(December 17, 2010 at 6:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Are you an expert in evo-devo? How do you know this?

Well actually I am a professional in the scientific community, so that would make me more of an expert than you.

Oh you are so superior, that humble statement alone carries so much weight.

Quote:So? If I did a study that examined all the Creation Journals, I would not be surprised if the term evolution was never used in a positive manner. So I am not surprised Secular journals don’t publish articles that affirm the truth of Creation.

The problem with secular journals is they usually have a nasty habit of publishing facts, therefore magic man fails to qualify, and that's why you don't get scientific papers affirming the "truth" of your evidence-free beliefs. Disappointing I know.

Quote:I love how Dawkins won’t debate actual Creation Scientists because he “doesn’t want to give them credibility”, but he will debate a bishop. So it’s obvious it’s not granting credibility he is worried about, it’s being publicly humiliated he is really worried about. The guy is a joke.

I can emphasise with his choice to refuse to engage with the hopelessly delusional, I also decline to debate actual solipsists, not because I somehow risk being, in your words "humiliated", but because they're a complete waste of time. Any attempt to take their position seriously is not just a joke, but a farce.

Quote:Again, your scientific ignorance seeps through. Scientific facts are not established by consensus in the scientific community.

I do believe he never said they were.

Quote:C14 is not very accurate for determining the actual age of organic matter. This is because the original assumptions behind the method assumed the atmosphere was in carbonic equilibrium, which has since been disproven. However, these assumptions are still used today...

...At least creationists admit that it should never be considered reliable (which is why they don’t accept the 40,000 year date for the coal), but can be used to disprove ages in the billions when it is found in organic matter.

You mean estimating the age of carbonaceous materials, while it has found aforementioned application that does not necessarily mean it was developed exclusively for dating organic matter. We'd be the first to admit radiocarbon method shows its limitations, sometimes we can determine the age of materials and C14 content but other times it is ineffective due to a current lack of calibration.

As we speak actual scientists (not you) are working to establish new calibration curves that may refine the accuracy of these measurements further.

Quote:Bad analogy, you would conclude that the boulder landed there because you have directly observed other boulders falling off of cliffs, so you are applying deductive reasoning to the situation.

That's Occam’s razor for you, while useful it's not of a scientific result (nobody said it was), so you're free to criticise it all as an appeal to common sense, sometimes it would be far more intellectually honest for us to say "I don't know".

(December 18, 2010 at 3:37 pm)annatar Wrote:
Yay!

Loving that annatar, not seen it before. If a picture paints a thousand words...etc

(December 18, 2010 at 2:52 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

---

(December 18, 2010 at 5:03 am)ziggystardust Wrote: Generally big shot scientists in other fields don't bother to say they are Dr such and such or Professor so and so.

That is certainly not my experience. I have been around plenty of PhDs in my work (all of whom would consider it an insult to be called a creationist). I have even supervised plenty of them. The vast majority use the title regularly and introduce themselves that way, etc.

---

I was referring to the scientists who have some fame among the general public. For example in the well known evolutionary scientists such as Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, Edward O Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould and others don't even bother to put Doctor or Professor in front of their name when dealing with the public. Despite they are perfectly entitled to, because they have those qualifications.

(December 19, 2010 at 6:23 am)ziggystardust Wrote: I was referring to the scientists who have some fame among the general public. For example in the well known evolutionary scientists such as Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, Edward O Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould and others don't even bother to put Doctor or Professor in front of their name when dealing with the public. Despite they are perfectly entitled to, because they have those qualifications.

I see. I always hated it when any of them used their title. You could argue that I am just jealous because I don't have one, sure, but to me it makes them come across as arrogant and superior. (I was once told by a PhD that I suspervised that what I told them was wrong and I couldn't know what I was talking about because I didn't have a PhD and work in a lab. To this person's credit, they did apologize when they found I was correct.) I was watching a video of Jason Lisle once and, as you said, he referred to himself several times as Dr. Lisle. It did seem like he was throwing around the title as there didn't appear to be any other reason for him to use the title given the context and the fact that the talk was given to those who would tend to agree with him anyway. All this to say, I guess, that I agree with you on this point Ziggystardust.

(December 17, 2010 at 6:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again, your scientific ignorance seeps through. Scientific facts are not established by consensus in the scientific community.

Where did I say that scientific facts are established by consensus? Because I didn't.

Quote:Remember, the consensus prior to Darwin was Creation, and you certainly don’t seem to believe that now do you?

