Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[JonF]

The Universe will reach heat death long before Jorge acknowledges a creationist fraud.

Fraud is fraud. Fraud unreported to the fraudster is fraud. Fraud unacknowledged by the fraudster is fraud. Fraud carried out by implying falsehood (by omitting the fact that the "mystery" was solved), as did Sarfati, is still fraud.

[Jorge]

Hahaha ... "fruitcake" ...


Wow, that was some rebuttal! I'll have to remember it.

thura through the same treatment? Please explain why the exegesis says it is a physical door and yet it is taken metaphorically. Please explain raqia using the same technique.

Perhaps it because you have just demonstrated reliance on circular reasoning. In order to derive understanding of the Biblical passages you use an exegetical method that incorporates science, but in order to determine which science is allowed you only select that which is in harmony with the understanding of the Biblical passage. So I do not see that you have a consistent approach to using science from the outset in exegesis, despite what you said. I would be grateful if you could clear up your inconsistencies.

Good grief, and then you have the hutzpah to call ME a "fruitcake".

Yet again, the point was never about the definitive meaning of raqia (which is far from over anywaypresently know about the nature of the heavens" because what we presently know is different to what was known and your selection criteria will dismiss what is presently known because you have already determined what the Message is. Alas, you appeal to these vacuous YEC labels of "true" and "false" science, which only serve your circular reasoning.

No. You misread what the question actually was and instead prattled on extensively and projected greatly.

From the above there is but a single conclusion that I can arrive at: you did not bother to read the short link that I provided or, if you did, you either did not comprehend it or you are being purposely deceptive. I say this because the numbered points and conclusions (above) were covered and answered in the link.

But then, maybe you need all of this spelled out ---- C - A - T ---- which seems to be the only way you people are able to grasp meaning. Sometimes I wonder how some of you people ever made it through graduate school when you seem unable to grasp abstract concepts (?).

One last comment: it is disingenuous of you to imply that any of us is able to view the universe in 'tabula rasa' form -- no, we do not and cannot. What you do not wish to accept (because it would debunk your beliefs) is that it's one thing to employ true science in exegetical applications and quite another to use science-falsely-so-called for the same reason. Once upon a time, you may know, to "cure" people they were bled so as to allow the "malignant humors" to exit their body. That's the kind of thing that happens when false science is used in the real world. Enter Evolution and Gigayears, stage left.

Jorge

[Jorge]

The Universe will reach heat death long before Jorge acknowledges a creationist fraud.

Fraud is fraud. Fraud unreported to the fraudster is fraud. Fraud unacknowledged by the fraudster is fraud. Fraud carried out by implying falsehood (by omitting the fact that the "mystery" was solved), as did Sarfati, is still fraud.

Wow! Be sure to ask for a full refund from your Logic 1 course and, while you're at it,
ask for a full refund also from your Beginner Ethics for the Feeble-Minded course.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Quit your childish quibbling, will you! NO, I do not know about this alleged misquote and I am definitely NOT taking your word for it. I would have to learn more before I rule for or against. As for you "giving me the benefit of the doubt", why change now? I mean, you never have.

Furthermore, and sorry to be so blunt but, ...
What I do know about Sarfati does not support your position.
What I do know about you does not support your position.

Based solely on what I read above, if an Atheist wrote, "The Mystery of the Origin of Life is Solved" and I subsequently wrote, "The Mystery of the Origin of Life" then I am not misquoting said Atheist, I am merely stating that, for me, that "mystery" remains (despite the claim to the contrary by this Atheist).

In addition, what you cite: "As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say: 'Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?' and these authors refer to 'The mystery of the missing remnants'." tells me that "these authors refer to the mystery of the missing remnants" WHICH THEY DO.

Last but not least, let's say that a misquote did in fact occur. Okay, so has anyone pointed this out to Sarfati? Did he accept that he did indeed misquote? Did he refuse to make a correction after the notification and accepting this error? If that's the case, then you'd be right and there would be a black spot on Sarfati's resume. But as I stated earlier, with what I know of Sarfati my money would bet against that being the case.

You are so blinded by the RAGE against YECs that you can't even see the obvious but rather you constantly seek to detect YEC malfeasance even where none is present in which case you fabricate it. I pity you, O-Mudd.

