DP, liberals like Christopher Hitchen's have made it quite clear where they stand with respect to Islam & Sharia law for that matter. They have a right to their religion, but like other religions, their religious laws do not supersede the constitutions of the state or nation.

"Legal homosexual marriage is happening with only 3% of our population being gay..." Only in certain states. & prior to it being legalized more broadly, interracial marriage in certain (northern/liberal) states was happening with ~9% of the population being Black/African American. And prior to that. only certain states were allowing protestants to marry catholics, even though catholics were a m...more

"Legal homosexual marriage is happening with only 3% of our population being gay..."

Only in certain states. & prior to it being legalized more broadly, interracial marriage in certain (northern/liberal) states was happening with ~9% of the population being Black/African American. And prior to that. only certain states were allowing protestants to marry catholics, even though catholics were a minority.less

"You'll have all the proof you need when you see Him...." Unfortunately for you, that isn't a promising logical premise. Philosophically speaking, the most certitude I have is that I, as a mind, exist. Outside of that premise, some assumptions need to be made & the promissory note of something for which you nor anyone has evidence for isn't rationale.

"Many people who are gay have changed that." Where? What would constitute 'many'? To me, if they're not overwhelming able to change this behavior towards viewing the same sex, then it wouldn't suggest it is changeable. "One pastor spoke of a gal..." That's your evidence, an anecdotal, hearsay rant?

'"believer" has something of extra value to say so he always adds exclamation marks!!" Not being fond of logic, or proper grammar & punctuation, believer is of the mind that by marking the end of a sentence with double exclamation points (somehow?) makes it not only more emphatic, but also logically tenable. Not so...

"Prophet. The old "I'm more Christian than you" argument. It's not a particularly compelling one," Careful cindy, folks like prophet do not understand basic logical principles like First Principles. Laws of non-contradiction, & as pointed out here, the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

"the judicial system made itself political when it started making laws rather than interpreting laws such as same-sex marriage laws!!" Basic civics fail. Judges don't make the laws 'believer', they interpret them, just as this recent one who's no longer going to be overseeing Iowa did 7 others whom will do.

"you must consistently stoop to ridiculing and name calling as well as making false accusations of those posters who disagree with you??" Whoa, that is some hypocrisy on display there. Weren't you earlier, um, telling Baty that he's 'someone else' & deriding him by making false accusations? http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101029/science-trumps-the-bible/

“As a bystander even I can see the pattern of the exact same behavior “ The only pattern I see is that no one, not one, has even tried to answer Baty’s premises on point & thoroughly. Like he said, still no david. In the wake of even trying to answer it directly, we’ve had some hefty obstinate behavior, some derision, some logical fallacies, red herrings & segueing the argument to somet...more

“As a bystander even I can see the pattern of the exact same behavior “

The only pattern I see is that no one, not one, has even tried to answer Baty’s premises on point & thoroughly. Like he said, still no david. In the wake of even trying to answer it directly, we’ve had some hefty obstinate behavior, some derision, some logical fallacies, red herrings & segueing the argument to something totally unrelated so as to avoid answering the premises.less

Pearls, what pearls, your logical fallacies, derision, obstanance & utter disregard for any personal integrity to thoroughly answer Baty's premises? You have some nerve man.

“One of the intended effects of such tactics as Prophet and Believer have pursued, in my experience, is to so clutter such lists as to "bury" the substantive posts.” You should be so lucky! I’ve been on CP for over 3 years, in the past dialogs when I would post those who didn’t like my comment or agree with its reasoning would have it deleted. The behavior of outright obstinance, derisi...more

“One of the intended effects of such tactics as Prophet and Believer have pursued, in my experience, is to so clutter such lists as to "bury" the substantive posts.”

You should be so lucky! I’ve been on CP for over 3 years, in the past dialogs when I would post those who didn’t like my comment or agree with its reasoning would have it deleted. The behavior of outright obstinance, derision, lying & outright censorship are hallmarks of creationists here & elsewhere (Dover!), so I made comments in Word so as to have a backup.less

steve20, I can't fully fault DP, it’s not his argument to defend and I actually appreciate that he stood up, as opposed those who engaged in childish obstinance, logical fallacies & question dodging. Thank you DP for your integrity, its refreshing. The statement believer made is that the water ages rocks, or as he eloquently put it, ‘makes them look older’. However, I explicitly stated to...more

steve20, I can't fully fault DP, it’s not his argument to defend and I actually appreciate that he stood up, as opposed those who engaged in childish obstinance, logical fallacies & question dodging. Thank you DP for your integrity, its refreshing.

The statement believer made is that the water ages rocks, or as he eloquently put it, ‘makes them look older’. However, I explicitly stated to him that the ages science determines isn’t a matter of taking a cursory ‘look’ at rocks; rather radiometric dating is used to measure the steady decay of isotopes in those rocks/minerals. As such the outside appearance of a rock has very little to do with how old it really is.

