Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

[Jorge]

Ah, so now we are going to debate what you 'really' meant in the exchange.

What I "really" meant is as abundantly clear as that thing protruding from the middle of your face that you call your nose. Deny it all you want, it's there for all to see. 'Nuff said.

Jorge

[Wally]

That's right, rogue06, keep on reminding the readers that you, as well as O-Mudd, place Naturalistic "facts and evidence" above the Word of God - but only when that suits you. I issued the challenge to O-Mudd and, predictably, he has evaded it as if it were the Bubonic Plague.


Jorge

If a creator God exists, "Naturalistic "facts and evidence" are the unedited, direct word of God.

What you describe as the word of God, are the statements from ancient Hebrews "claiming" to be the word of God.

[Jorge]

Boys and girls,

Let's give Jorge a little help. Here are several "data points" that YECs have used as evidence for Earth and Cosmos being no more than 10,000 years old. He can pick one and run with it.

* Polonium halos

* Decay of the speed of light in vacuo both explains how we can see objects billions of light years away in 6000 years. This would also demolish uniformitarianism (a YEC cuss word.)

* Large ancient flooded areas, e.g. the NW US Scablands

* Salinity of the oceans

* Beginning of writing fits a YEC time frame

* Lack of expected thickness of lunar regolith

* The Moon should be farther from Earth if uniformitarianism is true.

* Low angle thrust faults producing a putative reverse order of superposition (I think St. Henry Morris came up with this one.)

* Pollen on Paleozoic and Precambrian rocks in the Grand Canyon.

* Formation of canyons in unconsolidated ash within hours after the Mt. St. Helens eruption.

* Fossils in limestone (which is a shallow marine deposit) near the summit of Mt. Everest.

* The Junkyard/Tornado/F-16 Gedanken

* A roomful of monkeys typing out War and Peace.

* Dragons of Medieval legend actually are dinosaurs.

* Steady decay of the human genome after the Fall due to the declining ages of the pre-Abrahamic patriarchs.

Anyone think of some more? I'd like to hand him some ammo and give the poor dude a fightin' chance.

He should feel free to quote "Woodmorappe", Mortensen, Sofarti, and Lisle as needed.

K54

P.S. Well, it's worth at least a try, ain't it?

Hey, Duffus, I would not need any help - most especially from you - if I were doing this.

But since you went through all the trouble, let me make just one brief comment:

Why would you include these two in the "less-than-10,000 years" debate?
(1) The Junkyard/Tornado/F-16 Gedanken (2) A roomful of monkeys typing out War and Peace.


I sense a 'Freudian slip' oopsie.

By the way, the list you posted proves beyond any doubt that you don't know what you're talking about.
Why don't you just continue watching your I Love Lucy reruns and quit while you're ahead?

Jorge

[Jorge]

If a creator God exists, "Naturalistic "facts and evidence" are the unedited, direct word of God.

What you describe as the word of God, are the statements from ancient Hebrews "claiming" to be the word of God.

And so Wally the Walrus once again exhibits his ignorance for all the world to see.

"Naturalistic facts and evidence", Mr. Wally, are always (1) incomplete (2) tainted (by improper, corrupt observations and interpretations and, (3) coming from a world in a state of decay (due to sin).

Contrast that with the Word of God which is, I quote,

"... and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:15-17

[emphasis mine to refute your nonsense about Scripture being "the writings of ancient Hebrews" - hey, that's exactly what O-Mudd (a 'Christian') says, "the writings of a primitive people/culture". Imagine that - an Atheist and a 'Christian' saying the same thing about God's Word. Who would'a thunk it?].


Of course, as the Atheist that you are I do not expect you to either grasp nor accept any of this. My sole purpose is to demonstrate that there are rock-solid answers/rebuttals to your stupid comments.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I think you have to be more succinct here. Rather than discussing these topics from the outset I would try and get YECs to discuss the actual data first. So pmc values in the layers of system's such as Lake Suigetsu would be a great start and then go into correlation with layering events and then radiometric dating, build up the complexity slowly and hopefully find a consistent YEC explanation that has more substance than "I do not know, but we're right and your wrong" schtick. The usual tactic, if trying to discuss lake varves and radiometric dating, is for them to dispel the whole system by appealing to unreliability such as the detection of trace radiocarbon in diamond, supposedly collapsing the whole "house of cards". Start with the actual data first and the discussion might go somewhere. Start with the system first and then its nipped in the bud from vacuous appeals and general hand waving.

If someone is willing to start with pmc values in layered systems (see attached images), this is something I've been trying to get YEC answers to, but without success. Naturally Jorge's recollection is different to reality and as we have seen Jorge's recollection trumps all. But reality was that he never had presented and discussed the actual data itself, only to have cast a cursory glance at a few papers (JonF linked to?) dealing with the data and provide his conclusion of "nu uh". He also suggested that the scientists involved in the Lake Suigetsu projects had conducted their research incorrectly, casting aspersions to the data collection techniques. He then bailed when I said I would help him with a JSPS funded project to redo the data collection. Sadly, all lost on the old TWeb server.

