creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution.

[Statler Waldorf]

The age of the earth is confirmed by so many pieces of evidence that you would have to be a blinkered moron to still believe in a young earth if you have any science knowledge at all.

I have a great deal of scientific knowledge and I see no reason at all to believe the Earth is billions of years old, perhaps you can enlighten me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ag...t_creation

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/...nolgy.html

You don’t think it’s a bit...well moronic to try and prove your position using user-generated wiki websites?

My favorite has to be zircon crystals that form deep in the earth mantle, then are raised by mountain forming, eroded down by weathering then by subduction at plate boundries taken back into the earth mantle where each time this happens leaving a new layer of zircon is added, like a very slow growing onion. Some of them have a lot of layers.

That’s interesting that Zircon crystals are one of your favorite lines of evidence, it’s one of mine too. Since the zircon dating method is based on the radiometric decay of Uranium, how do you know that the radiometric decay rate of Uranium has been uniform throughout Earth’s history?
I am sure, since you have made it quite clear that you are not a moron (and apparently I am a moron since I have both a scientific background and still believe in the Biblical age given for the Earth), that you are aware that a byproduct of Uranium decay is Helium. I am also sure that you are aware that Helium diffuses out of the Zircon crystals over time. Can you point me to a study that empirically measured the diffusion rate of Helium to be consistent with the supposed ages of the crystals? All the studies I can find that have measured this diffusion rate measure a diffusion rate consistent with a crystal of only 6,000 years old, not billions of years old. Apparently we have one decay rate suggesting the crystals are billions of years old, and a second empirically measurable decay rate (Helium diffusion) that suggests the crystals are 6,000 years old; forgive me, but that hardly seems to be conclusive evidence demonstrating that the Earth is billions of years old. Perhaps you have some better evidence you’d like to present? Thank you!

[Anomalocaris]

Morons? Are you really suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you about the age of the Earth is a moron? Why?

If you limit everyone to the group of people that use a literal interpretation of the Bible to determine the age of the Earth then moron no.


Brainwashed fucktard yes.

The salient characteristics of this type of brainwashing is it can't work long in the 21st century on anyone but natural born morons.

So yes, SW could not have been anything but always a total moron, and so must anyone be who could be adapted to SW's way of misusing a very tiny total inventory of badly mutated and defective neurons.

---

I have a great deal of scientific knowledge and .....

[Statler Waldorf]

Do you know what a fallacious appeal to ridicule is? You should look it up, even though you might run the risk of actually learning something.

[Cato]

You don’t think it’s a bit...well moronic to try and prove your position using user-generated wiki websites?

You didn't think this through, did you? The Bible is nothing but a conglomeration of user-generated conjecture and hearsay.

Wikipedia at least contains a section that references source materials.

[Statler Waldorf]

You didn't think this through, did you? The Bible is nothing but a conglomeration of user-generated conjecture and hearsay.

Apparently you didn’t think your own post out very well; we know that scripture has to be infallible, so we can then use it to test the truth claims made by fallible sources.

Wikipedia at least contains a section that references source materials.

…so does Answers in Genesis. Your point?

[Anomalocaris]

we know that scripture has to be infallible

So it is the infallibility of such a unusually fallible creature as yourself that you rely on, then

[Jackalope]

we know that scripture has to be infallible

We do?

Please, enlighten us. How do "we" know such a thing?

Presuppositionalist rantings in 3.... 2.... 1....

[Statler Waldorf]

So it is the infallibility of such a unusually fallible creature as yourself that you rely on, then

No, it’s the infallibility of God’s revealed word. Did you look up the appeal to ridicule?

---

We do?

Yup.

Please, enlighten us. How do "we" know such a thing?

I’d be more than happy to. Anti-Biblical conceptual schemes and views of reality can always be reduced to absurdity; only the Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent. That alone would prove that scripture is infallible. That’s not the only proof though; since the Biblical view of reality has elements in it that even atheists agree are true, we can therefore know that the entire conceptual scheme must also be true since it is logically consistent. Therefore, we know again that scripture has to be the infallible word of God and we are justified in using it to test the merit of all other truth claims.

[Anomalocaris]

So it is the infallibility of such a unusually fallible creature as yourself that you rely on, then

No, it’s the infallibility of God’s revealed word.

Er, no. it doesn't actually matter what you think of your "god" or "bible". It is the fact you do not admit to the possibility of error in your thinking - such as it is with the likes of you - that makes you risible.

Did you look up the appeal to ridicule?

Er, no. I did not actually appeal to ridicule. I simply ridiculed you.

[Jackalope]

Anti-Biblical conceptual schemes and views of reality can always be reduced to absurdity

Prove it. Don't assert it, prove it.

Even if you can prove it, so what? Prove that reality must necessarily not be absurd.

only the Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent.

Prove it. Don't assert it, prove it.

That alone would prove that scripture is infallible.

Says you.

I say show your work.

we are justified in using it to test the merit of all other truth claims.

Um, no.