Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
Your link to AIG was embedded in my post 1795, so it’s nothing new. It doesn’t address the reason AIG fails to set the minimum age of the earth at 500 million years, based on the findings of the RATE project.
LinkIn this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.
In Thousands Not Billions, the incompatibility of the young-earth position with current scientific understanding is glossed over in the final four pages of the book. The thermodynamic dilemma is dismissed withPossible mechanisms have been explored that could safeguard the earth from severe overheating during accelerated decay events. One of these involves cosmological or volume cooling, the result of a rapid expansion of space. Many details remain to be filled in for this and other proposed processes of heat removal (p. 180).
Unfortunately for young-earth advocates, cosmological expansion does not cool material on earth nor does it cool some materials and not others. Yet DeYoung concludes: “Young-earth creation is neither outdated nor in opposition to science” (p. 182).The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception.
YHAOS:"Don’t concern yourself for me."
I AM concerned about the following: what sort of strange mind-set would find it important enough to his argument, to search through nearly 1,800 numbered posts, some of them very lengthy, in order to strip out of context 14 short quotes, some of those just partial sentences, but all clearly directed against ID-Creation "scientists," and most by yours truly, certainly a non-scientist...
And then claim that these quotes represent a "badgering and denouncing" of Christians by scientists?
Are we seeing here, YHAOS, YOUR claim that ID-Creationist = Christian and Christian = ID-Creationist?
So, have you now abandoned all pretense that ID-Creationism has anything to do with science? Are you willing to confess that it's strictly an exercise in religion, and that's why YOU say: criticizing ID-Creationism is the SAME thing as "badgering and denouncing Christians"?
If so, then we are near full agreement, on this point at least. ;-)
If we say that ID-Creationism is strictly a Christian religious effort to add modern explanation to the biblical account of God creating the heavens and the earth,
If we admit that ID-Creationism has nothing to do with science, but is instead strictly focused on the Works of God -- then at its heart, that's just what I believe:
I think God did create the heavens and the earth, and whether it took six days, or six billion years could be of NO concern to an infinite God. I also say, God's mighty works of nature are visible for all to see all the time, not just scientists peering through their microscopes.
Seems to me, people who refuse to see that only impoverish themselves spiritually. And I worry about your poverty, YHAOS. By contrast, Schaef21 sounds to me like the real thing, a good and decent person, no matter how wrong in ideas. You sound very different.
What makes you think that’s what I did? No other possibilities? But, don’t destroy your health worrying about it. Take a Q or a V like a normal person.”
”in order to strip out of context 14 short quotes”
So you declare. How do you know the quotes are “out of context”? In order to support your claim you would have had to search those 1800 posts to find the quotes, then you would have had to carefully read through each of the 14 in their entirety before declaring them out of context. What does that say about your “mind-set”?
”And then claim that these quotes represent a "badgering and denouncing" of Christians by scientists?”
That ‘s your description (see Post #1744).
My only request of you was to direct my attention to instances where you had ripped into scientists for declaring God to not exist (for being liars), the same as you have ripped into Christians (Post #1736). You declared there were none. I showed your error. Since that time you have been totally absorbed kicking up dust and making smoke in a desperate dance attempting to hide the fact that you don’t hate liars, as you claim, you simply hate Christians.
Would you like some more:
"a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders"
". . . anyone who gets the vapors from a little teasing should find another forum to frequent."
"Do you know some that do? How many are biologists? How many of those are named Steve"
"To which "God" do you refer? The name "God" has been applied to numerous deity constructs, many of which are mutually exclusive."
"Theology not only presupposes, but is a field that studies the nature and worship of a being or beings that materialism deems not to exist. What could materialism have to say except that theology is a null endeavor?"
"That's why science arose, to correct such error-prone methods by comparing various potential explanations against reality itself."
"Opinion is the useless babble and clutter of random thought that is absent of knowledge."
"Opinion seeks its agenda by name calling, lack of knowledge, accusation, misrepresentation, distortion of terms, other unethical acts and in the end when frustrated violence."
"The thing I don't understand about ID is why an intelligent designer would lavish so much love and attention on the bacterial flagellum -- a device whose primary function is to cause dysentery and kill infants and children."
"Perhaps the intelligent designer [God] is a really late term abortionist."
