See who is a Creation Scientist

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi Charles,

Good words. I suppose we are in agreement regarding more things than I realized.

I'm off to Promise Keepers, now!

God bless,
Jason

 

[UTEOTW]

"If you were speaking to 3rd graders, then perhaps they would be believing you."

For someone who like to point out logical fallacies you sure are fun of the personal attack, are you not.

"You've given us tons of arguments by assertion, too."

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/7.html#000102 - Quote and reference supportig my assertion about Kelvin

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/8.html#000111 - References to support my assertions about Eddington

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/8.html#000112 Support for my assertions about Lemaitre

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/8.html#000113 - Support for my assertions about Einstein

For someone who has a whole list which is nothing more than assertions and false appeals to authority, you sure to like to complain about assertions. Even after the assertions are backed up.

And if you happen to have looked through other posts and this is a more general comment, there is something you must realize. There is a limited group here who have discussed this off and on for quite a while now. If you look back through the archives long enough, you will find citations and references for most of what I have to say. I tire a bit of repeating my self over and over so the references do not continuously carry themselves forward. In a way I regret this. First because after a while it becomes hard to go back and find all of you old references when they are needed again. Second, becuase when someone new comes along, they have not seen the references the first time around and may be under the mistaken impression that there are not any.

"When you are approached, your best defense is, "Well, that's what you do." That, of course, is not defense at all."

I believe I have supported my assertions above. Where is your defense?

"In other words, you still haven't made any point."

See above. I have shown you have definite old earthers in your list of young earthers.

"By the way, the word definitely doesn't have an "a" in it."

I cannot spell or type. You should have pointed out my mispelling of "shaky" while you were at it. Of course this only serves you as a distraction from the references I have presented showing your young earthers were not exactly young earthers.

"You have a serious problem with staying on task"

Look up at the subject of the thread. You jumped in on topic with your list. When I started showing holes in your list you have done everything but mount a defense. You might want to try staying on topic yourself before making such accusations.

Do you ever have any intention of defending the items I have pointed out or of removing them if you cannot defend them?

Do you ever have any intention of explaining to us your opinion of other modern discovies since you indicate that evolution should not be believed basically because those that came before Darwin did not support it first?

"You have a serious problem with ... giving solid defenses to your assertions."

You sure? I have provided references for my assertions. Where is your support?

"Perhaps we should formally debate! Are you up for it?"

What answer do you want?

Why should I debate somebody who in two pages cannot stay on topic enough to defend his first post but who can take the opportunity to make personal attacks and pointing out typoes?

Honestly, I don't really have the time for such a series of long posts. I am currently preparing for a conference later this month (unless you want to debate novel coal gasifiers) which will be immediately followed by extremely long hours at work druing out next research campaign. That gets us into the holidays. Maybe later.

I do not think that the circumstances of the kind of debate you would propose is very conducive to arguing the side of an old earth. Actual science is such a broad field that it is difficult to be succinct and make good points. Young earth is much easier to debate even though it is not true. A classic example is the second law of thermodynamics. In one well written paragraph a young earther can make a false argument based on the second law that would take pages to refute because you have to get into the meat of actual thermodynamics and explain a long series of things. If I were a biologist or a geologist and had the appropriate resources at my disposal, it would be much easier. But, without being an expert in a relevant field, the way such things are conducted would put me at a disadvantage from the start. Nevertheless, this could be something intriguing for the future, though I would need to see a better set of methods from you than so far shown. You could start by actually addressing the complaints I have raised against your list and then you could look around at some of the ongoing threads and give some logical and factual debate. You might want to head over to the science forum ( http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/66.html? ) and check out some of the things happening over there. Jump in if you wish. Probably the best thread is the one started by Gina asking about horse evolution. There is a new one on radioactive dating.

Have some fun with us. We are always interested in a new participant. Helen is our one YEers who displays a lot of knowledge, but she doesn't post much. Perhaps you could take up the slack.

 

[Helen]

Thanks, UTE. We've been busy. I get here when I can now, but when a thread like this goes on for so long, it usually ends up being an argument between two people and not one I'm interested in interrupting.

Simply looking at what is on the screen right now in your last long paragraph, I would agree with you that using the 2LOT is fallacious. It is based on closed systems and is entirely related to heat transfer. However the universal tendency towards increasing entropy is a very good argument against evolution, as well as against long ages....

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Ute said:

Do you ever have any intention of explaining to us your opinion of other modern discovies since you indicate that evolution should not be believed basically because those that came before Darwin did not support it first?

