, continue repeating your lies over and over - I'm sure
that you'll sucker some people into believing you (especially those with an predisposition to do so
because of their ideological allegiance with you). Now ask me if I care.

Jorge

I've never written a bogus article that appeals to the religious insecurities of the scientifically ignorant.

And I've never paid for a pretend Ph.D.

And I've never made a bet, lost, and then refused to pay.

So who is it that is 'telling lies'?


Jim

[Jorge]

I've never written a bogus article that appeals to the religious insecurities of the scientifically ignorant.

Sigh ... it's only "bogus" to someone like yourself - someone lacking the integrity to provide an honest report.

Oh and, "religious insecurities of the scientifically ignorant" --- even for you that was a SCREAMER!!!

And I've never paid for a pretend Ph.D.

And yet again! Surely you must at least suspect that you are only tarnishing your own image by dishonestly continuing to bring up settled matters. Oh, wait, it isn't possible to wreck a disaster and so you have NO image to tarnish -- oops, my bad, carry on.

And I've never made a bet, lost, and then refused to pay.

You continue to lower the bar, O-Mudd. I'll just sit and watch the horror show ...

So who is it that is 'telling lies'?

Boy, that's a tough one! NOT!!!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Sigh ... it's only "bogus" to someone like yourself - someone lacking the integrity to provide an honest report.

Your "There are no such thing as impact craters" was one of the stupidest, most cringe-worthy things ever posted on the net. It was an embarrassment even for a YEC website.

Oh and, "religious insecurities of the scientifically ignorant" --- even for you that was a SCREAMER!!!

Everyone here knows what a coward you are when it comes to not backing up your claims.

And yet again! Surely you must at least suspect that you are only tarnishing your own image by dishonestly continuing to bring up settled matters.

You've yet to show the slightest bit of remorse for buying a fake diploma and trying to pass yourself off as a PhD. You aren't a bit sorry for your dishonesty, you're only sorry you got caught.

Boy, that's a tough one!

It's not so tough . You made a bet, you lost, you welshed on it.