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

Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

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

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You should have read the thread he started on Ken Miller on the pre-crash Tweb. He wasn't kidding. He really wanted him punished physically for (IIRC) saying the movie "Expelled" was a joke and full of misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies. He was livid (and made that clear in further postings).

    I can understand why you might think that it is some sort of an act. That he is essentially a Poe. But Jorge is the real deal. He has written articles for YEC websites. He has helped co-author a book with other YECs. He was the president of some organization that promoted YEC beliefs.



    Gee thanks since the first remark, the one I quoted about being "convinced that you are working for Satan himself - I'm serious," was directed toward me after I pointed out the untrustworthiness of scientific information provided by the largest YEC groups based on the fact that they require all those who work for them to discount out-of-hand anything and everything that does not support what they have already concluded (such cherry-picking of data is the epitome of anti-science).


    For Jorge, anyone who isn't a YEC isn't a Christian. That is evidenced by this very thread where he has confirmed that belief in a young earth is a salvific issue -- in the top 5% of issues that are important. This is nothing new as he has made this clear in his pre-crash thread "TAKE TWO: Can you be an evolutionist and a Christian?" where he uncategorically declared "no it is not possible" and before he finished the OP also declared that OECs such as yourself also couldn't be a Christian either. You have to be a YEC.
    During the point in time pre-crash Tweb
    He was probably right.
    Shortly before then, all the YEC haters were atheists. My first encounters with that debate was talk origins when I had usenet with my outlook express 1990s.
    I was new Christian then, no real religious background, so was extreme YEC to make up for lifetime of believing natural billions year old origins.

    Gradually tbings settled down, many YECs realized you can be creationist believer and still allow old universe and earth
    ...and some atheists crossed over accepting Christ
    (like big jar of mixed ingredients gradually uniform distribution)
    Last edited by jordanriver; 02-26-2015, 05:04 PM.
    To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
      you ARE the TWEB Bogart.

      I cant imagine you or Bogie devoting time to create a new character (sockpuppet, I know a little about 'em) , and pretending to be a Christian just to oppose YECs "as an insider" of their religion
      You are, or were I should say by now, the most disarming sockpuppet I ever met. I'll never forget those avatars.

      Now here's the thing. I can see how you feel, as a Christian, seeing someone who likely isn't a Christian putting on a pretense in order to lend an air of credibility to their criticism. So I'd imagine you can understand how I feel, as an academic, seeing someone who absolutely, without question, is not a PhD by any stretch of academic standards, putting the letters behind his name as if he'd earned them, like I did, and as others who post here in Nat. Sci. did as well.

      Yes, I'd despise Jorge if I gave him more than a moment's thought now and then.

      In fact, during one of those moments I went to the minor trouble of contacting the Association of Florida Colleges ... not much trouble considering my bestie was serving as President at the time, and she was right down the hall ... to make sure the fake credentials of one Jorge Fernandez didn't escape notice if he ever again tried to teach at one of their affiliated institutions, which is every state school in Florida, and the majority of the private ones, too. There's still the chance he might slip under the radar somewhere in Florida, but that's enough thought for him, I'm thinking.

      Jesus reportedly mentioned something about being the Way, and the Truth, and the Light at one time. You might want to think about expanding that list of TWebbers who might claim to be His followers, but show up otherwise when you consider their actions.

      I've long since stopped trying to get folks to join me in ignoring him, but Jorge really isn't someone you want to defend.

      As ever, Jesse

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
        That's how Jesus treated the non-Christians.
        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 jordanriver View Post
          I didn't say we do that lethal judging. I implied we were not willing to go that far:




          so no

          only almost as far as Jesus went with the Pharisees .
          John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
          Well - yes. But ... He was Jesus! He could KNOW the hearts of those with whom we was interacting. You and I, we don't quite rank that high. Further, he was addressing people in authority that were abusing their power at the expense of those they ruled over. That is an entirely different thing that pretending you know the motives of people that happen to disagree with you on some element of theology!

