Thread: Jorge Update .........
-
May 21st 2011, 07:29 AM #1
Jorge Update .........
PRESS RELEASE IS NOW OFFICIALLY 'released' ON OUR BOOK ...............

WITHOUT EXCUSE
The powerful sequel to In the Beginning was Information,
Without Excuse is the latest title from information
scientist Dr. Werner Gitt. Gitt is the author of Did God Use
Evolution?, If Animals Could Talk, Stars and their Purpose
and In the Beginning was Information.
With his co-authors, Dr. Bob Compton and Dr. Jorge
Fernandez, Gitt provides the most rigorous and useful
definition of information thus far. He distinguishes this
Universal Information (real information) from things often
mistakenly called information. Via scientific laws of
information, his own academic field, he shows how
ultimately all biological information comes from God.
Gitt’s evangelist heart also shines through this
academically rigorous work, the title of which throws out
both an intellectual and a profound spiritual challenge.
Those who still maintain that their unbelief in divine
creation comes from science are now truly ‘without
excuse’.
“Dr. Gitt’s central thesis is profound—that information is a non-material entity which is foundational to all life,
and it can never arise spontaneously from strictly materialistic processes. … Dr. Gitt shows that information
only arises from an intelligent source—and that ultimately all useful information, including biological
information, comes from God.”
Dr. John Sanford
Former (and still courtesy) professor, Cornell University, genetic engineering pioneer and inventor of the ‘gene gun’.’
“Without Excuse covers a lot of ground and comes as close as possible to absolutely disproving naturalistic
(unguided) evolution. Life is information loaded, and must derive from an intelligent source. As a scientist with
unimpeachable credentials, Dr. Gitt uncovers and displays that information in novel ways. All open-minded
learners should read this book.”
John D. Morris
Ph.D. Geological Engineering
President, Institute for Creation Research
.
.
.
Also, Symposium on Biological Information is right around the corner ......... Bad days ahead for Materialists ... which means good days for Creationists.
Jorge"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." Job 13:15
"Choice trumps knowledge" JAF
Macroevolution: Unmitigated extrapolation coupled with unrestrained imagination generously sprinkled with wishful desires.
Macroevolution: If you don't think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
-
The following tWebber says Amen to Jorge for this useful Post:
-
May 21st 2011, 08:06 AM #2
Re: Jorge Update .........
Congratulations on the book Jorge, as well as your Doctorate.
But why are we mainstream folk "without excuse"? Given that evolution is guided to some extent, then disproving "unguided" evolution (from Morris' quote) is like beating a non existent horse, isn't it?
Were you able to disprove naturalistic (unguided) microevolution, as well as other naturalistic processes such as rainfall and cloud formation?
Besides, to prove that information comes from God (from Stanford), don't you first have to prove the existence of God? Whose God did you prove the existence of?
Regards, RolandLast edited by wattsr1; May 21st 2011 at 08:14 AM.
rjw
-
May 21st 2011, 08:33 AM #3
Re: Jorge Update .........
Sincere thanks.
When I figure out what you're saying, I'll reply.But why are we mainstream folk "without excuse"? Given that evolution is guided to some extent, then disproving "unguided" evolution (from Morris' quote) is like beating a non existent horse, isn't it?
BTW, it is GOD (not I or we) that says that the unbeliever is Without Excuse.
And God has been wrong ... hmmm ... well, try NEVER! Hehe
You are as lost now as you were years ago when we had our chats.Were you able to disprove naturalistic (unguided) microevolution, as well as other naturalistic processes such as rainfall and cloud formation?
Before asking "whose God?" -- that's second base -- you have to get to first base -- God exists.Besides, to prove that information comes from God (from Stanford), don't you first have to prove the existence of God? Whose God did you prove the existence of?
The evidence, Roland, proves God's existence. Given that there are two and only two alternatives,
excluding one means that the other must be the answer. It's so simple that even Atheists ought to
be able to understand it. And I believe that they do except that they then willingly oppose what
every fiber in their being tells them. Choice trumps knowledge.
Jorge"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." Job 13:15
"Choice trumps knowledge" JAF
Macroevolution: Unmitigated extrapolation coupled with unrestrained imagination generously sprinkled with wishful desires.
Macroevolution: If you don't think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
-
May 21st 2011, 09:10 AM #4
Re: Jorge Update .........
