(December 18, 2010 at 2:15 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: You're a funny guy Statler...nothing new in your responses but they are getting hysterical. You love to pick out fallacies and then can't wait to stick you're own in, keep it up

I find you equally amusing. You just assert I commit fallacies but don’t point them out. Sad but not surprising.

Quote: Is Ray Comfort? Oh please say he is.

Comfort is a Minister, so obviously not. Another straw-man arugment.

Quote: Oh the sweet irony...so maybe you should try and make arguments at all, and some FOR creation would be a great place to start

I already have given you some evidence that indicates the Earth is young. Once you actually give a refutation of that evidence (and not just ignore it) I will provide you with more. Keep in mind, if the Earth is young, then Evolution becomes impossible and the Creation becomes the best explanation.

Quote: No I don't mean that, and yes it is science. The fact the you rush like an over eager puppy and want to say "look, look god did it", isn't that impressive.

C14 was found in diamonds and coal several years ago, to this date no plausible explanation has been given by the secular side as to why it is there. So looks like you’re going to be waiting awhile for the research you like to show up.

Quote: How do you know what I do?

Due to your lack of basic scientific knowledge I just made a guess you are not a member of the scientific community. I don’t agree with many of my secular colleagues on the origins debate, but they don’t make the blatant errors you make because they are formally trained in the field.

Quote: Forgive me if I don't take you're assurance on this.

Well you can believe that soft tissue can last for millions of years in spite of the empirical evidence that demonstrates it cannot. However, this becomes just a blind faith position, and not a scientific one. You are free to hold it though.

Quote: Come on Statler we weren't born yesterday. Everyone knows what IDs agenda is. What is the difference between Creation Science and ID, apart from the fact ID are too scared to mention "God did it", just in case they frighten folks away? Berlinski wants a platform to vent his incredulity from...end of.

The differences are immense and until I read your post I thought they were quite obvious. Biblical Creationism begins with the axiom that the Biblical account of Creation is accurate and interprets the evidence in light of this axiom. The ID movement begins with the axiom that the Biblical account of creation is not accurate (no fall and no flood) and interprets the evidence in light of this axiom. Hence why most in the ID movement believe in an old Earth. “IDers” do not make any claims about who or what the intelligent source was that created the first life, they just realize that evolutionary theory is utterly insufficient to explain the first life on Earth. Your assertion that a group which contains people who believe in pan-spermia are somehow synonymous with Biblical creationists is just ridiculous. Unfortunately for the ID movement, the evidence is far more consistent when interpreted using a biblical word view than their own, though I give them credit for recognizing the short comings of Darwinian theory.

Quote:At least thats one interpretation. Another could be why give a PR platform to people who offer PR but no evidence. Mind you it could all be a BIG conspiracy. Next we will be arranging 'accidents' for 'Creation Scientists' and 'Design Theorists' to silence them and their pesky evidence.

---

Huh? Dawkins actually does debate creationists; he just doesn’t debate the young earth ones. So it’s not a credibility issue, it’s ‘a choose your battles’ issue. He knows that the YEC position is very difficult to debate because it is extremely internally consistent. So he chooses a position that is not very internally consistent (old earth creationism) and debates that position. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t do very well against even old earth creationists like John Lennox.

Quote: The purpose of peer reviewed scholarly journals are to be a crank filter, this works fine, unless the cranks are in the charge of the journal. In this case the so called creation science journals.

You have no logical basis to say that the evolutionists who are in charge of the secular journals are less bias or more reputable than the creationists who are in charge of the creation journals. Argument is completely illogical.

A few in the secular community actually submitted a fraudulent article to the Journal of Creation for review. Their plan was to show that anyone could just write an article that supported Biblical creation and it would be published. Their article was rejected for bad scientific methodology, which is hilarious. You can actually receive a copy of the fraudulent article if you email the editors at the Journal of Creation. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out earlier, many fraudulent articles (i.e. the Pitdown man hoax) have been published in many secular journals.

Quote: Why is it all the big shots in "creation science" insist on calling themselves Dr such and such or Professor so and so. Generally big shot scientists in other fields don't bother to say they are Dr such and such or Professor so and so.