This is a ridiculous assertion. I never said this. The list is just an interesting list. You may or may not have adequately addressed FOUR people on the list. Big deal if you did!

I never said "the list is why evolution is false." That's ludicrous! Once again though, you failed to address my research regarding the Bible and how it teaches a young earth.

If you aren't interested in a formal debate, then I'm not interested in an informal one. Unless you're chicken, we could have 10 days in between posts. That should be plenty of time for you to work and do what you need to do and post. Heck, you'll spend endless time debating informally, so what's your real problem?

The resolution of the debate will be: "The Bible teaches that the Earth is young." I will take the positive and you will take the negative.

Ready?

Jason

P.S. If Ute is too chicken to debate, then this offer will be open to others. If there are no takers on Baptist Board, I'm going to post the offer on other boards because I'm interested in debating this issue because I know the Bible teaches that the earth is young.

 

[Travelsong]

I think the resolution of the debate should be "The Bible teaches that the earth is stationary and the sun orbits around it".

 

[UTEOTW]

"This is a ridiculous assertion. I never said this. The list is just an interesting list. "

You did say

Were they gagged and bound? Were they forbidden to think openly? If your position is that they had "no alternative" you are essentially calling the greatest, scientific minds of all time fools. If your theory were correct, any one of them could have penned it. However, they all rejected it...Any one of those brilliant scientists could have affirmed the old earth theory, but they didn't. They rejected it as a poor and incorrect theory.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/8.html#000107

You did not just say that it was an "interesting list." You said that this was a list of (mostly) Christian scientists who "rejected" evolution (used loosely here since you seem to be grouping all of science into one large group for the same strange reason that most young earthers seem to do in my experience) because they found it to be incorrect. This was after I said it was unfair to suggest that scientists who lived before Darwin could even be used as authorities on evolution. Your respone to that was

Simply because you think the theory of the evolution of species wasn't created before some of these scientists, it doesn't make their claims of young earth creationism any lesser. They could have proposed old earth dates! They could have done research and found evidence of an old earth!

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/7.html#000103

So, based on your own words, I do not think that it is such a "ridiculous assertion" to say that you said that one reason that we should reject evolution because the guys on your list did not propose the theory first. As a logical extension of that, I do not think it is so unreasonable to ask you to justify for us why you would make such a suggestion about evolution, but not for other modern theories.

"You may or may not have adequately addressed FOUR people on the list. Big deal if you did!"

Big deal? It is since these four are four of the few on your list who at least lived once the modern theories became well developed. Even bigger deal since you are apparently unwilling or unable to defend their placement on your list.

"If you aren't interested in a formal debate, then I'm not interested in an informal one."

No? 139 posts in less than three months. All those been in formal debates?

"Unless you're chicken"

More ad hominem. You can't get enough of that one, can you?

"we could have 10 days in between posts. That should be plenty of time for you to work and do what you need to do and post. Heck, you'll spend endless time debating informally, so what's your real problem?"

I simply enjoy the informal debate. I can take time as I have it and slack when I do not. Just the challenge of responding to new ideas when they come up forces me to explore and learn new things. That's the way it is.

I did leave the possibility open in the future. I first want to see that can debate with us. It is not like we are a bunch of PhD paleontologists running around here and we are a decided minority. There are only about four or so of us that post regularly on the old earth side. I'm a BS ChE who does coal gasification research for a living, I shouldn't be that difficult. Post with us for a while. Let me see that you can make arguments and provide support for them. So far you have only shown me your ability to criticize other people and your inability to back up assertions or answer questions. Not someone to which I really want to commit some formal time. Post with us for a while and show us it would be worth out time to set up some rules and have at it.

"The resolution of the debate will be: "The Bible teaches that the Earth is young." I will take the positive and you will take the negative."

I think that is not exactly the right question with which to start for one thing. Again, the closest I come to knowing a foreign language is VB. I assume that with your PhD course of study that you are well versed in at least some of the original languages. (Working towards a PhD or have one, that was actually one of the questions I had from your website. Something seems strange.) Puts me at a distinct disadvantage. (You also have a long list of such debates. I have not done so. Again, puts me at a distinct advantage as I try and learn a new style. In addition to the disadvantage I mentioned before which can basically be shortened to it is harder to build up an idea than it is to tear it down.) As I said, I think that there is much physical evidence for an old earth and common descent and very little for a young earth. If you can show that these ideas are false and that better explanations for the data can be found in young earth theories, then we no longer disagree. If you cannot, it seems rather obvious that God meant something other than a literal reading for Creation. Your "resolution" seeks to side step such issues from the very beginning.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Nameless,

My resolution is important and it is the crux of the entire issue. What the Bible says should be of utmost importance to us all. You obviously believe the Bible tells us the earth is old, so you should support your position. Are you ready to do so?