By "unguided" are you saying that evolution is just random mutation? Or do you simply mean "naturalistic" as Morris may mean (see below).
Well Morris claims your book "absolutely disprov[es] naturalistic (unguided) evolution".
Originally posted by Jorge
You always seemed to draw a distinction between micro and macro, seemingly accepting that naturalistic micro was scientific. Yet to Morris, naturalistic appears to mean unguided, which he claims you guys have disproven.
So in part I am asking whether or not you made a mistake about natural (unguided) microevolution and have proven that it is guided as well, and is thus not naturalistic.
If micro is now like macro, that is, no longer naturalistic but rather is guided by an intelligence, then does this extend to other naturalistic processes such as rainfall and cloud formation?
O.k. Since choice trumps knowledge, then what was the basis for you thinking the ID was your god?
Originally posted by Jorge
So excluding God, means that no God must be the answer? Or are you saying that your evidence proves God? If it proves God, then why your god? You are not the only one who has a version of god.
Originally posted by Jorge
Regards, RolandLast edited by wattsr1; May 21st 2011 at 09:17 AM.
rjw
-
May 21st 2011, 09:36 AM #5
Re: Jorge Update .........
Dr. Jorge Fernandez?



When did you get a doctorate Jorge? What field is your PhD in?
Or is this an honorary degree from some second tier Bible college, or one you bought from a diploma mill?
According to Google there are only 2 "Dr. Jorge Fernandez" in Florida. One is a dentist, one is a medical doctor. Neither of them is you.
Are you getting Pinocchio Nose syndrome again?
- T"First understand, then criticize! Not the other way round." - Per Ahlberg, TR
Jorge Stock Excuse Quick Reference Guide:
1) You're drunk / high on drugs
2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
3) Explaining is a waste of time
4) This assertion is true because I said so
5) This assertion is even truer because I said so twice
6) I already provided evidence (in huge detail) but I won't repeat it or link to it.
-
The following 2 tWebbers say Amen to Tiggy for this useful Post:
-
May 21st 2011, 09:56 AM #6
Re: Jorge Update .........
You don't really want a refresher course on what 'evolution' is, do you?
Indeed, the only 'creative' power in evolution comes from random mutations.
Would you care to propose another source? I wait ...................................
Right ... we do (to within any reasonable standard).Well Morris claims your book "absolutely disprov[es] naturalistic (unguided) evolution".
You are confused (again!!!).You always seemed to draw a distinction between micro and macro, seemingly
accepting that naturalistic micro was scientific. Yet to Morris, naturalistic appears to mean
unguided, which he claims you guys have disproven.
Roland, the first thing you need to do is to provide a CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS definitionSo in part I am asking whether or not you made a mistake about natural (unguided) microevolution and have proven that it is guided as well, and is thus not naturalistic.
of 'evolution'. Then and only then is it worthwhile to discuss this.
You are once again mixing apples with tarantulas.If micro is now like macro, that is, no longer naturalistic but rather is guided by an intelligence,
then does this extend to other naturalistic processes such as rainfall and cloud formation?
Your logic (above) is atrocious !!!O.k. Since choice trumps knowledge, then what was the basis for you thinking the ID was your god?
My basis, purely logical and scientifically valid, is that the evidence excludes pure Materialism.
With pure Materialism excluded, that leaves one and only one alternative - an ID.
Now with an ID in hand, the question becomes, "Which ID?"
We then explore this question with the facts in hand including Scripture, history, etc.
The best conclusion arrives at the Christian God. The end.
I just (albeit very briefly) explained that above.So excluding God, means that no God must be the answer? Or are you saying that your evidence proves God? If it proves God, then why your god? You are not the only one who has a version of god.
Jorge"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." Job 13:15
"Choice trumps knowledge" JAF
Macroevolution: Unmitigated extrapolation coupled with unrestrained imagination generously sprinkled with wishful desires.
Macroevolution: If you don't think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
-
May 21st 2011, 10:06 AM #7
Re: Jorge Update .........
********************************************************************
Oh, look, Piggly Wiggly Tiggly wants to play 'Credentialism' again.
Feel free to call me 'Jorge' or any other name you prefer - I will not solicit 'Dr.' from you.
With that out of the way, focus on the arguments instead of your usual ad hominem.
Now, go play with your crayons and coloring book.