Not sure that I agree with your statement that none of the so-called big shots in the secular movement use “Dr” or “Professor” in their names. I have here in my hands “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould Ph.D. You’ll also notice that Dawkins always refers to himself as “Dr. Dawkins”. Although I am not sure I would consider him a big shot scientist.

Though if I did agree with your assertion that only the creation guys do that, I would say there is a really good reason for it. Many in the secular community who are rather ignorant about the origins debate will make claims like, “there are no creation scientists with doctorates from secular universities!” or “there are no creation scientists who are professors at university!”. So by putting “Dr.” or “Professor” by their name it’s a quick and easy we to refute those claims. It also helps to refute the misconception that they are not formally educated in science and are a bunch of ministers or something. So there you go.

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

Funny, but does nothing to support your position.

(December 18, 2010 at 5:28 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Oh you are so superior, that humble statement alone carries so much weight.

He asked if I was some sort of expert, and I pointed out that I am not a lay person in the field, that’s all. Sorry that I didn’t give the answer you were expecting or hoping for. However, I noticed you sarcastically called me humble, this implies that you believe it is right or good to be humble. Care to explain using your world view why it is right for someone to be humble and wrong for someone to be arrogant?

Quote: 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.

Oh you mean facts like the Pitdown man hoax? Yeah, that was a pretty awesome fraud that was published in your beloved secular journals. You really need to brush up on the nature of evidence. It never speaks for itself and always requires a framework for interpretation. Disappointing I know.

Quote: 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.

Nice non-sequitur. Let me guess, you also refuse to wrestle a grizzly bear because they are just too weak and a complete waste of your time? Dawkins is a coward.

Quote: I do believe he never said they were.

He was appealing to consensus which implies he believes that scientific facts are determined by it.

Quote:
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.

Why would you say I am not a scientist? The US Government pays me as one. So maybe I just play one when I am at work! Haha.

Recalibrate the method? Well they are going to have to do some serious recalibrating then, considering diamonds that are believed to be 1.5 billion years old were dated to 40,000 years old using the C14 method.

Quote: 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".

Huh? Must have missed my point.

(December 20, 2010 at 11:53 am)Thor Wrote: Where did I say that scientific facts are established by consensus? Because I didn't.

Oh whew! I was worried you actually believed that because you said, ““So, I'll throw my lot in with the 99.5% of scientists who conclude that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. You can join the handful of kooks who want to believe in an Earth that is only a few thousand years old.” I am glad that you realize that throwing your lot in with the majority is not any more rational than throwing it in with the minority since scientific facts are not determined by the majority.

Quote: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?

On the contrary, the majority of the greatest scientific minds the World has known, many of whom opened up the very disciplines you are referring to were creationists. So to say their beliefs were not founded upon science is absurd.

There are dozens of dating methods that indicate the earth and universe are very young. Do you want them from any particular discipline or just from many disciplines?

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

Non-sequitur. The shape of the Earth can be directly observed and our beliefs about it are shaped by operational sciences. The age of the earth cannot be directly observed and our beliefs about it are not based on operational sciences but rather origins/historical sciences.

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

Where did I say it has no validity at all? It was not calibrated correctly so its ages are not exact, but it is completely legitimate for establishing a maximum age for organic matter (around 100,000 years for the lowest detectable amounts) because we can empirically measure its current rate of decay. So finding it in diamonds means the maximum age for those diamonds is around 40,000 years old. Remember this is only a maximum, so the diamonds could be much younger, but cannot be any older.

Quote: 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.

Translation: “I am going to wait until someone can show me how I can force this evidence to fit my paradigm. Even though there seems to be all of this amounting evidence that does not fit an old earth paradigm, I still think believing in a young earth is ludicrous, just because.”

I am sure you are also aware that an anomaly is something that doesn’t fit the rule. So if they had only found C14 in coal and diamonds once, that would be an anomaly. However, once they started looking and testing for it, they have found C14 in coal and diamonds every time. So it’s not an anomaly, it appears to actually be the rule itself. Calling something an anomaly just because it doesn’t fit your interpretative framework is inappropriate. You need to alter your framework.

