[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='114736' dateline='1295406030']
[quote] Yes, scientists look at the Grand Canyon and, using a variety of disciplines, they conclude the Canyon was carved by the action of the Colorado River over a very long period of time (i.e., millions of years). [/quote]
[quote]Despite the fact that they have never observed a river carve out a canyon[/quote]
Oh, good grief! We don't have to OBSERVE geologic events to know what happened!
[quote]and the fact that there boulders at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that are far too large for the Colorado River to move even in flood season.[/quote]
Oh, gee... there are boulders at the bottom of the Colorado River? You don't say? And what do you think this proves?
[quote]This also ignores the fact that the Kaibab Upheaval suggests that most of the strata in the canyon were deformed while it was still saturated with water, and not over millions of years. [/quote]
Source?
[quote]Of course you can just ignore all of these facts and continue with your fallacious interpretation of the evidence. [/quote]
I don't see any "facts" that contradict the conclusion that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. Of course, you're obligated to twist your scrotum in a knot to make the evidence fit your ludicrous belief that Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon.
[quote]Creation Scientists don’t invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences, so this whole analogy is ridiculous. [/quote]
"Creation Scientists"... oxymoron of the year!
You chastise me for not considering "supernatural" explanations. Now you want to distnace yourself from supernatural explanations. You can't have it both ways, bucko.
[quote]Huh? No, I was just showing you why you should not appeal to consensus. Apparently you missed the whole point.[/quote]
And nowhere have I made an appeal to consensus. Of course, since you have virtually NO scientists who support your position, you must make resort to tactics like this.
[quote]Again, the operational sciences. Creationists do not invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences.[/quote]
Baloney. Creationists MUST invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences. How else do you account for rain flooding the planet above the tops of the highest mountains? There isn't enough water on the planet to pull this off!
[quote]Actually evolution is closely tied to the age of the earth. It needs old ages, hence why Darwin was such an advocate of the uniformitarian movement. [/quote]
Glad to see you admit this. Because evolution is quite simply a scientific fact. Therefore, the Earth is much older than you want to believe.
[quote] Wrong.[/quote]
[quote]Baseless assertion, claim stands un-refuted. [/quote]
What's baseless is your claim that you must observe the age of the age of the Earth to know how old it is.
[quote] Because you're comparing a living being to non-living material. [/quote]
[quote]So? The laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to living matter? I think they very much do. [/quote]
What do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with this? You're trying to compare the growth rate of a human with the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. BZZZZZZTTTTT!
[quote] Yeah, if I was a complete fool. [/quote]
[quote]Well you apply this same foolish reasoning to the age of the earth so….. [/quote]
Says the guy who thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time....
[quote] And here is where you demonstrate how well you comprehend what I write. I did NOT talk about how the Grand Canyon was formed! I talked about the ROCK LAYERS at the Grand Canyon! Have you ever been there? I have. And you can see the different rock layers that have been laid down over time. They are composed of different materials, fossils vary depending on the layer, and the layers are even different colors! These layers are stacked one atop the other (much like a layer cake) and total up to a mile deep. The idea that these layers piled up to that depth in the space of a just a few thousand years is absolutely laughable. [/quote]
[quote]Actually you are right; it doesn’t have to take thousands of years. The Little Grand Canyon in Washington State is 1/40th the size of the actual Grand Canyon (about 100 feet deep). It is completely stratified just like the Grand Canyon and even has a new stream running down the middle of it just like the Grand Canyon. The only problem is…it was formed in one day!! The canyon was formed by the sediment run off caused by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The only problem is, it displays everything you just listed above as evidence for an “old” canyon and yet we know it is very young. [/quote]
Yeah, I've seen this bullshit argument from other Creationists. So you want to compare something that was created when a mountain was basically blown apart in a volcanic eruption with something that was created by the movement of water.
BZZZZZTTTTT!!!
And, my goodness! This canyon is 100 feet deep? Yeah, that really compares to the Grand Canyon's depth of a mile. I need higher boots. The bullshit is getting deep here.