          It seems to me one need be very very careful in trying to imitate Christ in an area like this. Far too easy for our sin nature and judgmental spirit to blind us and cause us to become instruments of evil rather than good. Love and compassion will ALWAYS be superior choices when dealing with people. That is what Christ told us we should do. Be angry yet sin not Paul tells us. So - do you know how to be angry yet not sin? That is a difficult thing. And if one can't master that, then how can one know our judgmental words to another are not just a manifestation of our own personal anger at them for how they have treated us? Or manifestations of our own pride in our own self-righteousness?

          Loving the unlovely, turning the other cheek, caring for those in need, these are all hard enough to master. Why waste time on trying to find those odd times some harsh words might happen to do some good? And what about all the destruction we leave in our wake when we are wrong?

          Take the high road.


          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


          • Jorge,

            I hold what can be described as an old universe/young earth view. In that I believe in six actual earth days in Genesis 1:3-31. The flood evidence is what convinced me of the 6 days. But the flood evidence pushes the 6 day events to over 6,000 years ago. So my view of a young earth might still be regarded as an old earth view of a sort to you.

            That is to just to preface the view I am coming from.

            Now my question on the following verse, ". . . But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." -- Genesis 2:17.

            It is therefore my understanding that death was part of God's good creation from the start. That sin made death into an enemy to mankind.

            Now the question: Why reject death was part of God good creation before the fall?
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Jorge,

              I hold what can be described as an old universe/young earth view. In that I believe in six actual earth days in Genesis 1:3-31. The flood evidence is what convinced me of the 6 days. But the flood evidence pushes the 6 day events to over 6,000 years ago. So my view of a young earth might still be regarded as an old earth view of a sort to you.

              That is to just to preface the view I am coming from.

              Now my question on the following verse, ". . . But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." -- Genesis 2:17.

              It is therefore my understanding that death was part of God's good creation from the start. That sin made death into an enemy to mankind.

              Now the question: Why reject death was part of God good creation before the fall?
              That view is contradicted by literally (in the true sense of the word) mountains of evidence. Your view is not only NOT Biblical, it wildly contradicted by geology, genetics, etc.

              It would take you (who I presume is a layman) to learn this if, e.g., you Google "unconformities", "Plate Tectonics", and transgression-regression sequences.

              Old universe/young Earth is every bit as risible as a 6Ka cosmos.

              K54

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                I fully understand your need to find some justification for what happened to Kent Hovind but your post above doesn't move me one bit.

                Kent's history and work spoke for itself. Monetary restitution was offered and denied. There was acceptance that some (prison) penalty had to be paid. Instead, the judge "threw the book" at him, giving Kent nearly the same sentence as was given to Capone for the same crime. Except that Capone was in a completely different galaxy from that of Kent.

                In short, a disgusting travesty of justice - squared!

                But that's okay - it's almost over and Kent will soon be back to work.
                The TEs and Atheists are already shaking in their boots. Got'ta love it!

                Jorge
                It wasn't meant to "move you" but to present the facts. Hovind would likely have gotten a typical sentence if he hadn't also threatened the agents involved with harm and tried to turn the trial into a circus. Judges tend to act accordingly.

                As for "shaking in their boots" again that is more likely the reaction of Ken Ham's minions at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and their Australian counterparts at Creation Ministries International (CMI) who found it necessary to put up pages at their websites encouraging their followers not to use many of the arguments that Hovind used. It's pretty bad when your fellow YECs think that the stuff you say is so loony that they feel it necessary to do that.

                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 rogue06 View Post
                  It wasn't meant to "move you" but to present the facts. Hovind would likely have gotten a typical sentence if he hadn't also threatened the agents involved with harm and tried to turn the trial into a circus. Judges tend to act accordingly.

