Slandering science organizations you cannot refute is a cheap trick employed by undereducated science wannabes.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Slandering science organizations you cannot refute is a cheap trick employed by undereducated science wannabes.
gcthomas
New member
He didn't slander any science organisations. :idunno:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
AIG and The Creation Institute are not "science organizations", they are exactly as I described, internet misinformation web sites that have been refuted countless times. Their advantage is that they have brain washed well meaning people, like 6days, into promulgating their nonsense. After one assertion has been falsified he just goes one more item down the list until he reaches the bottom then starts over again as if the N-th assertion was never addressed. The idea being that all he need do is outlast anyone refuting/falsifying his last assertion, if he does so, he thinks that he has won.
When should we expect that you will be getting around to falsifying "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth?
Rosenritter
New member
I demand you refute everything with proof then. Your time starts.... Now. Hurry up, haven't got all day...
You must not know the science organizations he referred to. But I am curious, what do you know about verified age estimates of dinosaur bones and dinosaur soft tissues?
Let's start with the salt content of the ocean waters. Is the salt content increasing? Yes. Do we know the rate at which it is increasing? I think so. Do we know how long it would have taken for the oceans to have reached the current salt content from scratch? I think so, and the number is not in the billions of years like people have assumed for decades without question.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Huh? Been there, done that. I don't pretend all of your objections haven't already been adderssed at other times in other places. It's like I said in the post preceding yours...
AIG and The Creation Institute are not "science organizations", they are exactly as I described, internet misinformation web sites that have been refuted countless times. Their advantage is that they have brain washed well meaning people, like 6days, into promulgating their nonsense. After one assertion has been falsified he just goes one more item down the list until he reaches the bottom then starts over again as if the N-th assertion was never addressed. The idea being that all he need do is outlast anyone refuting/falsifying his last assertion, if he does so, he thinks that he has won.
When should we expect that you will be getting around to falsifying "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth?
If you have something new that has NEVER been discussed before, let's see it.
Knock yourself out. :up:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
A very little amount of effort on your part would have been too difficult, right? I don't intend to re-invent the wheel for each new old "gotcha"you manage to mine from AIG and TCI. Start with these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/ocean_salinity.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html
Interplanner
Well-known member
CRI has had J. Baumgartner on a lot recently. He is or recently was at Los Alamos Nat'l Lab in research on Pangea. It turns out the first person to suggest that this was the one continent before a breakup was a Christian geologist. The material has been really good lately on tectonics, soil samples in Angola matching those of Brazil, the amount of sediment on the bottom of the oceans, slabs of mantle oriented every which way like they had been exploded, etc.
Interplanner
Well-known member
By the way, you footer depends on how much they know about upper class British racism, which invented and funded evolution, and how courageous a person is.
You bring up a good point. Ocean salinity has been studied for more than 300 years and the best that can be said is that salinity of ocean water varies. On a similar vein,global warming has been studied for about 30 minutes by comparison and we are getting all sorts of wild speculations propagated by alarmists as facts. Let's just wait for them to see that, given more time, their alarming predictions are not based on long term data but on short term data that has been edited and culled to promote a particular dogma.
Back to salt, let's not always rely upon favorite evolutionist propagandist sites for information. This is from Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition, http://www.livescience.com/22954-changes-ocean-salinity-voyage.html Here are quotes:
Over the past 50 years, the salty parts of the oceans have become saltier and the fresh regions have become fresher, and the degree of change is greater than scientists can explain.
I suppose it is back to the drawing board and time to scrap all the old Talk Origins articles long held in undue high esteem by devout evolutionists. Here is more:
By tracking ocean salinity, researchers can better understand the global water cycle. Global warming is expected to intensify it, but current computer models do not predict the amount of change seen over the last 50 years, Schmitt said.
Here is a wonder. Scientists have studied salinity for 300 years and have mapped data and have tied that study into the global warming research, but the facts are not lining up with their computer models. Wonder of wonder.
No wonder Al Gore messed up in predicting New York City would be under global warming flooding by 2005, a promoted truth he no doubt now finds inconvenient.
6days
New member
They haven't been moved.SilentHunter said:
So we disagree.SilentHunter said:
The definition provided was good.
At least you seem to acknowlege that evolutionary definitions do have problems. Whereas as the definition of 'kinds' is "rock solid".SilentHunter said:
Again, we disagree.SilentHunter said:
It is evolutionism that is psuedoscience.
(Life from non life...biologists evolve from bacteria....nothing created everything, expansion faster than speed of light, etc).
6days
New member
Verified? .....28,000 year+
However there are always assumptions involved in dating methods. (
C14 dates in the range of 30K years are consistent with the Biblical account of the flood 4500 years ago, when you consider all the various factors.
Rosenritter
New member
Straw man argument.
gcthomas
New member
There are plenty of independent and verified old age dates for them, and one advocacy group that has cherry picked ONE dating technique and applied it where no reputable scientist would do so, and had to be deceitful in the process.
So no, there are no 'verified' young age estimates for dinosaur bones/tissue. And I have no wish to hash over the same arguments again, except in one case: You wish to go through the multiple lines of evidence for the great age of these materials and debunk their use for these datings one by one.
gcthomas
New member
He certainly mentioned the names of two Creationist apologetics advocacy groups. When did he mention science organisations?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Interesting article. Personally, I'm not a big fan of man-made global warming, although I think that global warming is occurring, it has less to do with man's influence than on normal natural cyclic change. My jury is still out. Should we continue down this rabbit trail or do you have something more substantial to support you earlier assertion?You bring up a good point. Ocean salinity has been studied for more than 300 years and the best that can be said is that salinity of ocean water varies. On a similar vein,global warming has been studied for about 30 minutes by comparison and we are getting all sorts of wild speculations propagated by alarmists as facts. Let's just wait for them to see that, given more time, their alarming predictions are not based on long term data but on short term data that has been edited and culled to promote a particular dogma.
Back to salt, let's not always rely upon favorite evolutionist propagandist sites for information. This is from Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition, http://www.livescience.com/22954-changes-ocean-salinity-voyage.html Here are quotes:
Over the past 50 years, the salty parts of the oceans have become saltier and the fresh regions have become fresher, and the degree of change is greater than scientists can explain.
I suppose it is back to the drawing board and time to scrap all the old Talk Origins articles long held in undue high esteem by devout evolutionists. Here is more:
By tracking ocean salinity, researchers can better understand the global water cycle. Global warming is expected to intensify it, but current computer models do not predict the amount of change seen over the last 50 years, Schmitt said.
Here is a wonder. Scientists have studied salinity for 300 years and have mapped data and have tied that study into the global warming research, but the facts are not lining up with their computer models. Wonder of wonder.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
There was no straw man. It is an observation of how creationists present their nonsense.
After one assertion has been falsified he just goes one more item down the list until he reaches the bottom then starts over again as if the N-th assertion was never addressed. The idea being that all he need do is outlast anyone refuting/falsifying his last assertion, if he does so, he thinks that he has won.
When should we expect that you will be getting around to falsifying "conclusions, assumptions, speculations and interpretations of data" supporting an ancient Earth?
If you have something new that has NEVER been discussed before, let's see it.[/QUOTE]
Old earth evolution/creation would be obvious to average people if they didn't have to fit it into the YEC story written by Hebrew priest in Babylon. This truth annoys people because the church has convinced them that the books written by biased holy men were actually written by God. Therefore, to doubt the book is to doubt God. So we get a contorted defense against all evidence to the contrary.
I believe God created the men who created the story.
I believe God created the men who created the story.
- Status