Jorge"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." Job 13:15
"Choice trumps knowledge" JAF
Macroevolution: Unmitigated extrapolation coupled with unrestrained imagination generously sprinkled with wishful desires.
Macroevolution: If you don't think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
-
May 21st 2011, 10:13 AM #8
-
May 21st 2011, 10:24 AM #9
Re: Jorge Update .........
Well that makes no sense. How can just random mutations create anything?
Clearly that's not the process of evolution as science understands the term.
Would you like a course on evolution?
Well you gave me a clear, unambiguous definition of the process above.
Originally posted by Jorge
It makes no sense. The process has never been defined as just random mutation and for good reason, random mutation only acting on a genome wouldn't do much. It would only go so far then go no further.
So how am I confused Jorge? Let me spell it out. Morris seems to use the term unguided in the sense of naturalistic. He claims you folk disproved naturalistic evolution. You appear to accept naturalistic microevolution.
Originally posted by Jorge
So do you accept naturalistic microevolution or have you disproven that it is naturalistic?
There is little point in telling me I am confused, without telling me how I am confused in the context of Morris' claim and your own claims.
Why? Don't you believe the Bible and what it says about various processes which we nowadays call "natural"?
Originally posted by Jorge
Regards, RolandLast edited by wattsr1; May 21st 2011 at 10:37 AM.
rjw
-
May 21st 2011, 10:30 AM #10
Re: Jorge Update .........
Has Gitt offered proof of his "theorems", Doctor F? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v...nformation.asp
I expect that you understand, now you have earned a Ph.D., that calling something a 'theorem', without possessing a rigorous proof, is a lie.
The little Gitt's lies have been up on that page for years. What's his excuse?
-
The following tWebber says Amen to Barry Desborough for this useful Post:
-
May 21st 2011, 10:56 AM #11
Re: Jorge Update .........
My first guess: Was it the same "university" that granted your boyfriend "Dr." Kent Hovind his "doctorate"? What was the field of study? Thinkology? Empty rhetoric? Hypocrisy? What is the hood trim color for hypocrisy?
Horhay Fernandez, Hyp.D. (Doctor of Hypocrisy)
Has a nice ring to it!Horhay the Heretic and Phank the Phool -- two peas in a pod.
-
The following 2 tWebbers say Amen to rogero for this useful Post:
-
May 21st 2011, 12:48 PM #12
Re: Jorge Update .........
"Dr" Jorge Fernandez?
A little credential embellishment, the usual from dishonest YECs.
I wonder if Gitt can finally "explain" why the 'higher' levels of information are immune to changes at the statistical level, seeing as how ALL levels of information in genomes is DEPENDENT upon the sequence.... He couldn't answer that when I asked him 2 years ago. Maybe this was when Jorge was working on his doctorate in bible studies from Coral Ridge online U....
-
May 21st 2011, 12:51 PM #13
Re: Jorge Update .........
Well, Morris is a geological engineer - why should anyone even care what he thinks about this issue?
This is just another YEC book that is doubtless littered with false claims, bizarre extrapolations, and a good dose of ignorance, just as Sanford butchered Haldane's model despite thumping his chest as a 'geneticist.'
Nothing to see here folks...
-
May 21st 2011, 12:53 PM #14
Re: Jorge Update .........
Actually, it appears that YOU want to play the credentialism game (just as all YECs do - that is why so many of them lie about their credentials).
A rational, sensible reader can see that no argument was made regarding Jorge's implicit claims, thus no ad hominem was made.
That is another classic YEC trait - hurling false accusations to hide the fact that they've got something to hide.
-
May 21st 2011, 01:49 PM #15
-
The following tWebber says Amen to shadowmaster for this useful Post:
Similar Threads
-
Jorge update ...
By Jorge in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 80Last Post: July 27th 2009, 03:45 AM -
I claim bragging rights over Jorge on a topic Jorge claims expertise on - namely evolution.
By wattsr1 in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 18Last Post: February 4th 2008, 05:38 PM -
JORGE questions for JORGE
By Viktor Scott in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 191Last Post: July 20th 2004, 08:35 PM















































































Quote


NSM Evotional 05/23/2013
Today, 08:34 AM in Glory Seed