[_ Old Earth _] GenesisTime

[lordkalvan]

No - the point is you haven't answered the question - try it one more time. What part of Dr Eddy's words quoted are not Dr. Eddy's words? Please be specific you may have confused yourself again. If the question is too hard for you just say so and I will not ask again.

Here you go again: insufficient information. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but I don't have enough definite information to be certain. Did you source the quotation yourself or did you get it from a secondary source? If so, what source was that? Please be specific as you seem quite evasive. Is it because you are scared of the answers or is it because you don't understand them?

 

[zeke]

Here you go again: insufficient information. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but I don't have enough definite information to be certain.

Lol - *maybe*...what does that mean, exactly? From your own reference - what part of Dr Eddy's words quoted are not Dr. Eddy's words? Are you confused?

 

[lordkalvan]

Lol - *maybe*...what does that mean, exactly? From your own reference - what part of Dr Eddy's words quoted are not Dr. Eddy's words? Are you confused?

Is English not your first language? I ask because you seem to have difficulty understanding fairly simple sentences. Would you like me to try rephrasing it in even simpler words?

 

[zeke]

Is English not your first language? I ask because you seem to have difficulty understanding fairly simple sentences. Would you like me to try rephrasing it in even simpler words?

Then we agree - Dr. Eddy's words quoted are Dr. Eddy's words? Very good.

 

[lordkalvan]

Then we agree - Dr. Eddy's words quoted are Dr. Eddy's words? Very good.

Clearly, you do have difficulty understanding English if you imagine that when I say we can't be certain whether the words quoted are attributable as quoted and in the context suggested to Eddy I am actually saying that I agree with you. Either that or you are being disingenuous.

ETA And that is my last word on this subject until you show some signs of willingness to engage positively, rather than demanding that others answer your questions when you run quaking from questions asked of you for fear of exposing your ideas to the cold light of critical debate. If I am wrong, please tell us whether you sourced the Eddy reference directly from Geotimes or from a secondary source, what this secondary source was, and whether you think that solar research may have progressed in the last 30 years? If you can do this, I will withdraw my accusation and apologise.

 

[zeke]

Clearly, you do have difficulty understanding English if you imagine that when I say we can't be certain whether the words quoted are attributable as quoted and in the context suggested to Eddy I am actually saying that I agree with you.

The referenced quote you presented is the same as the quote I presented which brings us back to the question that you cannot quite answer - are Dr. Eddy's words quoted Dr. Eddy's words? Easy concept - easy question.

 

[Barbarian]

Scientists often express puzzlement over the creationist habit of trying to refute science by quote-mining. Many of them try to reason with the creationists, pointing out that even if the quote isn't faked (as it often is), evidence is the only thing that counts in science. To little avail. The creationist clings to his playbook of doctored "quotes." Reason, ridicule, and continual embarrassment at being exposed has no effect.

I think I know why. If you watch creationists arguing among themselves, they do the same thing. Only they pelt each other with Bible verses relevant to the issue or not. Where an appeal to authority is of no interest to scientists, it is the only appeal that make any sense to the creationist.

Or so it seems.

 

[zeke]

Scientists often express puzzlement over the creationist habit of trying to refute science by quote-mining.

Well my friend – there is no 'quote-mining', you are not a scientist, you have a distorted view of who/what a 'creationist' is and you have bought into Darwinian mythology. Why would anyone care what your assumptions are? Eddy's words were quoted in context and he meant what he stated. And Augustine of Hippo was not on your side. Where does that leave you?

 

[lordkalvan]

Scientists often express puzzlement over the creationist habit of trying to refute science by quote-mining. Many of them try to reason with the creationists, pointing out that even if the quote isn't faked (as it often is), evidence is the only thing that counts in science. To little avail. The creationist clings to his playbook of doctored "quotes." Reason, ridicule, and continual embarrassment at being exposed has no effect.

I think I know why. If you watch creationists arguing among themselves, they do the same thing. Only they pelt each other with Bible verses relevant to the issue or not. Where an appeal to authority is of no interest to scientists, it is the only appeal that make any sense to the creationist.

Or so it seems.

Indeed. The appeal to misrepresented or misunderstood authority is regarded as all that is required to make an irrefutable argument and, when the failings of this approach are pointed out - the quoted authority isn't necessarily much of an authority on the actual subject in question, the quote is taken out of context to misrepresent the point of view of the person quoted, the quote is edited to misrepresent the point of view of the person quoted, etc - this is simply ignored, even when the quoter has obviously relied on a secondary source that has misled them.

 

[zeke]

Indeed. The appeal to misrepresented or misunderstood authority is regarded as all that is required to make an irrefutable argument and, when the failings of this approach are pointed out - the quoted authority isn't necessarily much of an authority on the actual subject in question, the quote is taken out of context to misrepresent the point of view of the person quoted, the quote is edited to misrepresent the point of view of the person quoted, etc - this is simply ignored, even when the quoter has obviously relied on a secondary source that has misled them.

We have come full circle - Dr. Eddy's words remain Dr. Eddy's words and you have failed to provide the evidence you though you might have.

I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that ~ Dr. John Eddy (solar astronomer)​

 

[lordkalvan]

Apparently, a graduate in science does not count as a scientist according to the definition of someone who has yet to recount their own qualifications in this field and tell us on what grounds Darwin's work amounts to mythology rather than science. For my part, I am cheerfully willing to admit that I am not a scientist by training (first degree in Politics, postgraduate degree in International Relations), but I have tried to read extensively around the subject.

 

[zeke]

Apparently, a graduate in science does not count as a scientist according to the definition of someone who has yet to recount their own qualifications in this field and tell us on what grounds Darwin's work amounts to mythology rather than science. For my part, I am cheerfully willing to admit that I am not a scientist by training (first degree in Politics, postgraduate degree in International Relations), but I have tried to read extensively around the subject.

