The smoldering of EVC

Creationists haven't been scared away by anything other than simply having lost the debate. They're hiding because most now realize that their arguments can only stand when forum rules and moderation are stacked heavily in their favor. Not many creationists come here because most creationists know their arguments cannot withstand the level of scrutiny expected.Boo freaking hoo.Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : Shouldn't have posted as a reply to Percy - Argh!

We should continue to be gentle with marc9000. He, like Faith, is obviously a hopeless cripple in the gutter and to step on him - as much as he asks for it - would be a shameful display of uncharacteristic callousness. His posts clearly indicate that he has wandered into our den with no weapons.

It's a lost cause to try to correct the likes of you but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. I didn't just say Geology I think I said Old Earth Geology or something like that, because I've read a LOT in basic Geology, and found I already knew some 80% of Dr. A's course when he was posting it here.What I don't know very well and don't have any interest in knowing is the TIME SCALE with all its ridiculous names which are so utterly meaningless, from "Pre Cambrian" on up. THAT is not the same thing you are so slimily sleazily suggesting I said. It's certainly not the "science" here that we creationists suffer from, it's the misrepresentations and the idiotic purely imaginative speculative answers that are taken for gospel over anything we offer about anything. ALL you guys have IS speculation and the POWER TO ENFORCE it.No creationist should ever come here expecting a fair hearing. You should have a sign up at the top clearly warning them of that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except that the scientific method is no such thing, of course. As has been explained many times, the scientific method is observation, the formation of a theory based on the observation, and then (so crucially) the rigorous testing of that theory with evidence.And it all hangs together. We have numerous fields of science which all work together. And the scientific method works so well that it has brought us electricity, gunpowder, medicines, x-rays, tsunami warnings, visits to the moon, GPS sat-navs, the internet, the humble pair of glasses hanging on my face.And that scientific method is applied rigorously in all fields of science, including geology and biology, to show that the earth is old, and that evolution is what has happened. (Neither is proven in the mathematical sense, but the conclusions are so certain, that we accept them as fact). You cannot, with any level of integrity, argue that the scientific method works in every area which doesn't contradict the bible, but miraculously stops working when it comes to areas which do.Purely imaginitive speculation is what happens when you have an a priori conclusion you want to reach, and the scientific method doesn't reach that conclusion. A good example of this is speculating that a geological layer containing only terrestrial fossils and no marine fossils must have been laid down by a flood - now that, I'm afraid is purely imaginitive speculation.

You guys just don't get it. You CANNOT apply classical scientific method to the UNWITNESSED PAST. ALL you have is your theories and speculations about the facts and evidence, and the facts and evidence are subject to other interpretations than yours -- you just refuse to consider the other interpretations -- it's so easy to conjure up a plausible sounding objection you don't have to prove, and your imagination trumps anybody else's because it's the imagination of an Old Earther or an Evolutionist, not because it has any more intrinsic merit. That is all that's going on on the Flood thread. That and some of the most outrageous misinterpretations a person just gets worn out with them. You can multiply your speculations and interweave them and believe them all and even call them Fact, but you CANNOT prove them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This isn't the place for a debate on science and evidence, so I'll just say that evidence doesn't come from science. It comes from the natural world. Scientific evidence is just evidence that's been gathered in a scientific manner from the natural world. If you have evidence that doesn't come from the natural world then it must be, by definition, supernatural.You criticize science as a way of understanding the past later in your message. If the nature of evidence is something you really want to discuss you should probably propose a new thread. No, of course not, why would you PM her with an offer of help? Faith complains how unfair it is that she's outnumbered in her thread, you make the same complaint in this one, but she won't request help and you won't offer it. I think I've found the true source of the problem. The essence of Christianity is believing the best about everybody. Stigmatizing and denigrating groups is the first step down an ugly path.The reason for unanimity among those on the science side is not a result of any effort to "harmonize with each other." It comes from basing one's views upon evidence.Using various interpretations of stories from the Bible as a foundation results in widely varying views. That's why there are so many religions and religious denominations. It may also be why you're not helping Faith, because you don't share her views.--Percy

As has been said before, too bad you don't seem to remember such things, Creationists hardly ever share the same point of view or argue the same issues. I could not expect another Creationist to join in on my argument, it's something I've worked on for a long time on my own. It's sad but we are therefore of just about no use to each other. There's that recitation of the Creed again. What a lie from the pit of Hell that is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,There's no such thing as "Old Earth Geology," there's just geology, and whether you admit or not it is eminently clear from your contributions that you know very little. You don't understand or accept some of the most basic principles of geology, like the law of superposition, or some of the most basic principles of physics, such as that heavier sediment must fall out of suspension first, or some of the most basic principles of biology, such as that the production of vast amounts of limestone requires thousands and thousands of years.Now that you and Marc are both here, why don't you invite him to join you over in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread?--Percy

