Parable of the candle - should million/billion year dating be taught as fact?

Nemesis Juggernaut --- are you turning into an evolutionist?Your posts have gotten saner and saner ... are you finally going to switch sides?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And what is your point?You ask us to accept this made-up imaginary fairytale about the candle as though it proves something.I, in return, would like you to accept the known scientific facts as though they prove something.The difference between us is that I am appealing to facts, and you are appealing to an imaginary made-up fairytale about something that never actually happened.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well ... what about all those intermediate forms? But evolution predicts which organisms will be most closely related by genetic criteria. We knew, before we had the tools to test it, that birds should be genetically closer to crocodiles than to anything else, and that lobe-finned fish should be closer to, for example, mice, than to ray-finned fish. And we were right. "Subjective" doesn't come into it.Evolution doesn't just predict that there should be genetic similarities between species, it predicts which similarities, and the predictions are rather startling ... I mean, birds and crocodiles? Or ... whales and ungulates? Or ... coelacanths and mice? These are really startling, outrageous predictions. And the predictions always turn out to be correct.Like every creationist, you have confused the interpretation of nature that we can make once we're certain that evolution is real with the predictions we can make from evolution to test it if we want to find out if it's real. Evolution doesn't just tell us that birds should be genetically similar to something, it tells us that they should be genetically similar to crocodiles. Which turns out to be the case.Sorry, complete derail. Back to the fairytale about the candle.

Ah yes, the good ol' "if you're right and I'm wrong, why are you arguing with me?" trope.I heard that one the other day from a 9/11 Twoofer: Here.See? If we were right, we wouldn't point out that he was wrong.And that's logical ... in La-La land.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Whereas creationists by contrast sit quitely in their monastic cells and meditate on the glory of God, there is no debate, and consequently these forums don't exist.Oh, wait ...Could I suggest that the immediate reason why evolutionists debate creationists is exactly the same as the reason that creationist debate evolutionists, i.e. that the two sides disagree with one another.To misquote you slightly: "My argument is that there is a heavy intolerance of people who are evolutionist and a need to desperately de-bunk, what? Half of science."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well it looks like it is.Let's read it again.You write: "I find it very odd, that these gargantuan rants exist. If creationism is bunkem and god knows nothing, then why worry?"If Rrhain is right, you say, then it is odd that he should argue with you.This means, inductively, that the fact that he argues with you is evidence suggesting that he is not right.