Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    LA The bad thing is to persist in an idea in SPITE of the clear scientific findings that repudiate that idea. It them becomes a vehicle to promote error,
    Message 1 of 639 , Dec 9, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      LA> The "bad thing" is to persist in an idea in SPITE of the clear scientific findings that repudiate that idea.  It them becomes a vehicle to promote error, confusion and  falsehoods.
       
       
      Pi:
      That applies to all of the current creation "science" models of which I'm aware including:
       
      1)  Barry Setterfield's c-decay.
      2)  Dr. Russell Humphreys' white holes.
      3)  Dr. Jason Lisle's anisotropic synchrony
      4)  Dr. Larry Vardiman's vapor canopy.
      5)  Dr. John Baumgardner's runaway subduction.
      6)  Dr. Walt Brown's hydroplates.
       
      Among these models are some (such as c-decay) that even the creationist ministries say should not be used; others (such as white holes and the vapor canopy) that even the author admits will not work; and several (such as vapor canopy, runaway subduction, and hydroplates) that, if true, would sterilize the planet.  (I can think of little that would more effectively refute a scientific model than the fact it would destroy all life on Earth.).
       
      Laurie claims to want creation "science" taught in public schools, yet he has never proposed a single current creation "science" model that should be presented in public schools ..... let attempt a defense of such model in this forum. 
       
      Not once.   Ever.
       
      Prediction:   Laurie will now present some statement of opinion, likely of debates that happened over a decade before most of these models were even introduced, as evidence against "evolutionism."  This despite the fact that Laurie has openly acknowledged that opinion is NOT evidence.
       
      It must really suck to be Laurie. 
    • Robert Stewart
      ________________________________ From: Dave Oldridge To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:56 AM
      Message 639 of 639 , Dec 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        From: Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...>
        To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:56 AM
        Subject: RE: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         
         
         
        From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
        Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 11:14 AM
        To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         



         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: PIASAN@...
        Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 3:26 AM
        Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] persisting despite clear findings of error....was: Liars..
         
         
        LA> The "bad thing" is to persist in an idea in SPITE of the clear scientific findings that repudiate that idea.  It them becomes a vehicle to promote error, confusion and  falsehoods.
         
         
        Pi:
        That applies to all of the current creation "science" models of which I'm aware including:
         
        1)  Barry Setterfield's c-decay.
        2)  Dr. Russell Humphreys' white holes.
        3)  Dr. Jason Lisle's anisotropic synchrony
        4)  Dr. Larry Vardiman's vapor canopy.
        5)  Dr. John Baumgardner's runaway subduction.
        6)  Dr. Walt Brown's hydroplates.
         
        Among these models are some (such as c-decay) that even the creationist ministries say should not be used; others (such as white holes and the vapor canopy) that even the author admits will not work; and several (such as vapor canopy, runaway subduction, and hydroplates) that, if true, would sterilize the planet.  (I can think of little that would more effectively refute a scientific model than the fact it would destroy all life on Earth.).
         
        Laurie claims to want creation "science" taught in public schools, yet he has never proposed a single current creation "science" model that should be presented in public schools ..... let attempt a defense of such model in this forum. 
         
         
        LA> Nothing alters the fact that  various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open, public  debates on the scientific questions!  For example a noted evolutionary Biologist wrote the following;
         
        And nothing alters the fact that you, Laurie, nor any other creationist has been able to provide a shred of scientific evidence for any of your major YEC claims.  This proves that, if those debates were really won by creationist debaters, then it must have been by guile, not by scientific evidence, since that has proved (right here) to be non-existent. Where is the creationist SCIENTIFIC evidence for a young universe, young earth or geologically recent global flood? CAN they supply anything other than lies about the actual scientific data or its meaning, or rhetorical excuses why they don’t have to?  So far they are batting zero and then arguing balls and strikes with the umpire!
         
         
        --
         
        Dave Oldridge
        Robert--Remember all that I am a Old Earth Creationist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
         
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.