A few things, first. I'll need to know your name - first and last - and your bio before we debate. Your thinking out loud about the disadvantages is cute, but hurry up and decide if you'll debate and whether or not you'll accept my resolution or what you want the resolution to be.

Don't forget. I told you I'm not interested in discussing this with you in an informal manner. Please save your breath. I see you either didn't believe me or didn't care because you went on and on in your last post.

Jason

 

[UTEOTW]

I told you. I don't know you from Adam. You have shown me nothing at this point that makes setting up anything formal with you worthwhile. If you desire something formal from me, then hang out with us for a while and get to know each other. If you have no desire to show us that you can carry on a meaningful discussion in an informal manner than there is no reason to even discuss something formal.

You should know by now what the objection is to your statement of the resolution. A plain reading does seem to indicate a young earth. Just as a plain reading does seem to indicate a stationary earth. The debate is whether the plain, literal reading is what is intended or if the message is non literal. I find that the revelation from God's own Creation is that the creation account is non-literal. There is no debate really over what the meaning of the Word is if taken literally. The debate is whether to take it literally or not. And for that, we need to decide if the data really shows an old earth or a young one.

So, like I said...If your only discussion will be through a formal debate, then I have no reason to join in such an endeavor with you at this time. Feel free to go about your own way and I would ask that you at least reconsider the form of your "list." I think I have raised legitimate questions. Your other choice is to join us in our discussions in their current form. Eventually that might lead to what you desire.

I think I am clear. And you are not the only one who can make demands.

And I'll remind you that you are the one who interjected yourself into this informal discussion and then refused to continue when challenged.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

UTEOTW: I told you. I don't know you from Adam.

No, this isn't what you told me. You told me that you knew many things about me. Nonetheless, these things having nothing to do with a potential debate. For instance, I know far less of you!

You have shown me nothing at this point that makes setting up anything formal with you worthwhile.

Well, nameless, the feeling is mutual. This is one of the reasons why I WANT to debate you.

If you desire something formal from me, then hang out with us for a while and get to know each other.

No thanks! I don't want to hang out with you, nameless.

If you have no desire to show us that you can carry on a meaningful discussion in an informal manner than there is no reason to even discuss something formal.

These sound like chicken noises to me.

You should know by now what the objection is to your statement of the resolution. A plain reading does seem to indicate a young earth. Just as a plain reading does seem to indicate a stationary earth. The debate is whether the plain, literal reading is what is intended or if the message is non literal.

This may be part of the debate.

I find that the revelation from God's own Creation is that the creation account is non-literal. There is no debate really over what the meaning of the Word is if taken literally. The debate is whether to take it literally or not. And for that, we need to decide if the data really shows an old earth or a young one.

It's ironic that you'll waste tons of time posting arguments and statements about the debate without debating. I guess you like talking to yourself. I already told you I would only formally debate you and you should decide whether you will or whether I should find another opponent.

So, like I said...If your only discussion will be through a formal debate, then I have no reason to join in such an endeavor with you at this time.

You have every reason to do so! You have a contrary belief to mine! I affirm that your belief contradicts the Bible and science. The only reason you have no reason to debate is if you're afraid. You obviously have the time and energy because you've been posting over and over.

Feel free to go about your own way and I would ask that you at least reconsider the form of your "list." I think I have raised legitimate questions. Your other choice is to join us in our discussions in their current form. Eventually that might lead to what you desire.

No thanks. I already gave you your options.

And I'll remind you that you are the one who interjected yourself into this informal discussion and then refused to continue when challenged.

Nobody is buying that. I have given you the opportunity to have my personal attention to your snide remarks and wannabe arguments for 6 or 7 rounds of 5000 words! You are the one who is running away, nameless.

My offer will stand until Monday morning at 10am PST. At that time, my offer to you will be permanently removed and I will begin considering other offers.

Sincerely,
Jason

P.S. If you won't tell us your name, can we call you chicken man?

 

[UTEOTW]

You will not goad me into anything by calling names. Isn't that usually the tactic of someone without an argument to make? You have your demands and I have mine. Hang out and get to know the group and show us something or forget about it. If you will not do so, fine.

