I don't think we mean the same things be "belief". I looked up "believe" in the dictionary and on one end it has "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something" and on the other it has "to suppose or assume".
Yeah. Sometimes language sucks.
But both of these ideas would still support my side...I think.
If you suppose or assume that god has tampered with the evidence, what's your next step? Wouldn't it be trying to refute it?
Yes science is rational and some of my beliefs are irrational. But my worldview is more complex than that. And so far you have still failed to show any area where my so called worldview would have any impact that might cause a conflict.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
So do you agree that your own impossible-to-evidence beliefs are no more or less worthy of consideration than the impossible-to-evidence notion of which you were so disdainful that all evidence has been falsely but undetectably planted?
Because I am happy to treat them with equal disdain.
If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?
This is the wisest yet most inconsistent thing I think you have ever said here.
Perhaps the next time you are disdainfully admonishing someone else here at EvC for their particular brand of un-evidenced and thus un-worthy-of-consideration nonsense you will reflect on your own equally worthless notions.
Designation: The Free Thinking Literalist Biblical Evidence Producing Butt Kicking Buzsaw OEC Who Gives Science Doctorates Educated Into Illogical Abstract Theories A Run For The Money In Threads.
And you've been arguing this point ever since. PaulK is wondering how you could believe this given all your errors, but there's little to be gained by raising this point unless it's for the benefit of the larger audience, because you're no more likely to recognize your errors now than you were when you first made them.
Out of 9000 posts over an eight year period, do you think that three or four cited by Paulk are enough for evaluation? Who on this board do you think are so pristine that they would not have as many or more questionable posts as me?
That's why I commented that the measure of one's ideas isn't how stubbornly one holds them, but how many they convince. I think we're all kind of dumbfounded at how successful you think you've been here given that you've convinced no one, including creationists.
You have ignored my point that ideology factors in here. You didn't answer my question relative to a creationist site. I ask you again, do you think you would fare better than me as to how the membership of such a site would regard your posts?
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)
Attempting to answer genetic dating by repeating the nonsensical claim (a claim that even the major YEC organisations would recognise as stupid) that the Flood would disrupt all major radiometric dating methods. Despite often repeating this claim - and often being challenged on it - you have never made any serious attempt to explain how it could even be possible.
For instance - fission track dating is based on counting the "scars" left by the nuclear fission of U238 in a sample of rock, with the age being based on the density of the tracks. How would a flood affect that, so as to give an older age (heat can make the rock appear younger by erasing tracks but obviously that is no help to you).
But the real stupidity is in using it to try to refute a claim that is completely unaffected by the age of rocks. Even if your claim had been entirely true instead of a silly fabrication it would still be completely irrelevant.
quote: Who on this board do you think are so pristine that they would not have as many or more questionable posts as me?
The vast majority of the membership...
quote: You have ignored my point that ideology factors in here.
How does it factor in ? You haven't disputed a single example. And every example I've given is based on objective facts, not ideology.
For instance it is an objective fact that the NOAA list used by the webpenny site was not intended for use as frequency data and is not suitable for such use. It is an objective fact that actual NOAA frequency data was cited. It was therefore objectively untrue that the webpenny list was "NOAA frequency trend data" and objectively untrue that we had no other source.
Convincing you of your errors isn't possible. I don't know why anyone bothers to try anymore.
But your errors and buffoonery are more than obvious to everyone else. What amazes everyone is your claims of outstanding success in the face of this dismal record.
At creationist websites I stick to the evidence for what we know and don't worry myself about how well I'm doing. I certainly don't go around making bold declarations about how great I'm doing.
So drop the ridiculous and wildly unjustifiable and conceited claims and just focus on the topic. Your ability to turn any thread into a discussion about you instead of the topic (this thread being yet another example) is why you're no longer allowed in the science forums.