Holding their feet to the fire ...

[klaus54]

I KNOW what you're driving at, you baboon! Oops, my apologies, you APE!

What you people do in order to promote your LIE is to focus on the similarities (two arms, two eyes, two feet, ... etc ... etc.) instead of the differences (e.g., hundreds of millions of nucleotide differences, apes have no abstract language, apes have no abstract art or music, etc ... etc.).

We are as much an "ape" as a snake is an aardvark. Try to get real, will ya.
Of course, you may go on believing whatever warms your little heart.

Jorge

So then, why does "ape" as the physical definition of humans bother you more than let's say, mammal?

Was Jesus of Nazareth as the incarnated Logos an animal? A vertebrate? A mammal? A primate?

Not that difficult, Jorge -- take off that tin hat and think a little.

It would make Baby Jesus smile.

K54

[Omniskeptical]

Jorge probably expects a rapture where he will not taste death. Sorry Jorge, you aren't the early ecclesia.

[klaus54]

Jorge probably expects a rapture where he will not taste death. Sorry Jorge, you aren't the early ecclesia.

An exemplar of schizophrenia.

If anyone can figure out this nutcase, please reply.

K54

[Truthseeker]

I think Jorge misinterpreted Genesis as regards deep time. AND now he's wrong about the order of appearance of things like the sun, moon, etc. Let me use an analogy. When someone is planning a house, he might think about the roof first. It would be blue like the sky, have an A frame, be so wide and long, etc. Then he might think about having several bedrooms in the upper story. Then think the house should have two stories. And so on. But when the time comes to build the house, what gets finished first? The foundation! Actually before that we have to prepare the land first for the foundation. Jorge ought to study Genesis 2:3 in the Hebrew original!

[rogue06]

Okay, ape-man .. you've managed to convince me - you are an APE!

Jorge

The point is that we are more than the sum of our parts. I think even you would agree that you're more than a pile of dirt/dust.

[rogue06]

Once again you demonstrate either your ignorance or your intellectual dishonesty.
Are you or are you not a Theistic Evolutionist?

If you are a Theistic Evolutionist (which I know you are) then you believe in the column labeled "Evolution" and not in the column labeled "Genesis". So why are you acting as if this weren't true? Why are you using Clinton-speak to disguise your true position and agenda?

You may get that past some people, but in me you've met your Waterloo.

Jorge

Why don't you just admit that you have a problem with virtually all of science and not just the parts that support evolution?

[rogue06]

By all means, do more research - I WANT you to do more research.

Never forget that prayer (for seeking guidance from God) and intellectual honesty are the two most important factors for arriving at the Truth in this matter.

You have what I've provided so I'll leave you with a few resources that will prove invaluable in your search: See sites for Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research and TrueOrigins. Between those four sites there are multiple thousands (no exaggeration) of articles, videos, presentations and so on that address and answer most questions that may occur to you. There are other sites but those will be more than enough to get you there assuming you genuinely wish to arrive.

Jorge

If you do go to the sites that Jorge suggested for your information it is best to keep one simple fact in mind.

Every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent, "prestigious" YEC groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. No I’m not making this stuff up AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing.

These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to ignore evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed. Here is the statement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."^[1]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they're done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn't even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.







1. This concept has been expressed by many scientists over the years. Here is a small sampling:

"I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away." -- Michael Faraday

"The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought.” --Douglas Futuyma

"Any real systematist (or scientist in general) has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence." --Mark Norell

"I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as the facts are opposed to it." --Charles Darwin. He also put it another way: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone."

An excellent example of this concept in action is when a 14 myo fossil of a honey bee was discovered in Utah that overturned the idea that North America did too have a native honeybee. What was the reaction of Michael Engel, co-author of Evolution of the Insects? "This rewrites the history of honeybee evolution ... I got to overturn some of my own stuff."

Likewise, Donald Prothero, in his book "Evolution:What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" recounts how the famous geologist Marshall Kay, who had spent his entire life explaining the complexities of geology based on the assumption that continents did not move (even publishing a major book on the topic), ended up embracing plate tectonics when the evidence for it started to amass. Even though he was near retirement age Kay began redoing his life's work using the new concepts.

Richard Dawkins has recounted one instance he has witnessed:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red.

Okay this got to be a long footnote but this is how real scientists respond to new information that goes against their preconceptions

[lilpixieofterror]

Why don't you just admit that you have a problem with virtually all of science and not just the parts that support evolution?

Well duh. In Jorge paranoid land, everything is related to 'evolution' and therefore the work of evil materialist. Duh.

[klaus54]

I think Jorge misinterpreted Genesis as regards deep time. AND now he's wrong about the order of appearance of things like the sun, moon, etc. Let me use an analogy. When someone is planning a house, he might think about the roof first. It would be blue like the sky, have an A frame, be so wide and long, etc. Then he might think about having several bedrooms in the upper story. Then think the house should have two stories. And so on. But when the time comes to build the house, what gets finished first? The foundation! Actually before that we have to prepare the land first for the foundation. Jorge ought to study Genesis 2:3 in the Hebrew original!

How the ANE Hebrew thought of creation is irrelevant in execution (which is totally ambiguous in the Genesis stories), the important point for Jorge, "Mr. Black", JordanFluss, Brainstem987, etc.) is THAT Elohim creates.

So why whack about nuanced interpretations?

Who cares?

I as sure don't.

K54

[Truthseeker]

So why whack about nuanced interpretations?

