Science is Revealed Truth

And none of that science supports your delusions and mathematical sophistry.

Lose elsewhere?I have been posting evidence that disproves your "exact" date for the flood, as well as the flood itself, and you have spent weeks ducking, dodging, and weaving to avoid addressing that evidence.

You are describing just exactly what I do as an archaeologist.In doing so, my "demanding proof" and "finding out" and "going where others dare not go" and "knowing the subject matter" and "testing things personally" have led me to conclusions that show you are wrong in several respects.The main one that I've been posting in these threads, and trying to get you to respond in some meaningful way to, is the disproof of the global flood ca. 4350 years ago. I have posted my "personal" evidence several times and nudged you to respond several more times but you have been dodging, ducking and weaving.What, got no evidence for your claims?

And once more you have ducked, dodged and weaved to avoid responding to the evidence I posted several times disproving the global flood at your "exact" date.Or did you think we wouldn't notice?

If you were a real scientist you'd have an answer to the evidence I posted disproving the global flood 4350 years ago.I've asked you for a response half a dozen times or more but you keep dodging, ducking, and weaving.You have no answer, all you have is numerology, delusions, and word salads. Those don't prove the flood, while the evidence from my own research disproves the flood.Guess you just can't face it, eh?

In other words, you can't answer my evidence disproving the global flood and your "exact" date.

Theories explain laws.And they are not "mere theories." A theory is the highest level of explanation in science in spite of all the mis-information being spread by creationists.

Theories do not grow up to become laws. Theories explain laws. Theories are the highest form of explanation in science. Creationism is an hypothesis which has not been supported by evidence--a failed hypothesis.Definition of Law: a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.The theory of gravity (actually the theory of general relativity) explains Newton's law.Contrast this to creationism, which is clearly a religious belief with no "natural or scientific" evidence to support it.But I understand why creationists are always trying to redefine our definitions--they can't get into the science game with evidence so are either trying to undermine science or to change it sufficiently to allow all sorts of strange things to be included:So, you can believe in magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.Me, I'll follow the scientific method.

You have a lot of errors in that one sentence.First, science does not deal in proof. For that see photography, math, and distilling.Second, science is defined by following the scientific method not by what lot of people want.And third, if you want "unproven myths and theories" you should look to religions, with their generally-contradictory claims and often-disproved beliefs. Again with "proven," which is a typical creationist tactic and which reflects a core misunderstanding of how science works.But, you're wrong again about evolution not being tested. It is tested again with every fossil find, and with every new DNA sequence, and with new dating methods and results. And so far the theory of evolution has been supported by all of these tests. It is only anti-science creationists who believe old tribal myths who can't accept the evidence.It is the claims of religions that are failing the real-world tests.

Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.And David's posts are so off the wall they makes detecting a Poe all but impossible.

I don't think he's interested in arguing with us. He certainly doesn't consider our replies.Rather he takes little bits from our replies and misrepresents them to suit his a priori agenda, which he preaches at every opportunity.It looks like he's just here to try and stir up the evilutionists. In other words, he's just a troll.

Pigeon chess:Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.Origin:"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer (From an Amazon.com book review)Urban Dictionary: Pigeon chess

He's here to troll, disparage "evilutionists" and "Darwinists," and display his "wit."(On the latter point, he's half-way there...)