I agree with the Moose. It's an absolutely brilliant piece of work, and deserves more to be placed in Columnists' Corner rather than a standard Geology and the Great Flud topic. I'm afraid it's simply too long and too complex (IMO) to generate much in the way of actual debate - you've pulled a Darwin with the amount of evidence you've presented. It is HIGHLY unlikely that any creo here will seek to dispute it. In addition, placing it in the Columnists's Corner will let it be easily visible forever, rather than all that effort being wasted in a topic buried under a ton of less, shall we say, "well-researched" topics?
The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun, and thus "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are no less foolish than "flatearthers" and "geocentrists" in their mistaken beliefs (in fact you could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe).
This part of your paragraph designed only to inflame creationists and feed evolutionists ego should be removed from your opening statement.
If I said the evolutionists are a bit flat headed (foolish) for believing in an old earth based off the evidence. You would take offense and cry foul (not because I believe the evidence is overwhelming) but because the implication that evolutionists are foolish flat heads is an inflaminatory statement.
The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun. In fact one could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe.
Thus any "Young Earth Creationist" (YEC) that persists in their belief - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary - is no more rational than any "geocentrist" holding on to their mistaken belief.
I think the admin's objections to Dan's new thread about why God should care about seemingly paultry things should be promoted as is.
I just want to throw in my hat with his in saying that if any discussion God or Gods is allowed at all then certainly Dan's ficticious God which he describes is just as valid as any that have been discussed which have previously included Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Greek Gods, among others.
Rejecting his thread on the grounds that the God he describes if ficticious is a fundamental misjudgement by the admin involved.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
I wouldn't mind if City on a Hill's thread were promoted. It seems that CoaH doesn't have a very good idea of what science is, and it might be useful to explain basic science to him.
At the very least, even if the thread is not promoted, CoaH should be directed to whatever open threads are discussing these issues. I'm sure that the two separate issues in his proposed topic are already the topic of various threads.
Despite Adminnemooseus' accusation of babbling, this is actually an excellent topic that Mike has stumbled upon, and a very important field of study in logic, mathematics, and extreme theoretical physics - not to mention in more casual philosophy and also electronic/computer design.
Mike's opening questions are spot on:
"Is it science? Is it part of science. Is it important? Did the likes of Darwin and Einstein observe such laws as the excluded middle?"
Now Mike may have just been having a dig at the use of logic, but given that his questions have good answers it would seem a pity not to promote this - obvious destination is "Is it science?"
Thanks for the vote. Infact I wasn't having a dig, I try to observe logic as best I can, and in my opinion it is an integral part of science. Hypothetic reductio, etcc.. Heavy induction, in order for a paradigm to have weight... etc..
I even admitt that I don't know God exists, and that evolution is the best theory, and that Jesus might not exist, all BECAUSE of logic. I'm a vulcan. :)
In chat, I was rudely told I was talking "shit" and "jabberwhocky" by Jar, when I said that something is either A or NOT A, in response to the proposition that something can be true and false.