Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 157 of 385 (563388)
06-04-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by BobTHJ
06-04-2010 5:05 PM


Re: Getting down to details
The supposed age of the fossil is based on scientifically irresponsible dating techniques.
Oh dear, does poor Jay Wile find the constancy of decay rates unreasonable? I find his part in the intellectual abuse of children rather more than unreasonable. It is blatently obvious that he has zero knowledge of Oklo, observational astrophysics, zircons (apart from the bullshit perpetuated by idiots such as Humphreys, et al), and yet claims there is no evidence. Oh well, just another Idiot for Christ. And you are wallowing in his ignorance and naivity. Well, good for you. But please excuse us as we laugh ourselves sick over your claims of "irresponsible".
{People, topic theme focus please. A radiometric dating topic spun off this topic can be found at Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by BobTHJ, posted 06-04-2010 5:05 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 281 of 385 (564801)
06-12-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Percy
06-12-2010 5:46 PM


Re: Getting down to details
followed by Wile's blog
Just as a brief aside, as Wile seems to have been referenced multiple times in this thread, I have been quizzing him over at his blog. To demonstrate the level of his intellect, here is his repeated argument for the impossibility of abiogenesis:
Wile writes:
Venter’s team was trying to create life according to their design. They couldn’t do it without the help of life — at three different points. Thus, it shows the impossibility of abiogenesis, as life is required for life.
I have repeatedly called upon him to retract this obvious non-sequitur and he has merely dug himself in. Complete waste of space and a danger to children who are exposed to his "educational" books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 3:25 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 287 of 385 (564834)
06-13-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by BobTHJ
06-13-2010 3:48 AM


2) It seems to best fit the scientific evidence I have reviewed
Why do the millions of non-YEC professional scientists completely disagree, be they Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, pantheist, deist? Why do no scientists outside fundementalist branches of the abrahamic faiths see any evidence at all for a YEC position? Can the world-wide body of scientists be so inceredibly incompetent? Or is God and/or Satan playing an active role in deceiving us all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:48 AM BobTHJ has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 295 of 385 (564888)
06-13-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Percy
06-13-2010 3:25 PM


Re: Getting down to details
Yes, he's closed it. Unsurprisingly, quite a few topics are closed down on his blog. I need to find an open one to start dismantling his rhetoric that he has been "persuaded" that decay rates are variable by the "evidence"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 3:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:56 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 323 of 385 (565327)
06-16-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 3:44 AM


Re: Getting down to details
Yes there is....common design. Every other level of nature shows order in similar structures
But that is not common design! That is order based upon physics. The similarity between stars is not common design - it is a necessity based upon the Standard Model. The similarity between mountains is not common design - it is a necessity based upon geophysics. The similarity between snowflakes is not common design - it is a necessity based upon the structure of water and intermolecular forces.
Or were you refering to something else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 3:44 AM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:21 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024