Ahh. To sort of sum up everything I've said in the past few posts in regard to the biblical view of earth.
A handy visual aid to those who wonder what the Earth and cosmos of the bible looks like.

Like a spitting mirror image of reality.

Just remember it does nothing for your resume if you spend all your time trying to enlighten a creationist shit head like statler, but it really tickles the ego of a creationist like statler to waste all your time.

Statler Waldorf;113265 Wrote:Seems like kind of an arbitrary definition to me. Considering both sides point to evidence like this, I don’t think this really proves anything. It’s not the evidence itself we disagree on, it’s the interpretation of that evidence.

Yes, scientists look at the Grand Canyon and, using a variety of disciplines, they conclude the Canyon was carved by the action of the Colorado River over a very long period of time (i.e., millions of years). You look at the Grand Canyon and conclude it was created by the flood of Noah.

This isn't "interpreting" evidence, it's making shit up to fit your fairy tale.

Quote:All I can do is read what you wrote, not what you meant to write.

And your ability to comprehend what I write is amply demonstrated a bit further below (which I'll get to shortly)....

Quote: Yes, I give serious consideration to scientific explanations that don't involve supernatural nonsense or woo-woo bullshit.

Quote:Ruling out possible answers beforehand (the supernatural) is not being objective and is hardly scientific.

There is nothing "scientific" about the supernatural. And do you really want scientists wasting their time considering "possible answers" that involve the supernatural? Suppose you have crushing chest pains and are rushed to the hospital. Would you want the doctor to "consider" the possibility that your chest pain is being caused by a demon sitting on your chest? Would you want him to run around looking for holy water so he could sprinkle it on your chest and see if that relieves your pain because the demon has been chased away? Or would you rather have him assume you're having a heart attack and administer appropriate treatment? Or would you consider such action by the doctor to be "not objective"?

Quote: So, to you, TWO examples where the majority of scientists were wrong qualifies as being wrong "time and time again"? As for the General Theory of Relativity, that was published in 1916, so it just barely falls into "the last 100 years". Also, the theory corrected what was previously incorrect. In other words, science progressed! Same goes for the discovery of DNA. Science progressed! Science long ago moved past the point where a young Earth was thought to be the case. You and your ilk have been left in the dust of scientific advancement.

Quote:You just asked if I could name any, so I did.

And your examples prove my point!

Quote:Actually there are tons of examples because any time we make a breakthrough in science it means that everyone else was wrong before that breakthrough was made.

So you want to rip science because when it makes advances, what was previously thought to be true is shown not to be? Then I suppose science shouldn't ever make new discoveries.

Quote:As to the progression argument, that is only valid if science is actually progressing towards truth.

You are confusing science with philosophy. Science does not seek "truth". Science looks for the best answer given the available evidence.

Quote:Of course, if the earth really is only 6,000 years old and was created, then adopting Evolution was not a progression at all.

And if there are invisible angels pushing the planets around the solar system, Newton's laws of motion were not a progression at all. Also, evolution has nothing to do with how old the planet is.

Quote:So that argument doesn’t really hold any water.

Says the guy who thinks the planet was created at about the same time as the Sumerians were inventing glue.

Quote: Uhhhhh... yes, we can test the validity of those claims. We do not use ONE method of radiometric dating. We use several. And they all produce similar results.

Quote:First of all this is not testing the validity of the claims, you would have to directly observe the age of the earth to do that.

Wrong.

Quote:Or have an infallible source tell you the age of the earth.

Wrong again.

Quote:Secondly, those methods actually are not very consistent, different radiometric methods yield very different results on the same rocks, and they never date rocks of known age accurately.

Source?

Quote:In fact, radiometric dating dates the flows that flow into the Grand Canyon (which are obviously younger than the canyon itself) to be older than the canyon.

Source?

Quote: No, it's a pretty poor analogy. It would be foolish to assume a person grows at a constant rate. This is not comparable to radiometric dating.

Quote:Why would it be foolish?

Because you're comparing a living being to non-living material.

Quote:If you only got to measure the person’s growth rate for a few months you would completely assume it was constant.

Yeah, if I was a complete fool.