(images came from here)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]535[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]536[/ATTACH]

Meh ...

How about you - are you able to take the challenge (see post # 15, this thread)?
I'd be genuinely impressed to see you answer it with something more than arm waving.

Jorge

[phank]

My sole purpose is to demonstrate that there are rock-solid answers/rebuttals to your stupid comments.

Jorge

And who knows, someday Jorge may get around to, you know, actually demonstrating his sole purpose.

Now, if he said his sole purpose was to run away from all challenges while hurling insults over his shoulder, a VERY strong case could be built.

[Jorge]

And who knows, someday Jorge may get around to, you know, actually demonstrating his sole purpose.

Now, if he said his sole purpose was to run away from all challenges while hurling insults over his shoulder, a VERY strong case could be built.

Oh, lookee here folks ... there's a Phankestein lurking in these here woods.

Jorge

[Wally]

And so Wally the Walrus once again exhibits his ignorance for all the world to see.

"Naturalistic facts and evidence", Mr. Wally, are always (1) incomplete (2) tainted (by improper, corrupt observations and interpretations and, (3) coming from a world in a state of decay (due to sin).

Contrast that with the Word of God which is, I quote,

"... and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:15-17

[emphasis mine to refute your nonsense about Scripture being "the writings of ancient Hebrews" - hey, that's exactly what O-Mudd (a 'Christian') says, "the writings of a primitive people/culture". Imagine that - an Atheist and a 'Christian' saying the same thing about God's Word. Who would'a thunk it?].


Of course, as the Atheist that you are I do not expect you to either grasp nor accept any of this. My sole purpose is to demonstrate that there are rock-solid answers/rebuttals to your stupid comments.

Jorge

Thanks for beautifully illustrating my point.

You are the worsts enemy of the YEC viewpoint, and the best friend of the evil atheist agenda.

[HMS_Beagle]

What I "really" meant is as abundantly clear as that thing protruding from the middle of your face that you call your nose. Deny it all you want, it's there for all to see. 'Nuff said.

Jorge stock excuse nos. 4, 5.

1) You're drunk / high on drugs
2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
3) Explaining is a waste of time / someone is paying you to waste my 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.

[oxmixmudd]

That's right, rogue06, keep on reminding the readers that you, as well as O-Mudd, place Naturalistic "facts and evidence" above the Word of God - but only when that suits you. I issued the challenge to O-Mudd and, predictably, he has evaded it as if it were the Bubonic Plague.

Let's see you take a stab at it. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief in the feeding of thousands of hungry men, women and children with just a few loaves and fishes. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief that a man (Jesus) may walk unassisted on the surface of a stormy sea. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief that a dead man (Lazarus) in a state of decomposition (from the smell) could live again.

Come, come now ... we be awaiting ...

By the way, this came my way and thought I'd share it with you all - it is so very apropos to the discussion at hand: http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/e...hoery-copy.jpg [sic]

It fits to a 'T' the promoters of Evolution and the deniers/distorters of 'Literal' Scripture (you know, people like you, O-Mudd, et al.).

Jorge

What Jorge has said above is a lie. I answered his comments directly and succinctly. There is no testable data that can shed light on the events he mentions. No data to test the claim in scripture that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. No testable data to test the claim Jesus walked on water. No testable data to support the claim the thousands were fed from a few loaves of bread and fish. They are believed or rejected without the capacity to directly test the claims made. This is the third time now that I have answered this.

So Jorge, stop lying about that. Lying is a sin.

This thread, however, is not about trying to find data to support miracles or the claims of arbitrary miracles.


This thread is about analyzing the data which drives assessment of the age of the universe and which is potentially contrary to or in support of the INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1-11 that would derive an age for the Earth and the Universe of <10,000 years.

So we are not talking about the possibility of miracles. We are not trying to decide if the miracles in the Bible are true. We are not trying to establish an objective criteria for evaluating the traditional interpretations of the whole of scripture.

We are discussing the data which either supports or contradicts a results derived from a specific INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1.

As per Jorge's definition of what "needs to be discussed"

Stop the Elephant Hurling. Take each of those "data points" one at a time and determine its origin (foundation) and its validity - start with that.

Let's please keep the topic focussed on that, at least for now.

And also please remember Jorge can't handle more than a few hundred words at a time.

And that he wants to take 'each of those "data points" one at a time'.

Let's not overload him.