Nonsense. There is nothing whatsoever in the scientific method that says that a process or event has to be witnessed by the scientist at the time it occurs, in order for the scientific method to be applied to it.And scientists are always willing to consider alternative theories or explanations, but they will not waste their time doing so if there is no evidence to support the alternatives.The reason we come up with plausible sounding objections to alternative explanations is to show that the alternative explanation is not only unevidenced, but is fundamentally flawed. If you claim that a flood laid down a geological layer that contains terrestrial, but no marine fossils, then I and others are pointing out that you haven't explained what process did the clever sorting of the two types of dead creatures/plants. Our objection isn't unproven - the "proof" is that there aren't any marine fossils in that layer - it's up to you as the proponent of your explanation to tell us why there are no marine fossils.

If you can't convince other creationists, if even those most sympathetic to your point of view and most interested in your success are dubious, how can you blame scientists for their skepticism? Why isn't some of your vituperation directed at people like Marc? Ah, the big conspiracy. Well, good luck with that.--Percy

Another way this can be approached is to note that all witnessed events take place in the past (because all information travels at a finite speed), and no events are witnessed first hand (because they require interpretation of indirect sensory information arriving at our senses).Given this premise, the creationist position becomes one of describing how far in the past an event must be and how indirect its observation before analysis becomes impossible, and why.I don't know why creationists keep repeating this silly idea about unobserved past events being indecipherable or uninterpretable. They must be terribly outraged every time someone's convicted by forensic evidence.--Percy

You've got me speculating idly about Schroedinger's Cat - maybe the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics applies to all aspects of scientific enquiry, and unless someone is present to actually look inside the relevant scientific box, both the rational and the irrational explanations apply ;-)

The only thing "somewhat similar" is Newton and the "somewhat different" is a gross understatement. We have no "trouble" keeping satellites in orbit for many decades. You never heard of Vanguard 1 or ATS 3 or Skynet all going on 50 years plus. And a low Earth orbit is not anything comparable to the solar orbit of Earth. Your ignorance just put your foot firmly in your mouth. You have probably heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics. You probably don't like them because they do some real damage to a lot of your favorite biblical fantasies. But none the less, there is a reason the hundreds of idiotic "perpetual motion" patent submissions each year are dismissed out of hand. The science is so solid, the theory so thoroughly tested and retested over thousands of trials, the understanding of "why" is so deep that we know, for a fact, in each and every case, that "perpetual motion" schemes do not work. No need to waste anyone's efforts on showing the faults.The sciences, lots of them in combination each with observations by the thousands over multiple disciplines, is so overwhelming, so solid, the understanding of "why" is so deep that we know that a way-old Earth, in the billions of years, is indisputable fact. Any purported "evidence" to the contrary is willful ignorance on the part of the proponent and, like the perpetual motion advocate, can be dismissed out of hand.The total disregard of the thousands of facts in opposition or any claim of some religiously self-serving different interpretation (read misinterpretation) of those facts makes the ignorance of a young earth proposal palpable. Reality is against you. The question has been settled for more than 200 years. You will not, you cannot, change this. Why do you Biblicans always try to use the results of scientific thinking as a club against science? You think some priest using one of your "other sources of knowledge" poofed up the math and reasoning for extra dimensions in some divine epiphany between the choir's hymn and his homily?We know there may be other dimensions, scientists determined this. And they have nothing to do with "other sources of knowledge" but more to do with other excuses for your religious idiocy.We keep hearing about these "other sources of knowledge" but none of you have ever shown what they are, how they work, what useful knowledge can be gained. What we see is that each religionist, each spiritualist, each mystic, soothsayer and transcendentalist has their own personal sense of these "other sources of knowledge" and each is different. Each arrives at different and conflicting Truths^TM. What we see is that these "other sources of knowledge" alway give answers that match the personal emotional desires of the "thinker".For more than 5000 years you have had every opportunity to show the knowledge, the power, of these other sources and humanity has received nothing but conflict, blood and war from any of it! The only "knowledge" you people seem to get from these other sources is that the other guy is a heretic and needs to die!In the last 300 years of empirical science-based sources of knowledge humanity has received real demonstrable benefit from medicine, agriculture, engineering, electronics, communications and a raft of there disciplines. When was the last time you had to go out and hunt down your dinner? I did last night. I drove my car to the supermarket and hunted down some chicken, bread and broccoli. That was after going to my local tribal shaman witch doctor for a renewal of the prescriptions that help keep me from falling down dead. All the above because millions of scientists over centuries hypothesised, tested, observed, experimented and arrived at conclusions based on science.Not one benefit that humans enjoy today, or forever for that matter, ever came from some priest with a divine revelation from some "other source of knowledge". Your "other sources of knowledge" are not just bogus but dangerous to this species. Edited by AZPaul3, : cuz