Quote: 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.

Prior to 2000 or so, C14 was not tested for in coal or diamonds, because the old earth crowd knew it could not be found in something they knew was so old. However, once it was found by creationists in the early 2000s it has been found in every piece of coal and every diamond tested (even when tested for by old earth researchers). They are now setting up tests to test for it in fossilized amber as well. It’s very likely they will find it there too.

Quote: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".

So then you don’t trust the method. If you trusted the dating method, when it said the diamonds were nearly four million times younger than originally thought you would believe they were four million times younger than originally thought.

Quote: Then why are you using it to make a conclusion?

Because I do not need an actual age for the diamonds, I just need a maximum. Radiocarbon dating is excellent for establishing a maximum age for organic matter. The maximum age for the diamonds tested is around 40,000 years. So of course a 6000 year old age for the earth is consistent with these results since it is less than the maximum. If a global flood did occur I would expect these inflated ages for organic matter, so again it’s completely consistent with my axiom.

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

Oh yes, I forgot the scientific community is infallible in your eyes. My bad.

Quote: 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.

Nope, as I already pointed out, a global flood would drastically affect radiocarbon dating, so these ages are more just maximums than proving anything. The only thing it does prove is that diamonds can’t be 1.5 billion years old like you believe they are.

Quote: 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.

Circular argument. Tsk tsk.

1: “How do you know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?”
2: “Well several dating methods suggest it’s that old.”
1: “What about when those and other dating methods suggest it is far younger?”
2: ‘well those ones need to be investigated.”
1: “Why?”
2: “Well they yield results we didn’t expect.”
1: “Why didn’t you expect those results?”
2: “Well because we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old”
1: “But how do you know the earth is that old?”


So when a dating method suggests an age you like, you accept it. When it suggests one you don’t like, you say it needs to be investigated because it doesn’t fit the ages suggested by the ones you accept. Bad logic.

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

Ok, well then you are accepting the fact that others have observed boulders falling off cliffs, and applying that through reasoning to the boulder you see at the bottom of the cliff. Your reasoning is still based off of observation. Nobody observed the forming of the earth so this boulder analogy does not apply to origins sciences.

Quote: 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.

I find it interesting you have to mention Hovind to feel like you are proving a point. Yet you do not mention any of the creation guys who have doctorates from very well respected institutions like Harvard, LSU, University of Sydney, or University of Colorado. Or any of the creation guys who have been published in some of the secular journals you probably love the most like Nature.
I kind of lump Hovind in the same class as I lump Christopher Hitchens. Neither have any scientific credentials, both make scientific claims and travel around the country doing debates trying to convince others of their viewpoint. Neither is big time in the grand scope of the origins debate.

I will not comment heavily in this thread since i do not have the time nor the relevant knowledge, however i find the "global flood" argument a pure example of the "and then a miracle happens" argument: the global flood is used by creationists to justify everything, from radiocarbon dating to continental drift and fossils of waterborne creatures in mountains. Without ever actually proving that this flood ever happened in the first place.

Creationists use this argument as an alternative to a divine intervention with the guise of appearing scientific. And i find it amusing how creationists constantly refer to this flood without providing any actual evidence for it.

I also find amusing that creationists still have never managed to prove that Evolution can"t work.

(December 27, 2010 at 8:17 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: I will not comment heavily in this thread since i do not have the time nor the relevant knowledge, however i find the "global flood" argument a pure example of the "and then a miracle happens" argument: the global flood is used by creationists to justify everything, from radiocarbon dating to continental drift and fossils of waterborne creatures in mountains. Without ever actually proving that this flood ever happened in the first place.

Creationists use this argument as an alternative to a divine intervention with the guise of appearing scientific. And i find it amusing how creationists constantly refer to this flood without providing any actual evidence for it.

I also find amusing that creationists still have never managed to prove that Evolution can"t work.