Jorge

But you won't test the possibility this is real, will you Jorge? You won't look up the two situations to find out what they are. Much like the leaders of churches that look the other way when allegations of sexual abuse surface.

You've been informed. Willful ignorance of their misdeeds makes you their accomplice.

Jim

[Jorge]

Yet another real scientists whose work has been co-opted and distorted by the YEC crowd. Mary Schweitzer, who is herself a Christian - though not by any means YEC.

Those aren't 'preserved red blood' cells Jorge. Not in the sense you are trying to make them out to be.


Do you have no interest at all in being accurate or in reflecting the actual content of the actual work???

Jim

Nice 'drive-by', O-Mudd ... you are a true Master at this!
To the casual reader, you've "rebutted" what I said about red blood cells. Take the time
(at least a full day) to read up on everything that's out there and what you'll find is that the
Theistic Evolutionist + Atheist community has essentially placed these observations into their
Forget-About-This-Evidence / Pretend-This-Does-Not-Exist drawer.

Jorge

[klaus54]

thura through the same treatment? Please explain why the exegesis says it is a physical door and yet it is taken metaphorically. Please explain raqia using the same technique.

Perhaps it because you have just demonstrated reliance on circular reasoning. In order to derive understanding of the Biblical passages you use an exegetical method that incorporates science, but in order to determine which science is allowed you only select that which is in harmony with the understanding of the Biblical passage. So I do not see that you have a consistent approach to using science from the outset in exegesis, despite what you said. I would be grateful if you could clear up your inconsistencies.




Yet again, the point was never about the definitive meaning of raqia (which is far from over anywaypresently know about the nature of the heavens" because what we presently know is different to what was known and your selection criteria will dismiss what is presently known because you have already determined what the Message is. Alas, you appeal to these vacuous YEC labels of "true" and "false" science, which only serve your circular reasoning.




No. You misread what the question actually was and instead prattled on extensively and projected greatly.

Well said, OR.

I'd just like to add that "sky" is a phenomenon rather than a real object. The ancient Hebrew, as well as the majority of people up until and including now, view the sky as something real. Given that, I haven't the foggiest notion of how Moses' "clear" meaning of ra'qia as "sky" would help Jorgian or any form of YEC "science". After all it "separated the waters" above and below. It's difficult to see how a non-real phenomenon could do that.

Also I note that Jorge yet again brings up the atrocious AKJV1611 rendering of I Tim 6:20. Will he ever cease his deception?

And Jorge still hasn't given his unambiguous, clear, plain, direct, literal reading of the first Genesis story -- not even through Ge 1:2-3.

Jorgian YEC is a distortion of both Scripture, Science, and reality in general. and that's a

fact, Fact, FACT!!!

I used the "red" lie definition as per this website:

http://changingminds.org/explanation.../four_lies.htm

[Jorge]

But you won't test the possibility this is real, will you Jorge? You won't look up the two situations to find out what they are. Much like the leaders of churches that look the other way when allegations of sexual abuse surface.

You've been informed. Willful ignorance of their misdeeds makes you their accomplice.

Jim

Where will you have me look? At the Panda's Thumb website? At the Infidels website? At TalkOrigins?
Yeah, I'm sure that I will get the "honest, gospel truth" about this incident at those sites. NOT!!!

Direct me to Sarfati's website. Show me where he has been made aware of this and
where he has acknowledged his error yet done nothing to correct it - take me there
and I will personally send a message to Sarfati requesting an explanation.
Heck, I'll even copy you on the message that I send him. Come on, O-Mudd - man up!

Until you do that, you are merely practicing wickedness, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Where will you have me look? At the Panda's Thumb website? At the Infidels website? At TalkOrigins?
Yeah, I'm sure that I will get the "honest, gospel truth" about this incident at those sites. NOT!!!

Direct me to Sarfati's website. Show me where he has been made aware of this and
where he has acknowledged his error yet done nothing to correct it - take me there
and I will personally send a message to Sarfati requesting an explanation.
Heck, I'll even copy you on the message that I send him. Come on, O-Mudd - man up!

Until you do that, you are merely practicing wickedness, O-Mudd.

