Constant Mews

In other words you are accusing every working scientist in the world of fraud and stupidity.

Given that you are ignorant of science, confused about logic, and generally incapable of understanding the arguments presented even by the creationists, what makes you right and hundreds of thousands of bright, well-educated, well-trained people wrong?

Especially since massive numbers of them are Christians - many a devout Christian is a scientist. And they all think you're wrong.

Dave Hawkins

Same thing that made Galileo and Copernicus think that hundreds of bright, well-educated, well-trained people in their day were wrong about geocentrism -- EVIDENCE. It's a strange human phenomenon that thousands of bright people can persist in such error for so long, CM ... you should study it since you're a psychiatrist.

ericmurphy

So in other words, you are accusing essentially the entire scientific community of making shit up?

If that isn't libel, Dave, I'm not sure what is. I wonder if it's possible for a group to prosecute a class-action libel suit. How much are you worth, again?

But actually, Dave, the people who are shoehorning non-convergent data into a preconceived conclusion are people just like you: creationists. Only a creationist would use five million year old mountain ranges as evidence for a 6,000 year old planet.

And another thing. You don't have a "theory," Dave. A theory is supported by evidence. Where is your evidence that radiocarbon calibration curves do not, in fact, cross-correlate? Where is your evidence that labs like CalPal are engaged in massive and deliberate deception? Where is your evidence that the entire geological, anthropological, archaeological, paleontological, and particle physics communities are composed of nothing but pathological liars?

You're making a pretty strong claim here, cowboy. I hope you've got some ammunition in your ruck-sack there.

ericmurphy

Which, Davie, is exactly what you ain't got. You really should refrain from slinging wild-ass accusations at hundreds of thousands of hard-working scientists without the tiniest scrap of evidence to support those accusations.

Not thousands, Dave. Millions. The number of young-earth creationists in America is truly alarming. Not that all of them are bright; far from it. But still—alarming.

Now: you claim that the entire scientific community is in error in its belief in the accuracy of radiometric and other dating techniques. You've had 15 months to provide evidence to support your accusation. You've come up with exactly nothing. Why should we believe you, who have no evidence, and not hundreds of thousands of scientists, who have overwhelming evidence?

shirley knott

Dave, that is not an answer.
The question is how it is that the data fits -- whether it is shoehorned or not, it all fits. This is what you must explain, in detail. Including evidence of the dishonesty you so freely accuse others of, evidence of how all the "erroneous" methods are erroneous in the same way to the same value, over and over and over again, with no evidence -- EVIDENCE DAVE -- of attempts to force-fit the data. And the data does fit. Fits quite nicely.
Meanwhile, you have no evidence at all.
As Eric, and others, have pointed out, you keep insisting there is all this evidence for a world-wide flood, and yet you have never yet presented any.
None. Zip. Nada.

As you are so fond of saying, we've been over this before. Over and over and over again.
And everyone except you has learned from it.
Including the several professed former YEC's who abandoned their position based on your presentation and its overwhelming debunking.

You are evolution's best amateur friend Dave, don't ever stop.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

mitschlag

I don't know why people find this candor offensive.

Rather than run to the rafters complaining about libel, why not draw out the witness?

afdave, you have presented an interesting hypothesis.

Would you be so kind as to back it up with some supporting EVIDENCE?

That's what IIDB fora are all about, verdad?

Muchas gracias in advance.

Your friend,

mitschlag

P.S.
Glad to hear that you had a successful trip to Mexico, amigo.

Constant Mews

But as we have seen, you have no evidence to support your case. The Bible is not evidence of scientific contentions. The Bible is, quite simply, wrong about tens of thousands of things - including geology, history, cosmology, etc.

hyzer

Funny, those "bright, well-educated, well-trained people in their day" were well educated and well trained in the bible. In fact, the knowledge that Galileo and Copernicus had that the "bright, well-educated, well-trained people in their day" lacked came from (wait for it) SCIENCE.

improvius

Repeating: Dave, why aren't you subjecting the RATE research to the same scrutiny as you are the Lake Suigetsu varves?

Dave Hawkins

OK. So they were trained inthe Bible. They were well read. And they were also trained in the science of Aristotle and Ptolemy and others. They were bright folks ... just like you. And they were wrong about something really huge.

Si, Mitschlag. That's precisely why I e-mailed the author. Por evidencia. (Pressing the outer limits of my Spanish)