Welcome to the thread! it's been interesting for all I think. I disagree a bit with what you said about the global flood though. I feel that catastrophic plate tectonics, marine fossils on land, and inflated radiocarbon dates are evidence for a global flood. The secular side always claims there is no evidence for a global flood (although they all believe that water has covered every part of the Earth at some point in time in the past). Yet think about it for a second, what would a person expect to find if there was such an event? One thing would be flood legends in most of the cultures today because they would have descended from those on the ark (the Chinese symbol for “boat” literally means “eight people in a vessel”). Millions of dead animals buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth. We find both of these. Now the secular side has their own interpretations for these things, but they are what you would expect to find if a flood event did occur. You agree? If not, then what evidence would you accept for a global flood?

As to the evolution comment, it has been shown to be impossible. DNA contains information and the laws of information theory state that information cannot arise by natural unguided processes. People just hold onto Darwinian theory because it gives them a reason to not believe in creation.

And still no evidence FOR creationism.

(December 27, 2010 at 9:43 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: And still no evidence FOR creationism.

But give him credit. He types a lot. If he can't contribute cargo, at least he is generous with the ballast.

(December 27, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to the evolution comment, it has been shown to be impossible. DNA contains information and the laws of information theory state that information cannot arise by natural unguided processes. People just hold onto Darwinian theory because it gives them a reason to not believe in creation.

Never heard of that, maybe you're just confusing Subjective information with Objective information

Besides DNA is interpreted by the body of the animal that contains them, it's the body that creates the information and interprets it, there's no need for a creator

@ statler

I noticed this little gem in your sig.....

Quote:THE TWO TENANTS OF ATHEISM

"God does not exist...and I hate him."

This gross distortion of what atheism is only goes to prove that your position is based on what you WANT to believe, not on what the evidence suggests.

Therefore how can we take anything else you profess seriously?

---

Quote:DNA contains information and the laws of information theory state that information cannot arise by natural unguided processes.

P.s if you could be so good as to quote the specific laws relating to this,
there's a good chap.

(December 27, 2010 at 7:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: C14 was found in diamonds and coal several years ago, to this date no plausible explanation has been given by the secular side as to why it is there. So looks like you’re going to be waiting awhile for the research you like to show up.

That isn't exactly true though is it?

The results of this part of the RATE groups work have been analysed by experts in AMS i.e. the method used, who have found that the results presented are entirely consistent with levels of contamination OBSERVED and normally accounted for. The only issue here is that the RATE group have failed to account for this before presenting their results which obviously altered their conclusions.

You can call them 'silly little stories' all you like Statler, the fact is that similar levels of contamination have been observed. As such research is till ongoing in the area to clarify these issues.

Also, I know that the RATE project lasted eight years and had a budget of millions of dollars (You've mentioned it enough ). You have to accept that a project funded by, consisting of and reviewed by a group of people devoted to destroying a certain theory will always be taken with a healthy level of skepticism. That is the case and here, despite your belief that it is entirely conclusive; other are left with doubts, so its natural to await further study.

(December 27, 2010 at 7:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Due to your lack of basic scientific knowledge I just made a guess you are not a member of the scientific community. I don’t agree with many of my secular colleagues on the origins debate, but they don’t make the blatant errors you make because they are formally trained in the field.

As I recall Statler, you're an Environmental Scientist. This hardly makes you an expert in evolutionary concepts or in fact, radiometric dating. I appreciate you have some science training but it is arrogant to assume this makes you 'more of an expert' in an unconected field.

(December 27, 2010 at 7:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Care to explain using your world view why it is right for someone to be humble and wrong for someone to be arrogant?

There are many possible reasons why humility is preferable to arrogance, the benefits to your social standing being primary among those. I can't objectively say that the two position are either good or bad but subjectvely, as personal traits we can make a judgement based on how those charecteristics affect our impression of the individual.

Cheers

Sam

(December 27, 2010 at 9:43 pm)Statler Wrote: I find you equally amusing. You just assert I commit fallacies but don’t point them out. Sad but not surprising.

You are joking, right? Some have already been pointed out previously and there is a real long list every time your post.

All your arguments so far asserts is that if evolution is false then creation is more likely true; that is a bifurcation. You seek to assert your own credentials and run down other peoples in ad hominem attacks. C14 argument is an argument from incredulity. There are plenty of others.