"If a human engineer designed a system whose primary attribute is endless pain and horror, we would call him a psychopath."
"Why would a very intelligent being create a system that perpetuates continuous horror and pain for most living things?"
"Even God dabbles in genocide when it's convenient. Either directly or through His minions."
"Genocide, hatred, warfare, etc, have been around as long as we have recorded history, and probably before. Even your Bible talks about it."
"Perhaps we should compare the number of clergymen convicted of child molestation with the number of biology teachers convicted of child molestation."
"Can you say American Taliban?"
"Going to heaven or hell is quite different. There is zero evidence either scientifically or historically, and if you lead your life full of a "terrible fear", the outcome is the same."
" When you start having to protest that you're not a creationist, you're doing too good of an imitation of a pig-ignorant moron."
"Your average creationist hasn't got the brains God gave small rodents."
"Or the moral character of the medium sized ones."
End Quotes.
End your dancing or end the discussion.
”So, have you now abandoned all pretense that ID-Creationism has anything to do with science? Are you willing to confess that it's strictly an exercise in religion . . .”
Apparently you don’t understand what you have just confessed. Clearly, you have abandoned all pretense that any statement about science, made by a Christian, is evaluated for its accuracy or scientific validity, and instead is condemned out of hand simply because it was made by a person of religion. You have just confirmed what many Christians in this forum have been saying all along: any scientific observation must first pass a religious test before it may be considered on any other basis.
”If we say that ID-Creationism is strictly a Christian religious effort to add modern explanation to the biblical account of God creating the heavens and the earth . . .”
Then we can say that no idea, hypothesis, or theory identified with science will be even accepted for debate and consideration if it is offered by a Christian. Yeah, I think that sums up your attitude.
”Seems to me, people who refuse to see that only impoverish themselves spiritually. And I worry about your poverty, YHAOS.”
This from a guy who gave me a severe warning about getting personal (and, again, you forgot to ping Schaef21 after mentioning him).
Now gentle readers, brace yourselves for great billowing clouds of smoke and denials right & left.
YHAOS:"End Quotes.
"End your dancing or end the discussion."
This time you've managed to select out quotes, none of which come from me. Nor do I remember reading them on this thread. So I can't say what their contexts might have been.
Nor would I defend them, since most are obviously intended as insults, rather than arguments.
But here is what's obviously true about them:
That's being absurd and insulting, and if you take my warnings seriously, you'd stop both.
Most people know the real truth of this matter: lots of real scientists are also Christians who do perfectly honest scientific work, and who fully understand the difference between science and religion. As long as they are not inserting religious doctrine into their scientific results, they have no more problem than anyone else getting recognized.
"The [R.A.T.E.] authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth.
"Yet they [RATE] are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed."
It seems obvious to me that what we are dealing with here is not ID-Creation "science" but rather a small Christian splinter group's editorial comment ON science.
Of course, as Christians, they are totally entitled to their religious beliefs, and if these include scientific-sounding criticisms of science, of course, that's their right.
But I'd say, their game is over when these same ID-Creation "scientists" begin complaining that defenders of science are, in YHAOS' words, "badgering and denouncing Christians."
So, they first pretend to be "scientists" denouncing other scientists for their "politically-correct" lies, deceptions and suppression of ID-Creationism.
But when defenders of science point out IDers' own lies and deceits, they suddenly switch back to being just poor little Christians who are now "badgered and denounced" by those evil scientists!
Now, I'm about as old and slow as you can get, but I think I finally do get it.
”But here is what's obviously true about them:”
Oh! Boy! Your contention was that you knew of no scientists who declared God to not exist. I gave you a list of quotations showing that there are scientists who do. That is the context of this conversation (see post #1787 & #1744). You persist in trying to shift the ground to some other context. That is the tactic of someone who is not comfortable with the way things are going, and wants very badly to change the subject.
”None refer to Christians, so they are not "badgering and denouncing Christians" as you previously claimed.”
Remember, your words, not mine. The quotes you cite in your post #1805 refer to Christians. The rest that do not refer to Christians are addressed to Christians.
”All seem to reference ID-Creation "science," or "scientists."”
Exactly. (Now, gentle readers, we can all see what denial mode this is headed for.)
