The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Sam]

Those words are not too big for me, but thanks for offering!!! An infinite number of scientists conducing an infinite number of tests all using the same erroneous pre-suppositions does not amount to a hill of beans. This is why your appeals to popular belief and consensus are no less illogical today than they have ever been. I will give you credit though, you are good at masking your logical fallacies with Scientific jargon.

For your argument to have weight to it Statler you would first have to provide some proof that the pre-suppositions used are erroneous. This might include a number of articles in the published, primary literature casting doubt on the viability of the methods. As of yet, this has not been forthcoming so it seems a little hasty.

Put simply, if this infinite number of scientists were working under the scinetificaly accepted theories, consistantly adding conciliatory evidence to them it would ammount to a lot of evidence.

No, I am saying that they used the same definition of time as every other person did in the history of the World before the development of calculated time in the 20th century! Pretty simple. Do you seriously think people didn't keep track of time before the 20th century? Well if they did (which they did) they did it in observed time.

I don't remeber reading a post as yet that contained this assertion. I would say that in general we accept that before the rise of calculated time people monitored the passage of time based on the rise and fall of the sun & moon and the procession of the starts above them.

Using the observed time v. calculated time argument in defence of the biblical account of creation is an untenable position because the Bible dictates when things were created NOT when they became apparent to, as yet non-existent observers on earth.

We already discussed what he meant when he used that quote, it's not his fault he understands the nature of evidence relative to absolute truth better than you do. I love your circular reason and someone contradictory statements.

"There are no Creationists who have real degrees and work in the field, and the ones that do should have them take away!" hahaha. I am glad your bigoted and pro-cencorship views don't dominate a country like America. Freedom of ideas is important to me, even if I disagree with those ideas.

As to your claims about my "mystery" professor, he has a name and is a real person I assure you. However, considering your obviouis bigotry I do not give out personal information like that for fear you may mail a pipe bomb to his office or something like that (in the name of Science of course).

In fairness Statler, could you concede that gaining a degree in a subject you hope (because of your faith) is completely wrong would seem slightly intelectually dishonest? I am willing to concede that if these people are on the other hand trying to prove their views through good science then this is to be applauded. However, the problem is that these scientists often admit that even in the face of evidence they would choose their beliefs. This is not good science and is a hinderance to the scientific method.

In the opoposite; If a an evolutionary scientists or a conventional geologist claimed to be Young Earth then began systamaticaly trying to uproot these claims within a 'Creationist' school it is highly likely he would loose his position.

So your degrees are not science degrees but "arts' degrees. That makes sense. Why not get a MS in geoscience? Is the math too difficult, or is it really an ethical problem for you to answer geology questions correctly on the tests when you believe in your heart that they are the wrong answers?

I have a B.S. from the University of Louisville with a major in Geology and a minor in mathematics and psychology. I was previously an an anthropology student at EKU and was one semester from completing a B.A. when I switched schools and changed majors. I have a M.S. from the University Of Kentucky. Although my specialty was originally invertebtrate paleontology (I am published in the Journal of Paleontology), the economy being what it was at the time, I became an environmental consultant (and am a registered professional geologist in Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee), specializing in groundwater hydrology, and site remediation methodology. Nevertheless, I have remained active in paleontology and mineralogy for the past 21 years. I have also been an avid amateur astronomer since childhood, and am an active member of the Louisville Astronomical Society, and a member of the GSA. I am currently disabled.

Well last time I checked the degree B.S. stood for Bachelor of Science, so I am pretty sure that still counts as a Science degree, not an arts degree. As for the M.A.- the universty was originally going to make it an M.S. but they realized that GeoScience is better served by final research projects not a research thesis. So that is the only difference. Nice try at belittling my education, but fail.

Maybe in terms of this discussion we could accept that both parties have gained relevant qualifications to have some say on the issues raised. This bickering about degrees makes this thread difficult and pointless to read. I don't mean to offend anyone here but it just seems that on the internet there is always some level of assumption that what people say is true and enough time has been expended arguing this point.

Cheers

Sam