Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

Oh, good grief! We don't have to OBSERVE geologic events to know what happened!

Interesting. If you have never observed something happening then you’d have no idea what the results of that process looked like to infer the event happened elsewhere. We actually have observed catastrophic events carving out canyons, and those results look identical to the Grand Canyon. So I believe this is a more scientific approach.

Oh, gee... there are boulders at the bottom of the Colorado River? You don't say? And what do you think this proves?

Well obviously forces greater than the Colorado River got them there, one such force would be global flood waters receding.

Source?

It’s pretty well documented, here is a quick article to read though.

[url] http://creation.com/grand-canyon-strata-...-imaginary[/url]

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.

I chastised you for not considering supernatural explanations for origins, not operational sciences. Big difference…bucko.

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.

LOL!!!! You did it again! If you are not appealing to consensus then why would you even mention how many scientists support my position? In the early 20th century only one scientist believed in special relativity, and that was irrelevant to its overall validity. You crack me up.

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!

I am sure you probably meant bologna huh? :- ) Of course there is! Jacques Cousteau said that if you raise the deep ocean trenches you’d have enough water to cover the highest mountains by 10,000 feet. Creationists have a catastrophic plate tectonic model that works perfectly fine. In this model an upheaval of the ocean floors causes ocean water to rush and cover the continents. The model works perfectly from a physics point of view and has been shown off at geology conferences nationwide, I assure you it does not invoke the supernatural. Besides, the global flood is not part of operational sciences because we cannot observe it and repeat it in the present. It’s more along the lines of the “Big Bang” which is part of origins sciences.

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.

Lol, yeah right. How do you know all animals on earth have a single common ancestor? Did you observe this? Facts are based off of observation.
]

What's baseless is your claim that you must observe the age of the age of the Earth to know how old it is.

Another assertion. I guess I just have a stricter definition of science than you do.

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!

We are talking about aging and rates, if you can’t see how the laws of thermodynamics relate to aging, then there is not much I can do for you.

Says the guy who thinks dinosaurs and people lived at the same time....

Coelacanths and people did and do, how do you know that dinosaurs and people never did?

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!!!

Well then you should be well aware that “The Little Grand Canyon” was formed by run-off (water) caused by Mt. St. Helens quickly melting snow pack. A bit surprised you didn’t know that.

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.

If local flood waters from a little volcanic eruption can carve out a hundred foot deep canyon in one day, it’s not unreasonable at all to believe that global flood waters could carve one a mile deep in a few years. Besides you are the person who thinks that rivers that erode only a few Cm a year could carve out a canyon a mile deep. Special pleading. At least we have observed flood waters carve out canyons, we have never observed a river do it over millions of years.

And it takes a very long time for rock layers to pile up to a depth of over a mile.

You know this how? We have seen them form 100 feet deep in one day. Given that same rate it would only take 52 days to form one mile’s worth. So the math is not in your favor.

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.

Sedimentary rocks formed in a matter of days with Mt. St. Helens, so it appears it does not take that long for them to form. Unless a couple days is a “really long time” to you.
]

What evidence?

Well like just above, you believe it takes long periods of time to form sedimentary rock layers despite the observed evidence that contradicts this belief.

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.

LOL! Special pleading. So it is ok for your journals to be reviewed by only evolutionists but it is not ok for creation journals to be reviewed by creationists. Classic case. How do you know the editors of Nature and Science are not biased?

“‘(T)here are unarguable faux pas in our history. These include the rejection of Cerenkov radiation, Hideki Yukawa’s meson, work on photosynthesis by Johann Deisenhofer, Robert Huber and Hartmut Michel, and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of Stephen Hawking’s black-hole radiation.’8 “
- Nature’s editorial page.

Let’s hear from an actual editor of one of your peer reviewed journals…
“‘If an editor chooses to publish a hostile review of a book, common politeness would suggest that the author ought to have some space to respond. But editors have a “higher calling” than common politeness, namely the editorial mission and guidelines that inform every decision as to what will be printed and what will be rejected. I have learned, since becoming the editor of Research News, common politeness is often in tension with editorial priorities … In my editorial judgment, the collection of ideas known as “scientific creationism” (which is not the same as intelligent design) lacks the credibility to justify publishing any submissions that we get from its adherents. I would go even further, in fact. The collection of creationist ideas (6,000 year old earth, no common ancestry, all the fossils laid down by Noah's flood, Genesis creation account read literally, etc.) has been so thoroughly discredited by both scientific and religious scholarship that I think it is entirely appropriate for Research News to print material designed to move our readers away from this viewpoint. For example, we might publish a negative review of a book promoting scientific creationism … while refusing to allow the author a chance to respond. Is this an unfair bias? Or is it proper stewardship of limited editorial resources?’”
- Karl Giberson, editor of Research News

So not only is he rejecting articles before he has read them, (sounds like bias to me) but he will favor other articles just to move readers away from these viewpoints (sounds like bias to me again). So your whole position is completely circular.

“Why don’t creation articles get published in secular journals much?”
“Well because they are not scientific!”
“Why are they not scientific?”
“Well name one secular journal that publishes their work! See!? They are not scientific!”

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.

Red herring, I noticed you didn’t answer the question, because you can’t name any that don’t “believe in” or that don’t “find evolution factual”.

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".

No true Scotsman fallacy. You are also basing this whole argument on circular reasoning as I pointed out above.

Obviously you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't buy into the Creationist crap.

Obviously you don’t, because you buy that evolution crap. So where is this Nazi Journal? Oh, you just made it up! Thought so.
]

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".

Proof? Source? Example?

No, OJ Simpson wasn't convicted because the jury was not going to convict him no matter what evidence was presented.

But I thought that DNA evidence could prove things beyond all doubt? Apparently not.

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).

Rocks layers can be formed a hundred feet deep in one day, of course they can be formed a mile deep in years.

And, as usual, you're wrong. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

Yet your little old earth source fails to give any real examples demonstrating radiometric dating’s reliability! Nice! Here are some examples for you…

Rocks dated with the K-Ar method formed by Mt. St. Helens were dated to be 350,000 years old. Of course this is ridiculous because we observed the rocks to be formed in 1986. When the mineral concentrations in these same rocks were dated, they yielded even worse results, 2,800,000 years old.

Rocks formed by the Mt. Nguaruhoe’s eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975 were dated with the K-Ar method yielding dates ranging from 270,000 years to 3,500,000 years old.

So yeah, those look fairly reliable to me, don’t you agree? Haha.



Examples from “Isotopic Compositions of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks” published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters Vol. 8.

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!

Yeah I am not surprised you read that guy’s “work”. You make a lot of the same errors in reasoning and logic he does. I personally wouldn’t really put much stock in a man who believes his purpose in life is to show others that there is no purpose in life.