Quote:The same goes for measuring radiometric decay rates, we assume they are constant just because we have measured them.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that decay rates change over time?

Quote:The analogies are very parallel.

I suppose to a Creationist they would be...

Quote: No, but I can observe rock formations. And the claim that layers of rock thousands of feet deep (such as at the Grand Canyon) formed in just a few thousand years (a blink of an eye in geologic time) is simply absurd.

Quote:Why? A blink of an eye in geologic time only because it assumes long ages. We have observed catastrophes that can carve out 600 foot canyons (Mt. St. Helens), assuming a global flood could do the same but at a larger scale is not absurd at all and actually rather reasonable. I assure you, the Colorado River did not carve out the Grand Canyon. I am basing my evidence on events we have observed and not unobserved events (rivers carving out huge canyons).

And here is where you demonstrate how well you comprehend what I write. I did NOT talk about how the Grand Canyon was formed! I talked about the ROCK LAYERS at the Grand Canyon! Have you ever been there? I have. And you can see the different rock layers that have been laid down over time. They are composed of different materials, fossils vary depending on the layer, and the layers are even different colors! These layers are stacked one atop the other (much like a layer cake) and total up to a mile deep. The idea that these layers piled up to that depth in the space of a just a few thousand years is absolutely laughable.

Also, the Grand Canyon is shaped just how you would expect running water to shape a canyon over a very long period of time. A one-time cataclysm would not create something like the Grand Canyon.

Quote: And what is the "correct" interpretation for the rock layers at the Grand Canyon?

Quote:As the flood waters receded back to the ocean they carved out the Grand Canyon.

Read my question again, genius. I did NOT ask how the Grand Canyon was formed. I asked you to explain the ROCK LAYERS. Care to try again?

Oh, and the idea that receding flood waters carved the Grand Canyon is simply ludicrous. I truly find it difficult to believe that any reasonably intelligent adult can believe crap like this.

Quote:Oh well that’s easy then. CMI is an international scientific organization that publishes a peer-reviewed journal that has many articles written by experts that confirm the validity of the creation model. As to acceptance in the scientific community, that’s irrelevant because we both agree that scientific fact is not determined by consensus or majority opinion.

Anything with the word "Creation" in its name does not qualify as a legitimate scientific organization or publication. So please stop trotting out this garbage.

Quote: And you have just committed the logical fallacy of making a faulty definition. I did no such thing.

Quote:Actually I was doing exactly what you were doing (to prove a point). You kept using the words “reputable” and “legitimate” sources but these of course are arbitrary terms.

Obviously you can't point to a legitimate or reputable scientific source that supports your position, so you must argue the meaning of words.

Quote:So you were deeming the only legitimate sources were the journals that agreed with your position,

This is the second time you have made this false argument.

Quote:since there are several creation peer-reviewed journals that I am sure you do not accept

There's that word "creation" again.... What if I told you the Holocaust never happened? And what if I supported my argument with "research" conducted by The Nazi Party Institute? Would you accept it?

Also, who exactly "peer-reviewed" the conclusions of the creation journals? Other creationists? This is the same as other Nazis "peer reviewing" the conclusions of Nazi researchers. Epic fail.

Quote:This of course is the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy.

And obviously you don't understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Quote: By definition, "The Journal of Creation" is most certainly NOT a "scientific source".

Quote:It may not be by your arbitrary definition, but I am not about to let you redefine the English language for the purpose of the debate.

Would you consider the "Nazi Journal" to be an "historical source" in matters concerning the Holocaust? If not, then (according to you) you are imposing an "arbitrary definition".

Quote:Using the actual definition of science the Journal of Creation is very much a scientific source, it takes a systematic approach to gaining knowledge about the physical world.

Except their "systemic approach" is tainted by their assumption that some deity created the universe. This poisons anything they may conclude.

Quote: And I can say there is strong empirical evidence to suggest the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. Recall those rock layers at the Grand Canyon?

Quote:Only if you have been around long enough to observe the age of the earth, which I highly doubt.

Go back and read what I wrote about the ROCK LAYERS. Then try to explain how they could have possibly formed in the time frame you're promoting.

Quote: How do you figure this? The DNA evidence is observable. What the woman is testifying to is NOT observable. We can't observe what she witnessed, we can only take her word for what happened.

