Unrepentant Baptist Liar For Jesus - Six Years On And Still Lying

[bornagainathiest]

Hi folks!

 

From time to time I look in on Christianforums.com to see what's going down.

When I browsed thru the threads in the Physical & Life Sciences sub-forum I noticed a name that seemed familiar.  A little searching around confirmed my suspicions.  This member JUVENISSEN who is a Baptist and who claims to be fully-trained geochronologist... was up to his old tricks again.

 

Fossil Record Observation  http://www.christianforums.com/threads/fossil-record-observation.7933537/

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences'  Feb 19, 2016.  

The YEC Christian FutureAndHope starts this thread off and the discussion turns to what kind geological formations would be caused by Noah's Flood.  F&H claims that river meanders would be created by the flood run off.  The atheist Subduction Zone (who is a geologist) explains to him the scientific reasons why this is not so. Meanders are caused by a more or less constant flow of slow-moving water, whereas a sudden flood advances and recedes in what geologists call a sheet flow.  So meanders and sheet flows are two completely different things, caused by different phenomenon.  So river meanders can't be considered as evidence for a catastrophic worldwide flood.  

 

However, the geochronologist wannabe Juvenissen chimes in on page 4, begging to differ. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/fossil-record-observation.7933537/page-4

Subduction Zone is having no of this and soon dismantles the uninformed, pseudo-scientific input of Juvenissen.  I read their exchange with interest because I recalled that six years ago Juvenissen was 'outed' as no kind of geochronologist, no kind of scientist and a liar by other members of Christianforums.  Here's where Juvenissen's pretense of being a qualified geochronologist is torn apart.  http://www.christianforums.com/threads/carbon-dating.7426528/page-20#post-54378252  The key players are Mallon (Lutheran), Sophophile (Christian-Church-Seeker), Papias (Catholic) and Orogeny (Agnostic).  Orogeny is a geologist specializing in sedimentology.

 

Mallon said: ↑

juvie, you have invoked your authority as a professor of geology here several times. So please don't pretend that your credentials don't matter, because they do -- particularly when you invoke them yourself in order to feign credibility on a matter. If you truly felt that credentials didn't matter, you wouldn't continue to mention your supposed background in geology.

 

Papias wrote...

 

In case Juvie forgot, here is a list of things a geologist would know at least by the time that they are freshmen, that Juvie didn't know:

 

· Not knowing that there is zero evidence of a worldwide flood 

· 

Not knowing that a worldwide flood would leave tons of obvious geological evidence. 

· 

Not knowing that there are all kinds of geologic structures that refute flood geology. 

· 

Not knowing that flood geology was rejected by Christian geologists over 100 years ago. 

· 

Not knowing that multiple dating methods have agreed on the dates for thousands of samples. 

· 

Not knowing that nearly all scientists agree that evolution occurred. 

· 

Not knowing that nearly all geologists agree on the age of the earth. 

· 

Not knowing that nearly all geologists currently reject flood geology. 

· 

Not knowing that the early solar system was a mess of impacts, as shown by craters on the surfaces of dozens of bodies in our solar system. 

· 

Not knowing that most impacts on earth from that time have long been erased by known geologic mechanisms (See quote #1 below). 

· 

Not knowing that there are well over 150 impact structures on the earth, even after all that geology (see quote #2 below). 

· 

Not knowing that the constellations rotate in the sky each year.

· 

and so on..... 

Orogeny wrote...

 

If you had even an entry-level geology education, you would know the term [the critical taper model] , since every new geologist learns about it in their first structure class. If you were 'educated' prior to the term's usage, you should still know it because geoscientists have to stay abreast with current topics in order to remain scientifically relevant. If you were a prof, you would know it so you could impart this knowledge to your students.

The fact that you have no idea what i was even referring to, and that you instead made up an incoherent hand-wave of an answer indicates that you are who we thought you were. We're not letting you off the hook.

 

You gave the graben example because you have a profound dearth of geologic knowledge. Now you're posturing as if I am the one who doesn't understand, when it has been abundantly demonstrated that you are a geologic poseur. You skirt the questions and hand wave because you don't have the knowledge compete, or to hold an intelligent debate. Your behavior is an embarrassment to Christians the world over, and a horrible affront to the honesty with which Christians are called to act. You should be ashamed.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But Juvenssin isn't ashamed.

 

As we can see from the Fossil Record Observation thread he's still trying to come across as some kind of big authority on geology.  Biblical geology, of course!  

 

I despair when I see examples like this where someones personal need for the Bible to be the literal truth is so strong that it causes them to believe that they can make it true by lying.

