Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[HMS_Beagle]

BWAAAAK! BWAAAAAK! buk buk buk BWAAAAK!

It must make you feel wonderful to know TWeb finally has another Creationist as scientifically ignorant and obnoxious as yourself.

[Kbertsche]

Not the point. Stop being deliberately obtuse to suit your purposes. You are intelligent enough to read english. Peer review was brought up to thoroughly rebut your claim that you could dispense with the paper based on that single person you consider fringe. The whole point of peer review is to verify that thepeers consider the research at least worthy of being read and considered. has nothing to do with being right because its published.

It is not just the two (not one) people I've mentioned who are "fringe", it is the whole subject area which is "fringe". Numerous "fringe" papers routinely pass peer review, as well as entire "fringe" subfields (MOND, for example).

[JonF]

And this is effectively solipsism. solipsism says that there is no objective reality beyond your own self. By rejecting the mountains of evidence for the constancy of Decay rates, you are effectively saying that there is no way to ever know much of anything about the physical world. That the physical evidence is so unreliable and unpredictable as to prevent the possibility of knowing anything certain about them. The implications of THAT, given the strength of that evidence (that is, there are a lot of other things we tend to accept that are support by the same or even lesser evidence) logically and effectively ends up impacting most if not all knowledge outside your immediate self. ergo, it is in fact effective solopsism, but applied in an inconsistent and limited fashion.

Yeah, it's the same old YEC argument that we don't know everything therefore we know nothing.

For a non-YEC our correspondent certainly loves them YEC PRATTs.

[Littlejoe]

Moderated By: Littlejoe

The Flaming and accusations of lying (esp. with no substantiation) by multiple people are getting WAY out of control. Stop the flame wars and the accusations or stop posting in this thread

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[JonF]

Thank you. I was wondering why mods weren't jumping on the accusations as they did on the old TWeb

[Mikeenders]

Science doesn't do beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You ignored the fact that the basic laws of physics have been the same for the life of the Earth and well before. That means radiometric decay rates have not changed. That means the clock is right.

I didn't ignore anything. You as usual are distorting my views simply because I will not buy your silly unscientific premise that radioactive dating is not conceivably falsifiable. As of this moment as I have said the science is behind radioactive decay. however when there is something that possibly could raise some issues about it ( like a consensus of science that held its unlikely that organic material can last 80 MILLION YEARS then its something to look at not in your fundy dogmatic manner claim its beyond being questioned.

Then exactly what publication is it based on? There are no non-creationist publications proposing any change in the speed of light during the life of the Earth

I've linked to several you poor soul. SEVERAL and none of them were creationist sites. In your fundy theology you can't conceive of something so you claim it doesn't exist. Talk about YECs all you wish you just demonstrated the same tendency

[Jorge]

It must make you feel wonderful to know TWeb finally has another Creationist as scientifically ignorant and obnoxious as yourself.

Hehehe yeah, right ... so says Beagle Boy - the critter that
barely scraped by the science test for young teenagers. Bwahahaha

Jorge

[Mikeenders]

On TWeb you will find a pitiful collection of individuals-that-distort-God's-Word-at-will-to-further-their-personal-agenda. Nothing - NOTHING ... NEVER!!! - that you can say or present to that group will get them to grant you one iota of validity.

You have been warned.

Jorge

lol......They seemingly hate your guts but in their true fundy fashion I am not even a YEC but because i dare to say YECs might have one point (or maybe because I dared to say regardless i hold to literalism) a few of them are acting like they caught rabies and the others are not far behind. SO on that you are correct. I'm not bothered by it though this aint my first rodeo although some of the Christians in the thread are a disgrace. Claiming to be able to read minds and side step not generalizing against other Christians. Wherever your treasure is there will your heart also be

[Mikeenders]

Varves. Speleothems. Corals. Stratigraphy. Ice cores. And more.
.

None of which can confirm anything in the tens of millions. You can beg bread all you wish or you can fantasize like your pals that any mainstream scientist use anything called a Coral clock...lol.... (to main ways of using corals to date things is projecting based on growth or doing radioactive dating but that not a "coral clock" but still radiometric dating

Like it or not spin on your head the only sound evidence there is or tens or hundred of millions is radioactive dating - nothing else sets dates that far back.

It's the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM that is constant.

Duh.

You are right....duh you didn't know how to use the internet or you wouldn't be making such silly claims and would at least use google to see that research. IF I linked to like the five links i linked to before again would you read it? Of course not. You are a fundy that thinks it cannot exist because you don't keep on reading because you swear everything is settled.

