Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

[quote='Thor' pid='114823' dateline='1295477335']

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.

Bullshit. No one has ever observed sedimentary rock forming. Yet, we know the process that takes place to make this type of rock.

And have you ever observed two atoms of hydrogen combining with one atom of oxygen to form water? I doubt it. Do you doubt that water is composed of these two elements? Or do you just accept the word of scientists as being factual in this matter?

We actually have observed catastrophic events carving out canyons, and those results look identical to the Grand Canyon.

Uh... NOTHING looks "identical to the Grand Canyon".

So I believe this is a more scientific approach.

I'm sure you do....

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.

Or.... just perhaps.... the boulders FELL FROM THE CLIFFS ABOVE THE RIVER?

Source?

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

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

Can't help noticing the first word in that website is "creation"... I did look at it, though. Thanks for the laugh. Now here's a site that actually has science to back up it's claims... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

You chastise me for not considering "supernatural" explanations. Now you want to distance 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.

What difference does it make? Why can't supernatural explanations be considered for anything? Maybe things fall because there are angels pushing down on everything. Is that not a possible explanation for gravity? If not, why not?

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?

Because we're not talking about OPINION. We're talking about established scientific facts that are supported by evidence.

In the early 20th century only one scientist believed in special relativity, and that was irrelevant to its overall validity.

Yeah, you keep wanting to dredge up something that is nearly a century old. Ya got anything more recent? Like in the last ten years?

You crack me up.

Not nearly as much as you crack me up. Tell us all again how dinosaurs were on the ark....

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? :- )

No, I meant baloney. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1295548439

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.

So what?

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.

Too bad there's no evidence to indicate this ever happened. And, what? The ocean floors suddenly lifted up and then sank back down again?

The model works perfectly from a physics point of view and has been shown off at geology conferences nationwide

And I'm sure it has generated plenty of laughs.

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.

Did you observe Noah's flood? Did you observe "God" creating the universe? Did you observe the Tower of babel being built? Guess you can't prove any of these things happened, can you? Since, you know... 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.

Obviously. And your "strict definition" of science results in conclusions like "man lived with dinosuars!"

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.

No, I don't see how the laws of thermodynamics relate to aging. Why don't you educate me? Specifically, WHICH Law of Thermodynamics relates to aging?

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?

Because there's no evidence for it.

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.

And it makes no difference! These two thing are not comparable! For starters, the sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into much harder rock.

So, again.... BZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!!

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.

Uh, yeah... it's very much unreasonable. As I pointed out, the canyon at Mount St. Helens was carved out of volcanic ash. The Grand Canyon is carved out of ROCK! I have an experiment for you! Take two pieces of wood. On one piece put a pile of mud. On the other, place a large rock. Now put them both under running water. Which one gets a channel cut in it very quickly? The rock or the mud? This simulates what happened at the Grand Canyon (rock) and Mount St. Helens (mud).

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.

Yes, a few centimeters a year... over millions of years.... see where I'm going with this?

At least we have observed flood waters carve out canyons,

Not canyons made out of ROCK!

we have never observed a river do it over millions of years.

There are many things we have never observed, yet we know them to be facts.

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.

Not in the same material that makes up the Grand Canyon!

Given that same rate it would only take 52 days to form one mile’s worth.

Okay, now show me a canyon a mile deep that was formed in 52 days.

So the math is not in your favor.

Actually, it is. Remember? A few centimeters a year... millions of years....

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.

Sedimentary rocks formed in a matter of days? You have a source for this crap? Because sedimentary rock takes a VERY LONG TIME to form. It's very existence is enough to refute your absurd claim that the planet was formed 6,000 years ago.

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.

What observed evidence? You haven't shown any! What evidence do you have that shows sedimentary rock can form in DAYS?

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.

Sure, creation journals can be reviewed by creationists. Just don't call it "science".

Classic case. How do you know the editors of Nature and Science are not biased?

Yeah, I suppose you're right... The editors of Science and Nature are biased towards publishing things of a scientific nature.

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.

And I'm sure Creation journals would be happy to publish something written by Richard Dawkins.

“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!”

Nice straw man you set up there.

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”.

And what does this prove?

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?

Are you saying that creationists DON'T start with the assumption that the Earth is young?

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.

Did you even read what I wrote? The evidence didn't matter! The jury was going to acquit no matter what!

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.

Source for this crap? Sedimentary rock layers most certainly can NOT form 100 feet deep in a day!

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.

Yeah, this bullshit is easily refuted here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Ha ha.

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 use the same reasoning and logic as Richard Dawkins? Why, thank you for the compliment.

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.

And where did Dawkins ever express this?