"No, this isn't what you told me. You told me that you knew many things about me."

Nope. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/8.html#000108 "Well I don't know you from Adam, either." Are you saying that because I quoted from your bio on your web page that you gave us a link to that I claimed to know many things about you?

"No thanks! I don't want to hang out with you, nameless."

Very interesting statment from one Christian to another. Is not fellowship with other believers a reason, the reason, to come to such a board?

"The only reason you have no reason to debate is if you're afraid."

One thing you could learn is that I will not be goaded into anything and that I do not fear you.

"You obviously have the time and energy because you've been posting over and over."

Pointing out the flaws in a list and pointing out that you refuse to address such flaws doesn't really take much time. Writing a series of essays is a different story.

"No thanks. I already gave you your options."

And I gave you yours. I guess you are afraid to come out of your protective and formal rules and play with us boys and girls for a little while. Shame, we have some good discussions every once in a while.

"Nobody is buying that. I have given you the opportunity to have my personal attention to your snide remarks and wannabe arguments for 6 or 7 rounds of 5000 words!"

An accusation of snide remarks from one who has shown little other so far than that he lives by the personal attack. It is funny if nothing else.

"My offer will stand until Monday morning at 10am PST. At that time, my offer to you will be permanently removed and I will begin considering other offers."

You can keep your demands and your deadlines somewhere else. If you are interested in debate then show it. You cannot even defend the list that you got into this thread to post. You call names. You attempt to set things up to go by your rules. You do not answer questions. You do not defend your own assertions. You do nothing to show that you are worthy of a committment of serious time.

"If you want [sic] tell us your name, can we call you chicken man?"

No you may not. For now you can call me UTEOTW or you can call me Ute. Your very actions are a very good reason to keep a little privacy on something as public as the net. I would not give you my name at this point for anything. I wouldn't trust you with it, frankly. Most of the people in these discussions know my name, even the ones that I have the most heated discussions with. But we have known each other for a while now. And though we strongly disagree, we also know where each other stands and I think have some degree of respect for each other. Candidly, you have not been respectful. Trust and respect is something you earn and you are unwilling to invest that time to get what you want. So carry on in whatever manner you wish and may God bless you as you go forward. But don't be holding your breath come Monday.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

I wasn't holding my breath from the minute I gave my offer to you.

Good riddance.

Jason

P.S. You should read the book, "Why Won't They Listen?" by Ken Ham. It was an awesome read and if you read it, perhaps you'd see how destructive your heretical beliefs really are. They are poisoning an entire generation and undermining the gospel message. This is why I won't hang out with you or treat your belief system casually. I treated this very seriously with an offer to formally debate.

I read in your last post that this is play time for you. I guess you better go and play without me. I take heresy very seriously.

Since nameless scoffed at the deadline, my offer to him has been removed right now. I now open it to others and I will be posting it on other boards as well. Can any old earther step up to the plate and formally debate? Sadly, nameless couldn't. If someone can, please contact me at http://jcsm.org/contact.php .

 

[Travelsong]

UTEOTW, I'd be proud to be called a heretic by this clown. Wear it as a badge of honor. Pin one on me while you're at it too.

 

[Travelsong]

Jason, if you are truly confident that science supports a young earth and refutes an old earth, by all means go here: Secular Web

If you're a seasoned debater I'm sure you're familiar with the site. I promise you, if you have the confidence that your knowledge of God's creation supports a YE and you can prove it in a forum full of real scientists, I'll be the first from this board to stand by your side.

 

[UTEOTW]

Travelsong

It comes with the terrritory.. They use every slander in the book when they don't have an argument. I have pretty thick skin, but for other reasons. It is like the kid who shows up at the local ballfield for the first time and says he wants to play but everyone has to agree to his rules or he is going to take his ball and go home. That usually doesn't go over so well. We even got the name calling just like you would from a group of children. And it really is a shame since a fresh voice can be fun. This just sounds like one of those who would repeat the same old tired stuff over and over , even after refuted. Never would even defend his own post.

 

[Travelsong]

UTE I don't know if you've seen this but it's relevant to Jason's list. Funny stuff. Check out "Project Steve".


LINK

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Jason, if you are truly confident that science supports a young earth and refutes an old earth, by all means go here: Secular Web

If you're a seasoned debater I'm sure you're familiar with the site. I promise you, if you have the confidence that your knowledge of God's creation supports a YE and you can prove it in a forum full of real scientists, I'll be the first from this board to stand by your side.

