The Moon is Made of Cheese

GodsSamus said:

I have YET to see one honest refutation.

Click to expand...

You have yet to actually disprove them.

It has been explained to you previously that (1) there is no such thing as a singular geologic column in the first place so your argument is a strawman and (2) there is no circular reasoning in assigning dates to the features in the sedimentary rock record.

Given your total lack of understanding of geology, you are in no position of determining what is "honest" and what is not.

May I ask how the Geologic Column was erected years before radiometric dating.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "the" geologic column. Your argument is a strawman.

A geologic column is not constructed by humans, it is essentially any stratigraphic section at any given area, which differs because there is no singular geologic column. Your argument is a strawman.

Their preconcieved ages were already determined (though it would change as the Earth grew "older").

Click to expand...

Prior to radiometric dating there were no absolute ages, only estimates based upon other known processes and relative dating. Subdivisions were based upon appearances and disappearances of fossil assemblages, but those subdivisions were primarily qualitative. But this has been explained to you before.

Let me guess. You're not going to examine the claims to see if any of them are true, are you?

GodsSamus said:

1. Earth's magnetic field is caused by an electrical charge in the crust that would have melted the Earth in only 20,000 years.

Click to expand...

The earth's magnetic field is caused by the generation of electricity via convection in the earth's liquid outer core which thereby creates a magnetic field that fluctuates in both magnitude and polarity.

This error has been explained to you before. Repeating this argument is dishonest.

And of course this has nothing to do with evolution.

2. We still have continents, which should have eroded flat after 14 million years, yet there are still fossils that have not been melted away.

Click to expand...

Plate tectonics results in orogenic episodes creating new mountain ranges and weathering rates are variable based upon composition and climate. You don't know what you're talking about. Even a Geology 101 student would know better than to make such an absurd statement.

And of course this has nothing to do with evolution either.

I've never heard of these before, where is the science you used to reach these conclusions? It would make it easier to discuss.

Mechanical Bliss said:

You have yet to actually disprove them.

It has been explained to you previously that (1) there is no such thing as a singular geologic column in the first place so your argument is a strawman and (2) there is no circular reasoning in assigning dates to the features in the sedimentary rock record.

Given your total lack of understanding of geology, you are in no position of determining what is "honest" and what is not.



There is no such thing as "the" geologic column. Your argument is a strawman.

A geologic column is not constructed by humans, it is essentially any stratigraphic section at any given area, which differs because there is no singular geologic column. Your argument is a strawman.



Prior to radiometric dating there were no absolute ages, only estimates based upon other known processes and relative dating. Subdivisions were based upon appearances and disappearances of fossil assemblages, but those subdivisions were primarily qualitative. But this has been explained to you before.

Click to expand...

No, you haven't shown it to me. Actually, the Geologic Column I refer to is the progression of life.

If there's no circular reasoning, why do the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks?

GodsSamus said:

Let me guess. You're not going to examine the claims to see if any of them are true, are you?

Click to expand...

Your claims have been disproved so many times on this forum that it's laughable that you continue to post them.

The problem is that you aren't the one examining your own claims. We have given your claims due and honest examination. It's clear that you don't even have a grasp of the reasoning behind your own arguments (really just borrowed from other sources without your understanding) not to mention the science involved in their refutations.

GodsSamus said:

Ok.

1. Earth's magnetic field is caused by an electrical charge in the crust that would have melted the Earth in only 20,000 years.

Click to expand...

The magnetic field frequently switches polarity. Evidence for this can be seen in the magnetic alignment of rock at the ocean floor.

2. We still have continents, which should have eroded flat after 14 million years, yet there are still fossils that have not been melted away.

Click to expand...

Mountains are continually forming due to plate tectonics.

3. The DNA in your body would be USELESS without the DNA decoder, which would be useless without the DNA. So how did they evolve?

Click to expand...

Through RNA, probably, which can act as its own decoder.

4. http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

Click to expand...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html

GodsSamus said:

No, you haven't shown it to me.

Click to expand...

I have given detailed explanations specifically directed at you for your benefit in the past, so actually, yes I have.

Actually, the Geologic Column I refer to is the progression of life.

Click to expand...

So you're just making it up as you go along?

If there's no circular reasoning, why do the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks?

Click to expand...

They don't. That's a lie, as has been explained to you in detail too many times in the past.

GodsSamus said:

Let me guess. You're not going to examine the claims to see if any of them are true, are you?

Click to expand...

Just got back to my comp after a break

GodsSamus said:

Ok.
1. Earth's magnetic field is caused by an electrical charge in the crust that would have melted the Earth in only 20,000 years.

Click to expand...

Source?

GodsSamus said:

2. We still have continents, which should have eroded flat after 14 million years, yet there are still fossils that have not been melted away.

Click to expand...

Are you completely throwing away some basic things such as vulcanism and isostatic uplift (amongst MANY others)?

GodsSamus said:

3. The DNA in your body would be USELESS without the DNA decoder, which would be useless without the DNA. So how did they evolve?

Click to expand...

And now we come to irreducible complexity (I was wondering how long that would take)
Do you still consider this evidence against evolutionary theory or for ID?
It's not
No, really, it's not

GodsSamus said:

4. http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

Click to expand...

I'll read your site. Thanks
(I may not be able to reply much more until this evening, but I'll do my best)

Mechanical Bliss said:

The earth's magnetic field is caused by the generation of electricity via convection in the earth's liquid outer core which thereby creates a magnetic field that fluctuates in both magnitude and polarity.

