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
See more
See less

Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    You are certainly not going to get an argument from me on that. Very true: NO ONE has it all right. In fact, no one has most or even much of it right. What matters, IMHO, is that at least the essentials are right. One essential is that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exists and is the Creator of all that is.

    Another essential is that God gave us His Word - which we refer to as His Special Revelation - as proof that He IS and as the only way for us to know the truth of things that otherwise we could/would never know. Then, men "professing to be wise thus becoming fools" thought that they could supplant God's Word with their own theories, philosophies and vain imaginations. Satan also uses this as a way to ask each and every one of us what he asked Eve - "Yea, hath God said?" IOW, Satan wishes to create doubt on what GOD CLEARLY, LITERALLY has stated so that men would disregard God's Word and, as a result, sin and death would follow. Is any of this clicking?




    Wrong you are. People are free to investigate for themselves and I have always strongly encouraged them to do so. There are many, many (well over one hundred) empirical observations - repeatable, testable, verifiable... scientific - that do not agree with millions/billions of years. This does NOT mean that these things "seal the case" for or against a young Earth-universe. What they mean is that the case for millions/billions of years is NOT an open-and-shut case as you believe and would like others to believe.

    Furthermore, setting aside all of the empirical observations, we have to consider the far more important THEOLOGICAL implications of millions/billions of years. I've lost count of how many times I have mentioned this critical fact to you and others.

    ONE MORE TIME: all of the empirical evidence tells us that a man cannot walk unaided on the surface of a stormy sea. That is undeniable. So, should you then regard that biblical account as "myth, allegory or a fabrication" based on the empirical ("scientific") evidence? Should you?
    You still can't (or won't) comprehend the difference between evidence for/against a specific event (miraculous or otherwise) and a scientific prediction concerning what is possible naturally.

    Suppose you don't do that - you accept the story as historically factual.
    which I do ...

    Then you will be accused of "believing in things that oppose established scientific laws and principles" (such as gravity and fluid surface tension). You can hide behind your faith and say, "it was a miracle and I choose to believe it" but the accusers will not be satisfied because they will come back at you with, "Ah, yet you choose to NOT accept the 6-day creation because of the empirical observations - you are being inconsistent".

    No, I'm not. The only inconsistency here is YOU trying to apply the same rigid hermeneutic to two radically different types of scripture.

    As I've explained over and over and over again, I am not saying God COULD not have created the universe in 6 days as we humans measure them, which is one way to INTERPRET Genesis 1. I am not and NEVER have said that scientific principles can be used to dismiss the POSSIBILITY of miracles. What I am saying is that the evidence strongly indicates God did NOT create that way and that your INTERPRETATION of Genesis is ill informed. That is, evidence ALSO indicates VERY STRONGLY that Genesis 1 is not a technical passage that can be used to DERIVE a scientific description of or timeframe for the creation.







    Okay, so suppose you choose to NOT accept the "walking on water" account because it opposes the aforementioned scientific laws and principles. Then you think to yourself, "Which is more critical to my spiritual life: the theological implications of dismissing the miracles in the Bible or the scientific implications of accepting the miracles of the Bible?"

    The answer is rather obvious - methinks. If a person dismisses the miracles in the Bible because they oppose scientific laws and principles then that person may as well throw the Bible away and with that his/her claim that (s)he is a Christian. BTW, I used only one example (walking on water) but there are, as you know, well over a hundred miracles.

    WE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS ... WE CANNOT PICK-N-CHOOSE ... IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER!
    Jorge, your willful stubborn ignorance is the ONLY thing what you have written demonstrates. Someone asked me the other day why I bother with you. I don't really know. But there is in me the hope that sooner or later you will actually listen to what I am saying. Not so much to change your mind about what you believe, but to help you understand there are other legitimate ways of approaching this issue, and even more so, to see you one day begin to understand that there is more than one legitimate set of beliefs surrounding belief in Christ. That for some, to eat meat offered to idols is a sin, but for others its just meat. When we begin to understand the broader application of that section of scripture, we have a lot more freedom to 'dwell together in peace' in spite of the fact we don't necessarily agree on every point.