Jorge

Bloviatus maximus,

Here's the article from Creation.com containing Sofarti's screed on supernovae remnants.

But first a quote...

...
As can be readily seen above, a young universe model fits the data of the low number of observed SNRs. If the universe was really billions of years old, there are 7000 missing SNRs in our galaxy. ...

http://creation.com/exploding-stars-...young-universe

K54

P.S. Shove that in your pie hole and chew on it.

[Roy]

Quit your childish quibbling, will you! NO, I do not know about this alleged misquote and I am definitely NOT taking your word for it. I would have to learn more before I rule for or against.

Clark and Caswell's paper is on-line here. The last paragraph of section 10 starts:
It appears that with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of E₀/n differing greatly from those in the Galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved.

A copy of Sarfati's article can be found here. It says


Keith Davis' paper, which Sarfati used as a source, can be found here. It says:
A Young Universe Model fits the data. There is a short fall, however, of over 7,000 galactic SNRs based upon the 'Old Universe Model.' A number of astronomers, in the context of trying to find solutions to the short-fall, have commented on the situation as follows:
...
"The mystery of the missing remnants" ..................................... Clark and Caswell

Jim is correct, and Davies and Sarfati are joint holders of the creationist record for blatant quote-mining.

Last but not least, let's say that a misquote did in fact occur. Okay, so has anyone pointed this out to Sarfati?

Yes.

Did he accept that he did indeed misquote?

No.

Did he refuse to make a correction after the notification and accepting this error?

He not only refused, he tried to justify his antics with a flurry of accusations and indignation. And as my link shows, he is still presenting his article without clarification of Clark/Caswell's position more than a decade after his behaviour was exposed.

If that's the case, then you'd be right and there would be a black spot on Sarfati's resume.

Sarfati's resume has so many black spots it looks like a cross between a Dalmatian and an Arctic Siamese cat. But it won't make any difference. Jorge's world-view includes the idea that creationists don't do that sort of thing, and so no such case can ever be encountered. Hence there's no need to investigate, so he never does. As Jorge himself says, "None so blind as he who refuses to see."

Roy

[Omega Red]

Hahaha ... "fruitcake" ...

Yes. Have you never seen Fruitcake and Ice cream? You are a particularly old piece of fruitcake though and well past its usefulness

Wow, that was some rebuttal! I'll have to remember it.

Knowing your memory, I would never hold out hope for accuracy when you come to recollect it!

Good grief, and then you have the hutzpah to call ME a "fruitcake".

From the above there is but a single conclusion that I can arrive at: you did not bother to read the short link that I provided or, if you did, you either did not comprehend it or you are being purposely deceptive. I say this because the numbered points and conclusions (above) were covered and answered in the link.

But then, maybe you need all of this spelled out ---- C - A - T ---- which seems to be the only way you people are able to grasp meaning. Sometimes I wonder how some of you people ever made it through graduate school when you seem unable to grasp abstract concepts (?).

More blatherskite.

One last comment: it is disingenuous of you to imply that any of us is able to view the universe in 'tabula rasa' form -- no, we do not and cannot. What you do not wish to accept (because it would debunk your beliefs) is that it's one thing to employ true science in exegetical applications and quite another to use science-falsely-so-called for the same reason. Once upon a time, you may know, to "cure" people they were bled so as to allow the "malignant humors" to exit their body. That's the kind of thing that happens when false science is used in the real world. Enter Evolution and Gigayears, stage left.

Jorge

My point was not to deride anyone for a non tabula rasa

[Roy]

Where will you have me look? At the Panda's Thumb website? At the Infidels website? At TalkOrigins?

How about Barry Setterfield?



Roy

[Omega Red]

Well said, OR.

I'd just like to add that "sky" is a phenomenon rather than a real object. The ancient Hebrew, as well as the majority of people up until and including now, view the sky as something real. Given that, I haven't the foggiest notion of how Moses' "clear" meaning of ra'qia as "sky" would help Jorgian or any form of YEC "science". After all it "separated the waters" above and below. It's difficult to see how a non-real phenomenon could do that.

Also I note that Jorge yet again brings up the atrocious AKJV1611 rendering of I Tim 6:20. Will he ever cease his deception?