As of my credentials, would you care to point out where I show an obvious lack of scientific knowledge/training? Which you are asserting without knowledge nor specificity. Can you also explain what you mean when you say a 'secular colleague', (on the assumption you are talking about a scientist). By definition science is secular because it is based on methodological naturalism, not supernaturalism and therefore the term is redundant.

Quote:Never heard of that, maybe you're just confusing Subjective information with Objective information

Besides DNA is interpreted by the body of the animal that contains them, it's the body that creates the information and interprets it, there's no need for a creator

Actually it’s a pretty established law, by information theorists, that information never arises devoid of a mental or intelligent source. The body’s ability to replicate (not create) DNA and interpret it is itself written in the DNA. So this would be like saying an operating system has no mental source because there are pieces in it that interpret its code for it. We have never created any piece of code that can come close to matching the scale and information holding power of DNA, to say it arose by natural means is pretty absurd.

If this law that all information can be traced back to a mental source were not valid then it would destroy the fields of archeology and anthropology because they use it all the time.

(December 27, 2010 at 9:43 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: And still no evidence FOR creationism.

Actually I have provided plenty of evidence for creation. Your unwillingness to accept it as evidence is not my problem, and comes more down to our differing interpretative frameworks. For me, the fact that specified complexity cannot arise by natural means is evidence for a creating intelligence. The fact that when you interpret the evidence using a Biblical framework it is the most consistent is evidence for creation. The fact that the prerequisites for intelligibility can only be explained through a Biblical framework is evidence for creation. We use these inferences to the best possible explanation all the time when we infer human intelligence created something, the need to use them in nature is even more reasonable and more logical in my view.

So the real question is, what exactly would you accept as evidence for creation?



The classic “Poisoning the Well” logical fallacy.

[url] http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...-well.html[/url]

That little gem as you call it is not really that far off. I think you would agree that atheists believe there is no God (using the classical definition of Atheism, not the revisionist one). I think it is also pretty apparent that rather than just stating this, many atheists go out of their way to profess their hatred for Him. I don’t believe that Santa Claus exists, but because I don’t believe he exists I don’t waste my time telling children how evil he is, or how much I hate him. So it looks silly to you when written like that, but this is more just a reflection of the inconsistency of your worldview. Rather than throwing a fit, you should be thanking me for pointing it out to you. : - )

Quote:That isn't exactly true though is it?

The results of this part of the RATE groups work have been analysed by experts in AMS i.e. the method used, who have found that the results presented are entirely consistent with levels of contamination OBSERVED and normally accounted for. The only issue here is that the RATE group have failed to account for this before presenting their results which obviously altered their conclusions.

Hey Sam,

Well of course laboratory contamination has been observed, I was speaking about natural contamination which some groups claimed is responsible for the C14. However, what you have said is not entirely true, the AMS testing was done at a professional secular lab. The lab itself stands behind their results and says all possible contamination that normally occurs in AMS was accounted and adjusted for. This can be found in the quality control portion of the RATE groups published work. The second problem with this theory is that contamination of diamonds is actually impossible due to their hardness. So if C14 was only found in coal one or two times the contamination argument might hold some water. The fact that is has been found in coal every time since and is also found in diamonds which are never contaminated does not bode well for the old earth crowd.

Quote: Also, I know that the RATE project lasted eight years and had a budget of millions of dollars (You've mentioned it enough ). You have to accept that a project funded by, consisting of and reviewed by a group of people devoted to destroying a certain theory will always be taken with a healthy level of skepticism. That is the case and here, despite your belief that it is entirely conclusive; other are left with doubts, so its natural to await further study.

I am not aware of a single research project that didn’t have a goal in mind, so I don’t think this is a legitimate objection to the RATE project (you may not agree with their goal but that doesn’t mean anything). They were completely scientific in their methodology and handling of data. If they were somehow not being scientific they would not have published their expectations prior to collecting data. You’ll find in the published work that not everything they were hoping to find was found. They were hoping that they would find no evidence that billions of years (at current rates) of radiometric decay did actually occur. They did find evidence that it did occur but they also found evidence that accelerated decay has also occurred. It was a very successful and exciting project that last eight years and cost millions of dollars (through that last part on just for you Sam : - ) )

I just wish you guys were all as skeptical of projects whose goals were to prove secular models and theories like the Miller-Urey experiments. Unfortunately they seem to get a pass and the creation guys have to do ten times better work and withstand ten times the scrutiny.