    Jim
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      At first I thought it was going to be this picture of the famous NASA frog sent skyward by the launch blast.

      Poor wittle froggy
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Poor wittle froggy
        To boldly go where no frog has gone before!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          You still can't (or won't) comprehend the difference between evidence for/against a specific event (miraculous or otherwise) and a scientific prediction concerning what is possible naturally.
          I understand more-than-sufficiently well, thank you very much. You keep repeating that I "don't understand or don't accept" in the hope that readers won't catch you in the act of twisting my true position.


          which I do ...
          You claim that you do. If, in fact, you do then you are being inconsistent, dishonest, or both.
          As I've stated, you cannot have your cake and eat it too - that's cheating!


          No, I'm not. The only inconsistency here is YOU trying to apply the same rigid hermeneutic to two radically different types of scripture.

          As I've explained over and over and over again, I am not saying God COULD not have created the universe in 6 days as we humans measure them, which is one way to INTERPRET Genesis 1. I am not and NEVER have said that scientific principles can be used to dismiss the POSSIBILITY of miracles. What I am saying is that the evidence strongly indicates God did NOT create that way and that your INTERPRETATION of Genesis is ill informed. That is, evidence ALSO indicates VERY STRONGLY that Genesis 1 is not a technical passage that can be used to DERIVE a scientific description of or timeframe for the creation.
          You are TOTALLY twisting my words because what I wrote - quite clearly, I might add - is NOT the same as what you are (mis)representing above.



          Jorge, your willful stubborn ignorance is the ONLY thing what you have written demonstrates. Someone asked me the other day why I bother with you. I don't really know. But there is in me the hope that sooner or later you will actually listen to what I am saying. Not so much to change your mind about what you believe, but to help you understand there are other legitimate ways of approaching this issue, and even more so, to see you one day begin to understand that there is more than one legitimate set of beliefs surrounding belief in Christ. That for some, to eat meat offered to idols is a sin, but for others its just meat. When we begin to understand the broader application of that section of scripture, we have a lot more freedom to 'dwell together in peace' in spite of the fact we don't necessarily agree on every point.

          Jim
          No one has had to ask me - I've asked myself dozens of times why I even bother with you.
          You have a stubborn pride and willful ignorance that are invincible.

          But I am not faultless. It has crossed my mind that I too (may?) have some "pride" in believing that, through my efforts, I can get you to 'convert'. I seem to forget the lesson of the rich man asking Jesus what he must do to have eternal life. When the rich man turned away, did Jesus try and try and try again? Nope. Jesus knew that there was an "invincible obstacle" (worldly attachments) that stood between that man and the Truth. I need to learn that lesson.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
            Whatta ya know - I guessed it!

            A frog is levitated using a 10 tesla magnetic coil using diamagnetism.
            Imagine that - Jorge did not have to "guess", he already knew it.

            Oh, wait, we're talking about the same ol' Tiggy that scored 'average' on a
            science quiz for teenagers - no wonder he had to "guess".

            My turn to guess: If memory serves me, they did NOT fill the frog with
            iron filings in order to levitate him. I'm not going to check, I'm relying
            solely on memory. I'm quite sure that if I'm wrong then Tiggy-Pooh
            will be posting it in super-large, bolded letters and if I'm right we will
            not hear so much as a peep.

            Oh well, once a Tiggy, always a Tiggy.

            Jorge
            Last edited by Jorge; 06-09-2014, 05:04 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Oh, wait, we're talking about the same ol' Tiggy that scored 'average' on a
              science quiz for teenagers - no wonder he had to "guess".
              That would be the science quiz that you bailed out of less than half-way through, right? Claiming that you didn't have enough time to finish something that most of us did in under five minutes?

              Roy

              P.S. You're right about the frog
              Last edited by Roy; 06-09-2014, 05:38 PM.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                I understand more-than-sufficiently well, thank you very much. You keep repeating that I "don't understand or don't accept" in the hope that readers won't catch you in the act of twisting my true position.
                No - you clearly don't. For you repeat the same nonnsense again here:



                You claim that you do. If, in fact, you do then you are being inconsistent, dishonest, or both.
                As I've stated, you cannot have your cake and eat it too - that's cheating!
                Look - you are just not listening at all. Nobody can be this stupid.


