(October 20, 2010 at 5:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 20, 2010 at 3:50 pm)Chuck Wrote: As you are surely aware, anyone one having a similar complete idiot's faith as your do in the infallibility of a piece of crap (koran) that is closely related to your crap (bible), will very likely try to scipt themselves into a crap story (Noah) that appears in both of those pieces of crap. So yes, recent Egyptains, who's awareness of what went on in their own history and prehistory from 2500 years remove has been dimed and polluted by 1700 years of forceful foreign crap influence, first from Koptic Christians crap and then from Islamic crap, would most certainly be less reliable than their ancient Egyptain ancesters, who were describing events of their life time.

[/hide]

Sweet I called it! You did use the "Primitive Egyptians were smarter than modern Egyptians" argument! You're getting very predictable. Since these primitive Egyptians were so smart in your eyes why did they also believe in gods and the super-natural? Or were they only "smart" when they agreed with you?

---

Are you neurotic, delusional as well as stupid? Where did the word "smart" or any synonym appear in what I said?

You don't have to be smart to accurately record how long a pharaoh in your life time reigned. You can be every bit as dumb as many who believes in gods and the super natural and still do that correctly. But it does help if you are not quite as dumb as the exceptional dimwits who would believe Abraham really lived 175 years.

(October 20, 2010 at 5:47 pm)Ace Wrote:

Quote:Have you decided to act more "grown up"?

Excuse me?! Who the fuck do you think you are?
Look in the mirror the next time you say that.

Quote:I will answer your questions if you have.

What are you saying? I already posed the questions. Too blind to see them?

Quote:Your last statement is funny, would be like me saying, "I don't wrestle grizzly bears because they are too weak"

That makes no sense. There is no similarity between what I said about creationists and this.

Why don't I just skip this bollocks and add you to my ignore list? This way, I won't have to put up with your shit anymore. At least that way I will no longer be able to see your posts. You want it that way?

Do you want me to end this once and for all or do you wish to try again? A yes or no question! What is it going to be?!

Thanks for answering my question in the negative.

Actually there is a lot of similarity between what you said and what I said.

Creationists would destroy you in a debate. So you are afraid to debate them. So you make up some excuse that they are too stupid to debate so you don't get laughed at.

Grizzly bears would destroy me in a wrestling match. I am too scared to wrestle one, but I make up an argument that says they are weak so I don't feel weak myself.

Yay! That was easy.

---

Sweet I called it! You did use the "Primitive Egyptians were smarter than modern Egyptians" argument! You're getting very predictable. Since these primitive Egyptians were so smart in your eyes why did they also believe in gods and the super-natural? Or were they only "smart" when they agreed with you?

---

Are you neurotic, delusional as well as stupid? Where did the word "smart" or any synonym appear in what I said?

You don't have to be smart to accurately record how long a pharaoh in your life time reigned. You can be every bit as dumb as many who believes in gods and the super natural and still do that correctly. But it does help if you are not quite as dumb as the exceptional dimwits who would believe Abraham really lived 175 years. [/hide]

More personal attacks eh? The sign of a weak argument.

I am sure you are aware that Sothic Theory is not based on just the reign of Pharoahs but also the obversation of specific cosmological events. Or maybe you didn't know that. I am sure you are also ware that many modern historians are calling for a revision in Sothic Theory. Use this argument while you can because it looks like in the next few years it will be considered invalid. Why couldn't someone live to be 175 in different climate conditions than today? Seems reasonable to me. You believe in particle to human evolution, so I would expect you to believe in just about anything.

(October 20, 2010 at 6:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: (Statler's comments)

See? You do need to grow up. Alot apparently.

A simple no to the question would of been enough. You've just demonstrated my point perfectly.

*Blocked*

Now I have 2 on my ignore list.
I'm quite glad that it's over. Only can creationists bug me that much.
( just noticed the rule about miss-quoting, so I have undone that miss-quote, in my defence...I was unaware of such a rule)

(October 20, 2010 at 6:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Seems reasonable to me.