[quote] Read my question again, genius. I did NOT ask how the Grand Canyon was formed. I asked you to explain the ROCK LAYERS. Care to try again? [/quote]
[quote]As I pointed out above, the Little Grand Canyon also has rock layers; it’s a natural phenomenon that is caused by the different grain sizes and densities.[/quote]
And it takes a very long time for rock layers to pile up to a depth of over a mile.
[quote]It does not prove age at all.[/quote]
Actually, it does! Sedimentary rock layers take a long time to form. When you have many of these layers piled up on top of each other we know this took a VERY long time.
[quote]I find it rather unbelievable that a semi-intelligent person could believe what you believe in spite of the observed evidence to the contrary. [/quote]
What evidence?
[quote] Also, who exactly "peer-reviewed" the conclusions of the creation journals? Other creationists? This is the same as other Nazis "peer reviewing" the conclusions of Nazi researchers. Epic fail. [/quote]
[quote]Actually it is the same as only evolutionists peer reviewing the articles that are submitted to Nature and Science lol.[/quote]
Uh, no, it's not. The editors of "Nature" and "Science" do not have a preconceived bias. Unlike those twit Creationist publications that start with the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
[quote]Can you name one scientist on the peer review board for either one of those journals who does not believe in evolution? [/quote]
One does not "believe in" evolution. One accepts the Theory of Evolution as factual. "Believing in" things is strictly the realm of the Creationist crowd.
[quote]So it is obvious you are just engaging in special pleading when you expect Creation Journals to be peer reviewed by non-creationists. Epic fail. [/quote]
Yeah, silly me. Expecting Creation Journals to be reviewed for content by reputable scientists who are experts in their field. By the way, I wouldn't insult actual scientists by referring to nitwits who work in "Creation Research" as their "peers".
[quote] Would you consider the "Nazi Journal" to be an "historical source" in matters concerning the Holocaust? If not, then (according to you) you are imposing an "arbitrary definition". [/quote]
[quote]I believe in judging science upon its merits,[/quote]
Obviously you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't buy into the Creationist crap.
[quote] Except their "systemic approach" is tainted by their assumption that some deity created the universe. This poisons anything they may conclude [/quote]
[quote]Well I guess the laws of Gravity are tainted because they were discovered by someone who believed God created the earth and universe about 6,000 years ago! Bummer! [/quote]
Terrible analogy. Newton didn't start with an assumption and try to build his theories around it. However, this is exactly what Creationists do when performing "research".
[quote] You still want to insist the DNA evidence is "circumstantial"? [/quote]
[quote]DNA evidence is by definition circumstantial evidence yes. Hence why OJ Simpson was not convicted for murder criminally despite the fact they had DNA evidence to support the DA’s charges. This was because the jury believed (wrongfully I believe) that the DNA evidence was planted. [/quote]
No, OJ Simpson wasn't convicted because the jury was not going to convict him no matter what evidence was presented.
[quote] And we can observe those rock layers at the Grand Canyon... [/quote]
[quote]Yes you can, so you can say you have strong empirical evidence that there are rock layers at the Grand Canyon. I would not argue with this at all, especially since I have seen them myself. [/quote]
And how do you think the rock layers came to be piled up like that? Rock layers a mile deep? And you think this happened in just a few thousand years? (Nice try at avoiding the issue I raised, BTW).
[quote] And do you have any evidence to suggest that the rates are in error? I mean other than just saying "it's prone to error". [/quote]
[quote]The fact that these methods can’t date correctly of rocks of known ages is pretty strong evidence that the rates are not constant. If the method can’t work when used on material of known age there is no reason at all to believe it all of the sudden works on materials of unknown ages. I am sorry. [/quote]
And, as usual, you're wrong. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
I've been reading Richard Dawkin's book on evolution. In it, he refers to Creationists as "a baying pack of ignoramuses". For some reason, I thought of you!