                  As for "shaking in their boots" again that is more likely the reaction of Ken Ham's minions at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and their Australian counterparts at Creation Ministries International (CMI) who found it necessary to put up pages at their websites encouraging their followers not to use many of the arguments that Hovind used. It's pretty bad when your fellow YECs think that the stuff you say is so loony that they feel it necessary to do that.
                  Hovind was the worst of the worst when it comes to arguments that don't hold water. The fact he and Jorge are best buds says a lot about Jorge's claims that there is 'adequate' scientific evidence supporting YEC.


                  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
                    Oops! The post that preceded my "guess" at you age suggested to me that you were a high-schooler. I'm glad to hear that you and I are at around the same age - makes things "easier".




                    Okay, so it appears that you impose the "Naturalism Rules the Day" standard which, I'm sorry to say, is the cause of your problems. In creation science, MOST of the times we find total correlation between naturalistic explanations for physical phenomena and the observations themselves. But "most" is not always. Example ...

                    You will find NO correlation between the Resurrection of Christ and Naturalistic explanations. Stated differently using your lingo, it is NOT naturalistically possible that a 3-day-old-dead-body exits from the grave to have lunch and chat with His friends.

                    Another example...

                    It is NOT naturalistically possible that a few loaves of bread and a few fishes feed (to their full satisfaction) many thousands of very hungry men, women and children with more food left over than was started with. A little Naturalistic thing called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics absolutely prohibits such an event.
                    That's a very weak attempt to dodge the issue, Jorge. I was talking about providing naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena. And you provide 2 examples of miracles which are (by definition) supernatural and NOT naturalistic. Care to try again?


                    It has been earned in spades. Here's what I'm seeing you doing:

                    You are taking the instances where Creation Science is not able to provide satisfactory answers and then using that to trash ALL instances where Creation Science does offer answers. As you may have guessed, that simply doesn't fly (not with me, for sure).

                    I say again, there are hundreds and hundreds of instances where Creation Science does answer and quite successfully. But you are totally disregarding those and focusing solely on the cases that you regard as "failures" of creation Science.

                    Besides that, I detect something else. Let me illustrate: if a Biblical Creationist, an Atheist, a Buddhist and a Old Earth Creationist all combine Na and Cl under exactly the same conditions and proportions, do you not think that each and every one of them will come up with exactly the same chemical compound?

                    My point has to do with the fact that operational science is identical for all ideologies. It is historical/origins science where the ideologically-based interpretations cause a difference.

                    Jorge
                    And once again you have failed to address any portion of my post. Let me recap:

                    My "starting foundation" is quite simple: Past events can leave behind evidence we can observe today; the laws and constants of physics are the same in the past as they are today.

                    My "standard" is that when people propose naturalistic explanations for physical phenomena, those explanations be naturalistically possible.

                    You don't seem to have any argument with these points. I just finished reading a rather long explanation by Snelling about how the many thousands of cubic miles of once molten rock could have shed their heat and cooled to their present temperatures in a young earth timeframe. What Snelling failed to address is what happened to the oceans and atmosphere when all that heat radiated from the molten rock. Snelling was proposing a naturalistic explanation that is naturalistically impossible: IF all that molten rock cooled as quickly as he claims, the oceans would have been vaporised.

                    I'm beginning to understand that this argument may be a bit too subtle for you. But if one proposes a naturalistic explanation, ALL ramifications of that explanation must be taken into account, not just those points that are convenient. And this is where the explanations of AIG, ICR, etc. fail time and time again. If you think I'm wrong, post a link to an article that you think proves me wrong.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                      have you read some of their posts?
                      you don't have to be 'Amazing Randi' to see the venom dripping from their words.
                      Nothing they have said is any worse than anything Jorge says, but it seems you'll give Jorge a free pass because he says things you generally agree with.
                      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Be kind to Terror - she means well but is often times a bit slow to grasp things.
                        Irony at its finest, so have you been able to come up with an answer to how we're able to find radioactive decay that shows the earth is much older than 6,000 years old? How do you explain this since the laws of physics have a set point in which radioactive elements decay and they decay at a set rate? Perhaps you'll answer this question and the other questions you keep dodging because you can't answer them?
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          I fully understand your need to find some justification for what happened to Kent Hovind but your post above doesn't move me one bit.