You are the problem.

(October 20, 2010 at 6:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You believe in particle to human evolution, so I would expect you to believe in just about anything.

No, it is precisely because we don't believe just about anything, like the crap creation story of inbred self-important desert tribes or some desert geezer wheezing on to 175, that we were driven to actually find out about particles and human evolution. So fuck off.

(October 20, 2010 at 5:03 pm)rjh4 Wrote: Synackaon accuses SW of “playing the name game”.

Really, Syn? So SW wasn’t merely answering LastPoet’s question?

Lastly, Synackaon says “The science, not the person, actually matters.” And he does so shortly after criticizing SW for bringing up Kurt Wise. Does he criticize Wise for his science? No. He criticizes him for some statement he made directed toward his ideology not based on his science. Seems pretty inconsistent on Syn’s part.

First off, in my defense, asking for names is ridiculous. Second, I noted that Kurt Wise has made a statement equating to placing ideology over science, thus showing him to be a poor scientist.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Thirdly, I note that the people involved hold questionable motives, thus placing them under scrutiny. Saying that you'll deny facts and evidence because your magic man said so is plainly ridiculous - especially ridiculous to hear from a scientist.

Also, I gave out examples to combat the "He has a PhD and that makes him worth listening too" with actual examples of wing nuts who also happen to be educate.

To conclude, yes, the objective facts matter in the YEC debate. But one must keep in mind that those who clearly state they will ignore science, and thus the objectivity, to match their beliefs, will clearly contribute misleading information if need be. Thus the science is poisoned. It's called "poisoning the well"


rjh4 - I am questioning the evidence offered and giving counter evidence.

Go suck an egg, you troll.

Wow. I leave for day and a half and the thread explodes. Then again, the fail in this thread seems to measure at fifty giga-creationisms.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Haha, well I guess the units of miles are just made up by Creationists since there are equations used to convert from miles to kilometers used by everyone, but this apparently doesn't prove anything according to you. Read a physics book (above the high school level) and they will all have the equation I just gave you for converting from observational time to calculated time. I got that equation out of my college textbook "Physics: for Scientists and Engineers" (not youtube lol). I can even show you how to do the equation if you need me to.

It's more like someone made up a unit of measurement and made a conversion rate between units people actually use to actually measure something and the fictional unit.
The problem here is that I have read physics books well beyond the high school level by actual physicists and they all seem to have no record of your inane theories.

Now, I don't know which physics: for scientists and engineers book you used, but I can google just about anything and this is what I've gotten:
Physics: For Scientists and Engineers Sixth Edition Volume 1 by Paul A. Tipler and Gene Mosca
What about Physics: For Scientists and Engineers Forth Edition Volume 1?
What about Physics: For Scientits and Engineers Volume 2?

But hey, I did bother to look through those books, despite not really knowing if I had the right one or not and the problem with doing a google search (which would prove that they exist) is that the google books don't show the whole thing, but they show most of it.

Would you like to take a guess as to what I didn't find in these books? A universe that's thousands of years old instead of billions (which my youtube video proved using physics well below what's necessary to understand from this book), an-isotropic propogation of light (which violates special relativity), and two different measurements of time that would allow light to move any speed other than the ~300 million meters/second or 186 thousand miles/second that is understood to be the speed of light.

Fact of the matter is, for the creation myth to be true, all of those books would have to be wrong. As my youtube video proved, you would, in fact, have to ignore gravitiy, among other issues. But hey, maybe "Jesus did it, lol" is in one of those missing pages, but hey, if you utterly hate youtube so much, I have no problem, just as I always have, of simply pointing to you every single problem with your inane theories by simply quoting a passage from one of those links I've provided.
I know you're already ignoring gravity, evolution, relativity, thermodynamics, the properties of mass, chemistry, and ... oh who am I kidding the creation myth violates pretty much most if not all sciences, especially when you try to use science to prove creation. It's all right up there.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground.

