The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[orogenicman]

I want everyone to stand back and take some time to exam this post. Did he really answer the question "How does he know those fossil beds are so old?". Did he really give us his methodology? Nope, he just said, "I know because I know". Then he goes off on some tangent about AIG. I challenge him to point out which posts he thinks I got from AIG and I can point out the actual website I got them from. I am sure he is aware that AIG has overlap with other websites, so you can get information from other websites that would be similiar to information on AIG. If he claims he got something from Ilovedarwin.com, and I find similiar information on talkorgins I am not going to call him a liar and say he really got it from talkorgins.

Do you honestly want me to give you a free lecture on the relative geologic time scale and how it has been verified and refined by hundreds of thousands of radiometric measurements collected by thousands of geologists over the past 100 years? Hence my question as to whether you have any understanding at all of the relative geologic time scale, and how it was devised. I can give you all that and more. All you need do is meet me (with friends, if you so desire) at the Creation Museum, and you can receive all the explanation you need and more in the field. The field is where it's at, where it can all be best explained. Or are you afraid to get your hands dirty? I'll give you a hint - those fossil beds are middle Ordovician in age, based on biostratigraphy, lithostratigraphy, and radioisotopic analysis of metabentonite deposits found within the beds. If those words are too big for you, I can provide you with a link to an online geology dictionary.

---

You are starting to finally figure out what observed time means. If the stars appeared on day 4 on the Earth that was created on day 1, then the Biblical account would be completely accurate using observed time which it was of course because calculated time was not even used for another 5900 years.

So what you are saying is that beduin tribes in the middle east when Genesis was written, had no concept of the rise and fall of the sun every day,and didn't accept the natural daily rhythms of the planet as a measure of time, but made up some other kind of system for keeping track of time that no one else on the planet at the time was using, based on what you believe today is "observed time?

---

OGM - And just to complete the symmetry, why should anyone believe creationists, who I dare say probably can't among the lot of them demonstrate having spent a single afternoon in the field, much less published anything of consequence, over the innumerable geologists, (of which I am one), mineralogists, paleontologists, geophysicists, oceanographers, chemists and physicists, who have been studying the Earth in minute detail for well over 300 years at the cost of much blood, sweat, and tears?

SW - If you knew anything about Creationists you would not have made your last statement. Apparently you are not aware, but you should be, that there are Creationists with Ph.Ds from Harvard, there are Creationists who have been published in both Science and Nature. There are Creationists who worked for NASA. Your statement is utterly ridiculous and demonstrates your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.

Yeah, let's talk about some of those, shall we? How many of those PhDs are working in the field of geology, biology, geophysics, etc, and have published peer-reviewed scholarly works in accredited journals promoting creationism? Can you name one such publication by any of them that has any relevance to current scientific thought on the theory of evolution, the geologic time scale, or current cosmological theory? Even one? The fact is that there is no body of scholarly work done by any of the people you cite ore may cite that promotes creationism as a valid alternative to todays broadly accepted scientific theories.

---

I am glad you asked!

Dr. Jonahtan Sarfati (Ph.D in Physical Chemistry) was published in Nature when he was only 22 years old. He is actually a really interesting person. He has beaten a dozen peolple simaltaneously at chess while he was blind-folded. He is also more educated in the field of Science than Richard Dawkins (having actually earned his doctorate).

Great. If I want to play a challenging game of chess, I know who to contact. If I want to leanr something about geology, he wouldn't even make my list of science losers to call. Why? His writings on creationism is nothing but religious propaganda, of course. I'm not alone in this opinion of his work.

Dr. Kurt P. Wise- holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America. (Taken from his biography)

From Wikipedia - "Despite believing that science supports his position, Wise has written that "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

You see, I have a problem with people such as Wise gaining any sort of degree. Why? Because, in order to obtain such a degree, one must complete specific coursework and take tests on specific course work. So, this guy who openly claims that everything he has been taught in his own field is a lie, and yet passed enough tests to obtain said degree so he can now claim to be an expert in a field he is openly trying to destroy. This is the worst kind of unethical behavior, and if I was a member of the faculty at Harvard, I'd demand that his degree be taken away. The man is a fraud.

Then one of my Professors was an Atmospheric Researcher for NASA for 15 years before becoming a professor, and he is a Creationist.

Wow, a mystery professor. That's wonderful.