I'm one step ahead of you. Link: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=100518&goto=newpost

JG

 

[Jason Gastrich]

P.S. I am familiar with the site and I've had 4 debates there. They've been read over 12,000 times. Glory to God. See http://debates.jcsm.org for details and links to them.

 

[UTEOTW]

Thanks for the link Jason. I see now that you lie about what I have said to you over there. Quoting you

You'd be surprised. I've been talking with a guy who believes it, but he will not debate formally. This, in part, is the reason why I decided to seek someone else to debate. The OECs I've met believe this.

After I told you (quoting me)

You should know by now what the objection is to your statement of the resolution. A plain reading does seem to indicate a young earth. Just as a plain reading does seem to indicate a stationary earth. The debate is whether the plain, literal reading is what is intended or if the message is non literal. I find that the revelation from God's own Creation is that the creation account is non-literal. There is no debate really over what the meaning of the Word is if taken literally. The debate is whether to take it literally or not. And for that, we need to decide if the data really shows an old earth or a young one.

Now do you understand why I have no desire to get into something formal with you. You come in here and make a post, you refuse to defend your own post, you call names, you make demands, you set deadlines, you call more names when you don't get your way, and then you go to another board and misrepresent what I said.

Good day, "doctor."

(Give me a URL that proves that you are talking of someone else and I will withdraw the accusation.)

 

[UTEOTW]

Thanks for the link, Travelsong.

If you look back to the bottom of page 7 where this all started, you will see that I brought it up then. I do find Project Steve to be a little silly, but I also think that it is meant to make a serious point through being silly.

There are so many of these bogus lists like what Bob started the thread with or what Jason contributed, that there is some use to project Steve. These lists seem so long and give all these credentials. But then you an hold it up to the long list of Steve's and see that there are not any or maybe a couple on the YE list and you see easily that the YE list is a tiny minority and not representative of most scientists. It also helps to point out that very rarely do the YE lists ever actually include many people that even know anything about evolution.

It is kind of like engineers. (Since I am one, I can comment. ) You often see these guys who are YE and they know everything because they are engineers! I can tell you, it has little to do with evolutionary biology. But for some reason there seems to be a stereotypical group of YEers among engineers.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Nameless,

I see you just can't stop talking about me. Nonetheless, this is my last message to you on this subject.

Thanks for the link Jason. I see now that you lie about what I have said to you over there.

Jason: You'd be surprised. I've been talking with a guy who believes it, but he will not debate formally. This, in part, is the reason why I decided to seek someone else to debate. The OECs I've met believe this.

After I told you (quoting me)

You should know by now what the objection is to your statement of the resolution. A plain reading does seem to indicate a young earth. Just as a plain reading does seem to indicate a stationary earth. The debate is whether the plain, literal reading is what is intended or if the message is non literal. I find that the revelation from God's own Creation is that the creation account is non-literal. There is no debate really over what the meaning of the Word is if taken literally. The debate is whether to take it literally or not. And for that, we need to decide if the data really shows an old earth or a young one.

Please don't lie. Nobody is talking about a "plain reading." I was clearly talking about your beliefs and I was accurately representing them, too. You believe the Bible teaches an old earth for a variety of reasons; one being the fact that you think some passages shouldn't be taken literally.

Now do you understand why I have no desire to get into something formal with you.

Haha. I've known all along why you wouldn't debate me.

You come in here and make a post, you refuse to defend your own post,

Instead of giving you a defense of my post in this informal manner, I decided to propose a lengthy, formal debate with you; which is no longer an offer to you because of obvious reasons to all that are reading. You're a joke and you can't put your money where your mouth is.

you call names

I called you a chicken. Waa. Why don't you report the post if you think that is so bad? You are being a chicken. You have endless time to post nonsense and talk in circles, but you won't engage in a real debate. You've called this play time for you and I see that it is.

you make demands, you set deadlines

Yes, I did. My time is very valuable and I prefer order over chaos. Plus, I tend to weed fools quite nicely when they won't step up to the plate. It's a great time saver when I meet zealous people that don't know what they're talking about or people that are posting to waste time and take up space.

you call more names when you don't get your way, and then you go to another board and misrepresent what I said.

I didn't misrepresent anything. If you think I summarized you as a different kind of chicken, then please go there and tell them what kind of chicken you really are.

Good day, "doctor."

Haha. Good day, nameless.

God bless,
Jason