Which is impossible in the mantle due to the pressures and temperatures at that depth - especially given the volume needed to displace every land mass on the planet.
I'm not even going to begin to cover how impossible it is for plate techtonics to work in over day what it's been proven to have been doing over the past 4.5 billion years - just as with your physics-breaking ideas on how radiometric dating works.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You really need to understand what Creationists believe before you try and argue against them. The flood caused drasstic plate tectonices which formed a lot of our current mountain ranges. This would have also caused many of our deepest oceanic trenches. Level these out, and you even have enough water on Earth today to cover the entire planet. So we would not need a lot of water from the mantle, it's just one working model that makes sense. Your reasoning is not even in line with modern Science, many Scientists today believe there was a global flood on Mars despite there not being any visible water on Mars (Reuters, Mars Calamity May have Created Conditions for Life. New York Times, 16 March, 2001- not a youtube video lol) . So a lack of water obviously is not grounds for denying a flood anyways. It's just an added bonus that we have enough water on Earth.

I don't need to understand what details about creation that creationists believe to know it's wrong. I understand what's actually happened according to the experts who specifically study these things. I understand what geologists, archeologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, earth scientists, atmospheric scientists, and experts all say when they talk about the earth, life, and evolution. They measure the earth at billions of years old and have explainations about the formations of the oceans, hills, valleys, and geology that actually follows observation, physics, and everything else we've used to measure and quantify these things.
Creationists use every excuse and psuedoscience they can to explain how their myth can happen without understanding how these procesess actually work and ignoring all contrary evidence, to which you arguements are perfect examples of.
For one, the geologic record does NOT agree your Noah's flood or any aspect thereof.
>>> LINK in fine textbook format - from Oxford. None of that filthy youtube that you hate, despite not being able to actually have any valid counterarguements presented in any of the youtube videos I've shown you so far.
I've also done a search on your 'global flood' on Mars, which is not an article at NY Times, but Answers in Genesis.
Just in case you missed them, there are two links in the above statement. As you'll no doubt view upon examining the NY Times link with the March 16, 2001 article, that the link will not take me to the exact March 16 article, so I found this, which appears to be a copy-paste on some forum.
I also found this and as you might note, the only one proclaiming a noah-style flood on mars is Answers in genesis, not the people who actually know planetary science, geology, and all that.
But leave it to you to actually point to an article that doesn't exist at its source anymore and make claims about what it says, but ultimately, every other source on the topic from an actual scientific source actually points to there being water and volcanism, not sudden catastropic volcanism and appearance of water within the space of days on a single event. That's just crazy-talk.
So no, unless you mean by 'many scientists today' means to you 'many creationists who happen to use science-speak'.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not a stadium sized ship, but a ship very large. One much like the wooden ships used in 15th Century China by Chang Ho that were sea worthy and used the same techiques used by Noah.

So instead of a 'stadium-sized' ship, you think he used 'a ship very large.' Okay whatever.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Would not have had to get creatures from every continent because I already told you that Creationists believe drastic plate tectonics were a result of the flood. Would not have had to go and "get" all the creatures becasue scripture says the animals came to him. The dietary needs of animals are not actually as specialized as you make them out to be. Pretty much all animals (even snakes) can survive on a vegetarian diet. So again you are arguing against things that creationists do not believe and acting like you are accomplishing something.

Interesting how there are no records of the entire crust of the planet shifting in days rather than millenia. You might want to read that geology book I linked from Oxford earlier. It completely refutes this as a thing that can happen.
This is one of those things they teach in elementary and middle school school geography about the history of the earth. If my google-fu is strong enough, I may just find some children's science websites that can prove that this never happened.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Evolution is fine when it is recognized for what it really is. A shifting and/or reduction of genetic information to produce different species which are just different expressions of the same kind of animal. Rather than the incorrect view that it can actually increase genetic information and provide a mechanism for all life on Earth to orignate from a single celled ancestor.