[quote] Yes, scientists look at the Grand Canyon and, using a variety of disciplines, they conclude the Canyon was carved by the action of the Colorado River over a very long period of time (i.e., millions of years). [/quote]
[quote]Despite the fact that they have never observed a river carve out a canyon[/quote]
Oh, good grief! We don't have to OBSERVE geologic events to know what happened!
[quote]and the fact that there boulders at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that are far too large for the Colorado River to move even in flood season.[/quote]
Oh, gee... there are boulders at the bottom of the Colorado River? You don't say? And what do you think this proves?
[quote]This also ignores the fact that the Kaibab Upheaval suggests that most of the strata in the canyon were deformed while it was still saturated with water, and not over millions of years. [/quote]
Source?
[quote]Of course you can just ignore all of these facts and continue with your fallacious interpretation of the evidence. [/quote]
I don't see any "facts" that contradict the conclusion that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. Of course, you're obligated to twist your scrotum in a knot to make the evidence fit your ludicrous belief that Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon.
[quote]Creation Scientists don’t invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences, so this whole analogy is ridiculous. [/quote]
"Creation Scientists"... oxymoron of the year!
You chastise me for not considering "supernatural" explanations. Now you want to distnace yourself from supernatural explanations. You can't have it both ways, bucko.
[quote]Huh? No, I was just showing you why you should not appeal to consensus. Apparently you missed the whole point.[/quote]
And nowhere have I made an appeal to consensus. Of course, since you have virtually NO scientists who support your position, you must make resort to tactics like this.
[quote]Again, the operational sciences. Creationists do not invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences.[/quote]
Baloney. Creationists MUST invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences. How else do you account for rain flooding the planet above the tops of the highest mountains? There isn't enough water on the planet to pull this off!
[quote]Actually evolution is closely tied to the age of the earth. It needs old ages, hence why Darwin was such an advocate of the uniformitarian movement. [/quote]
Glad to see you admit this. Because evolution is quite simply a scientific fact. Therefore, the Earth is much older than you want to believe.
[quote] Wrong.[/quote]
[quote]Baseless assertion, claim stands un-refuted. [/quote]
What's baseless is your claim that you must observe the age of the age of the Earth to know how old it is.
[quote] Because you're comparing a living being to non-living material. [/quote]
[quote]So? The laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to living matter? I think they very much do. [/quote]
What do the Laws of Thermodynamics have to do with this? You're trying to compare the growth rate of a human with the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. BZZZZZZTTTTT!
[quote] Yeah, if I was a complete fool. [/quote]
[quote]Well you apply this same foolish reasoning to the age of the earth so….. [/quote]
Says the guy who thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time....
[quote] And here is where you demonstrate how well you comprehend what I write. I did NOT talk about how the Grand Canyon was formed! I talked about the ROCK LAYERS at the Grand Canyon! Have you ever been there? I have. And you can see the different rock layers that have been laid down over time. They are composed of different materials, fossils vary depending on the layer, and the layers are even different colors! These layers are stacked one atop the other (much like a layer cake) and total up to a mile deep. The idea that these layers piled up to that depth in the space of a just a few thousand years is absolutely laughable. [/quote]
[quote]Actually you are right; it doesn’t have to take thousands of years. The Little Grand Canyon in Washington State is 1/40th the size of the actual Grand Canyon (about 100 feet deep). It is completely stratified just like the Grand Canyon and even has a new stream running down the middle of it just like the Grand Canyon. The only problem is…it was formed in one day!! The canyon was formed by the sediment run off caused by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The only problem is, it displays everything you just listed above as evidence for an “old” canyon and yet we know it is very young. [/quote]
Yeah, I've seen this bullshit argument from other Creationists. So you want to compare something that was created when a mountain was basically blown apart in a volcanic eruption with something that was created by the movement of water.
BZZZZZTTTTT!!!
And, my goodness! This canyon is 100 feet deep? Yeah, that really compares to the Grand Canyon's depth of a mile. I need higher boots. The bullshit is getting deep here.
