Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Welsh cake]

Everything you said here is operational science, very good. Try to do all of this with the past (observe, test, repeat, predict). You just proved my point my friend. Thanks.

I proved that you have no idea how the methodology works? That you wilfully dismiss naturalism across the board? You are skeptical of uniformitarianism for no adequate reason? You reject the findings of fields of studies in physics, mathematics, chemistry, chronology, and so on used by scientists to build up an understanding of how the Earth science works, and how it arrived at its current state? That you're ignoring everything I'm telling you now because you can't fathom how you of all people could ever be wrong?

Sure, you're welcome.

Natural events are the way that God consistently upholds His creation;

I'm asking you to define nature. I shouldn't be disappointed though, you've not only presented something that doesn't fit the current working definition of the natural world, as in the physical universe but moved the goalposts and changed it to "creation". So what is creation? Please define it.

When God acts in a way that is contrary to his usual way of upholding his creation we call this a super-natural event. To suggest that supernatural events cannot happen is completely inappropriate.

I'll play devil's advocate and presuppose that if an entity exists who can manipulate reality, initiated the creation of the natural universe and forge this material world from nothing, then calling anything after that event super-natural is utterly senseless, because by your own omission everything is naturally occurring; it is all going according to the will of your creator is it not? Is he not holding up and maintaining his own work from crumbling back into the void? If god exists and manifests in nature then subsequently everything that he does or doesn't do is natural. You may assert god is "outside" that but then your argument would become self-refuting as you're presupposing god does (occasionally) interact with his brainchild. This is why supernatural is such a useless label; you haven't defined what this god is or the natural worlds' square bounds.

What does Pluto’s orbit have to do with observing the age of the earth?

It was a response to your erroneous assertion and given as an example that we can't make predictions, estimations or calculations about reality unless direct observation takes place, which you yourself know is not the case.

We can test our calculations about Pluto’s orbit with direct observation and we can repeat these observations. However, when we test radiometric methods with actual known observed ages they are never even close to being right.

Way to competely miss the point I was making. We can't directly observe Pluto make a complete orbit because of our limited lifespans.

What arbitrary context are you taking the word "right" here? That any dating technique that yields results that the planet Earth is far older than 6-10,000 years is somehow "wrong"? Is that what you're saying?

By definition they actually are. They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

No they are fucking not. Go read this article because I'm not playing teacher for you anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

And no they are not scientists either. They are young Earth creationists. They are profit-free organisation made up of religious ministers, apologists and evangelists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Mi...ernational

Enough already with the baseless assertions, back it up or shut it up.

You back it up. You made the baseless factually wrong assertion. You're entitled to your own beliefs, but don't even for a second presume you're also automatically entitled to your own facts now.