Originally posted by corp1131
Hahahahahahahahahahaha....

So you are suggesting A FLOOD can alter rates of radioactive decay? Surely there would be some very easy to find supporting evidence for this, since there are floods everyday. They really don't. This shows that you have an incredibly tenous grasp on the most basic of principles which you argue against. Switch off that 'magi ...[text shortened]... level of intelligence you display. You get more and more delusional every time you post dj.

If you didn't understand what I said, try this:

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/faq.htm

Originally posted by corp1131
Hahahahahahahahahahaha....

So you are suggesting A FLOOD can alter rates of radioactive decay? Surely there would be some very easy to find supporting evidence for this, since there are floods everyday. They really don't. This shows that you have an incredibly tenous grasp on the most basic of principles which you argue against. Switch off that 'magi ...[text shortened]... level of intelligence you display. You get more and more delusional every time you post dj.

If you don't know what is meant by 'atomic clock' I suggest you look it up.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Have you ever read a Creation magazine?

If you haven't, try this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i4/ichthyosaur.asp

Wow, that was interesting, it presented a well thought out critique of geology, evolution and scientific process, convincing me that because I cannot imagine the scenario god must exist.

Originally posted by Starrman
Wow, that was interesting, it presented a well thought out critique of geology, evolution and scientific process, convincing me that because I cannot imagine the scenario god must exist.

It simply pointed out the major flaws in your evolutionary belief system...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now compare your statement: "There is Scientific evidence which suggests that the speed of light has not always been constant."

and from the website you have given to back it up

"It is easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen."

Do you have any links to a ...[text shortened]... ight imply a warping of spacetime and will result in changes to other aspects of spacetime.

http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml

Originally posted by dj2becker
It simply pointed out the major flaws in your evolutionary belief system...

Lol, it did nothing of the sort, it was completely unsubstantiated and yet nevertheless you believe it without question.

Originally posted by Starrman
Lol, it did nothing of the sort, it was completely unsubstantiated and yet nevertheless you believe it without question.

How could it be more substantiated?

Does it need some Evolutionist Professor to sign at the bottom of the article?

Btw: I do have the Creation magazine in my possession, which has rather more details.

Originally posted by dj2becker
How could it be more substantiated?

Does it need some Evolutionist Professor to sign at the bottom of the article?

Btw: I do have the Creation magazine in my possession, which has rather more details.

Perhaps you have a different definition of substantiated than the rest of us. Much the same as your ridiculous definition of brain death?

Originally posted by Starrman
Perhaps you have a different definition of substantiated than the rest of us. Much the same as your ridiculous definition of brain death?

Strange that you should bring up the brain death story again...

As soon as someone brought the evidence that brain death is reversible you ran away.

Maybe you would care to share why you think the article was not substantiated?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yet it does not seem to amaze you that two people can look at exactly the same evidence and reach two different conclusions...

Dj2 the point of my post was that in the case of YEC's evidence has absolutely no bearing on belief. All you have to stand on is "God magic." That's pretty embarrassing. I'm glad I don't have to subject myself to such embarrassment continually.

I know, I know . . . just wait a few more years. Jesus will return and I'll get all the embarrassment I deserve.

Originally posted by Starrman
Lol, are you actually angry? I must be hitting a nerve if you've turned snappy. That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?

Not one single piece of YECism can be shown as supportable. The scientific community has debunked it all and will continue to do so. The trouble is, that ...[text shortened]... ore convincing. Way to go dj, that's a great way to think. Real...er... believable...

Not to mention that attacking evolution does nothing to increase the credibility of YECism.

Originally posted by telerion
Dj2 the point of my post was that in the case of YEC's evidence has absolutely no bearing on belief. All you have to stand on is "God magic." That's pretty embarrassing. I'm glad I don't have to subject myself to such embarrassment continually.

I know, I know . . . just wait a few more years. Jesus will return and I'll get all the embarrassment I deserve.

Have you read any Creation magazines?

If you have, would you care to point out any evidence that has 'absolutely no bearing on belief'?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Strange you should bring up the brain death story again...

As soon as someone brought the evidence that brain death is reversible you ran away...

Maybe you would care to share why you think the article was not substantiated...

What evidence? I confronted you over and over again and you just came back with the same drivel you always do, I grew tired of responding to nonsense. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show me this 'evidence'.

And while we're on the subject of running away from threads, I'd remind you of the living in sin story which you tried to get out of for weeks, plus I'm STILL waiting for your ID thesis....

Brain death is not reversible.

What is subtantiating about it. It tells you about a theory and then the authro goes 'that can't be true' without providing anything other than conjecture to support his view. How is that substantiated. One thing you YECs seem to theink over and over again, despite being told about the problem with it, is that claiming something is right, does not make it so. Coroboration, independant criticism, weight of evidence? where are these thigs in that article?

Originally posted by telerion
Not to mention that attacking evolution does nothing to increase the credibility of YECism.

Not to mention that your attacking YECism does nothing to increase the credibility of evolution...

I ask again, have you read any Creation magazines?

It might surprise you that Creationists actually do have scientific evidence to back up their views..

Originally posted by dj2becker
Have you read any Creation magazines?

If you have, would you care to point out any evidence that has 'absolutely no bearing on belief'?

Sorry, I don't subscribe to that one.

The point is that the YEC myth is so divorced from any natural interpretation that it can only be supported by "God magic" (i.e. appeals to the supernatural intervention of the great manipulator). Since any state of nature can be made consistent with any sufficiently powerful/intelligent, internally-consistent, supernatural manipulator, observed states of nature are uninformative. In this way, empirical observation has no bearing on belief. If you see one thing about nature, you believe Goddunnit. If you do not see that thing, you believe Goddunnit. This applies to everything you could possibly imagine finding about nature.

As for what you see in YEC publications, that's just a friendly fundie circle jerk. Most YEC's don't relish the fact that they must appeal to "God magic" to explain the age of the earth, the Tower of Babel, the Flood, etc. They like to be told that empirical observation, combined with the naturalistic assumptions we all make everyday, supports their belief. That's how a buffoon like Hovind can make all that money and hide it from the IRS.