(October 20, 2010 at 7:02 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: Wow. I leave for day and a half and the thread explodes. Then again, the fail in this thread seems to measure at fifty giga-creationisms.
Yay! The youtube guy is back. Actually kinda missed you. Yes it's been fun around here the last day, lots of posts.
Quote: It's more like someone made up a unit of measurement and made a conversion rate between units people actually use to actually measure something and the fictional unit.
The problem here is that I have read physics books well beyond the high school level by actual physicists and they all seem to have no record of your inane theories.
Kind of funny you would say that. So how did people measure time before Calculated Time was first used in the 20th Century? People just not believe in time back then? Did they not have a way of measuring it? Wow you own all of those Phsyics books? The one I own is Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett, “Physics for Scientists and Engineers,6 Ed”. Yes it does have a section about observational time vs. calculated time so you can stop saying I just made those up. As I have said nearly a dozen times before, you are arguing against something that Creationists do not even claim (that light propagates an-isotropically using claculated time), so I really do not know why you continue to beat that dead horse.
Quote: I don't need to understand what details about creation that creationists believe to know it's wrong.
This could be my favorite quote since I have been here! "I don't need to know how you did the math problem to know that you did it wrong!". Classic! Is it ok if I quote you when someone tries to tell me I don't understand what Evolutionists believe? Please!? I will give you credit for this amazing quote, I promise.
Quote: I also found this and as you might note, the only one proclaiming a noah-style flood on mars is Answers in genesis, not the people who actually know planetary science, geology, and all that.
But leave it to you to actually point to an article that doesn't exist at its source anymore and make claims about what it says, but ultimately, every other source on the topic from an actual scientific source actually points to there being water and volcanism, not sudden catastropic volcanism and appearance of water within the space of days on a single event. That's just crazy-talk.
So no, unless you mean by 'many scientists today' means to you 'many creationists who happen to use science-speak'.
Actually AIG doesn't believe in a global flood on Mars. So I suggest you actually read the New York Times article and stop blaming all of this on AIG. It is not their fault you can't find the article it is the New York Times fault I guess (or your own). This website cites the same article, so contrary to your little conspiracy theory, I am quite sure it existed.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nati...index.html
Quote: Interesting how there are no records of the entire crust of the planet shifting in days rather than millenia. You might want to read that geology book I linked from Oxford earlier. It completely refutes this as a thing that can happen.
This is one of those things they teach in elementary and middle school school geography about the history of the earth. If my google-fu is strong enough, I may just find some children's science websites that can prove that this never happened.
Still using your high school textbooks eh? lol. Non-catestrophic plate technoics would take a very long time, but this in turn assumes no flood so you cannot turn around and use this to argue against catestrophic plate tectonics because you'd be assuming the very thing you were trying to prove. Assuming the proof, bad bad bad.
Quote: In other words, evolution is fine when creationists are teaching it, nevermind that they don't actually study or understand it.
Yay! I can't believe it! I was hoping you'd use this argument in the future so I could use your own quote but I never dreamed you would use it in the very same post!!! Ok so here it goes, I am going to use the immortal words of TheDarkestAngel here and respond by saying....
"I don't need to understand what details about [evolution] that [evolutionists] believe to know it's wrong."
Now I know why you used that form of largument in the first place! It's very simple and easy because now I don't even have to watch all those videos you posted, just like you don't have to actually read what Creationists believe.
Rapid Speciation does occur, don't make me use your own Evolutionists to argue against you. That just would not be right, kind of like Darth Vader being killed by his own light saber.
You have done this more than once, when you say "arc" you really mean "ark" right? Just making sure we're on the same page here. The rest of this paragraph does not make a lot of sense, but I will try to guess where you are going with this. We already discussed that rapid speciation can occur, so I don't think I have to address that any further. We can get different types of dogs really quickly using artificial selection, yes natural selection would be a bit slower but not a lot slower considering the animals would have been re-populating new empty niches and experiencing lots of selective pressures while the Earth was settling down after the flood.
As for the genetic inormation thing, were you talking about the Ecological rule that you need a minimum of 50,000 animals in a population to have a healthy population?