In other words, evolution is fine when creationists are teaching it, nevermind that they don't actually study or understand it. That second series of youtube videos I linked evidence that by someone who actually studies this scientific field.
But that's fine. You're at least consistent to the effect that you appear to believe that >95% of every scientist on the planet is wrong and the dime-a-dozen books like
Evolution: Third Edition by Mark Ridley
What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr and Forwarded by Jared Diamond
The Theory of Evolution by John Maynard Smith
Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory
The one above is about the history of the theory of evolution and I linked it because it proves
that it is science and not fiction
Evolution: A Scientific American Reader
... are all apparently completely bunk.
The one above I like the best because it not only covers evolution but also the beginning of the universe, the solar system, and walks through the evolution of all life on earth and human evolution.

I could easily keep going, but I've made my point. The chance of your style of evolution having happened is zero.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: An Ice Age would have shortly followed the flood providing a means for the animals to re-populate the continents. This would not have been hard to do at all considering they would have had a 1000 years to do so. Wolves were re-introduced in Yellowstone 15 years ago. Wolves have now been spotted in Southern Oregon. So in 15 years that small initial pack has grown and has travelled over 1000 miles. This is with competition from species that already inhabit Southern and Easter Oregon. So the animals would have dispersed very quickly and could have easily covered the necessary ground.

Repopulation is one thing -that can happen very fast - what you didn't answer about the arc was everything about caring for the nostril-animals for the entirety of their voyage and everything else I mentioned about that.
In regard to your statement above, this does not answer how one "kind" of bear (a "kind" of creature is something you have yet to define) can become every other kind of bear in such a short amount of time from only two creatures when genetic testing reveals a diversity of genetic information that could not have possibly come two creatures of a completely different species.
You haven't even stated what you believe 'information loss/gain' means in terms of genetics.

Though I suppose I shouldn't bother to ask considering you'll simply inform me that because you think I won't understand it you won't bother actually telling me or some other excuse not to explain yourself.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Creationists don't use your evolutionary time scale, so I am not sure why you keep using it to argue against their position. The fossil record shows lots of animals that were buried alive by flooding and the order of animals in the record is exactly what we would expect to see.

No, of course not.
Creationists decided that those animals were alive all at once until the flood despite what information is actually in the fossil record as proven by the people studying it.
As you might guess, there is a link to a book that is actually about the fossil record above done by people who know what they're talking about. As you might guess, it's not in agreement with any form of creationism, noah's flood, or anything else in your silly bronze-age book.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You obviously do not understand the Science behind it since this is a well known observed fact that trees do this. Trees have no idea how long a year is, they only react to the climates and angle of the sun to the Earth. Certain drought climates can "trick" a tree into adding multiple rings in a year. So this inductive form of dating can be very erroneous.

Actually, I do and it's something that can be easily looked at with a simple google search.
Behold the wonders of dendrochronology in the link above.
I even found a book that at least partially covered the topic from Richard Dawkins, who is an evoluationary biologist and noted Atheist, but since I'm sure you'd focus on this Atheism and not the fact that he is a scientist with peer-reviewed papers among other scientists (and not merely other atheists or atheist-specific websites or people with his worldview).

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You can use youtube if you'd like, but it has never been and never will be a scholarly source. The only thing you have proven with it is that any old fool with video editing software can make a "science" video that you will in turn use in a forum.

Which is true that anyone can make a video, but it's also obvious when a video uses and explains in clear detail the science behind the information they give, as my videos have done isofar as disproving your source.
This also explains why you haven't bothered to post any of your links, as I'm certain they come from creationist and belief-based websites and institutions instead of any reputable scientific sources, such as from where I can find Richard Dawkin's scientific works.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nah, the people on the secular review boards are just as biased and pulling for a certain side as you are. Don't give them more credit than they deserve.

The difference between what they can do and what your "Christian Scientists" do is that actual scientists can back up their claims with repeatable evidence-based tests that don't make assumptions based on no evidence.
That's why the 'secular review boards' as you call them do actual science and yours do not.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again, creationists agree on the speed of light. How can you argue against a position you clearly do not understand?

