(December 17, 2010 at 6:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:Oh you are so superior, that humble statement alone carries so much weight.Quote: Are you an expert in evo-devo? How do you know this?Well actually I am a professional in the scientific community, so that would make me more of an expert than you.
Quote:So? If I did a study that examined all the Creation Journals, I would not be surprised if the term evolution was never used in a positive manner. So I am not surprised Secular journals don’t publish articles that affirm the truth of Creation.The problem with secular journals is they usually have a nasty habit of publishing facts, therefore magic man fails to qualify, and that's why you don't get scientific papers affirming the "truth" of your evidence-free beliefs. Disappointing I know.
Quote:I love how Dawkins won’t debate actual Creation Scientists because he “doesn’t want to give them credibility”, but he will debate a bishop. So it’s obvious it’s not granting credibility he is worried about, it’s being publicly humiliated he is really worried about. The guy is a joke.I can emphasise with his choice to refuse to engage with the hopelessly delusional, I also decline to debate actual solipsists, not because I somehow risk being, in your words "humiliated", but because they're a complete waste of time. Any attempt to take their position seriously is not just a joke, but a farce.
Quote:Again, your scientific ignorance seeps through. Scientific facts are not established by consensus in the scientific community.I do believe he never said they were.
Quote:C14 is not very accurate for determining the actual age of organic matter. This is because the original assumptions behind the method assumed the atmosphere was in carbonic equilibrium, which has since been disproven. However, these assumptions are still used today...You mean estimating the age of carbonaceous materials, while it has found aforementioned application that does not necessarily mean it was developed exclusively for dating organic matter. We'd be the first to admit radiocarbon method shows its limitations, sometimes we can determine the age of materials and C14 content but other times it is ineffective due to a current lack of calibration.
...At least creationists admit that it should never be considered reliable (which is why they don’t accept the 40,000 year date for the coal), but can be used to disprove ages in the billions when it is found in organic matter.
As we speak actual scientists (not you) are working to establish new calibration curves that may refine the accuracy of these measurements further.
Quote:Bad analogy, you would conclude that the boulder landed there because you have directly observed other boulders falling off of cliffs, so you are applying deductive reasoning to the situation.That's Occam’s razor for you, while useful it's not of a scientific result (nobody said it was), so you're free to criticise it all as an appeal to common sense, sometimes it would be far more intellectually honest for us to say "I don't know".