I wasn't trying to go quantum on you. It was a simpler point about all events taking place in the past. If you see a burglar pry open a window and enter your house from 20 feet away, you're actually witnessing an event that took place 20 nanoseconds ago. And you didn't actually witness the event. What you did was interpret reflected light from the event.This means that the question for creationists becomes, "How recently must something have occurred, and how directly must we have observed it, in order for us to decipher what happened, and why?"So say you have a super telescope and observe a burglar breaking into a house on a planet 10,000 light years away. Is the fact that the event took place 10,000 years ago instead of 20 nanoseconds ago mean that this observational evidence is invalid? I assume the creationist answer must be no, that they'd concede that this observational evidence is valid and that therefore it isn't the mere passage of time that makes evidence invalid.So it must be the degree of indirectness of the observation combined with the passage of time that creationists think creates a problem. Say you come home after work one day and find your house has been broken into. Are the fingerprints the burglar left behind earlier in the day valid evidence? Creationists would undoubtedly say yes, it's valid evidence. What if you came home after a week's vacation? Is the fingerprint evidence still valid? How about after a year's absence? A century's? What if archaeologists dig up your house millennia hence? Are the fingerprints still valid evidence that could be matched up with ancient databases that might still exist? What is the creationist answer? If there is some amount of time that renders the fingerprint evidence invalid, what is that time and why? If it's argued that fingerprints degrade then change it to an inscribed ring ("To Louie with love from Loretta") that he accidentally dropped at the scene.But if creationists accept that fingerprint or other tangible evidence left at the scene is still valid after millennia, why not geological evidence buried in the ground? I'd like to see answers to these questions. So far all they've given us is bald declarations that ancient events can't be deciphered.--Percy

I'll combine replies to several posts of yours to reduce your load for responding. Indeed I have argued that there is more than can be understood by the scientific method, but the manner in how the Grand Canyon was formed is not one of them. Why would be a different question.And I have argued against the Big Bang -- I think 'brane theory is much more likely to pan out, and I expect it to grow. See Did a 5-D black hole brane event horizon make the universe?. Thank you. It seems most people feel this way, I know that I try to keep from replying in kind when people are rude and sarcastic or mocking to me. I know it's emotionally based response to firmly held beliefs (part of cognitive dissonance). This does not justify it, just admits that it exists on all sides. Which doesn't prevent you from providing ideas and support for those like mindspawn. Perhaps there should be two peanut galleries ...And I do think that some posts on the PG's are unwarranted attacks. I've not had much trouble there, but I don't consider them opponents really -- have you ever heard the phrase "let us reason together"? See the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)(bluegenes and RAZD only)[/color] and Peanut Gallery, Message 236 onward (tacked on to previous PG) -- you will notice that bluegenes gets lots of support and lots of green arrows but totally fails to provide any actual empirical evidence that demonstrates god/s are fictional inventions ... And yet nothing would prevent people from PMing participants if the side threads are discontinued ... but I agree that they are not really constructive in general. I'm not sure I understand this. It seems that you equate phony theistic evolution with atheism pretending to be theism, but I may be reading more into it than you intend. Can you truly not conceive of a valid belief in gods using evolution? Would you care to expand on that? Other than belief in fundamentalist bible views, what other basis is there? Have you run a detailed survey of all topics on a time basis? Seems to me that people start topics that interest them. It's not faith marc9000, it is evidenced by many many things. I suggest you look at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 to see what I mean. For instance it is not faith that says a single tree in the White Mountains of California is 5063 years old, rather it is a statement of fact.What people tend to "get testy" about is the willingness of some people to ignore and disregard facts under the pretense of belief -- for I could say: Phoniness that includes falsehoods and misunderstanding and misrepresentations. Phoniness that ultimately relies on a deceitful god causing evidence to appear old. Curiously it seems that creationists "get testy" whenever this is brought up.Nor does evolution depend on an old earth - evolution occurs every day. The question is what the evidence shows about the past, and so far there is no evidence of specific creation of species at a single time. The evidence shows the earth is old, and the evidence shows that evolution has occurred while there was life on earth. Curiously attacking this emotion and passion rather than the evidence of an old earth is you reacting with emotion and passion to your beliefs being challenged. Just quid pro quo eh? Actually on one-sided forums the poster that goes against the stream is usually banned. Ever been to a christian forum and watched how the naturalist views are treated? Seems they don't want to be popular with all people.And to paint a whole forum based on antics of some people is not very tolerant is it?So I don't think you have made your point. For instance has mindspawn left (for now) because of oppressive snide insulting comments or because he was not able to explain the evidence of consilience from different age measuring systems with his ad hoc suppositions for somehow altering each one differently?Would you like to take up where he has left off?Enjoy