I have already given examples of Darwinian lore and you once again fail to distinguish between biological evolution (science) and mythology.

 

[Sparkey]

Scientists often express puzzlement over the creationist habit of trying to refute science by quote-mining. Many of them try to reason with the creationists, pointing out that even if the quote isn't faked (as it often is), evidence is the only thing that counts in science. To little avail. The creationist clings to his playbook of doctored "quotes." Reason, ridicule, and continual embarrassment at being exposed has no effect.

I think I know why. If you watch creationists arguing among themselves, they do the same thing. Only they pelt each other with Bible verses relevant to the issue or not. Where an appeal to authority is of no interest to scientists, it is the only appeal that make any sense to the creationist.

Or so it seems.

I'd like to think of myself as a "creationist" but now that I know how bad they are maybe I should rethink myself? Drawing conclusions from limited evidence does not speak well of you, and in fact, if memory serves, this is the only time I've ever heard you speak like this. You don't need me to remind you that judging a group by the acts of a few individuals is what prejudice is all about.

 

[zeke]

I'd like to think of myself as a "creationist" but now that I know how bad they are maybe I should rethink myself?

Those who believe that God created in the beginning (creationists) are bad? Francis Bacon (scientific method) believed God created in the beginning as did Pasteur, Faraday, Linnaeus, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, Newton and many others...

‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. . . . This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God" . . . The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." - Isaac Newton​

 

[lordkalvan]

I'd like to think of myself as a "creationist" but now that I know how bad they are maybe I should rethink myself? Drawing conclusions from limited evidence does not speak well of you, and in fact, if memory serves, this is the only time I've ever heard you speak like this. You don't need me to remind you that judging a group by the acts of a few individuals is what prejudice is all about.

I think you make a reasonable point about the dangers of generalising from the particular - there are and have been a number of OECs and YECs I have encountered on this and other forums who are always ready to engage positively in discussion, for example - but, without wanting to speak on behalf of Barbarian who is more than capable of arguing his own corner, I think it's also fair to point out that particular cases can sometimes overwhelm one's impression of the general.

 

[Sparkey]

I'd like to think of myself as a "creationist" but now that I know how bad they are maybe I should rethink myself? Drawing conclusions from limited evidence does not speak well of you, and in fact, if memory serves, this is the only time I've ever heard you speak like this. You don't need me to remind you that judging a group by the acts of a few individuals is what prejudice is all about.

Those who believe that God created in the beginning (creationists) are bad? ...

zeke, first off, I was speaking to Barbarian so before you trot out your "what words that I quoted are not yours (reminiscent of your 'Dr. Eddy's words are Dr. Eddy's words') retort - let me remind you that I'm right here and that I know what I meant. If you have trouble understanding my meaning (hint: I never meant to say that creationists are bad) -- just ask.

Taking your understanding of what I said as if it represents my meaning seems to be a habit of yours. I really think that what I heard behind Barbarian's words isn't typical of what he actually believes, so rather than jump to conclusion, it seemed better to me to put it out there, and wait for his reasoned reply. I do agree with LK's assessment, that particular cases can sometimes overwhelm. It's a lesson we can all learn, self included.

 

[Barbarian]

Well my friend – there is no 'quote-mining', you are not a scientist

I happen to have two degrees in science, the first in a biological science. I took minors in chemistry, zoology, and botany. And my graduate work was on populations and systems.

you have a distorted view of who/what a 'creationist' is

I've actually read up on the history of creationists, as you know, YE creationism is a modern revision that is no older than the last century.

and you have bought into Darwinian mythology.

"Darwinian mythology" is your invention. Darwinian theory is the theory (the new synthesis of Darwin and genetics, that is) that best explains evolution.

Why would anyone care what your assumptions are? Eddy's words were quoted in context and he meant what he stated.

Since the opinions you've attributed to scientists have repeatedly been shown to be untrue, I'd have to get a checkable source to believe any "quote" you provided. That's how reputation works. Or, if you understood biology, you could simply post evidence, with supporting documentation.

That's how real science works. Quote-mining isn't of any consequence for real science.

And Augustine of Hippo was not on your side.

He very effectively refuted YE creationism, pointing out that Genesis could not be a literal history.

Where does that leave you?

As an orthodox Christian.

 

[Barbarian]

Drawing conclusions from limited evidence does not speak well of you, and in fact, if memory serves, this is the only time I've ever heard you speak like this. You don't need me to remind you that judging a group by the acts of a few individuals is what prejudice is all about.

True. And I should have identified avoided doing that. As you know, I once put all atheists in the same box, and I'm grateful Lord Kalvan didn't take offense, because my experience is that most atheists, like most creationists, are pretty good people, all things considered.

More properly, there is a noisy subset of creationists who act the way I mentioned. My apologies for inadvertently putting you with them.

 

[zeke]

If you have trouble understanding my meaning (hint: I never meant to say that creationists are bad) -- just ask.

No trouble understanding at all - what did you mean to say?

 

[zeke]

He very effectively refuted YE creationism, pointing out that Genesis could not be a literal history.

You are mistaken and as noted Augustine of Hippo was not on your side. You may want to educate yourself on what he really wrote...

Augustine was not vague about the age of the earth, the historicity of Adam and Eve as our first ancestors, or the events in the Garden of Eden and the worldwide flood later in Genesis...Adding his belief that the world is about 8000 years old makes it extremely hard to call on him to support Darwinian evolution of any kind or deep time.

Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC...As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture. His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally... ~ Prof. Benno Zuiddam​