 

On the flip side, I note with satisfaction that the other members of Christianforums, Christian and non-Christian, are just as intolerant of deceit as we are.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Tsathoggua]

Maybe his geology degree was conferred upon him by God himself, thus bypassing the corrupt, godless university system altogether.

 

Honestly, though -- wotta load o' malarkey! Sheesh!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

There's got to be a humorous way of connecting his "degree" with the rocks in his head; but my weary old brain just can't find it.

[Justus]

O hell, from the title of this thread I thought you were talking about the redneck professor… LOL, my bad.

O, well,  since I am here anyways…

 

However, the geochronologist wannabe Juvenissen chimes in on page 4, begging to differ.

 

So am I to understand you correctly that you think any idiot like Juvenissen can simply pick up a Bible and correctly interpret the scriptures regarding the Bible representing that there was a global flood of waters during the days of Noah yet he is nothing more than a geochronologist wannabe when it comes to actually being able to scientifically prove his opinion.

 

So is your position affirming that Juvenissen was correct in his interpretation that the Bible does represent a global flood of water actually covered the entire face of the earth or were  you representing that it is your own interpretation of the Bible;  while it seems you affirm that it does represent a global flood of waters during the days of Noah you don't seem to agree with the actual flood itself based upon what you state “a worldwide would leave tons of obvious geological evidence.” and ‘nearly all geologists currently reject any global flood geology.”

[bornagainathiest]

O hell, from the title of this thread I thought you were talking about the redneck professor… LOL, my bad.

O, well,  since I am here anyways…

 

However, the geochronologist wannabe Juvenissen chimes in on page 4, begging to differ.

 

So am I to understand you correctly that you think any idiot like Juvenissen can simply pick up a Bible and correctly interpret the scriptures regarding the Bible representing that there was a global flood of waters during the days of Noah yet he is nothing more than a geochronologist wannabe when it comes to actually being able to scientifically prove his opinion.

 

So is your position affirming that Juvenissen was correct in his interpretation that the Bible does represent a global flood of water actually covered the entire face of the earth or were  you representing that it is your own interpretation of the Bible;  while it seems you affirm that it does represent a global flood of waters during the days of Noah you don't seem to agree with the actual flood itself based upon what you state “a worldwide would leave tons of obvious geological evidence.” and ‘nearly all geologists currently reject any global flood geology.”

 

Ok Justus,

 

Let's do this properly.

 

So am I to understand you correctly that you think any idiot like Juvenissen...

 

Wait!  

I did not call Juvenissen an idiot.  That's something you've written about him, which I did not.  I've called him a liar and a wannabe, but not an idiot.  Please get your facts straight.

 

...can simply pick up a Bible and correctly interpret the scriptures regarding the Bible representing that there was a global flood of waters during the days of Noah...

 

Wait!  

I did not say that he can simply pick up a Bible, etc.  He's been a Young Earth Creationist Christian for years, so there's no suggestion from me that he just 'picked up a Bible'.  Once again, this is something you've written about him, which I did not.  Please don't put words into my mouth and please get your facts straight.

 

yet he is nothing more than a geochronologist wannabe when it comes to actually being able to scientifically prove his opinion.

 

Wait! 

I did not say anything about Juvenissen 'scientifically proving his opinion'.  As you know (because I've explained this to you several times before, Justus) the only branch of science that proves anything is math.  All the other sciences provide the best current explanation of a given natural phenomenon or natural process, according to the available evidence.  So you've wrongly attributed the notion of belief in 'scientific proof' to me and you've done it regarding the field of geology, which does not prove anything.  Geology is not math.  Please get your facts straight.

 

So is your position affirming that Juvenissen was correct in his interpretation that the Bible does represent a global flood of water actually covered the entire face of the earth or were  you representing that it is your own interpretation of the Bible;  

 

Wait! 

Since you know that I'm an atheist and you also know that I consider the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate, why are you asking me if I affirm the correctness of Juvenissen's Bible-based beliefs?  

Also, since you know that I don't believe what the Bible says about Noah's global flood, why would I be representing that as my own interpretation of the Bible?

 

while it seems you affirm that it does represent a global flood of waters during the days of Noah

 

Wait! 

No, I don't affirm that.  As you already know, I'm an atheist and I consider the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate.  So I'm hardly going to affirm what the book of Genesis says about a global flood, am I?  (Rhetorical question, btw.)  Please stop assuming what you seem to think I affirm or don't affirm and get your facts straight.

 

you don't seem to agree with the actual flood itself based upon what you state “a worldwide would leave tons of obvious geological evidence.” and ‘nearly all geologists currently reject any global flood geology.”

