Statler Waldorf introduction.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Well bigotry is wrong no matter who it is against, even Creationists.

It's not creationists I despise, It's creationism. I don't like creationists teaching sciences that creationism is conflicted against for the same reason the oil industry shouldn't be allowed to regulate themselves. It's counter productive.

Evidence cannot be interpreted without presuppositions. Presuppostions come directly from Worldviews. Hence why you can show a first grade student all the radiometric evidence you want and they will not independently arrive at the same conclusions as you because they lack your presuppositions. Gather a group of Scientists together who all have the same presuppositions and show them evidence and they will arrive at the same conclusions. However, this does not mean this is necessarily the correct conclusion.

Evidence can certainly be interpreted without presuppositions. Just ask any criminal investigator. An investigator doesn't walk into a crime scene expecting to find anything other than evidence and not even necessarily for a crime because just because they call it a crime scence doesn't mean a crime was even committed.
The exact same thing is true for scientists - they haven't arrived to the conclusion that the earth is 4.54 billion years old because they had the worldview first and the evience came in later to support it - the evidence pointed in that direction and the scientists followed.

The Dinosaur example was a bad oen considering they were first discovered by Owen who was a Creationist and a staunch opponent of Darwin.

... and how does that make it a bad example? He was clearly wrong, falsifying or purposefully misinterpreting data because it was opposed to his own beliefs, and was later proven to be a fraud because of those actions as more and more evidence piled up against his suppositions.

There are plenty of reputable Biologists, Geologists, and Astronomers who are Y-E, it's pretty much an urban legend to think otherwise. You don't think they have models and theories to explain Dinosaurs and Distant Starlight? They do.

Considering I am fully aware of the statistics of the prominance of Y-E creationism in scientific fields, I don't think I am when I say that the concept among scientists who hold to that belief is virtually non-existant.
There is a greater perponderance of scientists who have religion but they are not in the majority compared to atheists and agnostics in the field.
I'm also fully aware of the Y-E theories of why things look the way they are and they have the problem of violating the laws of physics to the point to where the universe could not exist in their "theories" were true or the universe wouldn't exist as they expect it would (for example, faster light in the past actually results in a universe older than the one we currently have.)

Case and Point: (Not just the linked video but all five parts to which ths video is the first part of.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk

Lol, not expecting to find anything other than evidence is what?....a presupposition! Yay! if evidence does not require interpretation then why don't we allow just anyone to work in Forensics? Oh yeah, they have to first go through schooling so they can learn to collect and....wait for it....interpret the evidence! Yay!! In your world they would walk in and the evidence would be sitting there and would physically tell them, "so and so did this and this is how he did it" lol. If evidence doesn't require interpretation then why are innocent people sent to prison? Possibly a misinterpretation of the evidence against them? Pretty simple stuff really.

Owen is actually considered one of the greatest Scientists of the 19th Century. So to call him a "fraud" is kind of silly. He did discover your beloved Dinosaurs you know?

I like how you try and appeal to majority as if that is no longer a Logical Fallacy. Consensus is not Scientific Fact so you wasted your time on that one.

Most Creationists do not believe in the Tired Light Hypothesis or C-decay so talking about that was also a bit of a waste.

I ask for Science and you give me youtube? Pulllease.

---

A retar..... I mean a fundamentalist.

Hello Anyways but you will not find a home here. Most of the people that come to these forums are realistic people.

Haha, hello back. Appreciate the warm and mature welcome.

---

Nope.

Just checking.

I'm itching to ask you how you think Noah fit all those animals in a boat, but I think that is deserving of a different thread, one that won't be started, I hope.

You can start that thread if you like. I can defend the Noah account fairly easily.

Never meant to be mature, It was a joke. Welcome to the forums you reta.... oh damn! I forgot I have to be politically correct! I almost did it again! Welcome to the forums fundi!

Yeah that's why I used this new thing we like to call sarcasm when I called you mature.

---

I feel the Biblical view of Creation is the most consistant view when all the evidence is taken into consideration.

And what "evidence" leads you to conclude that the universe and everything in it was created by a magical man in the sky?

None, Christians do not believe the Universe nor the Earth for that matter was created by a magical man in the sky.

---