Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

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!"

What I said was that there was no difinitive (i.e., unambiguous) evidence (yet). The Oort cloud is a hypothesis based on the observational criteria I set forth in items 1 through 3. Unless you have a working hypothesis that better explains those observations, all you are doing here is blowing smoke rings outta yer arse.

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.

Note that he didn't actually address the refutation. Typical. Oh, and by the way, you can make all the, ahem, logical arguments you care to make, but at the end of the day, if you don't prove your premise (God did it), then those arguments are meaningless.

Here is a hypothesis that explains your "unknowns" way better- The universe is only 6,000 years old. Oh look! Now I don't need to make up imaginary places to generate comets! Problem solved.

I am not obligated to address an argument that you were dishonest about and one that I never even made. That would be like me making up something you said, and when you said, "wait I never said that", I would then say, "See everyone! He never addressed the issue!!". Of course I am not going to address the issue, I never said it. Grow up.

So you are pretty much saying, "Stop being so logical Statler, I don't care about logic!". I have a great idea, how about someone else on here present a logical argument and then we can procede to talk about the premises. To the point, nobody has even gotten that far.

---

. No creation journal has ever had a fraudulent article published, ......

Can you prove me wrong? I have already pointed out numerous fraud's published in your beloved journals. Maybe you should laugh at them instead.