Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Statler, we are all very aware that creationists like to use the lazy argument that "it is only a theory". Please refrain from doing so as you know very well that scientific theories are not in the same catagory as 'Sally theorized that billy ate her soup'. The Oort cloud idea came about for several reasons:

1) No comet's path has been calculated to indicate as coming from interstellar space.

2) All comets so far seen don't all come from one point in space.

3) There is strong orbital and gravitational evidence that many comets furthest point from the Sun lies around 50,000 A.U., roughly 1 Light Year or 50,000 times the distance between Earth and the Sun.

No, there is no definitive evidence (yet) that the Oort cloud exists. So what?

---

Statler wrote:

O.M.G! Before you can even begin to present a validating argument that your God is eternal, you first have to prove that your God even exists. Unless you are arguing that your God is a cat named Fluffy. If so, I can almost believe that.

---

Oh brother. Oort Clouds are not even a Scientific Theory, so don't pull that on me. Since you yourself admitted that there is no observed evidence to support their existance then they can't be a working theory. I can just go all Dawkins on you here too, "Well maybe a pink unicorn or a giant teapot is spitting out these comets!" Sad thing is that Oort Clouds appear in our high school textbooks as proven fact. I hate it when Old-Earthers lie to our children. I love bringing up Oort Clouds and other magical things because Old-Earthers have to use the very forms of arguments that they bash when Creationists use. "Well just because we have not seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" "Well they help explain the gaps we have in Comet Theory!"

Did you really just say O.M.G.? What are you? A 13 year old girl?

It's obvious you have no idea how valid logic works or how syllogisms are constructed. The premises don't even have to be true in order for the statement to be logically valid. So I don't have to prove God exists in order to build that valid form of logical argumentation. I suggest you pick up some books on Logic, I think a great one for you would be "Logic For Dummies".

---

According to Statler:

40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55, By G.B. Dalrymple (who, he claims, refutes in some detail the various claims that radioactive decay rates may be influenced by neutrinos, neutrons, and cosmic radiation, including Dudley's "neutrino sea.")

The problem, sir, is that there is nothing in that book about the effect of neutrinos on decay rates.

What's more, Ireported in the following link on recent research that shows that there is no evidence that neutrinos affect decay rates.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-5027.html

A post which you have yet to respond to.

Huh? I said that? Please show me where I said that. I have never brought up the "Neutrino Sea" in any of my posts. I think you are being dishonest and misquoting me again. It's sad you have to stoop to that level to try and prove your point.