”None "declare God not to exist," as you pretend.”
Or does not demean and mock Christians, as you pretend? (To demean or mock Christians, or Jews, is to deny God. ‘Tis an age-old Biblical tradition and much followed in the world today.)
"a local origin myth of a tribe of Middle-Eastern camel-herders" Does not deny both Genesis and God (as well as demean and mock)?
". . . anyone who gets the vapors from a little teasing should find another forum to frequent." Does not demean and mock?
"Do you know some that do? How many are biologists? How many of those are named Steve" Does not demean and mock anyone who espouses ID?
"To which "God" do you refer? The name "God" has been applied to numerous deity constructs, many of which are mutually exclusive." Does not deny God?
"Theology not only presupposes, but is a field that studies the nature and worship of a being or beings that materialism deems not to exist. What could materialism have to say except that theology is a null endeavor?" Not a flat denial of God?
"That's why science arose, to correct such error-prone methods by comparing various potential explanations against reality itself." Theology just can’t come up to scratch when compared to Science. This from Scientists who disclaim any comparison between Theology and Science until they wish to make it.
"Opinion is the useless babble and clutter of random thought that is absent of knowledge." God is just another opinion, like a taste for fried onions on steak.
"Opinion seeks its agenda by name calling, lack of knowledge, accusation, misrepresentation, distortion of terms, other unethical acts and in the end when frustrated violence." A highly selected opinion itself directed against Christianity, when it could be equally applied against most any group.
"The thing I don't understand about ID is why an intelligent designer would lavish so much love and attention on the bacterial flagellum -- a device whose primary function is to cause dysentery and kill infants and children." Does not deny God by demeaning Him?
"Perhaps the intelligent designer [God] is a really late term abortionist." Ditto.
"If a human engineer designed a system whose primary attribute is endless pain and horror, we would call him a psychopath." Ditto again.
"Why would a very intelligent being create a system that perpetuates continuous horror and pain for most living things?" And again.
"Even God dabbles in genocide when it's convenient. Either directly or through His minions." And again.
"Genocide, hatred, warfare, etc, have been around as long as we have recorded history, and probably before. Even your Bible talks about it." And again.
"Perhaps we should compare the number of clergymen convicted of child molestation with the number of biology teachers convicted of child molestation." Demeans Christians.
"Can you say American Taliban?" Ditto.
"Going to heaven or hell is quite different. There is zero evidence either scientifically or historically, and if you lead your life full of a "terrible fear", the outcome is the same." Does not deny God by demeaning Christian belief?
"When you start having to protest that you're not a creationist, you're doing too good of an imitation of a pig-ignorant moron." Ditto.
Me: "Then we can say that no idea, hypothesis, or theory identified with science will be even accepted for debate and consideration if it is offered by a Christian. Yeah, I think that sums up your attitude."
You: “That's being absurd and insulting . . .”
Yeah, that’s what you say, but when the heat’s off, you’re back out on the same street corner selling the same snake oil.
”Most people know the real truth of this matter”
They sure do. And, I would think that knowledge would tend to sober you up. But apparently not.
OK. Ready for the next round of smoke and snake oil . . . er, denials.
from 1,807 BroJoeK:[about YHAOS' quotes]: ”None refer to Christians, so they are not "badgering and denouncing Christians" as you previously claimed.”
YHAOS:"Remember, your words, not mine."
........
YHAOS:"Your contention was that you knew of no scientists who declared God to not exist. I gave you a list of quotations showing that there are scientists who do. That is the context of this conversation (see post #1787 & #1744)."
So let's look at this. In your post 1,765 you declared that I, your humble servant, should "rebuke Scientists for their declarations badgering and denouncing Christians."
So I said, in effect: I've seen no such declarations. This launched you, YHAOS, on a pretty amazing scavenger hunt, to come up with any and all quotes which might somehow be used in rebuking "Scientists for their declarations badgering and denouncing Christians."
But I look at your quotes, and that's not what I see.
What I do see is more-or-less ordinary people (not "scientists") attempting to debate (or mock) the merits of ID-Creation "science," not Christianity.
I see none attempting to "mock" either God or Christianity, but rather only those folks who, in the name of their religion, pretend to be ID-Creation "scientists."