Jim

[klaus54]

I think you have to be more succinct here. Rather than discussing these topics from the outset I would try and get YECs to discuss the actual data first. So pmc values in the layers of system's such as Lake Suigetsu would be a great start and then go into correlation with layering events and then radiometric dating, build up the complexity slowly and hopefully find a consistent YEC explanation that has more substance than "I do not know, but we're right and your wrong" schtick. The usual tactic, if trying to discuss lake varves and radiometric dating, is for them to dispel the whole system by appealing to unreliability such as the detection of trace radiocarbon in diamond, supposedly collapsing the whole "house of cards". Start with the actual data first and the discussion might go somewhere. Start with the system first and then its nipped in the bud from vacuous appeals and general hand waving.

If someone is willing to start with pmc values in layered systems (see attached images), this is something I've been trying to get YEC answers to, but without success. Naturally Jorge's recollection is different to reality and as we have seen Jorge's recollection trumps all. But reality was that he never had presented and discussed the actual data itself, only to have cast a cursory glance at a few papers (JonF linked to?) dealing with the data and provide his conclusion of "nu uh". He also suggested that the scientists involved in the Lake Suigetsu projects had conducted their research incorrectly, casting aspersions to the data collection techniques. He then bailed when I said I would help him with a JSPS funded project to redo the data collection. Sadly, all lost on the old TWeb server.

(images came from here)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]535[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]536[/ATTACH]

OR,

Very good! That's the other kind of tactic -- to present an easy to understand evidence for time > 10,000 (actually about 50,000 in the case of Varves/C-14) that's hard to refute without special pleading.

Another one would be transgression-regression stratigraphic sequences, e.g. the Appalachian cyclothems. They are impossible to explain in one Fludde/regression event. Of course the debater would have to know some geology.

K54

[klaus54]

oh, lookee here folks ... There's a phankestein lurking in these here woods.

Jorge

q.e.d.

[klaus54]

That's right, rogue06, keep on reminding the readers that you, as well as O-Mudd, place Naturalistic "facts and evidence" above the Word of God - but only when that suits you. I issued the challenge to O-Mudd and, predictably, he has evaded it as if it were the Bubonic Plague.

Let's see you take a stab at it. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief in the feeding of thousands of hungry men, women and children with just a few loaves and fishes. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief that a man (Jesus) may walk unassisted on the surface of a stormy sea. Give us the observable, testable, scientific data points that support your belief that a dead man (Lazarus) in a state of decomposition (from the smell) could live again.

Come, come now ... we be awaiting ...

By the way, this came my way and thought I'd share it with you all - it is so very apropos to the discussion at hand: http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/e...hoery-copy.jpg [sic]

It fits to a 'T' the promoters of Evolution and the deniers/distorters of 'Literal' Scripture (you know, people like you, O-Mudd, et al.).

Jorge

Jorge,

The point of this thread is NOT to prove miracles, which are by definition beyond the realm of scientific method.

The point is to discuss one or more data points that support YEC or by contraposition data points that are a lead-pipe cinch to falsify YEC. By "data points" I mean physically observable evidence.

Unless you wish to be honest and admit that "Biblical Creation Science" is a load of doo-doo. Is that what you want?

K54

[oxmixmudd]

And the count so far is:

Total # of posts with data directly relevant to the topic from which Jorge could engage (I am counting the opening post where I offer him the potential to
go first)

== 5 (posts #1, #11, #13, #14, #26)

Total # of Evasive/rude/belligerent or otherwise empty responses BY JORGE to offers to discuss specific data points relevant to the Age of the universe and the interpretations of Genesis 1-11 which derive and age <10,000 years (I count Jorge's response to my opening post where he refuses to take the opportunity to present his data first):

== 4 (post #5, #16, #18, #20


Number of cogent responses BY JORGE that define and discuss problems with data which shows the Earth and Universe to be >10,000 years old.

== 0


Total number of posts BY JORGE with evidence the Earth is < 10,000 years old.

== 0


Jim

*Jorge now has ample material to work with. Please feel free to present any of the cases thus far mentioned to see if he will do what he said needed to be done, but there is no point, right now, in offering more data sets for Jorge to deal with.

** Other YEC's who wish to take up Jorge's slack thus far are welcome to either present a YEC alternative explanation to one of the OE scenarios thus far listed, or to argue for some data they think supports YEC.

[klaus54]

Hey, Duffus, I would not need any help - most especially from you - if I were doing this.

But since you went through all the trouble, let me make just one brief comment:

Why would you include these two in the "less-than-10,000 years" debate?
(1) The Junkyard/Tornado/F-16 Gedanken (2) A roomful of monkeys typing out War and Peace.


I sense a 'Freudian slip' oopsie.

By the way, the list you posted proves beyond any doubt that you don't know what you're talking about.
Why don't you just continue watching your I Love Lucy reruns and quit while you're ahead?

Jorge

Because those risible Gedanken are used by anti-evolutionists to refute chemical evolution. Sorry, Amigo -- I should have stuck to specifically <10,000 years detritus.

So, what's your excuse now? "If" you were doing it?

Apologies,

K54