 

Wait! 

You've attributed the two above quotes to me, when they actually originated from Papias, who is a Catholic member of Christianforums.  I never took part in any dialog with Juvenissen.  All I've done here is to link to that forum, name which members took part and then quote Mallon, Papias and Orogeny, in that order.  I even color-coded their quotes blue, then black and blue again, to make it clear who was saying what.  Please get your facts straight.

[Justus]

Ok Justus,

 

Let's do this properly.

Fair enough.

 

So as a scientific minded individual who considers the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate, in Genesis  9:16 it is written "And the bow shall be in the cloud;", so do you consider that statement to be scientifically inaccurate and if so, would you cite the reason why you consider it scientifically inaccurate?

 

Thank you in advance for your response.

[rjn]

Here we go again... Justus, what are you attempting now?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

O hell, from the title of this thread I thought you were talking about the redneck professor… LOL, my bad.

 

Again you insinuate that I am a liar.  Yet you still have not produced a single incident in which an untruth or falsehood was written or spoken by me.  This speaks volumes about your character.

[rjn]

 

O hell, from the title of this thread I thought you were talking about the redneck professor… LOL, my bad.

 

Again you insinuate that I am a liar.  Yet you still have not produced a single incident in which an untruth or falsehood was written or spoken by me.  This speaks volumes about your character.

You're scientific, that's kryptonite for someone like Justus. He always resort to ad hominems, because that's all he's got.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Ok Justus,

 

Let's do this properly.

Fair enough.

 

So as a scientific minded individual who considers the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate, in Genesis  9:16 it is written "And the bow shall be in the cloud;", so do you consider that statement to be scientifically inaccurate and if so, would you cite the reason why you consider it scientifically inaccurate?

 

Thank you in advance for your response.

 

 

A person doesn't have to be "scientifically minded" for their eyes to tell them that rainbows appear in the sky, Justus.

There's no need to employ the scientific method to do that.  Artists have been painting rainbows for centuries and they do that artistically, not scientifically.

 

[searchinwithnoagenda]

"Liar For Jesus...Still Lying"

 

Hmmm, yet, supposedly, their awl muddy gawd at Phillippians 4:8 said, in part, "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true...think about such things."

[Justus]

 

O hell, from the title of this thread I thought you were talking about the redneck professor… LOL, my bad.

Again you insinuate that I am a liar.  Yet you still have not produced a single incident in which an untruth or falsehood was written or spoken by me.  This speaks volumes about your character.

 

  Of course you never lie.   As far as myself, I can't say the same.  

 

GF asks if her  clothes makes her look fat, my response  is "Hell no baby, you looking good! "  

 

 

Hell, don't get me started on the BS I'll give the sales people that call my cell phone unsolicted.

 

 

Let me pray for you in tongues:

Golon shal log karon golbar harlog shaon   Onlog golon galon nallog.

I guess, since I had the gift of interpretation, it falls on me to translate this for you.  It says:

"You are free now from superstitions and myths.  I, the lord, did not set you free; you set yourself free.  Live in peace."

Omnia Mea Mecum Porto

So did you really have the gift of interpretation of tongues?

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59246-gifts-of-the-holy-spirit-and-deprogramming/?p=900474

[Justus]

A person doesn't have to be "scientifically minded" for their eyes to tell them that rainbows appear in the sky, Justus.

I thought rainbows were optical illusions?

 

optical illusion

: something that looks different from what it is : something that you seem to see but that is not really there

 

There's no need to employ the scientific method to do that.  Artists have been painting rainbows for centuries and they do that artistically, not scientifically.

So I take it you consider the 'bow' referenced in Genesis 9:16 to be a rainbow?

[disillusioned]

Generally speaking, I try to be charitable and decorous in my posts. But I'm starting to think that Justus might actually be stupid.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

O hell, from the title of this thread I thought you were talking about the redneck professor… LOL, my bad.

Again you insinuate that I am a liar.  Yet you still have not produced a single incident in which an untruth or falsehood was written or spoken by me.  This speaks volumes about your character.

 

  Of course you never lie.   As far as myself, I can't say the same.  

 

GF asks if her  clothes makes her look fat, my response  is "Hell no baby, you looking good! "  

 

 

Hell, don't get me started on the BS I'll give the sales people that call my cell phone unsolicted.

 

 

Let me pray for you in tongues:

Golon shal log karon golbar harlog shaon   Onlog golon galon nallog.

