Nat

"You mean there aren't good reasons to believe the Earth is trillions, just like there aren't good reason to believe its 4.6 billion or 6000."

You are kidding right? You really think there are no good reasons to believe that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old?

Or, are you just what everyone here is concluding that you are - a troll?

Wyz_sub10

zzang,

In essence, you are saying that you know better than 99% of the scientific community - a diverse community of different cultures, backgrounds, experiences AND established disciplines of science.

Don't you see why your stance is not being taken seriously?

What arrogance to assert that the conclusion drawn by tens of thousands of experts are invalid based on your disagreement of that conclusion. (based on what, you are unwilling or unable to say)

You say, "nope, don't agree" without any concrete reason as to why. Sorry, but that type of position is unacceptable in science OR debate.

Hence, my position that you are unfamilar with either discipline.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

How very convenient. Saves having to respond. Say, you’re not Vanderzyden are you?

Please show me where I accompanied my refutations with insults and fabrications. The worst I can see is ‘spouting creationist claptrap’ on 4 Oct (page 2). (Codswallop and gonads aren’t insults, they’re rather pertinent adjectives.) And since Nat posted similar points, you still owe us a response to his/her post at least. If you are honestly interested in the truth of these matters, then I’ll happily discuss things nicely if you do. If not, there’s a bridge that’s missing its troll...

Oolon

Nat

"I don't have a better explanation, but I don't think evolution sufficiently explains the data. "

What data do you think it conflicts with or does not sufficiently explain - I'm really curious. Before you mentioned several bizarre snippets ("living fossils," "inaccurate dating methods," etc.) that looked to be sound bites from a Kent Hovind presentation, which you should know would create nothing more than laughter from people who have actually studied the material. When asked to back up these claims/sound bites, you changed the subject. Please, show us the data of human footprints in very old strata, or explain why the dating methodologies used are too inaccurate to be believed (obviously all methodologies will have some margin or error - none claim to be perfectly accurate).

Nat

"And since Nat posted similar points, you still owe us a response to his/her"

Not that it matters, but I'm a he.

Autonemesis

If I may jump in here... Seeing as how I have not yet participated in this thread, I will proceed under the assumption that I am not tainted by the unfounded assumptions made by others who have attacked your views.

But given your admission that you have no answer to the qusetion of life's diversity, my question is simply this: How would you go about (or how are you going about) developing an explanation for the diversity of life? Is there any research that has gone before that you would accept and view as helpful towards realizing success in such an effort?

You're widely read, and have strong opinions on this topic, so I imagine that you have some ready answers to this query. I'm waiting in complete thrall. Enlighten me.

Duvenoy

Ah, but is the best explanation that we have thus far. And a damned good one, too.

Now, the universe being what it is, it may come to pass that a better explanation will be put forth. But I ain't gonna bet the morgage payment on it.

I must accept the studied and peer-reviewed, ad nausaum, facts. The people who do these studies are not part of some conspiricy, as some of the more rabid Creationists would have us believe. They are simply dedicated to increasing knowledge in their fields, and use all of the tools they have. And also develop more tools as they work, like a Clovis indian knapping a better point for the next mammoth hunt. These tools get the same, rigorious review as any of their findings.

It wasn't too long ago that an ancient primate skull was found in Chad, thought to be, perhaps, a transitional species. The review of it thus far is all but bloody. The neat part about it is that if it's a 7myo chimp rather than a transitional hominid, it's equally exciting. Ancient ape fossils are extremely rare.

And that's the way it works. If one rejects all data, but has none to replace any of it with, however tenuous it might be, then one has no support for an argument.

doov

Doubting Didymus

The best way to test this would be to start a new thread that specifically addresses him. If he never ever responds, its Vander.

Jack the Bodiless

Hmmm...
...followed by:
I guess the message just isn't getting through.

No, Zzang, you would NOT reach a point where life as we know it wouldn't be compatible with the magnetic field strength.

Why?

Because there is no problem with field strength. Creationist claims of a super-intense, rapidly-decaying field are false. Bogus. Baloney.

Why?

Because we know what the actual field strength WAS.

How?

Because we can measure it.

How?

In magnetized rocks laid down at the time.

Zzang, you desperately need to understand that all creationist claims are false. Not a single one of them has ever withstood scientific scrutiny.

You have been lied to.

Quetzal

Zzang: Like Kind Bud, I also have not yet participated in this thread. Hopefully you will consider this post unthreatening and spend some thought in a response.

This is your statement. I won't ask you for an alternative explanation. You've made it fairly clear that you don't feel you're in a position to provide one. However, you imply that you have stumbled across some evidence or phenomenon that isn't (or can't be) adequately explained by evolutionary theory. Please provide an example that you feel compelling. Include as much detail or specific references (if available) as possible. I'm sure someone here will be able to either explain the observation or point you in the direction of the answer.