                Please read and answer these questions:


                1) Can we use basic scientific principles to determine if a man can see?

                2) Can we use those same principles to determine if a man who claims to be able to see is in fact blind?

                3) Can we use these same scientific principles to determine if a man who claims to have been healed miraculously can see?

                4) Can we deduce: if a man who claims to have been healed of blindness can't in fact see, then he was not healed of blindness?

                Does any of 1-4 above prove people can't be healed miraculously of blindness?

                Can a person who answers yes to 1-4 above still believe in the possibility of miraculous healing?

                Is a person who answers yes to 1-4 above inconsistent if he believes that Jesus healed blind people as part of his ministry?



                Once you've answered these questions, perhaps we'll have a handle on why we keep talking past each other on this issue.

                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-09-2014, 06:22 PM.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Congratulations, H.M.S. Beagle, for being the first to explain how the frog was levitated.

                  I wish I'd remembered the word "levitated." Otherwise I would have written, "A frog was levitated," instead.

                  Glad to have provided y'all with some levity.
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    That would be the science quiz that you bailed out of less than half-way through, right? Claiming that you didn't have enough time to finish something that most of us did in under five minutes?
                    "Bailed out"? Huh
                    You're hallucinating again, Roy. What-oh-what have you been smoking THIS time?

                    Roy

                    P.S. You're right about the frog
                    I guess the ol' memory isn't so bad after all.
                    Expect to hear nada from the Tiggster - he'd rather
                    chew off his hind leg than to admit that I was right.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      No - you clearly don't. For you repeat the same nonnsense again here:





                      Look - you are just not listening at all. Nobody can be this stupid.


                      Please read and answer these questions:


                      1) Can we use basic scientific principles to determine if a man can see?

                      2) Can we use those same principles to determine if a man who claims to be able to see is in fact blind?

                      3) Can we use these same scientific principles to determine if a man who claims to have been healed miraculously can see?

                      4) Can we deduce: if a man who claims to have been healed of blindness can't in fact see, then he was not healed of blindness?

                      Does any of 1-4 above prove people can't be healed miraculously of blindness?

                      Can a person who answers yes to 1-4 above still believe in the possibility of miraculous healing?

                      Is a person who answers yes to 1-4 above inconsistent if he believes that Jesus healed blind people as part of his ministry?



                      Once you've answered these questions, perhaps we'll have a handle on why we keep talking past each other on this issue.

                      Jim
                      For reasons that I've already stated in my last post, I'm trying to minimize the time that I waste on you, O-Mudd. I doubt that it will help but I'll just refer you to the post that I wrote to GRMorton on Page 15, post # 150, in the "Interesting serious starting on PT". Seek diligently and honestly or remain in your ignorance - your call.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        For reasons that I've already stated in my last post, I'm trying to minimize the time that I waste on you, O-Mudd. I doubt that it will help but I'll just refer you to the post that I wrote to GRMorton on Page 15, post # 150, in the "Interesting serious starting on PT". Seek diligently and honestly or remain in your ignorance - your call.

                        Jorge
                        As expected. You have no choice but to bluff. The answers to those questions end your capacity to claim my point is invalid, and you know it. So who is the 'dishonest one' now Jorge?

                        Jim
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          "Bailed out"? Huh
                          You're hallucinating again, Roy. What-oh-what have you been smoking THIS time?
                          LOL! Leave it to Jorge Fernandez, the boards biggest coward and proven liar, the pollo who has run clucking from every last question on his YEC claims, to start boasting because by dumb luck he happened to see a video before others did.

                          I guess when you're as big a loser as Jorge Fernandez you have to settle for any small "win".

                          Comment


                          • I wonder if I should put Tiggy in sig. Why feed troll Jorge?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              That would be the science quiz that you bailed out of less than half-way through, right? Claiming that you didn't have enough time to finish something that most of us did in under five minutes?
                              "Bailed out"? Huh
                              Bailed out. You gave up after seven questions.

                              Roy
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X