Just not in every direction from any point if you use your silly an-isotropic propogation of light. You even stated that light can travel instantaneously in some instances.
No. Physics done by actual physicists prove otherwise. It breaks relativity whether you choose to realize it or not.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again, you have proven you do not understand the ideas behind my "theory" so how can you approprately not agree with something you clearly do not understand?

Because your theory is easier to understand than you realize, at least given the context to which you've explained it. You've only assumed my understanding is off because I've disagreed and given my evidence that it's not an accurate take on how things actually work.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Assertion, adds nothing to your argument. Your assumptions are wrong, there I did it back at you.

It's an assertion I've backed up before and since you've ignored it and done nothing to rebut my arguement, I have every perogative to repeat my assertions without necessarily repeating myself with every single post.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: More youtube videos huh? Who peer reivewed this video? I think your real beef with me is that I understand your theory better than you do and I know its limitations. You do not believe it has limitations, it truly has become your God. That is sad.

Why would science that's been peer reviewed time and time again for more than a century that's merely being repeated on a youtube video need peer review? Especially when I can find all of that science in books like the ones in the links I've provided for you above?
The fact of the matter is that you either won't or can't rebut anything said in those videos.

(October 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why did you just accept his claim that he is a Physicist? I thought you guys were supposed to call him a liar and ask him who he works for and what school he went to and what courses he took? Or do you only do this when the person with the Science degree disagrees with you? Not very objective I see, not surprised though. The aricle posted earlier about water in the mantle actually said that it is a popular belief amongst geophysicists that the mantle DOES contain water (even though the article was aruging against this view, it admitted that this is a view held by many in the field). So to claim that this is a silly or uncommon view makes you actually look rather silly. Rather you should say that this is a view that is debated in modern science today, but the evidence is certainly not conclusive.

Actually, he has proven it in the things that he says and the evidence he's provided here on Atheistforums. You have provided nothing but things that clearly violate the fundemental laws of nature with all the understanding of a person who cares nothing for truth except in the dogma of his beliefs.

(October 20, 2010 at 6:15 pm)Ace Wrote:

(October 20, 2010 at 6:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Blah blah blah, BLAH!

Yay! I made an idiot of myself.

See? You do need to grow up. Alot apparently.

A simple no to the question would of been enough. You've just demonstrated my point perfectly.

*Blocked*

Now I have 2 on my ignore list.

Misquoting someone in the quote box is against the forum rules. The moderators need to please take care of this post.

---

More assertions.

(October 20, 2010 at 7:02 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why did you just accept his claim that he is a Physicist? I thought you guys were supposed to call him a liar and ask him who he works for and what school he went to and what courses he took? Or do you only do this when the person with the Science degree disagrees with you? Not very objective I see, not surprised though. The aricle posted earlier about water in the mantle actually said that it is a popular belief amongst geophysicists that the mantle DOES contain water (even though the article was aruging against this view, it admitted that this is a view held by many in the field). So to claim that this is a silly or uncommon view makes you actually look rather silly. Rather you should say that this is a view that is debated in modern science today, but the evidence is certainly not conclusive.

Actually, he has proven it in the things that he says and the evidence he's provided here on Atheistforums. You have provided nothing but things that clearly violate the fundemental laws of nature with all the understanding of a person who cares nothing for truth except in the dogma of his beliefs.

Because Statler Waldorf is going to bitch about this - yes, I am a 3rd year biophysics student at UCLA. For people I trust on these forums, they already know my name and where I am. They also can easily match my name with where I've been, where I go to university and easily can request my CV with awards, references and papers listed.

But, sir, because you've consistently shat on physics, denied basic science and routinely reference known cranks, some of which who have an obvious ideological aim against scientific thought, I have little reason to believe you'd handle even my name in good conscience. Hence, I will give you nothing.

I'm pretty sure in our conversations that you said you had a degree in biochemistry, but worked as an environmental scientist for the DOA. If I was wrong, then my apologies, and perhaps you could again clarify what degrees, exactly you have, if any, and how they related give you expertize in any of the fields we are discussing.

Why bother, apes are more enlightenable than creationists like him.