Backing up extraordinary claims with even more extraordinary claims says a lot as well.

(October 14, 2010 at 3:35 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Backing up extraordinary claims with even more extraordinary claims says a lot as well.

Red Herring, that has nothing to do with using youtube to prove a point.

Maybe, maybe not. But I've been wanting to use that phrase all day and just saw an opportunity

(October 14, 2010 at 3:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: More youtube huh? That's great that you guys base your conclusions on evidence from such reliable sources. Says a lot right there lol.

Who says we base our conclusions on evidence from Youtube? We base our conclusions on scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and determined to be sound. The Youtube videos use this science to ilustrate the absurdity of your position. They are not "evidence" in and of themselves. Did you even look at the video? If so, can you refute it?

(October 14, 2010 at 3:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: More youtube huh? That's great that you guys base your conclusions on evidence from such reliable sources. Says a lot right there lol.

I'm sorry you feel your bible's creationist viewpoints is outmoted by simple science and math, despite being the kind that's taught in high school (and earlier in some cases).
Of course, I have no idea how being presented on youtube is supposed to instantly invalidate it, but whatever. It's your fantasy.

(October 14, 2010 at 3:47 pm)Thor Wrote:

(October 14, 2010 at 3:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: More youtube huh? That's great that you guys base your conclusions on evidence from such reliable sources. Says a lot right there lol.

Who says we base our conclusions on evidence from Youtube? We base our conclusions on scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and determined to be sound. The Youtube videos use this science to ilustrate the absurdity of your position. They are not "evidence" in and of themselves. Did you even look at the video? If so, can you refute it?

You see that's funny because nobody has posted anything that was peer-reviewd. All I have observed is wikipedia and youtube. So of course I can emperically conclude that you guys base your conclusions on youtube since it is all you seem to argue with. I didn't even watch the video because I do not consider youtube a scholarly source. You shouldn't either Scooter. I really wish my old fourm didn't go away, at least the Atheists on there understood Science and tried to at least use Scientific sources. I have seen more youtube videos since I have been on here than I did in over a year over there. It's sad how small time the posters on this forum are.

---

(October 14, 2010 at 3:49 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 14, 2010 at 3:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: More youtube huh? That's great that you guys base your conclusions on evidence from such reliable sources. Says a lot right there lol.

I'm sorry you feel your bible's creationist viewpoints is outmoted by simple science and math, despite being the kind that's taught in high school (and earlier in some cases).
Of course, I have no idea how being presented on youtube is supposed to instantly invalidate it, but whatever. It's your fantasy.

You keep appealing to "high school science", I am beginning to think that is all the Scientific Education you possess. Am I right? :-) Well you played the game that because someone is a Creationist it instantly invalidates their argument (your fantasy), so I am just playing that game right back with you :-) It is kind of a lame game huh?

---

(October 14, 2010 at 3:44 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Maybe, maybe not. But I've been wanting to use that phrase all day and just saw an opportunity

That's ok man. As long as you realize that posting a youtube video does not actually validate either position then I am cool with those videos. There are some funny ones on there from both sides of the table.

(October 14, 2010 at 3:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You see that's funny because nobody has posted anything that was peer-reviewd.

Why would a video on youtube need to be "peer reviewed"? That's just ridiculous. The videos use established scientific principles that HAVE BEEN PEER REVIEWED. Unless they are proposing some new theory there is no reason to have the video "peer reviewed". This would be like demanding that my conclusion be "peer reviewed" when I say that light travels at 186,000 miles per second.

Quote:All I have observed is wikipedia and youtube.

And I haven't observed anything from you that supports the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth.

Quote:So of course I can emperically conclude that you guys base your conclusions on youtube since it is all you seem to argue with.

I can find youtube videos of brilliant people expounding on pretty much any subject. You can practically get college level instruction in your home. Just because something is on youtube doesn't mean it has no credibility.

Quote:I didn't even watch the video because I do not consider youtube a scholarly source.

So you have no idea what was on the video, and you scoff at it? This is the same attitude as people who want to ban books without having read them.

Quote: You shouldn't either Scooter.

My name isn't "Scooter". And I don't appreciate the condescension.

Quote:I really wish my old fourm didn't go away, at least the Atheists on there understood Science and tried to at least use Scientific sources.

Which I'm sure you disregarded. No matter how good their sources were.

By the way, you have not answered this question I posted for you:

So what do you think created the Earth?

If he could prove the earth to be 6000-7000 years old he would get the nobel prize

No, right, he will say his papers were refused because there is a world conspiracy to shun creationists out of science

(October 14, 2010 at 3:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You keep appealing to "high school science", I am beginning to think that is all the Scientific Education you possess. Am I right? :-) Well you played the game that because someone is a Creationist it instantly invalidates their argument (your fantasy), so I am just playing that game right back with you :-) It is kind of a lame game huh?

Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that.
I keep bringing it up for two reasons -
The first and most important reason is because you've identified yourself as a former math and science teacher and a current government scientist (no doubt given job when the Bush Administration was still in power, assuming you work in the United States - but that's just one of my patented baseless assertions).
The second reason in order but not stature is to examplify how easily your arguements are refuted using concepts you should be intimately familiar with as someone who should have an understanding of math and science at least to the level of a teenage student.

The fact that your statements and beliefs clearly fail to live up even those standards helps to prove my point becuase so far you don't seem to have actually made any counterpoints to my refutations of that light propogation nonsense given that it cannot conform to a basic understanding of math and science.

As such, I've no reason to believe any of your arguements or credentials have any validity.

(October 14, 2010 at 4:18 pm)Thor Wrote:

---

(October 14, 2010 at 3:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You see that's funny because nobody has posted anything that was peer-reviewd.

Why would a video on youtube need to be "peer reviewed"? That's just ridiculous. The videos use established scientific principles that HAVE BEEN PEER REVIEWED. Unless they are proposing some new theory there is no reason to have the video "peer reviewed". This would be like demanding that my conclusion be "peer reviewed" when I say that light travels at 186,000 miles per second.

Quote:All I have observed is wikipedia and youtube.

And I haven't observed anything from you that supports the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth.

Quote:So of course I can emperically conclude that you guys base your conclusions on youtube since it is all you seem to argue with.

I can find youtube videos of brilliant people expounding on pretty much any subject. You can practically get college level instruction in your home. Just because something is on youtube doesn't mean it has no credibility.

Quote:I didn't even watch the video because I do not consider youtube a scholarly source.

So you have no idea what was on the video, and you scoff at it? This is the same attitude as people who want to ban books without having read them.

Quote: You shouldn't either Scooter.

My name isn't "Scooter". And I don't appreciate the condescension.

Quote:I really wish my old fourm didn't go away, at least the Atheists on there understood Science and tried to at least use Scientific sources.

Which I'm sure you disregarded. No matter how good their sources were.

By the way, you have not answered this question I posted for you:

So what do you think created the Earth?

---

A better question would be, "why would you use a video on youtube instead of a peer-reviewed source?"

Actually all the information I have presented came directly from peer-reviewed sources. If you will notice, I have not used Wiki or youtube becasue they are not scholarly sources. You can try and defend thema all you want, but I think the fact that you would defend the use of youtube in a discussion says a lot about you lol.

You may be able to find good information on youtube, but you can also find information that can back up anything you want. This is why it should never be used in a debate/discussion. There is absolutely no quality or method control on youtube. Feel free to keep using it for yourself but I will never stoop to that inferior level of source.