Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

... Evasion, evasion, evasion.

No wonder these arguements against you, Statler, have gone on for as long as they have. You never directly address any of the counterarguements. You evade and come back with unsupported creationist BS with zero empirical evidence in support of your claims.

Come on man! You have got to do better than this. The “Burden of Proof” is generally accepted to lie with the side making an affirmative statement. However, since Atheism and Theism are both belief systems that make affirmative statements (Theism affirms that God does exist, Atheism affirms that he does not exist) the burden of proof lies equally on both sides. However, since you have not even proposed a valid syllogism to make your argument, it’s pretty obvious I have the upper hand. So you can either propose the syllogism, or address one of my premises. Incorrectly asserting that the burden of proof is on my side does nothing for you though.

Atheism is a rejection of the affirmative claim that theists make about reality and, as such, is not an affirmative claim.
If nothing else, you can at least avoid the strawman of telling atheists what they do believe when an 'atheist' is merely a statement about what they do not believe.

As such, my claim about who has the burden of proof is not incorrect.

Your argument that new technology somehow affirms that the Earth is old is a complete non-sequitur. I completely agree that empirical science is based on direct observation and repeatability. I am actually a bit excited that we agree on this. The only problem is, the Earth has never been and never will be dated using empirical science. Like all sciences dealing with origins it is nothing more than a historical science. This is because nobody can observe the age of the Earth, nor could they repeat this observation. They can only make conclusions made on assumptions and inductive reasoning. So to suggest that the science that gave us GPS units is the same science that tells us the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is a bit irresponsible. Like I pointed out in my previous post some of the greatest modern inventors were YEC. The inventor of the MRI was a YEC, apparently they didn’t think the physics behind the machine meant the Earth was old. I think you are making the mistake of assuming that Old-Earthers don’t make assumptions. It’s these erroneous assumptions that make them wrong about the age of the Earth, not the physics itself.

First of all, yes, my arguement does affirm that all measurements of every kind that professes any testable, repeatable empirical evidence toward the 'old earth' is firmly in the tank for science and not creationism.

Second of all, it's not irresponsible if it's true in regard to modern scientific devices being evidence that modern science's reality-based deductions that brought us the enormous array of evidence against the "science" of the bible also brought us the entire modern age and all the of the devices along with it. High School science and history and other classes all recognize this fact.

Third of all, as numerous people including myself pointed out, your ability to quote mine is irrelevant and several of us have already pointed out why. Your inability to address our reasons for ignoring them is evidence that you have nothing to actually show in terms of evidence against the positions you brought them up for.
Once again, you're showing your inability to actually make any counters to our claims against you. Further, you've given no one any reason to believe that those individuals have done their science as a direct correlation to beliefs that they hold that have long since been proven wrong - such as any Y-E-C beliefs that you claim that they have.

Forth of all, you're making a positive claim (that's clearly wrong, due to the evidence) that's unsupported in regards to scientists and their claims about the old-earth. Let me know when you have something other than the word of Statler Waldorf that this is true. Particularly since scientists make these claims because of the evidence and not despite the evidence.

You are playing the equivocation game. Darwinian Evolution does not merely assert that speciation through natural selection occurs (something YEC agrees with, and actually came up with first), but that all life has a common ancestor.
To say that Darwinism does not have social implications is quite frankly ridiculous. Humans are animals in the view of Darwinists, so Darwinian principles apply just as much to humans as they do ants. This viewpoint has lead to some of the worst human tragedies in reason history.

More unsubstantiated positive claims based on a concept that doesn't even exist.

You do realize that in many creation myths that humans are made from things like dirt and clay right? And you're claiming that christianism views human life in high regard? Pfft.

Kind of funny how when I point to a bunch of Atheists and Evolutionists who think you are wrong on this subject, you just say “Well I don’t care what my own experts think! So meh!” The fact of the matter is that Science has much more owed to Monotheism than it ever will to Darwin.
You may not have liked the sources I used, but at least I cited someone, your posts are almost completely devoid of any citations, I guess it’s all just your opinion huh?

and I and others have given you excellent reasons for that, which you promtly ignored and retorted with this useless strawman claim.
It's not that I don't like the 'sources' you've claimed, it's just that they're not nearly as relevant as you've made them out to be. Of course, I can understand why you think this - because your view of what science is and how it works is just outright wrong.