@Statler Waldorf

Where are the peer-reviewed experimental research papers of creationists? Link me to, oh, say, ten of them from this year. I'll read them. Not reviews of other scientists' work, not theoretical work: peer-reviewed (that means by other scientists) experimental data. If you're right that good experimental work with good examination of the data exists in the YEC community, I will retract my comments to you, and accept that there is a double standard. It's certainly possible that I'm just missing the YEC work in the literature, and that I have things to learn. Show me that work. If apologies are due, you shall receive them.

You can post the links here or PM them to me.

(October 22, 2013 at 5:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You failed to even address my point, so I assure you it still lives as it stands un-refuted. Why is it fair for Darwinists to assert that the appearance of design is illusory but not fair for creationists to claim that the appearance of deep time in the Universe is illusory?

Because of supporting evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny. "Darwinists" have creationists don't. It's seems to be worth pointing out that the concept of species being mutable pre-dates Charles Darwin (who picked up on the idea from his grandad). What Darwin did was to propose a viable mechanism for that change. By accepting so called micro-evolution, creationists are in fact saying that Darwin was right.

Quote:Depends on what you mean by “reasonable basis”, I do not see any reasonable basis to believe it is older than that.

rea·son·a·ble (rz-n-bl)
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking
3. Being within the bounds of common sense
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair
(emphasis added)

Quote:

Quote:The dating methods you refer to have been completely vindicated from bullshit YEC accusations and has proven accurate time and time again.

Proven accurate how? I need specifics.

Well, let's see. Creationists sources love using the old penguin and shellfish C14 data whilst conveniently "forgetting" to mention that it was lifted from a scientific paper specifically warning other scientists that such irregularities would appear if the reservoir effect was not taken into account. This applies when atmospheric carbon wasn't the main source of carbon for the organism.

Most other claims that carbon dating doesn't work tends to focus on mammoths for some reason. Simply checking the sources for those claims shows that the claims themselves result from either misinterpretation, misrepresentation or outright lies.

Quote:

Quote:One that fits all available evidence

This is of course just another assertion. Why do those believing in deep time always resort to such meaningless posturing? If your position is really that undeniable then it should be easy to demonstrate.

Do you really expect me to list every piece of evidence? Why not save us both some time and just google it? If you like, go through all the creationist counter arguments too. Then, if you're feeling brave type those creationist arguments into google , followed by the word "debunked".

Quote:Yes, but magnetic field reversals and plate tectonics are all part of the current creation model, so I am not sure why you are acting as if they merely support your position.

Really? I would love to know what they've come up with for that one

Quote:He didn’t create salt water creatures; he merely created sea creatures that have since adapted to live in water containing higher concentrations of salt. Even today many fish can move freely back and forth from salt and fresh water.

Quote: Insects would have easily survived on large floating masses of bio-material created by the flood.

Quote:This is a bit of a misconception, Origen still believed in a global flood. He was arguing that God did not create the Universe in six literal days but rather instantaneously.

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. However, after re-reading my comment I can see how it might have seemed that way. The point I was attempting to make was merely that Origen opposed a literal and historical interpretation.

Quote:

Quote: That anyone could believe such nowadays is truly staggering.

Why?

[quote='Justtristo' pid='303340' dateline='1340786631']
Albert Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville Kentucky. He is a Young Earth Creationist, however he does not deny that the universe appears to be old. However since he believes the universe is less than say 10,000 years old. So Mohler argues that either god created the universe to appear "old" or that the "fall" rapidly aged the universe.

A Christian Fundamentalist friend of mine, who admitted that he leans to a "six day" creation position thought Mohler's argument was appealing.

Essentially this speech he gave to a ministry conference outlines his argument.

poor guy, has to change all of science to fit his what he calls "natural reading of scripture". but did learn something; the reason 'they' do this is: they think it helps prove evolution faulty.

(October 22, 2013 at 9:56 pm)Zazzy Wrote: @Statler Waldorf

Where are the peer-reviewed experimental research papers of creationists? Link me to, oh, say, ten of them from this year. I'll read them. Not reviews of other scientists' work, not theoretical work: peer-reviewed (that means by other scientists) experimental data. If you're right that good experimental work with good examination of the data exists in the YEC community, I will retract my comments to you, and accept that there is a double standard. It's certainly possible that I'm just missing the YEC work in the literature, and that I have things to learn. Show me that work. If apologies are due, you shall receive them.

You can post the links here or PM them to me.

doesn't exist. they tried to cockamamie all the physical science into 6 literal days ("because that's the natural way to read the genesis account"). they are as incredulous to 13 billion as the athesit are to believing in God.

10,000 years doesn't even account for when man evolved into man.... he was still primitive at that point. How do you answer the proof of the bronze and iron ages? The vikings? How come god hates native americans and gave them silly animals to worship?

Tell me how science could get things so terribly wrong from your version;

This link shows nice clear crisp detail, while the image below is a little easier to understand.

http://palaeos.info/timescale/images/Geo...spiral.png


Those 'm.y.' stand for millions of years ago...humanity as we're familiar with it is 0.01 million years ago. The last ice age itself lasted more than 10,000 years.

[size=medium]

@OP,

I have a similar problem, but the Christian solution to my dilemma is somewhat attractive. You see, my balls are getting closer to my feet. Using Christian logic, a sagging scrotum isn't a sign of age; it's a sign that God only wants me to think that I'm getting older, but I'm actually still young. Fucking brilliant!

(October 24, 2013 at 1:47 am)cato123 Wrote: @OP,

I have a similar problem, but the Christian solution to my dilemma is somewhat attractive. You see, my balls are getting closer to my feet. Using Christian logic, a sagging scrotum isn't a sign of age; it's a sign that God only wants me to think that I'm getting older, but I'm actually still young. Fucking brilliant!

Of course, that also requires you to consider as real the idea that god is handling your nuts. I dunno if that's an adequate tradeoff.

(October 24, 2013 at 1:40 am)Owlix Wrote: 10,000 years doesn't even account for when man evolved into man.... he was still primitive at that point. How do you answer the proof of the bronze and iron ages? The vikings? How come god hates native americans and gave them silly animals to worship?

Tell me how science could get things so terribly wrong from your version;

This link shows nice clear crisp detail, while the image below is a little easier to understand.

http://palaeos.info/timescale/images/Geo...spiral.png


Those 'm.y.' stand for millions of years ago...humanity as we're familiar with it is 0.01 million years ago. The last ice age itself lasted more than 10,000 years.

[size=medium]

they believe the physcial laws changed over time including time itself.

(October 24, 2013 at 1:50 am)Esquilax Wrote: Of course, that also requires you to consider as real the idea that god is handling your nuts. I dunno if that's an adequate tradeoff.

Funny; however, if God was supporting my sack they wouldn't be getting closer to my feet.

Ah Statler, still an overly verbose liar for Jesus I see.

How's the ol' anisotropic light propagation thingy going for you buddy