Quote:The woman made observations, or else she wouldn’t be a “witness”.

And you miss my point. The jury can't observe what she witnessed. They can only decide if what she is saying is the truth. I must also point out that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Quote:The DNA evidence is actually rather circumstantial because just because someone’s skin is under her finger nails does not mean that man attacked her and it does not mean that the other man did not attack her.

Okay, I guess I need to be more specific. The woman fought off her attacker and she scratched his face. The police found skin under her fingernails immediately after the attack. The DNA found does not match the man she is accusing.

You still want to insist the DNA evidence is "circumstantial"?

Quote:Observation is the key to empirical science.

And we can observe those rock layers at the Grand Canyon...

Quote: Yes, we can! We have numerous methods of radiometric dating that all give us similar results. Of course, all can you do is try to discredit all radiometric dating.

Quote:This is not directly testing the age of the earth.

No, it tests the age of rocks. And we know the planet has to be at least as old as the rocks.

Quote:This is using rates and assumptions to extrapolate the age of the earth.

And do you have any evidence to suggest that the rates are in error? I mean other than just saying "it's prone to error".

Quote:Just like measuring the growth rate of the boy, it’s prone to error and does not always give you the real age of something.

So then, I guess the answer is no.

And you just love that awful analogy where you compare a living being to non-living material, don't you?

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:You are interpreting the evidence using your model and trying to use this interpretation to argue against my model, that doesn’t work. When carbon dating is calibrated taking into account a global flood which of course is part of my model it yields ages in the thousands not the tens of thousands. Besides, you can’t say my model is incorrect because the date is off by a factor of 7 when that very same date is off by a factor of 37,500 when compared to the model you accept as true.

Clearly unlike you I do not use the as yet incomplete research into C14 dates as any evidence whatsoever therefore I have no burden; YOU DO HOWEVER, and these dates reveal that the earth WAS NOT created 6k years ago. If you use this to support your argument, then you are disproving the YEC model you have put forward in that argument. Not my problem but ceratinly yours. Your position is now totally incoherent having proposed a model and disproved it, but you are now thrashing around again saying "well it disproves your model as well and by more". Agian, before you twist anymore just to repeat I am content to wait for the research, where the conjecture is that these dates are due to contamination within the mineral structures. You either have to back off using such research or deny YEC, which is it? Again, it isn't my model but the model supported by the scientific community.

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:The YEC side can explain everything you just cited very easily using a young earth model. These explanations are far more valid than “Well soft tissue can just last that long in spite of everything we have directly observed to the contrary.” Wishing away young earth evidence by just point to other evidence that you like better isn’t even a logical argument. At least the YEC side has explanations for the claimed old earth evidence.

Actually the flood model requires the initial movement of water from the oceans to the continents, not from the continents to the oceans. This water would then recede back to the oceans due to the upheaval of many of the prominent mountain ranges today (explaining marine fossils in the Himalayas). I was not getting emotional, I was pointing out the inconsistency of your logic. If you believe that the fact we do not find sea urchins “earlier” in the record means they didn’t exist then you would have to also conclude that Coelacanth didn’t exist for the last 65 million years because we never found it in the fossil record. A better logical conclusion is that because fossilization is a very rare event one cannot use the fossil record as evidence for when animals did and did not exist.

You're claim that you were pointing out inconsistency in logic is rendered redundant by the fact that you didn't! The fact you were getting emotional is evidenced by your own response.

I have already rebutted the ‘missing’ coelacanth point twice before. If you do not accept it then fair enough, but to convince others (including myself) all you have to do is do some research get it peer reviewed and into a scientific journal. I think you’ll find my explanation consistent with published research.

Sea urchins are bottom feeders, they are found only in late Tertiary sediments onwards. Your explanation is again incohrent. However these animals died or came to be in there present position, your argument is that they are found where they are becuase it is a record of death and burial over 6000 years. In which case the animals which are marine bottom feeders would be found only in the lowest sedimentary layers. You still have not explained why these bottom feeders are not found in the bottomost sediments? 3 times I've asked, 3 times no answer, just obviscation; keep trying!