I guess, since I had the gift of interpretation, it falls on me to translate this for you.  It says:

"You are free now from superstitions and myths.  I, the lord, did not set you free; you set yourself free.  Live in peace."

Omnia Mea Mecum Porto

So did you really have the gift of interpretation of tongues?

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59246-gifts-of-the-holy-spirit-and-deprogramming/?p=900474

 

Yes, insofar as one can "have" such a "gift".

[rjn]

I have yet to understand what Justus' deal is. Seriously dude, what's your deal?

[sdelsolray]

Fair enough.

 

So as a scientific minded individual who considers the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate, in Genesis  9:16 it is written "And the bow shall be in the cloud;", so do you consider that statement to be scientifically inaccurate and if so, would you cite the reason why you consider it scientifically inaccurate?

 

Thank you in advance for your response.

 

 

The actual passage (KJV) is as follows

 

"And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."

 

Context, dear theist.  The claim of the author deals with what he is going to do when he sees a rainbow in the future.  This has nothing to do with science.

 

The author's claim that a rainbow shall be in the cloud is apparently based on his prior observation(s).  However, the actual evidence reveals that rainbows are caused by the reflection, refraction and dispersion of visible light interacting with water droplets in the air.  Granted, clouds likely increased the amount of water in the air before the rainbow appeared by something called "rain" (look that one up yourself), but rainbows have no need to reside in a cloud or for clouds to be nearby or even visible for a rainbow to appear.  Indeed, a thick cloud will block some of the sun's light from reaching the water droplets perhaps enough to not allow humans to see the resulting rainbow (because it is below the human eye's threshold for observation).  So, the author, to the extent he claims otherwise, is wrong and renders the claim scientifically inaccurate.

 

As to why a rainbow is curved, I'll leave that to your own research and study.

[rjn]

If you fold a foreskin it might just look like a bow, so maybe there's a connection between the two covenants? I think I might be onto something here.

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[bornagainathiest]

 

A person doesn't have to be "scientifically minded" for their eyes to tell them that rainbows appear in the sky, Justus.

I thought rainbows were optical illusions?

 

optical illusion

: something that looks different from what it is : something that you seem to see but that is not really there

 

Aggh...!  You got me, Justus...!  (Fakes being shot)  

 

Happy now?  (Rhetorical question, btw.)

 

There's no need to employ the scientific method to do that.  Artists have been painting rainbows for centuries and they do that artistically, not scientifically.

So I take it you consider the 'bow' referenced in Genesis 9:16 to be a rainbow?

 

 

My thanks to sdelsolray for this one.

 

Context, Justus.

 

I deduce the 'bow' referred to in the quoted text below to be a rainbow, because they are contextually associated with clouds and rain.  The latter of which Noah had seen far too much of.

 

12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 

13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 

14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 

15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 

16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”

 

Now I get to ask you one.

 

Is what God says here literally true?

[Justus]

Context, dear theist.

 

 

Right. Context dear a theist [FYI-Reformed Diest here]

 

The claim of the author deals with what he is going to do when he sees a rainbow in the future.

I would respectfully disagree since it is written ":And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: " Genesis 9:14

 

And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. John 15:27  {See Genesis 1:2}

 

Genesis  9:16 quotes the LORD, who sits upon high, who said "I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."  

 

This has nothing to do with science.

Since you seem to conclude that the passage refers to a rainbow, I will use the rainbow to demonstrate how the bow is seen in the cloud since that is the context of the passage.

 

Since modern science represents the visible cloud is body of liquid  water suspended in the atmosphere above the earth which can be either a tiny droplets of water in either the liquid or solid state it is easy to understand the misunderstand the Gospel since the Biblical 'cloud' is water vapor, or gas. [see Genesis 1:6-9]

 

I have included a video that might help better explain the scientific explanation that clouds are liquid water and not water vapor @ 2:18.  It also draw a picture to clarify any confusion @ 2:22

 

 

 

Back to the rainbow, while it is true that when visible light passes through liquid water, or other form of prism, the multi-colors of visible can be observed.  However light refraction does not cause the line of travel to bow or arc as shown in illustration A, only to travel in a new angle as represented in illustration B

 

     C 

[Justus]

Is what God says here literally true?

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

So I would suggest you read Deuteronomy 8:3

 

[sdelsolray]

Sparky thinks he is on a roll here.   

[Justus]

Sparky thinks he is on a roll here.   

 

Why would you think I thought I was on a roll?  

 

I was just listening to some music while reading Job 38.  

[sdelsolray]

As before, this one is not worth any time.  Any response only allows him to emotionally masturbate in public and to derail yet another thread with his need for attention.

[Justus]