creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution.

[popeyespappy]

Since the zircon dating method is based on the radiometric decay of Uranium, how do you know that the radiometric decay rate of Uranium has been uniform throughout Earth’s history?

I’ll just leave this here for you Statler.

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective

[Statler Waldorf]

Er, no. it doesn't actually matter what you think of your "god" or "bible". It is the fact you do not admit to the possibility of error in your thinking - such as it is with the likes of you - that makes you risible.

Where did I say there’s no possibility of error in my thinking? I simply said there’s no possibility of error in God’s word, which there isn’t. Please don’t misrepresent my position in order to feel better about the absurdity of your own.

Er, no. I did not actually appeal to ridicule. I simply ridiculed you.

If you looked it up you’d realize they’re the same thing. It’s irrational to merely ridicule someone else you disagree with. Now that I think about it though, you’ve never claimed to be a rational person, so I guess I cannot be too hard on you for not being one.

Prove it. Don't assert it, prove it.

I’d be happy to demonstrate it, give me an anti-Biblical concept scheme or view of reality (preferably yours) and I will.

Even if you can prove it, so what?

I’d be perfectly content with holding the only logically consistent and therefore true view of reality. If you’re fine with absurdity then I am not sure why you are trying to debate this issue.

Prove that reality must necessarily not be absurd.

I am not obligated to prove any premise that both parties in the discourse agree upon, if you didn’t believe reality had to be rational you wouldn’t be having this discussion with me right now because the act of debating assumes reality is intelligible.

Prove it. Don't assert it, prove it.

Sure, give me a precondition of human experience to work with and I will show you how you cannot make sense of it and the Biblical view of reality can. In the spirit of Christian charity I have even allowed you to choose the precondition.

Says you.

No, not according to me, according to logic; if you demonstrate that “A” is a necessary precondition of “B”, and “B” is true then “A” must also logically be true. If Human experience and intelligibility require that God exists, then God must exist, and the debate is over.

I say show your work.

You sure are demanding, give me something to work with and I will.

Um, no.

Um, yes. If scripture is infallible, then all other truth claims made by fallible sources must submit to scripture’s authority.

I’ll just leave this here for you Statler.

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective

Why are you being so intellectually lazy by linking to an article you’ve never read? Surely you know that Dr. Wiens never answers my question in that article (although he does admit that the empirically measured diffusion rates of Helium contradict the deep time model); so I will ask it again. Radiometric dating requires that the decay rate of Uranium is uniform for the entirety of Earth’s history; if it is not uniform the method is rendered useless, so how do you know the decay rate has remained uniform? I see no reason for holding that assumption and therefore I cannot accept the method as scientifically valid.

[popeyespappy]

I’ll just leave this here for you Statler.

Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective

Why are you being so intellectually lazy by linking to an article you’ve never read? Surely you know that Dr. Wiens never answers my question in that article (although he does admit that the empirically measured diffusion rates of Helium contradict the deep time model); so I will ask it again. Radiometric dating requires that the decay rate of Uranium is uniform for the entirety of Earth’s history; if it is not uniform the method is rendered useless, so how do you know the decay rate has remained uniform? I see no reason for holding that assumption and therefore I cannot accept the method as scientifically valid.

Sorry Stat but it looks you should have read the article before calling the kettle black. Doctor Wiens does address your concerns in his article starting on page 19 in the section titled Can We Really Believe the Dating Systems?. The essence of his argument is that there are basically only two variables in radiometric dating. Those variables are half life and time. The half life of the many radioactive isotopes used in radiometric dating are all different yet they all yield similar age ranges when materials are tested. That only leaves time. I don't remember you arguing anything about anyone playing with time.

Furthermore your statement, "Radiometric dating requires that the decay rate of Uranium is uniform for the entirety of Earth’s history" is incorrect. There are many methods of radiometric dating. Most of them don't require uranium. Once again, all of them yield similar results. Of course you would have know that had you bothered to read the article.

[Cato]

Apparently you didn’t think your own post out very well; we know that scripture has to be infallible, so we can then use it to test the truth claims made by fallible sources.

Scripture is infallible? I'll bring the leper, you can bring a couple birds. You can follow God's instructions and we'll see if the leper is cured. Of course, according to your God, the leper could be a house instead of a person.

