Silly Creationist

[Statler Waldorf]

---

See the problem here is Statler, that you scoff at the evidence provided by science and yet you defend the "evidence" provided by a book that even you have admitted requires faith. It's not fair to claim that the arguments of evolutionists is logically invalid when your own "evidence" first requires one to believe in a holy book. You ask why the Bible can't be used as proof and follow that up with the fact that you believe it is inerrant.
It seems to be blatant hypocrisy.
"I don't think your evidence is logically valid - mine isn't either, but mine is still better because it came from the hand of men who claimed they spoke to god."

It seems ever so clearly biased to me.

It's like trying to prove that you had a threesome with two supermodels by using your personal Diary as evidence. It's just simply not valid.

---

Hmm, I don’t believe I have done this, or at least not intentionally. The point I was trying to make was that the evidence evolutionists point to can logically be used to also support the creationist model and often is. As for the scripture point, we are covering that pretty extensively in another thread and I’d like to hear your thoughts on that discussion.

---

I believe your biblical flood can be explained away thus:

The water covered the tops of the highest mountains by 15 cubits (22feet). That's 22 feet taller than Everest baby.

The flood waters receded. To where exactly? Think about it

---

You are not arguing against the current Creation model, so this is really just a straw man. It’s kind of like the old, “if evolution were true, then why are there still apes?” argument. The deepest oceanic trenches and highest mountains are all a result of catastrophic plate tectonics during the flood period. So the water did not have to be above Mt. Everest at all. In fact, if you raise the oceanic trenches and lower the highest mountain ranges there is more than enough water to cover the earth. The raising of these mountain ranges would then cause the waters to recede back to the Ocean.

A fine point sir!

I think that is a bit harsh. I have not insulted your or demeaned your ability to think throughout our discussions, so why do that to me? We may have different views on these matters but we can still have a civil discussion can’t we?

---

Could you point me in the direction of an example of a dating method that comes close to a date of 6,000 as this is the first I've heard of it?

---

Yes of course, I only have a few minutes, but here are a couple examples.

1. Genetic entropy rates are consistent with a human genome origin of around 6,000 years ago.
2. A very conservative population growth of 0.5% per annum (currently it is 1.8%) would give us eight people only 4,500 years ago which is consistent with scripture.
3. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils, 50:50 would have been reached in less than 10,000 years.
4. The Earth’s magnetic field decay rates are consistent with an earth younger than 10,000 years.
5. Helium levels in the earth’s atmosphere are consistent with an earth of only 6,000 years old.
6. Y chromosome variations around the world are also consistent with mankind only being around for around 6,000 years.

That’s what I can come up with right off the top of my head, like I said; if you want to suggest an age for the earth I can guarantee you can find a dating method to “confirm” it. It’s not nearly as cut and dry as people like Dawkins want everyone to believe.

---

There is a massive list of wankers who believe in creation. So what? It has no bearing on how they got their PhDs, because you can bet dollars to donuts that they didn't do dissertations titled, "Jesus and Anklyosaurus: Clubmates?"

I think that question was far too easy and innocuous. Answer this one: How many of them publish regularly in credentialed scientific periodicals, and of the ones who do, how many toss in their creationism bullshit? Bet that list shrinks pretty precipitously there.

Fucking hell. When is this dark age dementia going to end?

---

So first it was, “I bet you can’t name any Creationists with Ph.D. degrees in Biology”. Now it is, “I bet you can’t name any who publish Creation science in Secular Peer Reviewed Journals!” I see we are moving the goalposts huh? How about you answer this question then, can you name anyone who got an article supporting Common Descent published in a Peer Reviewed Creation Journal? You see how silly that request is when it is pulled on you?