And that "consensus" was hardly scientific. It was based on nothing but belief, not science.Today we have scientists from all over the world in a variety of disciplines using different dating methods all concluding that the Earth is somewhere around 4-4.5 billion years old. Now, what dating methods are you using to conclude that the planet is less than 10,000 years old?

You may as well be arguing that the Earth is flat.

Quote:The presence of C14 in both coal and diamonds does mean they are young.

You don't think C-14 dating has any validity. So how can you make any assertions based on C-14 data?

Quote:That’s why the old earth crowd comes up with these silly little stories about contamination because they also know what the studies truly mean.

All it means is that we have an anamoly that bears investigating. You want to jump to the ludicrous conclusion that it means the planet is only a few thousand years old.

Has C-14 been found in EVERY diamond? Or is it just SOME diamonds? Because if the Earth were truly young, I would expect C-14 to be found in EVERY diamond or lump of coal.

Quote:Why do you only trust radiocarbon dating when it fits your paradigm but not when it doesn’t?

I DO trust C-14 dating. Where did I say I don't? Like I said, C-14 in diamonds is an anamoly that needs to be investigated. On the list of possible explanations, I'd put "The earth is less than 10,000 years old" somewhere below "Invisible fairies put it there".

Quote:C14 is not very accurate for determining the actual age of organic matter.

Then why are you using it to make a conclusion?

Quote:This is because the original assumptions behind the method assumed the atmosphere was in carbonic equilibrium, which has since been disproven.However, these assumptions are still used today. So radiocarbon dating traditionally yields very erroneous ages when the actual age is known.

Yes, radiocarbon dating is horribly flawed! That's why the scientific world uses it.

Quote:Since it cannot really be used to determine an actual age, it can certainly be used to determine the maximum age possible when the minimal amount detectible is present which is about 50,000 years.

Great! Then you must admit that the Earth is older than 10,000 years as radiocarbon dating can prove things to be up to 50,000 years old.

Quote:This argument could very well be turned around on you, why do you think radiocarbon dating is reliable when it yields ages you like but not when it yields ages you don’t like?

Again, I do accept radiocarbon dating as being reasonably accurate. If radiocarbon dating reveals something we wouldn't expect, then we should investigate the cause. Not jump to unrealistic conclusions.

Quote:Bad analogy, you would conclude that the boulder landed there because you have directly observed other boulders falling off of cliffs, so you are applying deductive reasoning to the situation.

Actually, I've never seen a boulder fall off a cliff. But I do agree that I'm applying REASONING.

Quote:However, you have never observed natural carbon contamination taking place in coal or diamonds.

So what?

Quote:The only reason you believe it must have taken place is because the evidence does not fit your paradigm.

Wrong. The reason I believe it most likely has taken place is due to what we know about carbon-14 and the conclusions of scientists.

(December 19, 2010 at 9:59 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(December 19, 2010 at 6:23 am)ziggystardust Wrote: I was referring to the scientists who have some fame among the general public. For example in the well known evolutionary scientists such as Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, Edward O Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould and others don't even bother to put Doctor or Professor in front of their name when dealing with the public. Despite they are perfectly entitled to, because they have those qualifications.

I see. I always hated it when any of them used their title. You could argue that I am just jealous because I don't have one, sure, but to me it makes them come across as arrogant and superior. (I was once told by a PhD that I suspervised that what I told them was wrong and I couldn't know what I was talking about because I didn't have a PhD and work in a lab. To this person's credit, they did apologize when they found I was correct.) I was watching a video of Jason Lisle once and, as you said, he referred to himself several times as Dr. Lisle. It did seem like he was throwing around the title as there didn't appear to be any other reason for him to use the title given the context and the fact that the talk was given to those who would tend to agree with him anyway. All this to say, I guess, that I agree with you on this point Ziggystardust.

One must always carefully examine the credentials of xtian liars, too.

http://www.nndb.com/people/333/000085078/

Re Kent Hovind:

Quote:His scientific credentials are nil — an MA and PhD in Christian Education from Patriot Bible University, a correspondence school widely considered to be a Christian diploma mill.

(December 20, 2010 at 12:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: One must always carefully examine the credentials of xtian liars, too.

Why did you limit your statement to a certain type of liar? Are Christian liars to be treated differently from any other type of liar?

I suspect few atheists get advanced degrees from xtian diploma mills.

(December 20, 2010 at 2:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I suspect few atheists get advanced degrees from xtian diploma mills.

What does that have to do with my questions?

(December 20, 2010 at 2:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I suspect few atheists get advanced degrees from xtian diploma mills.

Some of us atheists used to be Christians you know Minimalist.