And Jorge still hasn't given his unambiguous, clear, plain, direct, literal reading of the first Genesis story -- not even through Ge 1:2-3.

Jorgian YEC is a distortion of both Scripture, Science, and reality in general. and that's a

fact, Fact, FACT!!!

I used the "red" lie definition as per this website:

http://changingminds.org/explanation.../four_lies.htm

I would still like answers. They're not at AiG, ICR, CMI, etc and I'm not getting them through Jorge either. It is rather frustrating. Having studied forensics, I am always open to new data that may change my opinion/conclusions, but it simply is not forthcoming. Post exchanges become tiresome because no matter how many different ways I ask the same question, I do not get an answer to that question. They all assume ulterior motives, want to answer questions they think I have asked and generally play games. Possible conclusions: (1) they have no actual answers or (2) they are the worst teachers in the world. The downside for NS301 is that very few YECs would come here to engage in a hostile environment. I should probably ask Jim to ask his YEC friends from church and see if they have answers.

[klaus54]

I would still like answers. They're not at AiG, ICR, CMI, etc and I'm not getting them through Jorge either. It is rather frustrating. Having studied forensics, I am always open to new data that may change my opinion/conclusions, but it simply is not forthcoming. Post exchanges become tiresome because no matter how many different ways I ask the same question, I do not get an answer to that question. They all assume ulterior motives, want to answer questions they think I have asked and generally play games. Possible conclusions: (1) they have no actual answers or (2) they are the worst teachers in the world. The downside for NS301 is that very few YECs would come here to engage in a hostile environment. I should probably ask Jim to ask his YEC friends from church and see if they have answers.

I vote for choice #1. I can see no other reason.

My attitude has been hostile the past month, but I started out kind and gentle asking basic questions in several threads I started. Jorge from the get-go flung poo, feathers, and insults. It reached a point where my head was going to explode, and I responded more and more stridently and repetitively -- and I plan to still.

Jorge has a way of getting under one's skin like no one I've ever encountered. My main goal is get him to answer simple questions. What is THE unambiguous, plain, direct, literal reading of the first Genesis story? Explain several pieces of data in a YEC context, e.g., the Appalachian cyclothems.

Like U.S. Grant, I have enough patience and enough ammo to keep turning Jorge's right flank until he surrenders formally and hope to trap him before his army disbands and runs for the hills.

K54

[rogue06]

Jorge comes to his inability to correct a mistake honestly. The leading YEC organizations are notoriously slow to do so and will continue to repeat terminally rebutted claims (PRATTs) for decades.

For instance, look at the nonsensical assertion about Bombardier Beetles that still makes the rounds. Back in the 1970s Duane Gish was declaring that the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone in Bombardier Beetles would spontaneously explode unless an inhibitor is added to prevent the explosion when Drs. William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey of San Diego State University invited Gish to debate this assertion publicly in the Spring of 78.

They mixed hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone solutions together. There was no explosion; the mixture slowly turned brown as they oxidized. Gish then claimed that he had mistranslated the original German reference mistaking the German word for "unstable" for "explosive" -- yet he continued to make the same disproven claim in his debates after this. And it still appears on AnswersinGenesis' (AiG) website: The Amazing Bombardier Beetle

Another one that remains on their website is the bizarre claim about the "baboon dog"

Source: Is Your Dog Some Kind of Degenerate Mutant?

Short Spine

In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Many people (including at least one YEC that I'm aware of) have repeatedly requested that AiG support that claim (as if there could be any support for the existence of a dog species where the males die before sexual maturity) but it remains on their website for decades unchanged.

There are numerous other examples but these two suffice in making the point.

[Jorge]

How about Barry Setterfield?



Roy

Taking this at face value without any verification, it seems to me that DAVIES (not Sarfati) would be the guilty party with Sarfati committing the mistake of not verifying his sources. That seems to clearly be what Setterfield is (allegedly) here saying. Even still, was Sarfati informed of the truth? Did Sarfati acknowledge this? Did Sarfati disregard the evidence and refuse to make any needed corrections? Otherwise, you people are just blowing smoke.

Huff and puff and kick and yell all you want, you're not going to 'win' here.
Why? Because I stand on the side of truth and honesty, that's why.

Jorge