Quote: As I recall Statler, you're an Environmental Scientist. This hardly makes you an expert in evolutionary concepts or in fact, radiometric dating. I appreciate you have some science training but it is arrogant to assume this makes you 'more of an expert' in an unconected field.

Part of my work is population ecology, which of course is closely related to evolutionary theory. So I disagree with you. I am not an expert on radiometric dating, I will admit, but nobody on here is for that matter.

Quote: There are many possible reasons why humility is preferable to arrogance, the benefits to your social standing being primary among those. I can't objectively say that the two position are either good or bad but subjectvely, as personal traits we can make a judgement based on how those charecteristics affect our impression of the individual.

Cheers

Sam

That’s one of the biggest issues with the atheistic worldview, it’s internally inconsistent. Atheists make these objective claims that everything is subjective which of course is illogical. They also will make appeals to objective morality (by using “should” and “oughts”) but then when pressed about them they pass it off as just their opinion. I don’t see any reason arrogance is not a good thing using the atheistic worldview. I don’t see any reasoning why dishonesty is not a good thing using the atheistic worldview. Afterall, Muhammad Ali used is arrogance to fuel him to being the greatest boxer of all time. Using a Biblical worldview we can make these statements of “should” and “ought” because it provides a basis for objective statements and morality. Not really saying this to you in particular Sam, just kind of venting haha. I can tell you’re a decent guy.

(December 28, 2010 at 12:30 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: You are joking, right? Some have already been pointed out previously and there is a real long list every time your post.

If the list is so long then it should be fairly easy for you to point them out right? Please do, I take logical reasoning very seriously and appreciate it if people point out where I am not being proper. However, I can also point out why I do not feel I am committing the fallacy they point out of course.

Quote: All your arguments so far asserts is that if evolution is false then creation is more likely true; that is a bifurcation.

Well we kind of already addressed this earlier in the thread, but here goes. What I am doing is actually not a bifurcation. The only two propositions that can be presented for our existence are natural means or supernatural means. So when you have two contradictory possibilities as these most certainly are you can use the principle of the excluded third. Once this is done, a person can then apply disjunctive reasoning to provide evidence for one by providing evidence against the other. Since everyone on here agrees that Evolution is the best (and only really) natural explanation for the natural means and Creation was the accepted supernatural explanation prior to evolution, evidence against evolution is evidence for creation. Darwin uses this exact same logic in the Origin of Species and it is completely valid.

Don’t forget to answer, what exactly you would accept as evidence for Creation.

Quote: You seek to assert your own credentials and run down other peoples in ad hominem attacks.

Questioning someone’s authority or expertise on a subject is not an ad hominem attack.

Quote: C14 argument is an argument from incredulity. There are plenty of others.

This one is interesting because I think it actually applies to your position more than mine. My argument was completely scientific, “we observe C14 in diamonds, C14 decays far too quickly for the diamonds to be 1.5 billion years old- therefore the diamonds are not 1.5 billion years old.” This is scientific because it is completely based on observation and inductive reasoning. Your argument was more along the lines of the argument from incredibility, “C14 would mean the diamonds would be far too young which is incredible therefore unobserved contamination must have happened!”.

Quote: Can you also explain what you mean when you say a 'secular colleague', (on the assumption you are talking about a scientist). By definition science is secular because it is based on methodological naturalism, not supernaturalism and therefore the term is redundant.

Actually by definition Science is, “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” (Webster’s). By definition your explanations only have to explain the physical and natural world, the conclusions and explanations themselves do not have to be natural. So I disagree. Naturalism is not the only true science. Believing it is the only true science, is a great way to exclude possible answers to the big questions before you have examined all the evidence. So you are more just pulling a bait and switch with the words science and naturalism. Science has always been and always will be the effort to make true statements about physical reality. The truthfulness of these statements is in no way dependent upon whether they are naturalistic or super-naturalistic.