Who cares?

Why whack about Jorge's posts?

[Jesse]

By all means, do more research - I WANT you to do more research.

Never forget that prayer (for seeking guidance from God) and intellectual honesty are the two most important factors for arriving at the Truth in this matter.

You have what I've provided so I'll leave you with a few resources that will prove invaluable in your search: See sites for Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research and TrueOrigins. Between those four sites there are multiple thousands (no exaggeration) of articles, videos, presentations and so on that address and answer most questions that may occur to you. There are other sites but those will be more than enough to get you there assuming you genuinely wish to arrive.

Jorge

Thank you again for your kind responses and the links to look over. I will surely look at everything, pray for guidance, and follow where the truth leads me. You've helped me learn a bit more about this debate and some of the things that are believed .

[Jesse]

If you do go to the sites that Jorge suggested for your information it is best to keep one simple fact in mind.

Every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent, "prestigious" YEC groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. No I’m not making this stuff up AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing.

These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to ignore evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed. Here is the statement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."^[1]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they're done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn't even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.







1. This concept has been expressed by many scientists over the years. Here is a small sampling:

"I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away." -- Michael Faraday

"The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought.” --Douglas Futuyma

"Any real systematist (or scientist in general) has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence." --Mark Norell

"I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as the facts are opposed to it." --Charles Darwin. He also put it another way: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone."

An excellent example of this concept in action is when a 14 myo fossil of a honey bee was discovered in Utah that overturned the idea that North America did too have a native honeybee. What was the reaction of Michael Engel, co-author of Evolution of the Insects? "This rewrites the history of honeybee evolution ... I got to overturn some of my own stuff."

Likewise, Donald Prothero, in his book "Evolution:What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" recounts how the famous geologist Marshall Kay, who had spent his entire life explaining the complexities of geology based on the assumption that continents did not move (even publishing a major book on the topic), ended up embracing plate tectonics when the evidence for it started to amass. Even though he was near retirement age Kay began redoing his life's work using the new concepts.

Richard Dawkins has recounted one instance he has witnessed:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red.

Okay this got to be a long footnote but this is how real scientists respond to new information that goes against their preconceptions

I do understand, Rogue06. I was asking these questions because I wasn't really up on the debate and all the issues involved. Jorge did help in giving me things to read and digest. I have a lot more to learn though.

My own personal belief is that Evolution and the Scriptures are compatible and there isn't really much in the way of gaps. But it does help to read things that take a different side from mine. I have an open mind, but not so much that my brains fall out . Thank you for the warning though.

I was a bit shocked by AIG's creation timeline. Not sure what to think of that. But I will read through more and see what else they have to say.

[rogue06]

Well duh. In Jorge paranoid land, everything is related to 'evolution' and therefore the work of evil materialist. Duh.

Forgot to pick up some toothpaste so he was out of it this morning... Blame evolution.

Missed the traffic light where it seems to stay red forever... Blame evolution.

Dinner got burned.... Blame evolution.

Favorite TV program got cancelled... Blame evolution.

Wife heard him crying out Eugene Scott's name in his sleep third time this month... Blame evolution.

Ice maker malfunctioning so he didn't have any ice to put on black eye after wife responded to his crying out Eugene Scott's name in his sleep the third time this month... Blame evolution.

[Jorge]

If you do go to the sites that Jorge suggested for your information it is best to keep one simple fact in mind.

Every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent, "prestigious" YEC groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. No I’m not making this stuff up AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing.

These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to ignore evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed. Here is the statement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."^[1]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they're done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn't even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.







1. This concept has been expressed by many scientists over the years. Here is a small sampling:

"I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away." -- Michael Faraday

"The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought.” --Douglas Futuyma

"Any real systematist (or scientist in general) has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence." --Mark Norell

"I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as the facts are opposed to it." --Charles Darwin. He also put it another way: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone."

An excellent example of this concept in action is when a 14 myo fossil of a honey bee was discovered in Utah that overturned the idea that North America did too have a native honeybee. What was the reaction of Michael Engel, co-author of Evolution of the Insects? "This rewrites the history of honeybee evolution ... I got to overturn some of my own stuff."

Likewise, Donald Prothero, in his book "Evolution:What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" recounts how the famous geologist Marshall Kay, who had spent his entire life explaining the complexities of geology based on the assumption that continents did not move (even publishing a major book on the topic), ended up embracing plate tectonics when the evidence for it started to amass. Even though he was near retirement age Kay began redoing his life's work using the new concepts.

Richard Dawkins has recounted one instance he has witnessed:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red.

Okay this got to be a long footnote but this is how real scientists respond to new information that goes against their preconceptions

WOW - you'll be getting a nice paycheck from the United Evolutionists of America
for that post. You do get paid by the word, right?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Forgot to pick up some toothpaste so he was out of it this morning... Blame evolution.

Missed the traffic light where it seems to stay red forever... Blame evolution.

Dinner got burned.... Blame evolution.

Favorite TV program got cancelled... Blame evolution.

Wife heard him crying out Eugene Scott's name in his sleep third time this month... Blame evolution.

Ice maker malfunctioning so he didn't have any ice to put on black eye after wife responded to his crying out Eugene Scott's name in his sleep the third time this month... Blame evolution.

I've always said that you are the TWeb MASTER of Straw Men.
Thank you for continuing to provide evidence to prove my claim.

Jorge