Calilasseia

It's quite apparent that one of my favourite metaphors applies here - namely that it's a case of hunting dairy cows from an AH-64D Longbow Apache helicopter gunship. CM presented a solid case for Lake Suigetsu and Dave's response was a Gish Gallop containing numerous alleged "references" that did nothing to support his case. That Gish Gallop was, in effect, a non-post apart from its sheer size. He is still no nearer to establishing any defect in dating techniques, let alone any argument against the consilience of multiple dating techniques, which of course is the killer piece of reasoning here. Likewise, he is absolutely no nearer establishing any mechanism for the global flood that would not involve either [1] conditions on Earth that would sterilise the planet [2] conditions on Earth that would bring the very integrity of the planet itself as a solid object into question [3] conditions that are regarded by just about every accredited scientist as massively unphysical, even if they do not involve direct violations of the laws of physics, or [4] worst of all, actual violations of the laws of physics. There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to suggest, for example, that nuclear decay rates are anything other than invariant, and several MAJOR compelling reasons for rejecting RATE's weirdness on this subject (Earth core temperature of 10¹⁸⁰⁶ Kelvins, anyone?).

I contend here that the debate hasn't so much been won by CM, as gifted to him on a gold platter with caviar trimmings.

mung bean

So this hunting cows from a gunship thingy; is that one of those quaint English traditions like galloping over meadows and ripping foxes to bits with nice doggies and stuff?

ck1

Nothing.

Nice touch, CM. Very pointed.

Dave has 2 arguments left that "deal" with the problems with his origins account: Magic/Miracles (and why not, seeing as how it was all done by an omnipotent being), and Deliberate Deception by scientists (how else to explain the congruence of all those different methods).

And I noticed Dave checked in last night, so he either has computer access in Mexico, or he is back.

biblethumping

As an afdave lurker/fan i hope his last posts appeals more to advancing creation science then debunking c14 rings in trees. The standard operating procedure for evolutionist is to appeal to human based science and reasoning which is flawed and full of sin (in this case corruption and the devils work). I can think of thousands of reason why the devil choose to make this so called correlated evidence agreed, he is afterall of this earth. Remember when people thought the earth was flat? That was science back then and it was proven wrong by God fearing people.

ck1

Welcome biblethumping! I hope you stay and add your opinions if/when Dave starts posting again.

d0t

Eratosthenes was a gods-fearing person?

Sven

Poe's law strikes again.

mung bean

Funny, that was my first thought too.
Biblethumping, the bloke we're referring to was an ancient pagan Greek who calculated the diameter of the earth. He got it right too.

Doug Shaver

And I can think of thousands of reasons why you are deluded. Is either your thinking or my thinking supposed to prove anything?

Calilasseia

On what basis are you qualified to say that science is 'flawed'?

Before answering, bear in mind that there are professionals in various fields posting here, who will take a particular delight in dissecting any errors you make from this point on.

As for being 'full of sin', care to tell me what is 'sinful' about penicillin? Steptomycin? Just two of the products of science that have saved quite a few lives and prevented miserable, painful deaths. My brother is one of those saved by streptomycin. Care to tell me how saving his life was 'sinful', considering that he was just 18 months old at the time? Perhaps you would prefer it if he, and many others like him, had died, would you?

Likewise, one of the leading lights of my Entomology Society until his death in 2000 was one Cyril Clarke. He was quite a remarkable man. He studied butterfly genetics in his spare time. He was a doctor at a Liverpool hospital, and he was researching rhesus haemolytic disease, when he had a flash of insight that coupled the genetic mechanism of the rhesus factor in humans to that of the African swallowtail butterflies he was stuyding, and which led to him and his co-workers devising an effective treatment. Since then, it has been estimated that a million babies have been saved by his work around the world. Care to tell me what is 'sinful' about saving those million lives, particularly as it was his application of the then extant knowledge about evolution that led to his insight and those saved lives?