As for the the conjecture of a worldwide flood, followed by extreme mountain building. This really is laughable, but you really do need to provide evidence. For a start there should be some worldide salt deposition from marine inundation, worldwide continental isostatic rebound as waters receeded, and evidence that huge mountain ranges formed a few thousand years ago. We know from historical accounts in Asia, the himalays have been there a very long time. Can't recall ever seeing Chinese accounts of 9km high mountains appearing on their doorstep all of a sudden, but then eye witness testimony should never be relied upon! Using the current worldwide measurments of mountain building rates, it takes 10's of millions of years to form such chains. Then there are the basal wrecks of previous mountain chains which have now been eroded back by the action of the earth, themselves eroded back over 10s of millions of years and having to be formed prior to that over 10s of millions of years. Again to demonstrate that it was between 4.5k and the present day that the Himalyas formed please provide some empirical evidence (mountain building rates of 5m/year would be a great start!).

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:I just realize that science is not infallible and the majority of scientists have been wrong in the past and will be proven wrong in the future. You seem to believe that somehow scientists don’t use a worldview to interpret evidence, this of course is contrary to the very nature of evidence.

Science is not infallible, but it is the best we have for truth seeking. You trust in science over religion everyday. If you or your loved ones are ill do you go to a doctor, or eschew it and pray to Jesus? Just because you have an inbuilt bias, do not try and paint everyone with the same brush. As for a worldview, you clearly have one.

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:Oh so you can’t provide any evidence to support your claims? I didn’t think so. That was easy. I already provided 25 pieces of evidence on here, the least you could do is try and find one!

Hysterical!

I don't have to, and I don't have to do your work for you, and I'm not the one with the lack of evidence. All these sciences have established well tested facts, they are available and open to the public. Scientific papers in these fields are peer reviewed, and grow by 100's of thousands every year. These sciences are fully explained and lead to predictions with reference to the ToE. All validate the ToE. YEC to the extent it can form a model doesn’t fit. Your response was as embarrassing as Behe at the Dover trial, where he proclaimed that the human blood clotting cascade was irreducibly complex and then the opposing attorney just brought out paper after paper refuting his claims slapping them down in front of him asking him if he had read them. Behes response was no he hadn't but it didn't matter becuase they wouldn't provide enough evidence. I am not the one who has my work cut out, I am not making the claims - YOU ARE; you'd better get going!

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:If you’ll notice I appealed to the greatest minds on the Creation side of the aisle (Newton and Kepler) and two of the most prominent figures on the Evolutionary side of the aisle (Darwin and Dawkins). All of which, agree with me, that supernatural creation and naturalistic creation (Evolution) are the only two possible answers to the origins debate. Now if you do not feel that Darwin was a proper authority on his own theory- then maybe you are right, maybe I did commit that fallacy. However, I think it’s pretty clear he was an authority on Evolution.

You can’t refute my claim that supernatural creation and evolution are the only two possible answers to the origins question? Then my argument stands un-refuted. (Old Earth creationism is a form of supernatural creation so you are proving my point). Like I said before, once you admit that supernatural creation has to be the only explanation due to the impossibility of naturalistic creation then we can talk about why it has to be the God of the Bible and why he did it in 6 days 6000 years ago. Get to Step 1 before we move to step 2.

I noticed you committed the fallacy of appealing to authority, called you out on it; then like so many other things you deny it. I gave you 2 alternative conjectures. You cannot use OEC to validate YEC, nor did you refute the conjecture of the Raelians and you have chosen to ignore them. Disproving evolution does not prove YEC; it is still a bifurcation.

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:Not moving the goalposts, I asked for an increase in information and you showed me an article that did not define information correctly.

No you haven’t moved any goalposts, neither have you constructed any to move; hence the problem. You have not defined information, because you can't and the response below is woefully inadequate to even start a debate. It would be useful to your argument, otherwise this is bluster.

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:Well information theory is a huge and sometimes overwhelming new scientific discipline. I can give you some very quick answers to these questions but if you want satisfactory answers I would suggest you read some of the greatest work on the subject like Werner Gitt’s book, “In the Beginning There Was Information”. He does an excellent job of demonstrating exactly how semantic information is quantified in DNA. If you don’t want to buy the book I believe AIG has it up on their website for free.
A short definition of information though would be “Specified Complexity.” This is just a short working definition that is usually very helpful. The actual Universal Definition of Information deals with four necessary conditions- code, meaning, expected action, and intended purpose. Semantic information is more measured in quality rather than sheer quantity like Shannon information. I find the best way to think of it is as books. Books hold a certain ‘amount’ of information, this information can be measure by it’s meaning or it’s ability to inform. So putting two copies of each page in a book would double the amount of Shannon information but not semantic information. Throwing random letters here and there in the book would most likely decrease the total amount of semantic information while increasing the amount of Shannon information. The article you pointed to was dealing only with Shannon information. Unfortunately for the evolutionist, the human genome holds an enormous amount of semantic information. There has never been an natural process observed to increase the amount of semantic information. So naturalistic means are cannot adequately explain the DNA molecule. I already typed more about that than I was hoping to, I would encourage you to read more on the topic.

At the moment I fell distinctly underwhelmed (not overwhelmed) by "information theory". Replacing the word “Information” with "specifed complexity" adds exactly what to a definition of “Information”? I’ll help you on this one; it does nothing at all to define what you mean by Information, nor does it quantify it, nor does it explain why it is important, nor does it explain how much a human nor other types of animal have, nor does it explain what "information" is contained in coding as compared to non-coding DNA structures. You are the expert summarise succinctly these points for us. All this is currently, is just a set of words not backed by data, trying to masquerade as science. “Specified complexity” which is another meaningless term, unless defined. Try again.

The evidence I gave you for evolution (contrary to your hysterical assertion that I hadn't provided you with any) was specific and included complexity (ie mutations which were additional bestowed enhancements to human biology improving survival, attractiveness etc.). Does this count? That may not be right (according to your definition), nor good enough for you, so why isn’t it?, what is “Information”?, how do you quantify it? etc etc. Just answer the questions and we’ll move forward.

Its almost like you have given up!

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:What! You don’t know the difference between operational and origins sciences!? I thought it was very simple, operational sciences deals with observations in the present that are repeatable; it tries to explain how the world works today and will work in the future. Origins sciences (a.k.a historical sciences) deals with what happened in the past based on inductive reasoning, it is not repeatable or directly observable.
There are hundreds of scientists who propose this theory; it’s called the creation science community lol. Besides these guys (and gals), many in the ID community are open to supernatural explanations for origins, it’s only the strict naturalists who don’t like this approach.

You have missed the point (again). In the context of this debate the distinction you are proposing adds no value whatsoever. You have not answered (again) which scientist proposes supernatural theories to explain observable facts that has gained acceptance by the scientific community. Your response is to make an arbitrary distinction between origins and operational science and then say, well its OK in origins science. It isn't OK, and I have yet to hear a single published scientist claim otherwise, nor a single scientific theory claim otherwise. Perhaps you'd like to answer a question?

Statler Waldorf;113283 Wrote:Yes, is this a statement or question? I am thinking that the fact you don’t know the difference between operational science and origins science is a pretty good indicator you didn’t receive a proper education in the field of science considering those are basic definitions.

Well , well, well. You made an unfounded assertion, invented goalposts for me then moved them on my behalf (some threads ago I might add), and make an argument such as the one above. You know NOTHING of my background and have not the good grace to retract. You sir are the one that maintains that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago, use the coelacanth as evidence to falsify evolution and C14 dates (which disprove YEC) as evidence for YEC, that the Himalayas formed in a few hundreds/ thousands of years after a worldwide flood (for which there is no evidence)..need I go on. Then claim that I did not receive a proper education in science; OUSTANDING Statler you surpass my lowest expectations.

…….. and unresponded to from my last post, do I take it you now accept all the below?:

"Twisting my words again Statler. Check my posts I didn’t say I accepted the hypothesis; just that I was willing to wait for the research. You on the other hand latch on and claim it is evidence and that diamonds are impermeable making contamination impossible (when the hypothesis being tested is that its contamination from within the mineral not extant to it). Again you have ignored that point."

"As for coelocanths and there whereabouts for the last 65m years, all we can go on are the facts. They are now represented by only two known living species. As a group they were once very successful with many genera and species leaving abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous, at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction. Before the living specimens were discovered, it was believed by some that the coelacanth was a "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods. And although they have almost human articulation on their fins, subsequent research focused on rhypstidian crossptygerian fishes (the coelacanth being a member of the same family). It is often claimed (by creationsits) that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years, but, in fact, the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa lacking or even missing from the fossil record. Unfortunatley this is not only true of coelocanths."

"Again, what are you talking about, you're arguments are becomming very ragged? The common ancestor to modern day coelocanths was first seen in the Devonian. The instance of a present day coelacanth is testament to its adaptability, survivability etc. Evolution predicts the animals change over time in response to their environment and random mutations, it says nothing about whether animals thought previously extinct (through no modern day representatives) will suddenly be found in environmental niches. The same is true with the crocodilians, they have speciated for sure since the creatceous but come down from those very ancient times almost unchanged morphologically. Except becuase they live in near shore environments, rivers lakes etc; there is better fossil evidence. Find a living dinosaur tomorrow, it does not falsify the ToE; find archaopteryx nesting in your tree, it does not falsify the ToE; find sabre tooth tigers in the tundra, it does not falsify the ToE; find tiktalik in the local swamp, it does not falsify the ToE...got it yet?...just in case....

....the ToE has never stated that animals that we think are extinct wont be found again.... and if you believe it has; find just one published scientific paper stating it.

However because of the fossil record is as good as it is we are able to trace whole lineages through large tracts of time (inc. coelocnaths when they are preserved and located in strata). There has never been a present day or near present day hominind let alone a human found in the Cambrian, our ancestral lineage as far back as the first proper mammals only goes back only to the Cretaceous, where our truly mammalian branch took hold. Therefore finding a human in the Cambrian would falsify Human evolution (at least), and probably most of mammalian evolution."

It appears that Waldorf Salad has dropped off the radar.

HO ho ho.

Zen Badger;114389 Wrote:It appears that Waldorf Salad has dropped off the radar.

HO ho ho.

That's what everyone says... just before the sensor readings display a new Klingon Bird of Prey decloaking off the port bow, firing directly into your warp nacelle and disabling your warp drive in a surprise attack. I'm not that gullible. Shields up! Red Alert! All hands at battle stations!

... I have such a craving now to find and watch Star Trek VI.

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

Zen Badger;114389 Wrote:It appears that Waldorf Salad has dropped off the radar.

HO ho ho.

That's what everyone says... just before the sensor readings display a new Klingon Bird of Prey decloaking off the port bow, firing directly into your warp nacelle and disabling your warp drive in a surprise attack. I'm not that gullible. Shields up! Red Alert! All hands at battle stations!

... I have such a craving now to find and watch Star Trek VI.

I hope he's assimilated by the Borg,that'll learn him.


Last night I began re watching 'Voyager',series 4. This is where loyal followers are first rewarded with the life altering experience of the pneumatic Seven-Of-Nine in her splendiferous, spray-on jumpsuit (and the so-annoying-I-want-to-punch-her Kess, pisses off into deep space,unfortunately in a shuttle)

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

Zen Badger;114389 Wrote:It appears that Waldorf Salad has dropped off the radar.

HO ho ho.

That's what everyone says... just before the sensor readings display a new Klingon Bird of Prey decloaking off the port bow, firing directly into your warp nacelle and disabling your warp drive in a surprise attack. I'm not that gullible. Shields up! Red Alert! All hands at battle stations!

... I have such a craving now to find and watch Star Trek VI.

[youtube]FCARADb9asE[/youtube]

Of course this is all your fault DoA

---

Hmmmm, Seven of Nine

She could assimilate me anytime she wanted.

(January 15, 2011 at 3:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: It appears that Waldorf Salad has dropped off the radar.

HO ho ho.

Nah, I am still here. There was just a lot to respond to and I had a lot going on this last week since my furnice decided to go on the fritz. I'll have a reply up by this afternoon PST.

Took me 1,2 hours to read. Your patience with this c*** should give you all the nobel prize.
Showed this thread to the colleagues and they all agreed, Waldorf is the funniest guy since Napoleon.