Summations Only

Faith, that is my very own geology course, and according to you have reviewed it. If you find 90% of it acceptable, you must surely know which 90%.

Though not by the people whose job it is to find oil.

Also there's the, y'know, finding of the oil. On which basis we seem to have built an entire civilization.However, it's nice to know what you consider "REAL science". Apparently things that aren't "REAL science" include propositions such that the planet Jupiter exists, that giraffes have long necks, and that daffodils have yellow flowers. Terribly unscientific.Also you might want to get in touch with the people who coined the phrase "creation science" and stop them from using it, because unlike geology and biology, it's never been any use to anyone except the charlatans who profit from selling propaganda to dupes. Yes, Faith, just because of your religion. If you weren't a fundie, you would have absolutely no need to oppose well-established facts. That would be a really telling point if it was true.Has it ever occurred to you that the reason scientists disagree with you about scientific subjects which they, being scientists, know about, and you, being you, do not, is that they know more about science than you do?Exhibit #1 would be foreveryoung, who shared your views until he learned something about geology. If you ever learn anything about geology, you too might find yourself starting to doubt.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Then the following vicious and stupid assault on the scientific method seems somewhat unjustified. Please promise me you'll never sit on a jury. Faith. Faith, Faith, Faith. These "laughing ones" who think that science can tell us about the past, and can tell us things with no practical utility, include ... y'know ... scientists. And the scientific method is, pretty much by definition, the method that scientists use. Y'know, the method that tells them that the Earth is old, that evolution has been happening for billions of years, and that YEC is a pile of horseshit?Now, if you have a different method, and clearly you do, then it's a free country. But it's dishonest to call it the scientific method, when a more appropriate name would be "the bunch-of-hooey-Faith-made-up-in-her-head-that-makes-scientists-laugh-with-contempt-and-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-scientific-method-'cos-of-not-being-scientific method".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, that was bizarre.There is nothing acrobatic about what f.e.y. is doing, namely looking at the evidence for an old earth and conceding that it is old. What is acrobatic to the point of contortionism is to do what Kurt Wise does, admit that all the evidence proves him wrong and maintain his fundie beliefs in the face of it.Imagine two men looking at an elephant. One of them says: "It looks big, so I think it is big". The other says: "It looks big, but I believe that it is small, because I am a Small Elephant Creationist". Which one is indulging in mental gymnastics? Or you might have learned something.It seems unlikely given what we know of you now, but you might have taken an interest in facts before you became a fundie.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How should I have known which particular delusion you're suffering from?A: I'm an elephant, trumpety-trump!
B: Where's your trunk, then?
A: You should have known I meant giraffe! If you think that only living witnesses can inform us about past events ... please never sit on a jury, OK? If you don't think that, then maybe you could inform us which delusion you are suffering from right now. (See, I've learned caution, I'm not assuming that I know in which way you're trying to be wrong.)

Plenty of scientists seem to have managed it, as indeed did I. I shall not speculate on whether your deficiency lies more in the area of competence, diligence, or intelligence.Since your religious conversion, how much time have you spent looking for evidence of talking snakes?

Then I shall update my post to reflect that: Please. Just recuse yourself. If you explain your views to the judge, I'm sure he'll excuse you. The risk of being confined for psychiatric examination is one that you'll just have to take. But scientists do test statements about the past. Obviously. So once again, honesty requires that you should use an adjective other than "scientific". Say, if you wish, that past events cannot be subjected to "bunch-of-hooey-Faith-made-up-in-her-head-that-makes-scientists-laugh-with-contempt-and-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-scientific-method-'cos-of-not-being-scientific testing". Could you not at least try to make your falsehoods mutually consistent? (I would also ask if you could make them less flagrantly absurd, but I fear you cannot.)

Now that's such a howling falsehood that even many YECs have abandoned it. And when something's too false for creationists, that's false.

You told that falsehood already, remember? It didn't impress me. But perhaps you'd have more luck telling it to your fellow-YECs ... oh, wait ... AnswersInGenesis has the "no new species" claim on their list of "Arguments that should never be used". Creation Ministries International says "New species have been observed to form." The CreationWiki says: "Species have been observed to form".Now, when an claim is so flagrantly untrue that even leading creationist brands have given up trying to sell it, that's untrue, Faith. Some people would find it hard even to imagine a lie so huge that CMI wouldn't tell it --- but here it is.

And yet, you know, your fellow YECs disagree with you. So, for example, AnswersInGenesis has the "no new species" claim on their list of "Arguments that should never be used". Creation Ministries International says "New species have been observed to form." The CreationWiki says: "Species have been observed to form".YEC organizations are burying that argument like a cat burying its shit. So, Faith, why do you think that is? And do you think they'll be grateful to you for digging it up again?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Could I remind you that, because you've never studied geology, you neither know what water does, nor what the layers look like?People who have studied geology and do know these things think that you're talking nonsense. Of course it's absurd. All the crazy stuff you've made up in your head is absurd. It would truly be absurd if geologists asserted that each bed took millions of years to form, but they don't, because they're sane.You would know this if you'd ever taken an interest in geology, but you haven't, which is why you know nothing about it.---And Faith, for heaven's sake, you must know that you've never bothered to study geology in any way. You must therefore know that you're completely ignorant of the subject. So why are you discussing it in public? Are you hoping that you'll say something true just by luck --- or do you just no longer care whether you're telling the truth or not?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is true (except the very recent beds, of course). Now compare the proposition that the beds are millions of years old with the crap that you made up in your head in post #158.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's funny, when we were discussing marriage, you were all up in arms at the thought of people redefining a poor helpless word.But now we have a word whose meaning is so universally agreed on that there's consensus on its meaning between me and AnswersInGenesis, and between Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International --- and what do you want to do? You want to redefine it.Apparently when you recoil in horror from the redefinition of words, you do so very very selectively.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Words have definitions, things don't. If you disagree, please tell me how you would go about redefining a banana. Not the word "banana" but an actual banana. And everyone else thinks that speciation is the formation of a new species. Which it is by definition. You don't get to change what the word means any more than you can make "cat" mean dog by an effort of will. Curiously enough, the inability to breed was neither "artificial" nor "meaningless" when you were deciding who should be allowed to marry. Apparently when we're considering the law, biological criteria are meaningful, but when we're considering biology, we should ignore the facts of biology ... in favor of what? You don't say.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.