But as I said above, I think I now understand your game -- you are going to attack evolution, biology, geology, chemistry, physics and whatever else of science you don't like, in the name of ID-Creation "science."
But when anyone points out how ridiculous your attacks on science are, you are going to claim that they are "denouncing Christians," and mocking God!
I think this game is over. Have a great day!
You see what you want to see. Otherwise it’s deny, deny, deny, exactly as I said you do.
And, here comes the great billowing clouds of smoke, right on cue . . .
”But when anyone points out how ridiculous your attacks on science are . . .
What attacks are these? Cite them, and quote them. Or stand revealed for the miserable little poseur you are.
Let us first take note of your resort to insult. By the way, your insults don't bother me in the least, since they only reflect poorly on you.
But what your insults SHOULD do is permanently disqualify you from complaining about ANY insults or mocking that you receive. So, how does the Bible say that? If you are going to live by the sword of insults, expect to take a few verbal cuts yourself? Something like that... ;-)
Second, in direct answer to your question above, go back and read the first words of this thread, the words before post #1. You did read them, right?
Further, throughout this long long thread, many ID-Creationist posters (i.e., schaef21) have attacked not just the theory of evolution, but all of science related to it -- geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc.
So, let's see... just who has been revealed here as what?
Produce or recant, Poseur.
fom 1810 BroJoeK: "Second, in direct answer to your question above, go back and read the first words of this thread, the words before post #1. You did read them, right?"
Yada, yada, yada. Produce or recant poseur.
You don't like my answer, so you just pretend I didn't answer. So, here it is again, for what, the third time?
BroJoeK: "fom 1810 BroJoeK: "Second, in direct answer to your question above, go back and read the first words of this thread, the words before post #1. You did read them, right?"
Poseur? And you're the person who complains endlessly, and spend hours searching out and copying every conceivable insult to you or yours, demanding I answer for them -- and all for what? Just to justify your insults to anyone disagreeing with you?
Look pal, you need to calm down, settle down and get on with your life. The debate here is the science of evolution versus religious beliefs of our ID-Creationists, not who is or isn't a "poseur".
So, if you have something to say on-topic, then fire away. Otherwise, why not find something else to do?
Produce or recant, Poseur.
But when anyone points out how ridiculous your attacks on science are, you are going to claim that they are "denouncing Christians," and mocking God!"
from 1815 YHAOS:"I asked you what attacks are these? I asked you to cite them and quote them (see #1809). You indulged in the refined practice of the artful dodge, but you produced nothing.
Produce or recant, Poseur."
On the contrary, I produced the quote I had in mind when I wrote those words -- the opening words of this thread attacking science.
Of course, if you YHAOS, disclaim those words, take no responsibility for them and refuse to defend them, then I am sorely mistaken in my understanding of just what YHAOS is all about here. I had the strong impression that you were here to defend the ideas and words of ID-Creationism.
But if that's not true, if you have no intention of defending ID-Creationism, then I'd say you've well earned the title yourself of Poseur to the Max!
Those folks can take care of themselves. They don’t need my help. Some of them certainly know as much, or more, than you. Others, maybe not so much. That’s pretty typical, IMHO. So I guess you got something else than you expected, and you’ve been unable to adjust your thinking to the new circumstances. At the time I suggested (in a friendly manner) that you briefly withdraw to rethink your tactics and your attitude (from #1447 – “How you respond to this suggestion will go a long way in demonstrating to all of us if you are merely a propagandizing bully, or if you have a more beneficial motive for your participation”), but you rejected that suggestion, and you’ve been whining about the consequences ever since.
In a way, you’re a classic case of the fellow who brought a knife to a gunfight (that is to say, brought an inappropriate weapon). You came into this expecting one sort of thing and you got something entirely a different sort of thing. I didn’t come here to defend anything. I came here to attack a misbegotten idea that you seem eager to perpetuate.