                          Kent's history and work spoke for itself. Monetary restitution was offered and denied. There was acceptance that some (prison) penalty had to be paid. Instead, the judge "threw the book" at him, giving Kent nearly the same sentence as was given to Capone for the same crime. Except that Capone was in a completely different galaxy from that of Kent.

                          In short, a disgusting travesty of justice - squared!

                          But that's okay - it's almost over and Kent will soon be back to work.
                          The TEs and Atheists are already shaking in their boots. Got'ta love it!

                          Jorge
                          You're a laughing stock Jorge along with your buddy you keep defending. Why you want to defend a tax cheat and a fraud is beyond me. Guess only being a YEC matters; nothing else does.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            I am so sick and tired of reading time and again your sophomoric misrepresentations
                            of my position -- aside from your long-winded posts. So let me make it simple so
                            that even you can understand it:

                            Forget about the age issue and bring another one onto the table. How about some
                            of the miracles of Christ (e.g., water-to-wine; sightless man from birth able to see;
                            paralytic from birth standing and walking instantaneously, etc.)?

                            Take the water-to-wine miracle. Would denying that event be a salvific issue?

                            Simple ... yes or no and feel free to qualify if you must but not with one of
                            your usual I-get-paid-by-the-word dissertations.

                            Jorge
                            No. The water-to-wine miracle is NOT a salvific issue. Only one miracle is a salvific issue: the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Cor 15).

                            Don't misunderstand me. I firmly believe that Jesus actually turned normal water to real wine. I see no other reasonable way to interpret the account in John 2. In fact, the account seems to anticipate and rule out most of the natural explanations that could be put forth. I believe that anyone who denies this miracle is grossly misreading or misinterpreting the text.

                            Even so, the water-to-wine miracle is NOT a salvific issue.
                            Last edited by Kbertsche; 02-27-2015, 12:13 AM.
                            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                              During the point in time pre-crash Tweb
                              He was probably right.
                              Shortly before then, all the YEC haters were atheists. My first encounters with that debate was talk origins when I had usenet with my outlook express 1990s.
                              I was new Christian then, no real religious background, so was extreme YEC to make up for lifetime of believing natural billions year old origins.

                              Gradually tbings settled down, many YECs realized you can be creationist believer and still allow old universe and earth
                              ...and some atheists crossed over accepting Christ
                              (like big jar of mixed ingredients gradually uniform distribution)
                              Many TEs (not all, just many of them) are closet "YEC" haters because of one primary reason: because we Biblical Creationists are unwilling to be Bible compromisers (as they are) and we publicly call them out on this. They resent that with every fiber in their body and the longer it goes on the angrier they become.

                              Long ago in my life I learned a lesson: people will get irritated to various levels if lies are spoken about them. But if you REALLY want to get someone boiling-hot pissed off, tell them something that is TRUE but that they do not want to either accept or to have exposed. Man-oh-man, you'll get their full wrath - with smoke coming out of their ears - in a New York minute.

                              Gosh ... soooooo many TEs, Taoists, Atheists et al. ... so little time.

                              Jorge
                              Last edited by Jorge; 02-27-2015, 07:29 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                                No. The water-to-wine miracle is NOT a salvific issue. Only one miracle is a salvific issue: the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Cor 15).

                                Don't misunderstand me. I firmly believe that Jesus actually turned normal water to real wine. I see no other reasonable way to interpret the account in John 2. In fact, the account seems to anticipate and rule out most of the natural explanations that could be put forth. I believe that anyone who denies this miracle is grossly misreading or misinterpreting the text.

                                Even so, the water-to-wine miracle is NOT a salvific issue.
                                Okay, now hold that thought (if you forget it, I'll be sure to remind you).

                                What is the source of the Bible? Specifically, is the Bible the product of men
                                (as just another man-made work of literature) or is the Bible WORD from God?

                                Jorge

                                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