Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?
Collapse
X
-
Seven pages in and still no fleshing out.
BTW, this "presupposition" word that "Biblical Creationists" use in the manner that they do is possibly the worst example of the projection fallacy that I've encountered.
I wonder if Jorge has ever seen a picture of the angular unconformity at Siccar Point, Scotland, where Hutton had the "ah ha!" moment that opened his eyes to deep time?
K54
Jorge -- How does this formation fit in with "Biblical Scientific Creationism"? Can you say "Geologic history"?
siccar.jpg
Comment
-
Jorge -- I'm wondering why your particular version of "Biblical Creation" is not simply a form of strong concordism?
Because it's as obvious as a punch in the nose that the Genesis stories are ambiguous if taken in a "literal" sense. And I've tried in more than one thread now for a YEC to give a verse-by-verse unambiguous reading of at least the Ge 1:1-2:3 story. [Note that I wrote "reading" instead of "interpretation" because I realize that "Biblical Creationists" don't interpret -- they claim to just read it straight up.]
Since I don't have access to your tens of thousands of posts in a kaput forum, perhaps you could regale me with just the slightest breeze of your scriptural insight?
Thanks!
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
(Description of Jorge's shtick omitted) ...
1. There was one time he actually did offer what he considered evidence for a young earth namely the old PRATT about the salinity of the ocean and that writing could not unambiguously be shown to be more than 6000 years old (of course Jorge decided whether something was unambiguously writing and automatically rejected all evidence older than 4000BC).
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostNo matter how you choose to spin it you perfectly demonstrate what I said. According to you the YEC view is the only Biblically supported view and all others are by definition not supported by the Bible.
You choose to call yourself a "Biblical Creationist" so you can insinuate that those who don't share your particular view are not. As I wrote:
You even came right out and directly declared in your old "TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" thread that TEs, OECs, PCs, and IIRC, those who support the Gap Theory as well (essentially anyone who doesn't embrace the YEC model) are not really Christians. Later you sorta kinda back-tracked from that position to say that those who were either ignorant or mentally deficient and therefore not responsible for their beliefs just might be Christians -- but only barely. How gracious of you.
And for you YEC is a presumption and not a consequence. This is evidenced by the fact that despite your repeated praising of the KJV as being by far the best and most superior translation you had no trouble throwing it under the bus in favor of translations you proclaimed were inferior the moment the KJV couldn't be used to support a YEC interpretation.
Case in point: Psalm 104 where the KJV and several other translations describe the waters as moving while in some other translations it describes the mountains that the water covered as moving. The latter supports some of the notions proposed by YEC "Flood Geologists" so you abandon what you repeatedly declare to be the best translation in favor of what you called inferior translations because they favor your YEC presumptions.
IOW, you hold that the YEC interpretation is the only Biblically based one and that anyone who disagrees is either ignorant, a liar or a deceiver. This brings us straight back to my previous statement that the more Jorge writes the more he demonstrates its accuracy:
Because Jorge is privy to the mind of God he knows exactly what He meant
The overly simplistic woodenly literal reading has been repeatedly shown to be in error in the past. For instance, we long believed that the earth was immobile and that the sun and everything else revolved around it in large part due to a hyper-literal reading of the Bible (specifically Josh. 10:12-13; I Chron. 16:30; Job 9:7; Ps. 93:1; 96:10; Eccl. 1:5; Isa. 38:8; Hab. 3:11). Then thanks to folks observing God's creation we were able to determine that this view was incorrect. There were heliocentric models proposed in ancient times (Pythagoras had one of them), but they were all summarily rejected by early Christians because they didn't correspond to what they were sure the Bible plainly stated. And remember, Galileo faced charges of heresy not because he disagreed with the scientific establishment but because what he was proposing supposedly contradicted Scripture.
The same thing can be said about the firmament which was universally seen as being a solid structure onto which the sun and stars were physically attached. Nearly a quarter of the verses of Gen. 1 are devoted to describing this structure. Now we know that it is better thought of as an expanse rather than a solid structure.
Likewise, we used to think it was impossible for anyone to be living at the opposite side of the planet (the antipodes) because Paul wrote that the entire world was hearing the gospel (Rom. 1:8; 10:18; 16:25-26; Col. 1:6, 23; cf. I Tim. 3:16). The idea that someone could be living there was thought to be at best dangerous, and likely damnable (Since Paul had clearly stated that the gospel was preached "unto the ends of the world" and since no one had gone to the other side of the earth, therefore there could be no humans over there). Augustine was especially critical of those who disagreed: "Therefore we find it constantly declared that, as those preachers did not go to the antipodes, no antipodes can exist; hence that the supporters of this geographical doctrine give the lie directly to King David and to St. Paul, and therefore to the Holy Ghost."