[Jorge]

lol......They seemingly hate your guts but in their true fundy fashion I am not even a YEC but because i dare to say YECs might have one point (or maybe because I dared to say regardless i hold to literalism) a few of them are acting like they caught rabies and the others are not far behind. SO on that you are correct. I'm not bothered by it though this aint my first rodeo although some of the Christians in the thread are a disgrace. Claiming to be able to read minds and side step not generalizing against other Christians. Wherever your treasure is there will your heart also be

Watch for their foaming at the mouth ... that will be a sure sign of the state of their heart (ummm, either that or they are turning into a werewolf). Seriously, watch for the way that they exercise 'unrestrained literary license rights' as far as the Bible is concerned.

As for "... i dare to say YECs might have one point ...", Biblical Creationists (aka YECs) have many points, not just "one". I myself have posted / linked to well over one hundred of them here on TWeb. It's there if people would just look (but they don't want to).

Jorge

[Roy]

Highlighting mine:

I didn't ignore anything. You as usual are distorting my views simply because I will not buy your silly unscientific premise that radioactive dating is not conceivably falsifiable.

I haven't seen such cavalier projection since I last drew a French castle.

[Roy]

Hehehe yeah, right ... so says Beagle Boy - the critter that
barely scraped by the science test for young teenagers. Bwahahaha

Long, long ago in a pre-crash thread far far away...
It was a period of civil discussion.
Various Natural Science denizens were talking about
education in the biological sciences, when some-one - I
can't remember who - posted a link to an on-line biology
high school exam from New Zealand. A few of us immediately
headed off to look.

The exam consisted of 20 questions, mostly of the multiple-choice
or fill-in-the-blank kind. Questions were picked randomly from a
much larger set. Nominal time for completing the test was half
an hour, but I doubt any of us took nearly that long; most of us
just flicked through it and posted our scores. I got 19/20 after
tripping over a question about an enzyme I'd never heard of, but
which was presumably covered by the school syllabus. I think
rogue got 20/20, but it may have been Sylas. HMS_Beagle did the
whole thing in about five minutes and got 17/20 or thereabouts.

Jorge posted he didn't have enough time to do the entire
test - he only had 10 minutes to spare - but he had tried
the first seven questions and got them all right. Jorge then
started mocking HMS_Beagle for only getting 85% on a high-school
biology test, until some-one - it may have been me - pointed
out that HMS_Beagle had achieved his 85% in less time than it had
taken Jorge to accumulate 35%. Jorge naturally claimed that
if he'd had time to answer all the question - which of course
he had - he would have got 100%. Several people suggested
that Jorge retake the test and post a screenshot of his final
score, but of course Jorge never did, repeatedly claiming a
lack of time. In fact he spent so much time making excuses
and continuing to mock HMS_Beagle that he could have done
the whole test several times over.

Since that day, Jorge has occasionally tried to tweak HMS_Beagle's tail
by mentioning that HMS_Beagle didn't get a perfect score on a high-school
test. Of course Jorge never mentions that he took twice as
long as HMS_Beagle to score half as much. Everyone else ignores him,
being fully aware that Jorge has less credibility than Muhammed
Saeed al-Sahaf.

Roy

[Mikeenders]

If all science is tentative then the belief that the fossils are millions of years old must be tentative as well.

The don't get it. they can't think past their own dogma and fundieism. Its too much to think for themselves (it would hurt their brains too much) that the natural consequence of the key component of science - that it is falsifiable - means that you cannot automatically out of hand declare things unfalsifiable PARTICULARLY when you are trying to dismiss what has not been sufficiently independently studied - such as soft tissue decay rates.

Doesn't mean as they try to strawman twist that you throw out anything but that you be open to the possibility and therefore study it first before claiming its no point at all

But they do what they accuse YEC fundies of doing - declare their understanding is impossible to even conceive of being wrong, needing significant adjusting oe even questioning EVER. if next year or the next they find a blade of a plant ---lol--- dating back 200 million years in absolutely any state they will just say er....derrr..err that proves that it can last that long.

you do the independent research when you make these claims. You don't throw out radioactive decay as they like to distort and fabricate that i am saying. If you claim that nothing can raise a question or a challenge to radiometric dating you are saying it is unfalsifiable and when you go there you are fundy that doesn't understand science no matter how much you beg you do..

[Mikeenders]

Nope. Alpha decay (and its variations) and beta decay (and its variations) and electron capture decay each depend on very differnet fundamental mechanisms.

geesh go read a book. fundamental mechanisms are at the atomic and sub atomic level and are not entirely independent mechanisms. does each decay rate differ yes but you ave to be shallow in intellect to think they do not share FUNDAMENTAL (if you know the meaning of the word) physics.

are all the atheist here teenagers or just in this thread?

[Roy]

You can beg bread all you wish or you can fantasize like your pals that any mainstream scientist use anything called a Coral clock...lol.... (to main ways of using corals to date things is projecting based on growth or doing radioactive dating but that not a "coral clock" but still radiometric dating

One of the problems with pontificating on subjects you are unfamiliar with is not knowing what you don't know, or as Rumsfeld memorably categorised, the "unknown unknowns". It is particularly excruciating when to much of your audience they are "known knowns".