With no immediate answer, believer asserted that the methodology was flawed. I then had to point out that our understanding of physics has given us the ability to make nuclear power & weapons, so to suggest its flawed is without any warrant, if anything the fruits show we know quite a lot about it.

The dialog over the days shows his attempts to use circular reasoning & other logical fallacies & pointless semantics (not water ages rocks, but makes it ‘look older, as if there is a difference?!) in attempts to save his comment & in a more recent last ditch effort he’s stated he’s done on this topic/thread whilst saying I’m a liar. Like I said days ago, he shamelessly makes it up as he goes along…less

"Round squares and such...lol." We've all been entertained by your failing at basic logic principles prophet, Har Har Har! Like I said, I doubt you even understand the First Principles, let alone what that would entail given your, uh, interpretation of anything, especially your supposed infallible bible. "God saying in the Bible that He created the heavens and the earth with His words" We...more

"Round squares and such...lol."

We've all been entertained by your failing at basic logic principles prophet, Har Har Har! Like I said, I doubt you even understand the First Principles, let alone what that would entail given your, uh, interpretation of anything, especially your supposed infallible bible.

"God saying in the Bible that He created the heavens and the earth with His words"

Well, that's *one* interpretation. Another would be that it's more of a metaphorical explanation for gods creative power, not that it literally occurred from him talking. Considering it was, again, penned, edited, deleted, translated, copied & so forth by men, there is little doubt the infancy of humanity & knowledge of man at that time, & their propensity towards Magic would have saw fit to make it more miraculous/magical story of creation by voice, as if by incantation ala Harry Potter magic.less

DP, “Actually the theory is out there.” Then actually show the evidence that water ages rocks or makes them look older already. “I just saw a special on turning salt water in to fresh.” Yeah, so what? Desalination is not all that new of technology, it doesn’t make water ‘age rocks’ either. Remember now, when we determine the age of the earth we’re not merely looking at ...more

DP,

“Actually the theory is out there.”

Then actually show the evidence that water ages rocks or makes them look older already.

“I just saw a special on turning salt water in to fresh.”

Yeah, so what? Desalination is not all that new of technology, it doesn’t make water ‘age rocks’ either. Remember now, when we determine the age of the earth we’re not merely looking at the landscape and saying ‘oh that’s old!’. No, we do numerous radiometric dating techniques to determine the ages. So what evidence is there that water artificially speeds the decay of isotopes?

“purify the water to the point where it removed the minerals.”

Right, its called desalination, hence the removal of sodium, it’s not all that new and certainly does age the rocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

“if the "waters above" were pure water with no minerals then when it hit the earth in the flood it would have agressively changed the landscape. “It's science.”

Fail again. I asked how water causes the isotopes in mineralized rocks to artificially age, hence making them ‘look older’ Running water over a brook will erode the sediment, it wont however ‘add age’ to the minerals at all. Its not science.less

“But my God can accomplish things beyond our comprehension” As always, the creationists lays down their own ‘personal experiences’ which they assert shows their god actually does stuff & exists. Dubiously, it’s always anecdotal though, never testable, always after the fact, never anything others can actually know if it really occurred b/c there is no evidence for what they’re assert...more

“But my God can accomplish things beyond our comprehension”

As always, the creationists lays down their own ‘personal experiences’ which they assert shows their god actually does stuff & exists. Dubiously, it’s always anecdotal though, never testable, always after the fact, never anything others can actually know if it really occurred b/c there is no evidence for what they’re asserting.

Sorry prophet, but I am no more obligated to believe your stories without evidence any more than you are obligated to believe in the many, literally millions, of Indian mystics who’re attested to on a daily basis to be performing miracles, or are avatars of Vishnu & what other nonsense. It’s a nice dodge though, way not to answer Baty’s premises directly & thoroughly again.less

4Him, “you were the first to cut and paste websites references so what are you whining about?” An obvious distinction needs to be made for the laymen’s who think a creationist apologetic site is actually representative of what science actually says. I cited my claims as this is actually what science shows, while you’re citing includes outright quote mines many decades old and debunke...more

4Him,

“you were the first to cut and paste websites references so what are you whining about?”

An obvious distinction needs to be made for the laymen’s who think a creationist apologetic site is actually representative of what science actually says. I cited my claims as this is actually what science shows, while you’re citing includes outright quote mines many decades old and debunked nearly as long ago.

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html#anchorhumans

Pitldown was a fraud, I’ve already stated as such. Nebraska man was actually the result of an overzealous artists rending prior to the data being fully researched & found to that of a extinct type of pig. Not technically a fraud, but the artist made a view of a humanoid that wasn’t representative of what science actually knew or would later come to find out, so it’s the artists libel, not the scientists.

Java man wasn’t ever a fraud, as I eluded to already it’s actually been re-classified as matter of consistency as many specimens of the species of Homo Erectus have been out side of Java and hence calling it ‘java man’ would imply it only existed in java when it certainly did not.