Do you know what cracks me the fuck up? The fact that the Bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God. If I were a deity and thought it important to write a book, I damn sure wouldn't include shit that wasn't true. Just saying.

[Jackalope]

I’d be happy to demonstrate it, give me an anti-Biblical concept scheme or view of reality (preferably yours) and I will.

Oh, no, you don't get to weasel out of your claims so easily. Let's revisit them (at the end of this post) and summarize what your claim implies you must be able to demonstrate. Demonstrating that a single anti-Biblical concept is unsound does not in any way shape or form demonstrate your claim, which is that they all are. See below.

I’d be perfectly content with holding the only logically consistent and therefore true view of reality. If you’re fine with absurdity then I am not sure why you are trying to debate this issue.

Your usage of the word "absurd" was not the same definition I was thinking of. You're apparently using it as a synonym for "unsound". We can roll with that.

I say show your work.

You sure are demanding, give me something to work with and I will.

Hey, it's your claim, not mine. I'm under no obligation to help you in your case. That albatross is firmly around your neck, not mine.

Here's your claim:

Anti-Biblical conceptual schemes and views of reality can always be reduced to absurdity; only the Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent. That alone would prove that scripture is infallible. That’s not the only proof though; since the Biblical view of reality has elements in it that even atheists agree are true, we can therefore know that the entire conceptual scheme must also be true since it is logically consistent. Therefore, we know again that scripture has to be the infallible word of God and we are justified in using it to test the merit of all other truth claims.

That's quite the weighty claim. Looking only at the first sentence, you've got quite the task ahead of you:

1) The Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent.
2) All extant or possible non-Biblical claims are necessarily not logically cogent and consistent.

I'm fairly certain you can't prove 1), and I'm pretty sure that no one can prove 2).

You're welcome to try, of course.

[downbeatplumb]

Um, yes. If scripture is infallible, then all other truth claims made by fallible sources must submit to scripture’s authority.

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Your style is to say "what if" and posit any claim unsupported by evidence you like to try and counter reality.

But as all the actual real evidence supports what I said, your childish posturing just makes you look like a moron.

You have nothing to add to the debate other than the made up.

[Jackalope]

---

I’d be happy to demonstrate it, give me an anti-Biblical concept scheme or view of reality (preferably yours) and I will.

Oh, no, you don't get to weasel out of your claims so easily. Let's revisit them (at the end of this post) and summarize what your claim implies you must be able to demonstrate. Demonstrating that a single anti-Biblical concept is unsound does not in any way shape or form demonstrate your claim, which is that they all are. See below.

I’d be perfectly content with holding the only logically consistent and therefore true view of reality. If you’re fine with absurdity then I am not sure why you are trying to debate this issue.

Your usage of the word "absurd" was not the same definition I was thinking of. You're apparently using it as a synonym for "unsound". We can roll with that.

You sure are demanding, give me something to work with and I will.

Hey, it's your claim, not mine. I'm under no obligation to help you in your case. That albatross is firmly around your neck, not mine.

Here's your claim:

Anti-Biblical conceptual schemes and views of reality can always be reduced to absurdity; only the Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent. That alone would prove that scripture is infallible. That’s not the only proof though; since the Biblical view of reality has elements in it that even atheists agree are true, we can therefore know that the entire conceptual scheme must also be true since it is logically consistent. Therefore, we know again that scripture has to be the infallible word of God and we are justified in using it to test the merit of all other truth claims.

That's quite the weighty claim. Looking only at the first sentence, you've got quite the task ahead of you:

1) The Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent.
2) All extant or possible non-Biblical claims are necessarily not logically cogent and consistent.

I'm fairly certain you can't prove 1), and I'm pretty sure that no one can prove 2).

You're welcome to try, of course.

---

Just a little reminder, Statler. You've neglected to support your claims. Just giving you another opportunity to do so.

[thesummerqueen]

I about spit out my ice cream reading these last couple of pages.

Infallible bible, my plump white ass.

[Jackalope]

my plump white ass.

You shouldn't say such things around older men with weak hearts and a fondness for plump, white ass.

[thesummerqueen]

[touches butt cheeks to the monitor just for Cthulhu]