(February 4, 2014 at 9:27 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Actually, just to be clear, the comment to which I was responding was itself in response to DP's reply to your question "If you can walk a mile can you walk a billion miles?" He wasn't making the claim you just asserted.
Sure he was; he was arguing that “alleles can change a little over time, therefore alleles can change a lot over time.”
Quote: I was pointing out that there is a difference between an individual walking a mile and generations of that individual completeing a journey of a billion miles.
As I already pointed out, there’s a limit to how many generations you can have just like there is a limitation to how long I can live.
(February 4, 2014 at 9:30 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Maybe, but Ham will win the race by a mile, he's riding it so hard.
He hasn’t made that form of argument actually.
(February 4, 2014 at 9:32 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: He outright lied about argon and potassium in dating. Argon is an inert gas, it would not be trapped in rocks during rock formation, the amount of argon is a good measure of decay.
Actually Potassium/Argon dating is very unreliable.
Quote: Not all rocks can be radiometrically dated, it's more complex than creationists make it out to be.
Sedimentary rocks cannot be.
Quote:"LOL fossils show brain tumours, but bible says man were healthy back then", and Ham is trying to use this as an argument to say that the bible is right because the only person who were there was god.
No, he was refuting old-Earth creationism, try to keep up.
(February 4, 2014 at 9:33 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Indeed. The moment he said that the only way to know what happened in the past is to accept the word of the only one who was there, the debate should have ended.
Indeed. Deduction trumps induction.
(February 4, 2014 at 9:39 pm)Asimm Wrote: Oh, so if it's observable and sides with your argument it's now viable, got it.
All I was saying is that genetic entropy is now closely connected to a creationist, and shows bias.
So I can arbitrarily discount anything closely tied to a Darwinist? Well that’s easy enough.