(October 25, 2011 at 9:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That is one of the tests of a scientific model, is its ability to make predictions. Those were just three examples of numerous phenomena that the old earth model would have never predicted.

How do you know that it would never have predicted these things? Furthermore, have you tallied the things that both sides have predicted to reach your conclusion or are you simply going off of your side of the issue -- if we can call it such.

(October 25, 2011 at 9:13 pm)IATIA Wrote: Of course it does. That is just an arbitrary decision on your part to avoid the inconsistency with your theory.

Please demonstrate how it would be defined as music then rather than arbitrarily defining any old sound as music. Thanks.

(October 25, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Darwinian Wrote: How could you not possibly understand that very basic and simple concept or were you just being deliberately obtuse?

I was merely pointing out the fact that many evolutionists can’t explain their own theory to others so they just resort to the old fallacious appeal to ridicule as you did. It doesn’t prove anything, it adds no merit to their theory, but it makes them feel a little less uncomfortable when the theory is challenged.

(October 25, 2011 at 9:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Lying for jesus is a serious business, no room for humor Darwinian.

Still bearing false witness I see. This ought to be fun, given your worldview why is it morally wrong for someone to lie? Good luck with that one Scooter.

One can and does draw many distinctions. What you are physically capable of doing and what you are mentally capable of doing are not equivalent, no matter what worldview you hold. If you're a creationist, it's all god in motion my friend.......sigh.

Exactly, prove what, fucking crickets as usual.

Yes, my theory states that your brain personally evolved it's talent for music, you're such a troll.

Ruminants and remnants are not exactly the same thing.......Looking beyond this, how far corrupted are we, quantify that if you can.

The debate is definitively over as to whether or not the earth is a few thousand years old, and whether or not genesis is accurate by any metric.

Indeed they do, much more so than chimps, and less so than Europeans, fail again. Why do you think that might be? Here's a hint.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n10...g2123.html

I'm asserting that you haven't proven your imaginary friend to exist, and that the relationship you describe hinges upon your ability or willingness to do so. How do you know that you do? Start there.

Don't like being called a liar? Stop lying.

It's morally unacceptable to lie because I don't like it, and I make the rules. Break that argument without breaking your own.

(October 25, 2011 at 9:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Please demonstrate how it would be defined as music then rather than arbitrarily defining any old sound as music. Thanks.

Music as defined by the all-knowing Google: The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

We can certainly say that animals have achieved this, Stat. They may not use instruments, but many animals -- other than humans -- have songs that demonstrate emotion. Even some frogs make music.

(October 25, 2011 at 9:36 pm)Shell B Wrote: How do you know that it would never have predicted these things? Furthermore, have you tallied the things that both sides have predicted to reach your conclusion or are you simply going off of your side of the issue -- if we can call it such.

1. In the 1990s it was believed soft tissue could not last longer than 10,000 years. Dinosaurs died off millions of years ago (according to the model). Why would they ever predict to find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils?
2. There is no measurable C14 left after 1,000,000 years; diamonds are believed to be some of the oldest stones on earth, ranging in the hundreds of millions to even billions of years old. Why would they ever predict to find C14 in diamonds while holding to their assumptions? The same is true of coal.
3. Petrified wood was thought to take millions of years, so finding pieces of wood that were only partially petrified would have been impossible given this assumptions, yet we find them all the time today. I actually found one over Labor Day weekend of this year.

Stat, you did not answer either of my questions.

(October 25, 2011 at 9:46 pm)Shell B Wrote: Music as defined by the all-knowing Google: The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.

We can certainly say that animals have achieved this, Stat. They may not use instruments, but many animals -- other than humans -- have songs that demonstrate emotion. Even some frogs make music.

You are suggesting that an animal believes it is producing "beauty of form" when it makes sounds? How could you possibly know this?

In true Stat form, can you prove that they don't? Can you prove that she doesn't?

(October 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm)Shell B Wrote: Stat, you did not answer either of my questions.

I answered the first one, I showed that there is no way they would make those predictions because they do not fit their underlying assumptions.

If I had a theory that all objects fall to the earth, I would not then predict to see any that did not do this.

---

(October 25, 2011 at 9:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: In true Stat form, can you prove that they don't? Can you prove that she doesn't?

No, I did that becuase you claimed to have knowledge that they don't, claims to have knowledge requires proof.

(October 25, 2011 at 9:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: claims to have knowledge requires proof.

Bingo, now get to work.