On Jan 25 (see post #1447) I pointed out to you a whole raft of world-renowned scientists who make value judgments (philosophical statements) that they freely admit are derived from scientific facts. In fact, they boast that they are making philosophical judgments on nothing more than scientific facts. The Masters of the Universe have violated their own cannon of professional conduct to achieve a political objective. You tried to pass off their professional remarks as mere ‘opinion,’ and ever since being confronted with that horrible revelation you’ve been twisting and turning in every direction, indulging in an elaborate chicken dance trying to escape the obvious fact that you’ve been betrayed by the very people you think you are defending, and been made a fool, when their only objective was to attack and defeat Christianity (or religion, if it pleases you). We all (well . . . nearly all) know how you feel. It’s very similar to how Conservatives feel about being abandoned and disowned by the Republican Party.
(And, oh yes, I suppose I should recognize your brief foray into public education which turned out no better than the rest of your efforts.)
Subsequently, I asked (see Post #1787) if you would be equally ardent in ripping into scientists for declaring God to not exist as you were in ripping into Christians for questioning the validity of the TOE. You declared innocence of any knowledge of such. I produced numerous quotations exposing your ignorance. You bawled like a polled heifer, and went into yet another elaborate chicken dance attempting a blatant denial of the patently obvious.
You’ve been in a fight (discussion) about which you are clueless. End the chicken dance and end this discussion. Until you at least get a clue.
I don't see a word of truth in anything you've posted here regarding me. Like most of your posting, it amounts to nothing more than elaborate insult. "Poseur," you cry, over and over -- a slightly politer form of the term MFer, which says nothing about the person insulted, but only about what's going on in YOUR OWN MIND.
Point is, your insults say nothing about me, but do reflect poorly on you.
YHAOS:"from 1,817 YHAOS: "You’ve been in a fight (discussion) about which you are clueless. End the chicken dance and end this discussion. Until you at least get a clue."
Just an insult, no actual argument here.
YHAOS:"On Jan 25 (see post #1447) I pointed out to you a whole raft of world-renowned scientists who make value judgments (philosophical statements) that they freely admit are derived from scientific facts."
This and the rest of your post are pure 100% bull cr*p. Somehow you fantasize you've discovered a Deep Truth that relates to me, but it's just nonsense.
From the beginning my response has been: some scientists are Christians, some hold other religions and some are atheists. All are entitled to use ideas from science to support their own religious beliefs, or lack of, and the rest of us are perfectly entitled to weigh their opinions on religion appropriately.
Point is, an opinion on religion is still just an opinion, even if it comes from a scientist.
But this particular thread discusses the fact that some people of a certain view claim their religion is a form of "science," and that real science is just another form of religion. That's what I oppose.
Your Big Idea -- that the opinions of some scientists have overstepped the limits of what science by definition is supposed to be (natural explanations for natural occurrences), is irrelevant to this discussion.
We are not debating personal opinions of some scientists -- every profession has a fair share of goofballs. But we are discussing the claims of some religious people that their religious beliefs are a legitimate form of science.
So now it turns out, you refuse to defend those religious beliefs, all the while elaborately insulting me for identifying as personal opinions the atheism of some scientists.
So I think it you that's clueless, Poseur Maximus! ;-)
You see it well enough, but you dare not admit it. You whine that it’s not fair that I don’t argue in the manner you expect. As I predicted, from the start, you’ve nothing but great billowing clouds of smoke and denials in your struggle to disguise your utter futility.
You accused me of attacking science (see post #1808 “But when anyone points out how ridiculous your attacks on science are . . .”). I demanded you produce the attacks – to cite them and quote them. You’ve produced nothing but a lot noisy gaseous discharges.
Produce or recant, Poseur.
Totally untrue. You're just fantasizing Poseur Maximus.
"You accused me of attacking science (see post #1808 “But when anyone points out how ridiculous your attacks on science are . . .”). I demanded you produce the attacks – to cite them and quote them. You’ve produced nothing but a lot noisy gaseous discharges.
Produce or recant, Poseur."
As I said before, I thought you defend those who posted here attacking science. But you have now repeatedly denied any intention of ever supporting those folks. OK.
But your denials don't say you disagree with them, only that you think they can defend themselves, no need of help from YHAOS.
Further, your understanding of just what science is, is grossly mistaken. Somehow you imagine that when a scientist, however distinguished, expresses his or her personal opinions about religion, that those opinions reflect something about science. They don't. Opinions and religious beliefs are not science.
Finally, you can't seem to argue without insulting, and I think it accurate to say that the wronger your arguments, the stronger your insults. That's not unusual, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.