There were those who declared that women had fewer ribs than did men. This controversy reached a head in 1524 in what became known as the "Adam's Rib Controversy" when the Flemish anatomist Andreas Vesalius (considered the founder of modern human anatomy) contested this notion by demonstrating that the human males and the females have an equal number of ribs in his De humani corporis fabrica ("On the fabric of the human body in seven books") in supposed contradiction of Genesis 2:21.
Finally, look at how the Jews, using an overly literal interpretation of what they read in the Bible, rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Apparently they rejected any notion of anything that they deemed wasn't "God's intended meaning."
The Bible was never meant to be read as a scientific textbook. It is concerned with greater truths than that.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostNote that Jorge doesn't say I am wrong.
Roy
Spelling it out for the logic-impaired (such as yourself), a claim that displays both ignorance and stupidity would most likely be (a) right/correct or, (b) wrong/incorrect. Which one, (a) or (b) would you say applies, Roy? Come on ... try it ... it's not too hard ... you can do it.
So, yes indeed, I DID say you are wrong ... you're just too slow to keep up.
And so is Santa, since he happily agreed with you.
JorgeLast edited by Jorge; 04-19-2014, 05:56 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostThe residence time of elements in the ocean is a ridiculous argument for a Young Earth. Some elements have less than 500 years residence time. I guess he doesn't understand the concept of "lower bound". Heck, the element ocean residence time idea could be used by wackos to claim Creation occurred in 1911 A.D.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostYou can write as many lengthy posts as you wish, R06, it will not conceal the fact that you distort and misrepresent the position of others. For instance, on multiple occasions I addressed and answered everything that you present above.
Originally posted by Jorge View PostYour tactic is to let my words traverse the vacuum between your right and left ears and then either proclaim (1) that I've not answered ... that I've evaded the matter or, (2) that my answer is inadequate.
Originally posted by Jorge View PostWhen (1) or (2) don't work then you simply take my words and pretzel-twist them into saying whatever you want them to say. In this practice you are not alone. Hey, is it possible for you to ban yourself, I wonder ..
Jorge
I can't help but notice you don't actually address a single point that I brought up.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostJorge -- I'm wondering why your particular version of "Biblical Creation" is not simply a form of strong concordism?
Because it's as obvious as a punch in the nose that the Genesis stories are ambiguous if taken in a "literal" sense. And I've tried in more than one thread now for a YEC to give a verse-by-verse unambiguous reading of at least the Ge 1:1-2:3 story. [Note that I wrote "reading" instead of "interpretation" because I realize that "Biblical Creationists" don't interpret -- they claim to just read it straight up.]
Since I don't have access to your tens of thousands of posts in a kaput forum, perhaps you could regale me with just the slightest breeze of your scriptural insight?
Thanks!
K54
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostJorge, if I were to call you a "strong concordist", would that misrepresent you?
Thanks!
K54
You are way too superficial to be speaking of these things, Santa. Try thinking more and deeper before tossing things out.
[my trip approaches so I'll be online less and less often]
Jorge
Comment
-
Have a blessed Easter Jorge (and everyone else). For He is Risen!
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostKindly stop wasting your time (and mine) with your insistence. I have clearly stated that you appear to have no true, genuine desire to learn. To me it seems that there is a lot of 'Pharisee-ism' in your posts; i.e., like Clinton you will employ semantic tricks and other devious methods in order to trash your opponent while justifying yourself / your beliefs. That simply doesn't cut it with me and so I'll say again - stop wasting your time bothering other people.
Jorge
So, would it be misrepresenting you to classify you as a strong concordist? Yes or no?
I do desire to learn. That's why I'm asking questions. Do you have a desire to learn?
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostIn most areas, certainly in this one, things will mean something different to different people. Think about what you mean by "strong concordist" ... what would make it "strong" (to you)? where is the demarcation between "strong" and not so? What is "concordist" (to you)?
You are way too superficial to be speaking of these things, Santa. Try thinking more and deeper before tossing things out.
[my trip approaches so I'll be online less and less often]
Jorge
So, would this moniker fit your beliefs regarding "Biblical Scientific Creation"?
Also, are you a "Biblical Scientific Creationist" or just a "Biblical Creationist"?
Thanks in advance for your reply, and Happy Resurrection Day!
K54
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
136 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment