[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='114736' dateline='1295406030']
[quote] 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). [/quote]

[quote]Despite the fact that they have never observed a river carve out a canyon[/quote]

Oh, good grief! We don't have to OBSERVE geologic events to know what happened!

[quote]and the fact that there boulders at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that are far too large for the Colorado River to move even in flood season.[/quote]

Oh, gee... there are boulders at the bottom of the Colorado River? You don't say? And what do you think this proves?

[quote]This also ignores the fact that the Kaibab Upheaval suggests that most of the strata in the canyon were deformed while it was still saturated with water, and not over millions of years. [/quote]

Source?

[quote]Of course you can just ignore all of these facts and continue with your fallacious interpretation of the evidence. [/quote]

I don't see any "facts" that contradict the conclusion that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. Of course, you're obligated to twist your scrotum in a knot to make the evidence fit your ludicrous belief that Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon.

[quote]Creation Scientists don’t invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences, so this whole analogy is ridiculous. [/quote]


"Creation Scientists"... oxymoron of the year!

You chastise me for not considering "supernatural" explanations. Now you want to distnace yourself from supernatural explanations. You can't have it both ways, bucko.

[quote]Huh? No, I was just showing you why you should not appeal to consensus. Apparently you missed the whole point.[/quote]

And nowhere have I made an appeal to consensus. Of course, since you have virtually NO scientists who support your position, you must make resort to tactics like this.

[quote]Again, the operational sciences. Creationists do not invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences.[/quote]

Baloney. Creationists MUST invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences. How else do you account for rain flooding the planet above the tops of the highest mountains? There isn't enough water on the planet to pull this off!


[quote]Actually evolution is closely tied to the age of the earth. It needs old ages, hence why Darwin was such an advocate of the uniformitarian movement. [/quote]

Glad to see you admit this. Because evolution is quite simply a scientific fact. Therefore, the Earth is much older than you want to believe.

[quote] Wrong.[/quote]

[quote]Baseless assertion, claim stands un-refuted. [/quote]

What's baseless is your claim that you must observe the age of the age of the Earth to know how old it is.

[quote] Because you're comparing a living being to non-living material. [/quote]

[quote]So? The laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to living matter? I think they very much do. [/quote]

What do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with this? You're trying to compare the growth rate of a human with the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. BZZZZZZTTTTT!

[quote] Yeah, if I was a complete fool. [/quote]

[quote]Well you apply this same foolish reasoning to the age of the earth so….. [/quote]

Says the guy who thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time....

[quote] 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. [/quote]

[quote]Actually you are right; it doesn’t have to take thousands of years. The Little Grand Canyon in Washington State is 1/40th the size of the actual Grand Canyon (about 100 feet deep). It is completely stratified just like the Grand Canyon and even has a new stream running down the middle of it just like the Grand Canyon. The only problem is…it was formed in one day!! The canyon was formed by the sediment run off caused by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The only problem is, it displays everything you just listed above as evidence for an “old” canyon and yet we know it is very young. [/quote]

Yeah, I've seen this bullshit argument from other Creationists. So you want to compare something that was created when a mountain was basically blown apart in a volcanic eruption with something that was created by the movement of water.

BZZZZZTTTTT!!!

And, my goodness! This canyon is 100 feet deep? Yeah, that really compares to the Grand Canyon's depth of a mile. I need higher boots. The bullshit is getting deep here.

[quote] 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? [/quote]

[quote]As I pointed out above, the Little Grand Canyon also has rock layers; it’s a natural phenomenon that is caused by the different grain sizes and densities.[/quote]

And it takes a very long time for rock layers to pile up to a depth of over a mile.

[quote]It does not prove age at all.[/quote]

Actually, it does! Sedimentary rock layers take a long time to form. When you have many of these layers piled up on top of each other we know this took a VERY long time.

[quote]I find it rather unbelievable that a semi-intelligent person could believe what you believe in spite of the observed evidence to the contrary. [/quote]

What evidence?

[quote] 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]

[quote]Actually it is the same as only evolutionists peer reviewing the articles that are submitted to Nature and Science lol.[/quote]

Uh, no, it's not. The editors of "Nature" and "Science" do not have a preconceived bias. Unlike those twit Creationist publications that start with the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[quote]Can you name one scientist on the peer review board for either one of those journals who does not believe in evolution? [/quote]

One does not "believe in" evolution. One accepts the Theory of Evolution as factual. "Believing in" things is strictly the realm of the Creationist crowd.

[quote]So it is obvious you are just engaging in special pleading when you expect Creation Journals to be peer reviewed by non-creationists. Epic fail. [/quote]

Yeah, silly me. Expecting Creation Journals to be reviewed for content by reputable scientists who are experts in their field. By the way, I wouldn't insult actual scientists by referring to nitwits who work in "Creation Research" as their "peers".

[quote] 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]

[quote]I believe in judging science upon its merits,[/quote]

Obviously you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't buy into the Creationist crap.


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

[quote]Well I guess the laws of Gravity are tainted because they were discovered by someone who believed God created the earth and universe about 6,000 years ago! Bummer! [/quote]

Terrible analogy. Newton didn't start with an assumption and try to build his theories around it. However, this is exactly what Creationists do when performing "research".

[quote] You still want to insist the DNA evidence is "circumstantial"? [/quote]

[quote]DNA evidence is by definition circumstantial evidence yes. Hence why OJ Simpson was not convicted for murder criminally despite the fact they had DNA evidence to support the DA’s charges. This was because the jury believed (wrongfully I believe) that the DNA evidence was planted. [/quote]

No, OJ Simpson wasn't convicted because the jury was not going to convict him no matter what evidence was presented.

[quote] And we can observe those rock layers at the Grand Canyon... [/quote]

[quote]Yes you can, so you can say you have strong empirical evidence that there are rock layers at the Grand Canyon. I would not argue with this at all, especially since I have seen them myself. [/quote]

And how do you think the rock layers came to be piled up like that? Rock layers a mile deep? And you think this happened in just a few thousand years? (Nice try at avoiding the issue I raised, BTW).


[quote] 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]

[quote]The fact that these methods can’t date correctly of rocks of known ages is pretty strong evidence that the rates are not constant. If the method can’t work when used on material of known age there is no reason at all to believe it all of the sudden works on materials of unknown ages. I am sorry. [/quote]

And, as usual, you're wrong. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

I've been reading Richard Dawkin's book on evolution. In it, he refers to Creationists as "a baying pack of ignoramuses". For some reason, I thought of you!

(January 19, 2011 at 6:48 pm)Thor Wrote: Oh, good grief! We don't have to OBSERVE geologic events to know what happened!

Interesting. If you have never observed something happening then you’d have no idea what the results of that process looked like to infer the event happened elsewhere. We actually have observed catastrophic events carving out canyons, and those results look identical to the Grand Canyon. So I believe this is a more scientific approach.

Quote: Oh, gee... there are boulders at the bottom of the Colorado River? You don't say? And what do you think this proves?

Well obviously forces greater than the Colorado River got them there, one such force would be global flood waters receding.

Quote: Source?

It’s pretty well documented, here is a quick article to read though.

[url] http://creation.com/grand-canyon-strata-...-imaginary[/url]

Quote: You chastise me for not considering "supernatural" explanations. Now you want to distnace yourself from supernatural explanations. You can't have it both ways, bucko.

I chastised you for not considering supernatural explanations for origins, not operational sciences. Big difference…bucko.

Quote: And nowhere have I made an appeal to consensus. Of course, since you have virtually NO scientists who support your position, you must make resort to tactics like this.

LOL!!!! You did it again! If you are not appealing to consensus then why would you even mention how many scientists support my position? In the early 20th century only one scientist believed in special relativity, and that was irrelevant to its overall validity. You crack me up.

Quote: Baloney. Creationists MUST invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences. How else do you account for rain flooding the planet above the tops of the highest mountains? There isn't enough water on the planet to pull this off!

I am sure you probably meant bologna huh? :- ) Of course there is! Jacques Cousteau said that if you raise the deep ocean trenches you’d have enough water to cover the highest mountains by 10,000 feet. Creationists have a catastrophic plate tectonic model that works perfectly fine. In this model an upheaval of the ocean floors causes ocean water to rush and cover the continents. The model works perfectly from a physics point of view and has been shown off at geology conferences nationwide, I assure you it does not invoke the supernatural. Besides, the global flood is not part of operational sciences because we cannot observe it and repeat it in the present. It’s more along the lines of the “Big Bang” which is part of origins sciences.

Quote: Glad to see you admit this. Because evolution is quite simply a scientific fact. Therefore, the Earth is much older than you want to believe.

Lol, yeah right. How do you know all animals on earth have a single common ancestor? Did you observe this? Facts are based off of observation.
]

Quote: What's baseless is your claim that you must observe the age of the age of the Earth to know how old it is.

Another assertion. I guess I just have a stricter definition of science than you do.

Quote: What do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with this? You're trying to compare the growth rate of a human with the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. BZZZZZZTTTTT!

We are talking about aging and rates, if you can’t see how the laws of thermodynamics relate to aging, then there is not much I can do for you.

Quote: Says the guy who thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time....

Coelacanths and people did and do, how do you know that dinosaurs and people never did?

Quote: Yeah, I've seen this bullshit argument from other Creationists. So you want to compare something that was created when a mountain was basically blown apart in a volcanic eruption with something that was created by the movement of water.

BZZZZZTTTTT!!!

Well then you should be well aware that “The Little Grand Canyon” was formed by run-off (water) caused by Mt. St. Helens quickly melting snow pack. A bit surprised you didn’t know that.

Quote: And, my goodness! This canyon is 100 feet deep? Yeah, that really compares to the Grand Canyon's depth of a mile. I need higher boots. The bullshit is getting deep here.

If local flood waters from a little volcanic eruption can carve out a hundred foot deep canyon in one day, it’s not unreasonable at all to believe that global flood waters could carve one a mile deep in a few years. Besides you are the person who thinks that rivers that erode only a few Cm a year could carve out a canyon a mile deep. Special pleading. At least we have observed flood waters carve out canyons, we have never observed a river do it over millions of years.

Quote: And it takes a very long time for rock layers to pile up to a depth of over a mile.

You know this how? We have seen them form 100 feet deep in one day. Given that same rate it would only take 52 days to form one mile’s worth. So the math is not in your favor.

Quote: Actually, it does! Sedimentary rock layers take a long time to form. When you have many of these layers piled up on top of each other we know this took a VERY long time.

Sedimentary rocks formed in a matter of days with Mt. St. Helens, so it appears it does not take that long for them to form. Unless a couple days is a “really long time” to you.
]

Quote: What evidence?

Well like just above, you believe it takes long periods of time to form sedimentary rock layers despite the observed evidence that contradicts this belief.

Quote: Uh, no, it's not. The editors of "Nature" and "Science" do not have a preconceived bias. Unlike those twit Creationist publications that start with the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

LOL! Special pleading. So it is ok for your journals to be reviewed by only evolutionists but it is not ok for creation journals to be reviewed by creationists. Classic case. How do you know the editors of Nature and Science are not biased?

“‘(T)here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.’8 “
- Nature’s editorial page.

Let’s hear from an actual editor of one of your peer reviewed journals…
“‘If an editor chooses to publish a hostile review of a book, common politeness would suggest that the author ought to have some space to respond. But editors have a “higher calling” than common politeness, namely the editorial mission and guidelines that inform every decision as to what will be printed and what will be rejected. I have learned, since becoming the editor of Research News, common politeness is often in tension with editorial priorities … In my editorial judgment, the collection of ideas known as “scientific creationism” (which is not the same as intelligent design) lacks the credibility to justify publishing any submissions that we get from its adherents. I would go even further, in fact. The collection of creationist ideas (6,000 year old earth, no common ancestry, all the fossils laid down by Noah's flood, Genesis creation account read literally, etc.) has been so thoroughly discredited by both scientific and religious scholarship that I think it is entirely appropriate for Research News to print material designed to move our readers away from this viewpoint. For example, we might publish a negative review of a book promoting scientific creationism … while refusing to allow the author a chance to respond. Is this an unfair bias? Or is it proper stewardship of limited editorial resources?’”
- Karl Giberson, editor of Research News

So not only is he rejecting articles before he has read them, (sounds like bias to me) but he will favor other articles just to move readers away from these viewpoints (sounds like bias to me again). So your whole position is completely circular.

“Why don’t creation articles get published in secular journals much?”
“Well because they are not scientific!”
“Why are they not scientific?”
“Well name one secular journal that publishes their work! See!? They are not scientific!”

Quote: One does not "believe in" evolution. One accepts the Theory of Evolution as factual. "Believing in" things is strictly the realm of the Creationist crowd.

Red herring, I noticed you didn’t answer the question, because you can’t name any that don’t “believe in” or that don’t “find evolution factual”.

Quote: Yeah, silly me. Expecting Creation Journals to be reviewed for content by reputable scientists who are experts in their field. By the way, I wouldn't insult actual scientists by referring to nitwits who work in "Creation Research" as their "peers".

No true Scotsman fallacy. You are also basing this whole argument on circular reasoning as I pointed out above.

Quote: Obviously you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't buy into the Creationist crap.

Obviously you don’t, because you buy that evolution crap. So where is this Nazi Journal? Oh, you just made it up! Thought so.
]

Quote: Terrible analogy. Newton didn't start with an assumption and try to build his theories around it. However, this is exactly what Creationists do when performing "research".

Proof? Source? Example?

Quote: No, OJ Simpson wasn't convicted because the jury was not going to convict him no matter what evidence was presented.

But I thought that DNA evidence could prove things beyond all doubt? Apparently not.

Quote: And how do you think the rock layers came to be piled up like that? Rock layers a mile deep? And you think this happened in just a few thousand years? (Nice try at avoiding the issue I raised, BTW).

Rocks layers can be formed a hundred feet deep in one day, of course they can be formed a mile deep in years.

Quote: And, as usual, you're wrong. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

Yet your little old earth source fails to give any real examples demonstrating radiometric dating’s reliability! Nice! Here are some examples for you…

Rocks dated with the K-Ar method formed by Mt. St. Helens were dated to be 350,000 years old. Of course this is ridiculous because we observed the rocks to be formed in 1986. When the mineral concentrations in these same rocks were dated, they yielded even worse results, 2,800,000 years old.

Rocks formed by the Mt. Nguaruhoe’s eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975 were dated with the K-Ar method yielding dates ranging from 270,000 years to 3,500,000 years old.

So yeah, those look fairly reliable to me, don’t you agree? Haha.



Examples from “Isotopic Compositions of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks” published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters Vol. 8.

Quote: I've been reading Richard Dawkin's book on evolution. In it, he refers to Creationists as "a baying pack of ignoramuses". For some reason, I thought of you!

Yeah I am not surprised you read that guy’s “work”. You make a lot of the same errors in reasoning and logic he does. I personally wouldn’t really put much stock in a man who believes his purpose in life is to show others that there is no purpose in life.

(January 19, 2011 at 8:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(January 19, 2011 at 6:48 pm)Thor Wrote: Oh, good grief! We don't have to OBSERVE geologic events to know what happened!

Interesting. If you have never observed something happening then you’d have no idea what the results of that process looked like to infer the event happened elsewhere. We actually have observed catastrophic events carving out canyons, and those results look identical to the Grand Canyon. So I believe this is a more scientific approach.

What about god he clearly lacks observable proof, so does everything in the bible lacks observable proof, how do you know that Jesus existed you only have a book that tells you that he did how observable is that?

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother, Creationists developed the scientific method!!! It’s as simple as that, so of course they use it. Hate to break it to you, everyone “ignores” evidence that contradicts their worldview because they use their worldview to interpret the evidence. Go to any scientific convention today and I challenge you to stand up in the middle of the room and shout “Isaac Newton was not a real scientist!” You’ll be laughed out of the room. This is a silly game that has been disproven time and time again. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is not anymore more valid when you commit it than anyone else.

Since you apparently don't quite understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy is, here is the description.

No True Scotsman Fallacy Wrote:The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.

I have not performed this fallacy because I have given reasons for what I have stated and backed them up. You, on the other hand, rarely back anything you say up but you've gotten a lovely penchant for telling me that I'm wrong without really doing anything to provide counter-evidence.
You've off-handedly stated things like, oh I don't know, "Creationists developed the scientific method!!!" despite this clearly not being the case.
You have yet to make any links or anything (other than simply telling me) involving your religion actually creating science - particularly when the only evidence that religion has actually instigated scientific progress was the Islamic nations during the dark ages - during which they invented things like Algebra literally because it was in their religious doctrine to do so before they up and decided that math and science were the devil and went into a slump to which they have yet to recover.
Christianity, to my knowledge, does not and has never had any such doctrine unless they, unlike you and others like you, have wholly abandoned the notion of literal creationism. Embracing creationism is the antithesis of performing science.

You can say that christianity is the source of all science all you want, but history says otherwise since the scientific method predates christianity and instantly invalidates your attempts to convince anyone that this method is tied to your religion. To my knowledge, the exact origin of this method may even predate history but it's earliest roots are in humanity's earliest civilizations.

Further, no, not everyone ignores evidence that contradicts their worldview and even if they did, the scientific method and peer review weed out such details. Scientists with any credibility who desire a future in the scientific field must accept where the evidence points to the strongest.
For example, Stephan Hawking once asserted that information that fell into a black hole was lost forever. He was ultimately wrong and despite stubburnly refusing to accept this, he eventually conceded because the evidence to justify that that wasn't true became overwhelingly against his theories.
Those that generally go against where the evidence leads eventually end up either loosing their career or they loose all credibility as a scientist.
Given that 'creation scientists' do not follow these principles and avoid any evidence against their faith, they are, by definition, not scientists in the same way that that someone who is a member of the Judean Front of the People is not a member of the People's Front of Judea.

As such, I can conclusively prove not only that you are wrong on science's origin being tied to your christian faith or any faith period, you are also completely wrong on my performing the logical fallacy of "no true scotsman", and although you keep bringing up Newton and others as christian scientists, you have yet to make any connection between their science and their faith as two parts of the same distinct whole... other than your word that this is the case, particularly since Newton didn't create this theories as a result of any relationship he had with the church.
Therefore, with more than enough reason and backing to my claims, you are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am sorry but this is just more ignorant intellectual refuse. Of course scientists have preconceived ideas and presuppositions. I’ll list a few for ya.
1. Their senses can be generally trusted.
2. Their memories are generally reliable.
3. There is expected uniformity in nature; the future will resemble the past generally.
4. If they are naturalists then they believe beforehand that all truth claims can be found in nature alone.
5. There are laws of logic that need to be adhered to.


Of course all scientists hold the above preconceived ideas before they conduct any science, you suggesting they do not is ridiculous.

How ironic that you would call my post intellectual tripe and then post this.
1. Our senses can generally be trusted because they have been proven to be reliable throughout human history and as science has progressed, we've since learned the ins and outs of our senses to the extent that they can be measured. As such, this isn't a preconcieved notion so much as proven evidence both directly (because we all have senses) and indirectly (we can prove that other humans and other creatures have these and other senses we do not possess and the degree to which they work.
2. Like our senses, our memory has proven reliable, not because we think it's reliable. Not a preconcieved notion.
3. There is expected uniformity in nature and this has been proven though the course of scientific progress. Things don't just happen for no reason and each day we find more nuances about natural phenomena in the natural world that we didn't quite understand before. As such, it's not a preconcieved notion that uniformity in nature and that the past will resemble the future, it has proven to be the case upon scruitiny.
4. As you so undoubtedly love to point out, not all scientists are atheists are purely naturalists. There are scientists of all stripes, colors, faiths, and origins. The main thing that bonds all scientists is a willingness to learn and the ability to think critically about the world we live in in their own manner. They study the world we live in and work within the world we all live in. The fact that there are only naturalistic explainations for occurances and events is because this is where the evidence from studying the natural world has brought us. As such, this claim is just outright wrong.
5. I... suppose that's a preconcieved notion, but I find it hard to believe that the scientific credo is 'we must be logical' because hte idea just stinks of the kind of silliness you'd hear if I added a sixth number that said we must all follow the preconcieved notion of breathing to stay alive. Being logical is a necessity to function in society and is a natural function of the human mind (assuming said human mind is sane) to the point to where I find it hard-pressed to count it as a preconcieved notion so much as a sign of one's sanity.
But what the hey, I'll give that point to you anyway so that'll just make you 1 for 5.

Regardless, creationism is a preconcieved notion that is completely unlike the others. There is no evidence for it and all the science of it has been refuted succesfully even by someone like myself who argues about this essentially for my own entertainment. That said, the reason creationism isn't science is because scientists do actual science and they do not indulge in fantasy.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: "Creation Scientists" I'm sure have a great deal of who-ha in the world of theology but unless they moonlight with the secular scientists and discard their preconcieved notions at the door, they only tend to splash with like-minded people.

Again, more garbage. Creation scientists work at some of the most prestigious labs in the world and have helped with some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in modern history (The Apollo Space Program for example). So keep making these ridiculous claims, they are easy to respond to.

I love how your claims become more and more grandiose without any evidence of any kind.j
The Apollo program? Really?
I don't know what you think you know since you won't share any evidence of yours, but from my apparently limited knowledge, the National Areonautics and Space Administration built and launched the Apollo Missions, which is a government body of the United States of America.
Note that none of those things above are affiliated with any religion or any church, as guarenteed by the United States Constitution. No where in any account of Apollo or NASA involves religious representation or involvement. Creation science has done nothing for the modern world.

I'm sure they're easy to respond to when you keep making things up and never providing evidence.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Where do you come up with this stuff? They conducted scientific inquiry using the scientific method when it came to operational sciences, just like every other creation scientist out there. So this in no way makes them secular. When it comes to origins sciences they had no beef at all with believing in a supernatural creation 6,000 years ago just like creation scientists today. I am sorry, but I will let the actual developer of the scientific method determine what is and is not appropriate science rather than your misinformed opinion.

Again - many grandiose claims, no evidence, no backing, and history disagrees with you.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I didn’t realize you were the final authority on what is and is not proper astronomy haha. Since you seem to believe that there are “true” and “false” synchronism conventions despite what Einstein said on the subject; do you also believe there are “true” and “false” measurements of length and weight? Is saying something is a mile long instead of 1609 meters “false” in your view? You are small time man.

What I am and am not is irrelevant. If ASC can't stand up to scrutiny, even to a layman observer who has any understanding of science, astronomy, and relativity, then there's a good reason why ASC is only seen by people who are fighting against science to prove their silly Young Earth ideas and not any actual scientists. It's not my fault that someone apparently so educated as to be an astrophysicist (as perported by AIG) wrote up a paper so full of holes that anyone bothering to read it can point out how inane it is upon a casual read-through.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yup! Very good. I have no idea why you would apply rules that only apply when using the ESC to the ASC. I think it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what synchrony conventions really are.
I hope you don’t do this all the time, “No that can’t be one inch long! That violates the metric measurement system! It has to be 2.54 Cm long!” “Well I was using the English measurement system, not the metric.” “What! The English measurement system? That doesn’t even exist!” lol.

I have no idea why this theory is believed to have any credibility with you or anyone considering it so plainly and obviously violates relativity given the very basic premise of special relativity and the conclusion reached by the linked paper on ASC, as I have and can continue to demonstrate. Especially considering that you have yet to demonstrate anything counter to my claims, except, once again, merely your erroneous attempts to swing the topic to something else to what I can only assume is to avoid actually addressing the response.
Sadly, all the measurement systems in the world isn't going to make light move any faster or slower than nearly 300,000 km/second in a vacuum. Let me know when someone somewhere demonstrates something from ASC. Until then, it is and will remain some two-bit paper written by a hack of an astronomer.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

special relativity Wrote:1.The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity),
2.The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

Yup! Guess what synchrony convention that uses!! ESC! Guess what synchonry convention Dr. Lisle is using! ASC. So again, why you would make this silly argument is beyond me. Like Einstein said, there is no “true” measurement of time, therefore as long as you declare which synchrony convention you are using (As Lisle has) you are completely in step with old Albert.

See, the problem is that "old Albert" and that paper reach two wholly seporate conclusions. One of them is and always has been testable and is currently the mainstay of modern physics and may very well likely be there for a long time yet to come.
ASC can only be found at AIG and other related websites as well as skeptic and pseudoscience debunking sites.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yeah because it’s not like he has a Ph.D in astrophysics (graduating top of his class at Colorado), did his graduate work with NASA’s SOHO Spacecraft, and is a member of the American Astronomical Society. I think it’s pretty obvious that it is you who needs to brush up on your physics and astronomy. I don’t even like astronomy and I have been able to point out your errors.

Yeah, 'cause you know how to best respond to someone poking holes in his research is to tell me about the person who wrote it and therefore I... must need to brush up on physics and astronomy... or something.
Anyway, whatever he was in the past, he clearly (thanks to several google searches on who he is and what he's been up to) only talks to creationists now and is employed by answers in genesis, which only tells me that whatever he does with his time, efforts, and education isn't accepted by the scientific community which essentially just tells me that his theories, papers, and lectures aren't taken seriously by the scientific community.
Which ultimately tells me that he's as credible in science as a tobacco PR guy is on the health risks of tobacco.

That said, you've once again demonstrated that you are either unwilling or unable to actually provide me with anything that would demonstrate that I am wrong about my points isofar as ASC is concerned.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ahh! So people during Bible times were “dumb” enough to think the earth was flat, but “smart” enough to know that circular objects have ‘corners’? Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Besides, you atheists can’t ever agree on this point, most atheists I have talked to believe the Bible describes the earth as flat and square. I guess your other question can be turned around on you, how do you know when any author is using a metaphor? Usually you take into account the intent of the piece of writing, just as I have done here. The Bible was never intending to inform its readers about the shape of the earth, as I have pointed out before they were quite aware of its real shape anyways.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I've been following this discussion since it started and I have yet to see any of us disagree on the point of either the Earth's true shape or the one depicted in the bible. Ergo, I can only conclude that this mention is a strawman or, at best, simply irrelevant. I've only mentioned the earth as being flat and having corners, I never discussed any other shapes the earth is isofar as what the bible perports the earth as being.

The Apollo 13 movie never intended to inform its viewers about the true shape of the earth either, being a story about a trip from the earth to the moon yet since the story mentions it and include a number of metaphors on the way, they manage to always get the shape right. I have no reason to believe that the bible does this any differently, aside from, unlike Apollo 13, being entirely fictional instead of merely embellished history.

I've already covered the ordeal with metaphors in the previous post and I see nothing in this post that disqualifies my assertions in my previous posts, ergo I'm going to conclude that your assertions in regard to my understanding of the use of metaphor in the bible to be irrelevant until you evidence otherwise.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What a waste of time. I think it’s beyond obvious when the Bible is using a metaphor and apparently so does every major theologian throughout church history. It’s even more apparent when a person examines the original Hebrew because of the verb usage. Take a look at the example you used about God sitting above the circle of the earth watching over the people below like grasshoppers. Of course God is not actually sitting above the earth and the earth is not actually a flat circle. This verse is using anthropomorphic language to illustrate a point. God is omnipresent and omniscient, so he knows all and is everywhere. So his relationship to man is like he is watching over him from far above where he can see all he does. I thought this was pretty obvious, it’s obvious to me and all major theologians, I am still a bit perplexed as to why it is not obvious to you. Then again, the Bible says it is, you just suppress the truth (Romans 1).

I'm sure you think you do but all I see is someone picking and choosing what is and is not a metaphor considering that you've apparently decided that the earth is young and most of science is wrong based on what's in the bible but when it says something that everyone and literally everyone knows and understands is wrong, you excuse it by saying it's a metaphor.
All you're doing is making excuses and rather poor and transparent ones at that.
The points I've made are established from beginning to end and is consistent throughout the bible on the points I've made but those established realities of the bible are wrong, but a six-day creation event is right and quite literal.
I call BS.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well it’s probably because what you request is more of a fool’s errand than anything else.

I agree, though probably not for the reason you imagined.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It would be no different than me saying, “Prove to me that Poe really didn’t believe that Ravens had eyes made of fire.” You would go about doing this exactly as I have with the Bible. You would say, “Well the intent of the passage is not to inform the reader about the material that Raven’s eyes are made of.” Or even, “Well it’s pretty obvious this is a metaphor because we know that Raven’s do not have fire in their eyes.” To all of which I could just say, “You are not providing me with any reason to believe that Poe didn’t really believe Ravens had fire in their eyes.” So in short, you are asking for a level of proof that cannot be given no matter what the piece of writing and who the author. I think looking at the author’s intent and the manner in which the terms are used is pretty reasonable.

I'm not asking anything unreasonable. I'm asking you to back up your claims.
Simply telling me that the idiot who wrote up the anisotropic light thing is certainly an astrophysicist, but a Ph.D. isn't an instant ticket to unquestioning authority on a matter.
When Stephan Hawking says something about astrophysics on his personal blog, that's one thing, a scientifically peer-reviewed and published paper written by Stephan Hawking along with test data and results is a completely different matter and you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of this key point in a debate of science versus creationism.

The constant misdirections and strawmen arguements aren't helping you either.
I never said you have to prove something impossible but you have to do more than simply reassure me that I'm wrong because I've demonstrated otherwise.
For example, if I wanted to demonstrate that the raven doesn't literally have eyes of fire, I merely need to point out the other passages involving the raven and note the use of literary techniques, including the copious use of metaphor and simile, throughout the passage to find the deeper meaning within the works.
I could honestly say the same thing about the bible, but I'm not the one that chooses to interpret some parts literally and cherry pick the ones that are metaphor due to some inane worldview.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh good, well then you can’t really object to the text then because it just says Christ was taken to the mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the earth. It never says how he was shown all the kingdoms, so I don’t see any issue with the text. I believe Christ was taken to the mountain and shown all the kingdoms, exactly what the text says happened.

It doesn't really mention any other way that Christ was shown all the kingdoms of the world, either. Otherwise, you're just inserting your own meaning into the passage to avoid the conclusion I used that passage for in a vain attempt to disqualify the passage as evidence of a flat earth.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, sure, you go ahead and believe the sun orbits the earth; I’ll believe the earth orbits the sun from the framework of the sun.

I don't and my statement doesn't require or assert that the sun do any such thing. I've used all the terms and my assertions correctly and you would know that if you bothered to check my links or know what the definitions of those terms mean then you would see why I said what I said.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are just making these rules up again. If Poe had described the Raven as having fiery eyes every time we see it in the story I still would not think that Poe really thought Ravens had eyes made of fire. I would still think that he is using a metaphor. You seemed to have also ignored the passage in Luke that talks of day and night happening simultaneously on earth which of course implies a spherical earth. So there are times the Bible implies a spheroid, just not when it is using metaphors to convey different points to the readers.

... apparently actually posting the definition of metaphor with examples hasn't swayed you.
I would agree with you if poe used the exact same metaphor in a smilar manner to describe the exact same thing but the bible lists few such passages in this manner and they're not consistent in that manner. Once again, you state something with no evidence to to the contrary of my backed assertions. So, in short, no I'm not making shit up considering I clearly bothered to read the stuff I researched and posted.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you are suggesting you can indeed move the Earth from the relative perspective of the Earth? Wow, I think you should read a physics book.

This is the funniest thing you've said yet. Clearly I need to let you know what a frame of reference actually is:

Definition of Frame of Reference Wrote:1: an arbitrary set of axes with reference to which the position or motion of something is described or physical laws are formulated
2: a set of ideas, conditions, or assumptions that determine how something will be approached, perceived, or understood <a Marxian frame of reference>

So if the frame of reference is the earth itself, I can percieve it as moving from the frame of reference of the earth by watching it move through space with a telescope, the exact same way that a car is percieved to be moving from the frame of reference of the car by watching things move past it and viewing the way the car interacts with the road.
and speaking of making things up as we go along, nothing in the passage noted anything that ignores everything but what was being referenced.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again you are just making these rules up. Myself and all the major theologians throughout history think it’s pretty obvious this is a metaphor, but what do they know? They only spent their entire lives studying this book.

Good for you and them. It still doesn't disprove or provide evidence against the point I made.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Simile and Metaphor in Descriptive Writing Wrote:What is a Metaphor?
A metaphor also compares two things, but a metaphor does not use the words like or as. Instead, the metaphor makes a comparison as if the two things are one and the same. The simile examples above are turned into metaphors by changing a few key words.

That’s not the same rule you were using before. You said the metaphor has to be constructed exactly the same as a simile just minus the “as” or “like”. This definition clearly does not say that, and to the contrary says metaphors can be constructed just like statements (despite what you said earlier) like “The Air is syrup”.

You mean this one?

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:I'll give you an exmaple.
If a book I was reading had a sentence that stated
"The air in the room was thick, a slow moving syrup"
I would know that this is a metaphor because it is phrased exactly like a simile without the word 'like'.
"The air is a thick syrup." is not a metaphor. It is a statement.
If you can't tell the difference, then don't tell me what is and is not a metaphor.

I've also given other examples you've summerily ignored since the post in which this originated, but in this quote I said that I would know that this word in the example above is a metaphor because it is like a simile without the word 'like'.
Of course, it had no context within a larger body of work, but that's neither here nor there for a moment but I demonstrated a difference between a metaphor and a statement of fact to which you were either unable or unwilling to provide a demonstration or evidence that I was wrong.

Go ahead and find someone and mention that the air is a slow moving syrup. I can't imagine someone taking it as a metaphor, unlike the actual metaphor before it. As such, I have not given a 'rule' that wasn't given to me by the actual definition of the term - both literally stated and given through example. I've given three such definitions, if I recall correctly.

So unless you have something to demonstrate that my statements were invalid, I have no reason to believe that you have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother, they can trace lineage yes, but they cannot tell from my genes how long my great great great grandfather lived. To suggest that is ridiculous. A shortening of telomeres could have very easily happened at the bottleneck event of the flood, just so happens that we stop seeing such extended lifespans after this event. Has nothing to do with evolution, in fact genetics shows us that we are in fact “devolving” since the number of known genetic disorders and diseases is far greater today than it was in the past, which of course is exactly what we would expect from a biblical point of view. Dr. Robert Carter is a geneticist and has done extensive work with gene sequencing and he sees no problem with people having greatly extended lifespans in early history, I will take his word for it.

Wow. I don't even know where to begin to address this fail-train to dumbsville.
For starters, yes, not only is this possible to do, but it's something doctors, geneticists, biologists, and so on have been doing for years. If your ancestor had the genes that would have given him thick and long-lasting telomeres, then not only can we tell from his genetics that he would have lived a longer time than the average human (assuming disease, murder, or some enviornmental factor didn't end his or her life abruptly). It's the same we can tell if someone will develop a genetic disease, had one, carries one, or anything else.
Further, geneticists are not only capable of measuring the differences and changes in a particular set of DNA, but they are capable of determining which changes, where, and when. It's the reason why resurrecting ancient dead animals from the creatures they've evolved into is now a possibility.

I could also say quite a bit about genetics and evolution considering they go hand-in-hand with one another. Yet, there is too much information out there for me to research and sum up here for you to summerily ignore, say I'm wrong, and then assume that telling me I was wrong in a point in your favor, so I'll let my links speak for me because there isn't enough time in the day for me to show how evolution works and we can tell and accurately measure changes through genetics.

After all, real science can be done when you're not forced into a 'biblical point of view.'

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Really? Which passage? I noticed you didn’t give one. So my point stands un-refuted. I don’t think you want to enter into a theology discussion with me my friend.

I put the passages up, it's not my fault you didn't repost them. Mark 16:16 for example but there were four others in addition to that one that refuted your point that people do not choose their own salvation. Clearly, however, the bible evidences that people can be saved through any number of methods. Baptism and belief being the method described in Mark.
Unless that too, is a metaphor.
In any case, choosing to be saved through enrolling the use of these noted methods is the route to salvation. Not everyone is doomed to hell, despite God's best efforts.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually it is very much consistent with God’s actions in the Bible. God is perfection, truth, and determines what is right and wrong so whatever he does is good by definition. To say otherwise shows a basic ignorance of Christian theology.

Yes, clearly Noah's flood was a metaphor for how much god loves us and clearly not a genocide of everyone for sin, which was something god purposefully put in the garden of eden and clearly designed the first humans in such a manner that they would have given into temptation and then put the thing they were to never touch amongst them. Being omnicient, he would have known the result of all of this the instant he decided to create everything and despite that, he punished us for the inherant sin left in all of us since this event.
I'll keep your statement in mind about god being good no matter what he does the next time I have the inkling to release a strain of genetically modified ebola virus into the general population or use a nuclear weapon to set fire to a continent since that's clearly a strive for the perfection of god.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: According to whom? You? I am sorry, you do not determine right and wrong for me.

I never tried to. I wouldn't touch 'christian morality' with a 10ft pole.
I'll have to remember this the next time a pasteur says something about the repeal of DADT (don't ask don't tell) instigating the fall of humankind or whatever natural disaster of the month kills thousands as a result of being nice to gay people.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I noticed you failed to point out how babies are not cosmic accidents without any real value in your worldview. So I guess the point stand un-refuted.

I didn't answer because the question was so silly that I wasn't even sure if I should take it seriously or not. I also have the question the necessity
Babies aren't a cosmic accident because they happen whenever a consenting couple choose to concieve a child or at least consent to the act of concieving a child.
The process is neither cosmic nor an accident.

I value human life because I am a human being myself and I have value in my own life and the life of others to varying degrees. I value the lives of others because I am a social being and I need other people to function and grow as a human being as much as I need everything else a human values as much as they need me.
The difference between myself and theists is that I value humans not out of being told to, forced into doing so (via the threat of eternal damnation), nor do I feel the need to dehumanize my neighbors by believing that the only reason I have morality is because some supernatural entity had to instill it within me. My morality is entirely my own and it required neither coersion nor direction by something else.
That is to say that I value human life because I choose to.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So murder didn’t exist before Noah Webster told us what it was? Besides, it says there it is covered by US Law, of course US Law does not apply to God because it applies to humans only, a point I already made. Go ahead and keep on trying to apply America’s legal definitions to God though, it’s kind of funny. If God really did commit murder maybe you should try and bring him to trial and see how far you get lol.

Another strawman, another response from Statler Waldorf...
No. I said that murder is what happens when someone kills a human being. There is no definition that I can find that says murder happens when a human kills another human both by law and by the literal definition of the term, which I evidenced in my previous post to which you have yet to properly respond to. Which means that you were wrong to attempt to define it as such.

I would bring god to a trial, but the law doesn't cover fictional characters over fictional crimes.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: To the contrary! It’s the Christian worldview that gives humans the highest values since they are created in God’s image. You just believe we are a bunch of animals, so we have no more value than the bacteria in my toilet. God does treat his children greatly; he gives them all saving grace. We are not his children until we are given saving grace, so every one of his adopted children spends eternity in heaven. Do you even read the Bible? Lol.

I'll keep that in mind the next time muslims want to build a community center near the world trade center memorial, another abortionist doctor becomes a target for assassination, a largely christian country in africa puts into law a death sentence for being gay, or blames the deaths of thousands in the latest natural disaster on progressive views of homosexuality.
My view of humanity is much higher than bacteria and still higher than the dirt to which god made adam and eve from a rib.
There is still the matter of god's own value of human life.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually because the Bible gives us the only basis for the preconditions of intelligibility it is directly responsible for everything we have discovered in science. Without the Bible being true conducting science would not only be a waste of time, but the practice of science and obtaining any knowledge would be impossible. So you should be thankful that we live in a biblically accurate universe where you can do science.

Which would make the bible a great artifact of history if any of what you just said were true.
The one thing you directly stated was a result of religion was the introduction of the scientific method despite having no real basis for that assertion and the fact that the scientific method actually predates christianity by the entire length of human history with aristotle's records being among the earliest documented historical sources of its use.
In short, another point made with zero evidence and assertions with zero backing.

(January 19, 2011 at 6:12 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sounds like a misinterpretation of scripture to me, which is exactly what I was already saying. I don’t know where you get this notion that the Catholic Church is somehow the final authority on scripture. Obviously Galileo didn’t believe scripture taught geocentricism since he believed in the inerrancy of scripture and his heliocentric model. I still haven’t seen the verse saying that the earth is in the center of the universe and that moving it away from the center is a means of glorifying it, which is what the Catholic Church believed.

Who is and isn't the authority on scripture is irrelevant isofar my own consideriation, but between you and the catholic church, I put them on a higher point isofar as the interpretation of the bible. At least they ditched young earth by this day and age, however late and amidst the paedophelia scandals.
Clearly Galileo didn't believe geocentrism in the same way that biologists, geneticists, and geologists who practice the christian faith don't buy into young-earth creationism which is what I've been saying. Furthermore, all hte historical sources I could find disagree with your assertion, to which, like virtually all of your assertions, is utterly without evidence or really any kind of support.

So Statler, nothing to say about gods purpose for supernova remnents and colliding galaxies???

No?? didn't think so.

However an old universe theory fits them in just nicely.

Guess you've just failed again.

(January 20, 2011 at 8:29 am)Zen Badger Wrote: So Statler, nothing to say about gods purpose for supernova remnents and colliding galaxies???

No?? didn't think so.

However an old universe theory fits them in just nicely.

Guess you've just failed again.

What are you talking about? God's purpose in creation is to bring glory to Himself, period. As to this misconception that supernova remnants point to an old universe, nothing could be farther from the truth. Let's take a look at the numbers

Expected number of observable supernova remnants if the universe were billions of years old:

Stage 1: 2
Stage 2: 2260
Stage 3: 5000

Expected number of observable supernova remnants if the universe were only thousands of years old:

Stage 1: 2
Stage 2: 125
Stage 3: 0

Actual observable supernova remnants to date:

Stage 1: 5
Stage 2: 200
Stage 3: 0


So you can see, the actual observable data are far more in line with a young universe than an old one. Thanks for bringing the topic up!

As far as movement of galaxies, many spiral galaxies actually wind up too quickly in order to be billions of years old, so that
is pretty good young universe evidence too. Thanks for that one too!

They are also millions of light years away.
Good evidence for an old universe wouldnt you say.
So thanks for that.

[

Well I am not a complete empiricist. I believe that a lot of truth claims need to be observed, like the conclusions we are talking about here (the age of strata). Other truth claims do not need to be directly observed. People did directly observe Christ, it's a pretty fringe position to believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. As for God, He does not lack observable proof at all, creation is clear proof of a creator God, and every person has knowledge of God, many just suppress it in their hearts (Romans 1).

(January 19, 2011 at 8:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: [quote='Thor' pid='114823' dateline='1295477335']

Oh, good grief! We don't have to OBSERVE geologic events to know what happened!

Quote:Interesting. If you have never observed something happening then you’d have no idea what the results of that process looked like to infer the event happened elsewhere.

Bullshit. No one has ever observed sedimentary rock forming. Yet, we know the process that takes place to make this type of rock.

And have you ever observed two atoms of hydrogen combining with one atom of oxygen to form water? I doubt it. Do you doubt that water is composed of these two elements? Or do you just accept the word of scientists as being factual in this matter?

Quote:We actually have observed catastrophic events carving out canyons, and those results look identical to the Grand Canyon.

Uh... NOTHING looks "identical to the Grand Canyon".

Quote:So I believe this is a more scientific approach.

I'm sure you do....

Quote: Oh, gee... there are boulders at the bottom of the Colorado River? You don't say? And what do you think this proves?

Quote:Well obviously forces greater than the Colorado River got them there, one such force would be global flood waters receding.

Or.... just perhaps.... the boulders FELL FROM THE CLIFFS ABOVE THE RIVER?

Quote: Source?

Quote:It’s pretty well documented, here is a quick article to read though.

[url] http://creation.com/grand-canyon-strata-...-imaginary[/url]

Can't help noticing the first word in that website is "creation"... I did look at it, though. Thanks for the laugh. Now here's a site that actually has science to back up it's claims... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

Quote: You chastise me for not considering "supernatural" explanations. Now you want to distance yourself from supernatural explanations. You can't have it both ways, bucko.

Quote:I chastised you for not considering supernatural explanations for origins, not operational sciences. Big difference…bucko.

What difference does it make? Why can't supernatural explanations be considered for anything? Maybe things fall because there are angels pushing down on everything. Is that not a possible explanation for gravity? If not, why not?

Quote: And nowhere have I made an appeal to consensus. Of course, since you have virtually NO scientists who support your position, you must make resort to tactics like this.

Quote:LOL!!!! You did it again! If you are not appealing to consensus then why would you even mention how many scientists support my position?

Because we're not talking about OPINION. We're talking about established scientific facts that are supported by evidence.

Quote:In the early 20th century only one scientist believed in special relativity, and that was irrelevant to its overall validity.

Yeah, you keep wanting to dredge up something that is nearly a century old. Ya got anything more recent? Like in the last ten years?

Quote:You crack me up.

Not nearly as much as you crack me up. Tell us all again how dinosaurs were on the ark....

Quote: Baloney. Creationists MUST invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences. How else do you account for rain flooding the planet above the tops of the highest mountains? There isn't enough water on the planet to pull this off!

Quote:I am sure you probably meant bologna huh? :- )

No, I meant baloney. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1295548439

Quote:Of course there is! Jacques Cousteau said that if you raise the deep ocean trenches you’d have enough water to cover the highest mountains by 10,000 feet.

So what?

Quote:Creationists have a catastrophic plate tectonic model that works perfectly fine. In this model an upheaval of the ocean floors causes ocean water to rush and cover the continents.

Too bad there's no evidence to indicate this ever happened. And, what? The ocean floors suddenly lifted up and then sank back down again?

Quote:The model works perfectly from a physics point of view and has been shown off at geology conferences nationwide

And I'm sure it has generated plenty of laughs.

Quote:Lol, yeah right. How do you know all animals on earth have a single common ancestor? Did you observe this? Facts are based off of observation.

Did you observe Noah's flood? Did you observe "God" creating the universe? Did you observe the Tower of babel being built? Guess you can't prove any of these things happened, can you? Since, you know... facts are based off of observation.

Quote: What's baseless is your claim that you must observe the age of the age of the Earth to know how old it is.

Quote:Another assertion. I guess I just have a stricter definition of science than you do.

Obviously. And your "strict definition" of science results in conclusions like "man lived with dinosuars!"

Quote: What do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with this? You're trying to compare the growth rate of a human with the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. BZZZZZZTTTTT!

Quote:We are talking about aging and rates, if you can’t see how the laws of thermodynamics relate to aging, then there is not much I can do for you.

No, I don't see how the laws of thermodynamics relate to aging. Why don't you educate me? Specifically, WHICH Law of Thermodynamics relates to aging?

Quote: Says the guy who thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time....

Quote:Coelacanths and people did and do, how do you know that dinosaurs and people never did?

Because there's no evidence for it.

Quote:Well then you should be well aware that “The Little Grand Canyon” was formed by run-off (water) caused by Mt. St. Helens quickly melting snow pack.

And it makes no difference! These two thing are not comparable! For starters, the sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into much harder rock.

So, again.... BZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!!

Quote: And, my goodness! This canyon is 100 feet deep? Yeah, that really compares to the Grand Canyon's depth of a mile. I need higher boots. The bullshit is getting deep here.

Quote:If local flood waters from a little volcanic eruption can carve out a hundred foot deep canyon in one day, it’s not unreasonable at all to believe that global flood waters could carve one a mile deep in a few years.

Uh, yeah... it's very much unreasonable. As I pointed out, the canyon at Mount St. Helens was carved out of volcanic ash. The Grand Canyon is carved out of ROCK! I have an experiment for you! Take two pieces of wood. On one piece put a pile of mud. On the other, place a large rock. Now put them both under running water. Which one gets a channel cut in it very quickly? The rock or the mud? This simulates what happened at the Grand Canyon (rock) and Mount St. Helens (mud).

Quote:Besides you are the person who thinks that rivers that erode only a few Cm a year could carve out a canyon a mile deep.

Yes, a few centimeters a year... over millions of years.... see where I'm going with this?

Quote:At least we have observed flood waters carve out canyons,

Not canyons made out of ROCK!

Quote:we have never observed a river do it over millions of years.

There are many things we have never observed, yet we know them to be facts.

Quote: And it takes a very long time for rock layers to pile up to a depth of over a mile.

Quote:You know this how? We have seen them form 100 feet deep in one day.

Not in the same material that makes up the Grand Canyon!

Quote:Given that same rate it would only take 52 days to form one mile’s worth.

Okay, now show me a canyon a mile deep that was formed in 52 days.

Quote:So the math is not in your favor.

Actually, it is. Remember? A few centimeters a year... millions of years....

Quote: Actually, it does! Sedimentary rock layers take a long time to form. When you have many of these layers piled up on top of each other we know this took a VERY long time.

Quote:Sedimentary rocks formed in a matter of days with Mt. St. Helens, so it appears it does not take that long for them to form. Unless a couple days is a “really long time” to you.

Sedimentary rocks formed in a matter of days? You have a source for this crap? Because sedimentary rock takes a VERY LONG TIME to form. It's very existence is enough to refute your absurd claim that the planet was formed 6,000 years ago.

Quote: What evidence?

Quote:Well like just above, you believe it takes long periods of time to form sedimentary rock layers despite the observed evidence that contradicts this belief.

What observed evidence? You haven't shown any! What evidence do you have that shows sedimentary rock can form in DAYS?

Quote: Uh, no, it's not. The editors of "Nature" and "Science" do not have a preconceived bias. Unlike those twit Creationist publications that start with the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Quote:LOL! Special pleading. So it is ok for your journals to be reviewed by only evolutionists but it is not ok for creation journals to be reviewed by creationists.

Sure, creation journals can be reviewed by creationists. Just don't call it "science".

Quote:Classic case. How do you know the editors of Nature and Science are not biased?

Yeah, I suppose you're right... The editors of Science and Nature are biased towards publishing things of a scientific nature.

Quote:So not only is he rejecting articles before he has read them, (sounds like bias to me) but he will favor other articles just to move readers away from these viewpoints (sounds like bias to me again). So your whole position is completely circular.

And I'm sure Creation journals would be happy to publish something written by Richard Dawkins.

Quote:“Why don’t creation articles get published in secular journals much?”
“Well because they are not scientific!”
“Why are they not scientific?”
“Well name one secular journal that publishes their work! See!? They are not scientific!”

Nice straw man you set up there.

Quote:Red herring, I noticed you didn’t answer the question, because you can’t name any that don’t “believe in” or that don’t “find evolution factual”.

And what does this prove?

Quote: Terrible analogy. Newton didn't start with an assumption and try to build his theories around it. However, this is exactly what Creationists do when performing "research".

Quote:Proof? Source? Example?

Are you saying that creationists DON'T start with the assumption that the Earth is young?

Quote: No, OJ Simpson wasn't convicted because the jury was not going to convict him no matter what evidence was presented.

Quote:But I thought that DNA evidence could prove things beyond all doubt? Apparently not.

Did you even read what I wrote? The evidence didn't matter! The jury was going to acquit no matter what!

Quote: And how do you think the rock layers came to be piled up like that? Rock layers a mile deep? And you think this happened in just a few thousand years? (Nice try at avoiding the issue I raised, BTW).

Quote:Rocks layers can be formed a hundred feet deep in one day, of course they can be formed a mile deep in years.

Source for this crap? Sedimentary rock layers most certainly can NOT form 100 feet deep in a day!

Quote:Yet your little old earth source fails to give any real examples demonstrating radiometric dating’s reliability! Nice! Here are some examples for you…

Rocks dated with the K-Ar method formed by Mt. St. Helens were dated to be 350,000 years old. Of course this is ridiculous because we observed the rocks to be formed in 1986. When the mineral concentrations in these same rocks were dated, they yielded even worse results, 2,800,000 years old.

Rocks formed by the Mt. Nguaruhoe’s eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975 were dated with the K-Ar method yielding dates ranging from 270,000 years to 3,500,000 years old.

So yeah, those look fairly reliable to me, don’t you agree? Haha.

Yeah, this bullshit is easily refuted here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Ha ha.

Quote: I've been reading Richard Dawkin's book on evolution. In it, he refers to Creationists as "a baying pack of ignoramuses". For some reason, I thought of you!

Quote:Yeah I am not surprised you read that guy’s “work”. You make a lot of the same errors in reasoning and logic he does.

I use the same reasoning and logic as Richard Dawkins? Why, thank you for the compliment.

Quote:I personally wouldn’t really put much stock in a man who believes his purpose in life is to show others that there is no purpose in life.

And where did Dawkins ever express this?

Speaking of Earth, after posting here it makes it seem as if there are mountains on top of me ...