Your statement was that ‘they were/are all frauds’, & the current collection says otherwise. The only actual fraud was Piltdown man, & as mentioned science debunked that nearly 50 years ago and hasn’t used it since, way to stay current.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

“The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic”

National geographic isn’t a peer reviewed science journal.less

“it varies from person to person and their ability to discern the Word of God” Translation: what level of literalism is merely a subjective point of view, not epistemological, but highly determined by the dogmatism one brings to reading the texts. “The Bible says what it means and means what it says” Except when it doesn’t, right? =) And when the bible makes nonsense comments ab...more

“it varies from person to person and their ability to discern the Word of God”

Translation: what level of literalism is merely a subjective point of view, not epistemological, but highly determined by the dogmatism one brings to reading the texts.

“The Bible says what it means and means what it says”

Except when it doesn’t, right? =) And when the bible makes nonsense comments about the earth being fixed, or the sun encircling the earth, well, then it doesn’t say what it means.

“but the Bible doesn't always say what it means or means what it says”

Paradoxically, then how could you even begin to assert your interpretation is the sole correct one-way it can only be read? This goes back to Baty’s premises’ in which he’s asking if it’s possible that *some* whom take it to say literally the universe is a few thousands years old, are interpreting it wronglyless

“Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, in his book "Refuting Evolution" Give me a break, can you not find a single actual scientist to affirm your claims? “very good explanation in the chapter titled "How Old Is The Earth?"” Does he describe how water makes isotopes decay faster? If not, why do you site him? “since this thickness could conceivably be produced either by a little water over a lo...more

“Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, in his book "Refuting Evolution"

Give me a break, can you not find a single actual scientist to affirm your claims?

“very good explanation in the chapter titled "How Old Is The Earth?"”

Does he describe how water makes isotopes decay faster? If not, why do you site him?

“since this thickness could conceivably be produced either by a little water over a long period of time or a lot of water over short periods”

The thickness of what? What is being measured for it’s thickness?less

believer, “consider this my last post to you:” Good. You’ve offered no evidence to back up your claims of water aging rocks, or making them ‘look older’, nor for a ‘6 day creation’ or for a ‘few thousand year old earth/universe’. I am tired of your obstinance & no doubt readers are of your logical fallacies. “insist on posting the same lie over and over since I never ...more

believer,

“consider this my last post to you:”

Good. You’ve offered no evidence to back up your claims of water aging rocks, or making them ‘look older’, nor for a ‘6 day creation’ or for a ‘few thousand year old earth/universe’. I am tired of your obstinance & no doubt readers are of your logical fallacies.

“insist on posting the same lie over and over since I never said that water makes rocks look older but simply cited that if it is true that rocks look a billion years old then perhaps it was one of the many consequences of the Genesis Flood, “

It’s not a lie; you stated it, it’s clear for all to see. It doesn’t matter if it was a consequence of your mythical flood or not, your assertion is that the water from it caused rocks to ‘look older’ and still there is no evidence for this.

“no where did I say it was the water but the damage done by the flood “

That again doesn’t matter as you cannot show evidence for either. You can no more show that putting a rock in water causes the isotopes to decay faster and hence ‘look older’ any more than you can show evidence that a flood occurred which causes the isotopes to decay faster. Either way, you’re proposition is utter nonsense and you shamelessly made it up as you went along.

“that perhaps makes them appear to look this way if indeed they even look this way”

We really do have a failure to communicate. I’ve stated on numerous occasions on this thread that the age of the earth is largely determine by using radiometric dating in measuring the decay of isotopes. Geochemists certainly don’t’ just wander by rock formations & do no testing to determine the ages, they don’t just ‘look at them’ to determine their ages.less

DP, “Actually the theory is out there.” Then actually show the evidence that water ages rocks or makes them look older already. “I just saw a special on turning salt water in to fresh.” Yeah, so what? Desalination is not all that new of technology, it doesn’t make water ‘age rocks’ either. Remember now, when we determine the age of the earth we’re not merely looking at ...more

DP,

“Actually the theory is out there.”

Then actually show the evidence that water ages rocks or makes them look older already.

“I just saw a special on turning salt water in to fresh.”

Yeah, so what? Desalination is not all that new of technology, it doesn’t make water ‘age rocks’ either. Remember now, when we determine the age of the earth we’re not merely looking at the landscape and saying ‘oh that’s old!’. No, we do numerous radiometric dating techniques to determine the ages. So what evidence is there that water artificially speeds the decay of isotopes?

“purify the water to the point where it removed the minerals.”

Right, its called desalination, hence the removal of sodium, it’s not all that new and certainly does age the rocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

“if the "waters above" were pure water with no minerals then when it hit the earth in the flood it would have agressively changed the landscape. “It's science.”

Fail again. I asked how water causes the isotopes in mineralized rocks to artificially age, hence making them ‘look older’ Running water over a brook will erode the sediment, it wont however ‘add age’ to the minerals at all. Its not science.less