[quote] Read my question again, genius. I did NOT ask how the Grand Canyon was formed. I asked you to explain the ROCK LAYERS. Care to try again? [/quote]
[quote]As I pointed out above, the Little Grand Canyon also has rock layers; it’s a natural phenomenon that is caused by the different grain sizes and densities.[/quote]
And it takes a very long time for rock layers to pile up to a depth of over a mile.
[quote]It does not prove age at all.[/quote]
Actually, it does! Sedimentary rock layers take a long time to form. When you have many of these layers piled up on top of each other we know this took a VERY long time.
[quote]I find it rather unbelievable that a semi-intelligent person could believe what you believe in spite of the observed evidence to the contrary. [/quote]
What evidence?
[quote] Also, who exactly "peer-reviewed" the conclusions of the creation journals? Other creationists? This is the same as other Nazis "peer reviewing" the conclusions of Nazi researchers. Epic fail. [/quote]
[quote]Actually it is the same as only evolutionists peer reviewing the articles that are submitted to Nature and Science lol.[/quote]
Uh, no, it's not. The editors of "Nature" and "Science" do not have a preconceived bias. Unlike those twit Creationist publications that start with the notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
[quote]Can you name one scientist on the peer review board for either one of those journals who does not believe in evolution? [/quote]
One does not "believe in" evolution. One accepts the Theory of Evolution as factual. "Believing in" things is strictly the realm of the Creationist crowd.
[quote]So it is obvious you are just engaging in special pleading when you expect Creation Journals to be peer reviewed by non-creationists. Epic fail. [/quote]
Yeah, silly me. Expecting Creation Journals to be reviewed for content by reputable scientists who are experts in their field. By the way, I wouldn't insult actual scientists by referring to nitwits who work in "Creation Research" as their "peers".
[quote] Would you consider the "Nazi Journal" to be an "historical source" in matters concerning the Holocaust? If not, then (according to you) you are imposing an "arbitrary definition". [/quote]
[quote]I believe in judging science upon its merits,[/quote]
Obviously you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't buy into the Creationist crap.
[quote] Except their "systemic approach" is tainted by their assumption that some deity created the universe. This poisons anything they may conclude [/quote]
[quote]Well I guess the laws of Gravity are tainted because they were discovered by someone who believed God created the earth and universe about 6,000 years ago! Bummer! [/quote]
Terrible analogy. Newton didn't start with an assumption and try to build his theories around it. However, this is exactly what Creationists do when performing "research".
[quote] You still want to insist the DNA evidence is "circumstantial"? [/quote]
[quote]DNA evidence is by definition circumstantial evidence yes. Hence why OJ Simpson was not convicted for murder criminally despite the fact they had DNA evidence to support the DA’s charges. This was because the jury believed (wrongfully I believe) that the DNA evidence was planted. [/quote]
No, OJ Simpson wasn't convicted because the jury was not going to convict him no matter what evidence was presented.
[quote] And we can observe those rock layers at the Grand Canyon... [/quote]
[quote]Yes you can, so you can say you have strong empirical evidence that there are rock layers at the Grand Canyon. I would not argue with this at all, especially since I have seen them myself. [/quote]
And how do you think the rock layers came to be piled up like that? Rock layers a mile deep? And you think this happened in just a few thousand years? (Nice try at avoiding the issue I raised, BTW).
[quote] And do you have any evidence to suggest that the rates are in error? I mean other than just saying "it's prone to error". [/quote]
[quote]The fact that these methods can’t date correctly of rocks of known ages is pretty strong evidence that the rates are not constant. If the method can’t work when used on material of known age there is no reason at all to believe it all of the sudden works on materials of unknown ages. I am sorry. [/quote]
And, as usual, you're wrong. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
I've been reading Richard Dawkin's book on evolution. In it, he refers to Creationists as "a baying pack of ignoramuses". For some reason, I thought of you!
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