Quote: As you might guess, there is a link to a book that is actually about the fossil record above done by people who know what they're talking about. As you might guess, it's not in agreement with any form of creationism, noah's flood, or anything else in your silly bronze-age book.
I am sure you are aware that there are books about the fossil record written by Creationists (one of which got his Ph.D from Harvard). So your assertion that only people who know what they are talking about deny the biblical account of Creation is complete circular reasoning.
"Everyone who knows what they are talking about believes the Earth is old!"
"Oh how do you know they know what they are talking about?"
"Well because they think the Earth is old of course!"
"Well what about these other Geologists who are also very educated that think the Earth is young?"
"Well they do not know what they are talking about!"
"Oh really? How do you know that?"
"Well because they think the Earth is young of course!"
[sarcasm]Good one, that line of reasoning is really effective.[/sarcam]
You used an Evolutionary Biologist to talk about dendrochronology? I at least used someone with a Ph.D in Agronomy and Horticultural Sciences. I will take his word on Tree Physiology any day over Mr. Dawkins. Dawkins does not write for a like minded audience? Please tell me which Creationists are on his peer-review boards when he submits articles. They are all a bunch of like-minded non-objective Evolutionists like yourself. It's easy to get away with bad science when everyone who reviews your work practices the same bad science. Dawkins is small-time.
Quote: Which is true that anyone can make a video, but it's also obvious when a video uses and explains in clear detail the science behind the information they give, as my videos have done isofar as disproving your source.
Hardly, the first video you posted looked like something made by some guy with flash animation and Windows Movie Maker in his dorm room. What did you do before youtube? Did you just not try and argue your case?
Quote: This also explains why you haven't bothered to post any of your links, as I'm certain they come from creationist and belief-based websites and institutions instead of any reputable scientific sources, such as from where I can find Richard Dawkin's scientific works.
Dawkins again eh? That little gnome has been refuted time and time again, that's why he runs from debates now. You are back to your old circular arguments again.
"There are no reputable Creation sites" "why not?" "because Creation Scientists are not reputable!"
Kind of getting old, but I guess you can keep using it. It's easy to refute that kind of stuff.
Quote: The difference between what they can do and what your "Christian Scientists" do is that actual scientists can back up their claims with repeatable evidence-based tests that don't make assumptions based on no evidence.
That's why the 'secular review boards' as you call them do actual science and yours do not.
More circular arguments. I am sure you are aware that Creation guys HAVE been published in your so called "reputable" peer reviewed journals. This must make them reputable now right? Yay!! Creation Scientists are finally reputable in the eyes of the TheDarkestAngel!
Quote: Just not in every direction from any point if you use your silly an-isotropic propogation of light. You even stated that light can travel instantaneously in some instances.
Using observed time it does travel exactly how I said. Using calculated time it travels exactly how you said it does. You should know though that it is impossible to meausre the one way speed of light. If you can devise an experiment that does this you will win yourself a nobel prize my friend.
Quote: No. Physics done by actual physicists prove otherwise. It breaks relativity whether you choose to realize it or not.
Relativity only applies to calculated time. Fail.
Quote: Because your theory is easier to understand than you realize, at least given the context to which you've explained it. You've only assumed my understanding is off because I've disagreed and given my evidence that it's not an accurate take on how things actually work.
Considering the evidence you think you have given does not even pertain to what I have been talking about this whole time, I think it's pretty obvious you really do not understand "my theory".
[quotes] Actually, he has proven it in the things that he says and the evidence he's provided here on Atheistforums. You have provided nothing but things that clearly violate the fundemental laws of nature with all the understanding of a person who cares nothing for truth except in the dogma of his beliefs.
[/quote]
So when he agrees with your pre-conceived ideas he is a legit Scientist, but when a Scientist doesn't agree with your idea he is not one? That makes so much sense now! That way you always look like you agree with the "legit" Scientists out there! When in all actuality you have cherry-picked the guys you want to call legit and thrown out the ones that disagree with you and call them not real scientists. ]/hide]