This error has been explained to you before. Repeating this argument is dishonest.

And of course this has nothing to do with evolution.



Plate tectonics results in orogenic episodes creating new mountain ranges and weathering rates are variable based upon composition and climate. You don't know what you're talking about. Even a Geology 101 student would know better than to make such an absurd statement.

And of course this has nothing to do with evolution either.

Click to expand...

So basically if I proved the Earth is 6,000 years old, thereby DESTROYING your religion, you would call it irrelevant.

Bad news. This reversal hypothesis is based on no evidence.

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. The plate tectonics would destroy the Earth by way of enormous earthquakes.

More evidence that have yet to be refutted by evidence: mud on the sea floor, population curve, oldest desert, oldest coral reef, oldest tree, 2LoT (You need to be able to USE the energy in order to overcome this law), comets, spiral galaxies, Saturn's rings, Earth's slowing rotation, moon's recession, dinosaur DNA on bones, dinosaur bones.

corvus_corax said:

Just got back to my comp after a break

Source?

Are you completely throwing away some basic things such as vulcanism and isostatic uplift (amongst MANY others)?

And now we come to irreducible complexity (I was wondering how long that would take)
Do you still consider this evidence against evolutionary theory or for ID?
It's not
No, really, it's not

I'll read your site. Thanks
(I may not be able to reply much more until this evening, but I'll do my best)

Click to expand...

No, I'm not throwing them away, but those rocks don't have fossils.

As to the source, read The Collapse of Evolution.

Another blow to Evolution: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n21_v146/ai_15951710

GodsSamus said:

More evidence that have yet to be refutted by evidence: mud on the sea floor, population curve, oldest desert, oldest coral reef, oldest tree, 2LoT (You need to be able to USE the energy in order to overcome this law), comets, spiral galaxies, Saturn's rings, Earth's slowing rotation, moon's recession, dinosaur DNA on bones, dinosaur bones.

Click to expand...

Stop stop stop stop please
What specifically about those things are evidence of a young earth (or agains evolutionary theory)?
For example, you typed "oldest desert" and "population curve"
Now I can assume that I know exactly what you're talking about, but let's not give me that much leeway for mistaking your claims for something they're not

What specifically about those things are evidence of a young earth (or agains evolutionary theory)?

pardon me, would someone tell me what this strawman word is supposed to mean?

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to our restaurant. Here's the menu card...

GodsSamus said:

Sadly, Evolution has no evidence to support it.

Click to expand...

Raw bovine fecal matter.

GodsSamus said:

The Geologic Column is based ENTIRELY on circular reasoning.

Click to expand...

Roasted bovine fecal matter.

GodsSamus said:

The vestigial organs turn out not to be the product of Evolution, since many of them are vital.

Click to expand...

Frozen bovine fecal matter.

GodsSamus said:

The homology argument buys the farm because there are also analogous features, and the theory of Evolutionism is REQUIRED TO BE A FACT to tell whether a structure is homologous or analogous.

Click to expand...

Basted bovine fecal matter.

GodsSamus said:

The biogenetic law turns out to be disproven in 1874!

Click to expand...

Sugared bovine fecal matter.

GodsSamus said:

C'mon, Evolutionists! Get with the program! Your faith has no evidence. Even Talk-origins admits the lack of links by pretending that fossilization is the exception. While this is true, it's also true that we have lots of fossils.

Click to expand...

Spiced bovine fecal matter.

A bit monotonous I admit, but what else to expect from a creationist?

Honestly now, did you want to heap even more ridicule upon creationism (OK by me) and christianity in general (not OK)? If so, congratulations. I'd call your points PRATTs, except that they are PRATTs in this place alone. Considering the number of times all this nonsense has been debunked at other places both on the net and in the real world, your list actually consists of PRAMTs.

Of course, if you wanted to make a point against science, maybe you should present some valid claims instead of endlessly-regurgiposted hovind hogwash.

corvus_corax said:

Stop stop stop stop please
What specifically about those things are evidence of a young earth (or agains evolutionary theory)?
For example, you typed "oldest desert" and "population curve"
Now I can assume that I know exactly what you're talking about, but let's not give me that much leeway for mistaking your claims for something they're not

What specifically about those things are evidence of a young earth (or agains evolutionary theory)?

Click to expand...

Somebody should probably point out the concept of "carrying capacity" to GodsSamus - his "population curve" logic would imply that the planet would probably be covered feet deep with bacteria within days, if not hours.

GodsSamus said:

So basically if I proved the Earth is 6,000 years old, thereby DESTROYING your religion, you would call it irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Again with the describing evolution as a religion. You want people to know you're dishonest, don't you?

Bad news. This reversal hypothesis is based on no evidence.

Click to expand...

Observe the bands of different magnetic alignment on the ocean floor. Of course, that's only admissable evidence if you accept...

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. The plate tectonics would destroy the Earth by way of enormous earthquakes.

Click to expand...

...plate tectonics. And if you don't accept plate tectonics, then you deserve the scorn of everyone who's ever passed a high-school geology test.

More evidence that have yet to be refutted by evidence: mud on the sea floor, population curve, oldest desert, oldest coral reef, oldest tree, 2LoT (You need to be able to USE the energy in order to overcome this law), comets, spiral galaxies, Saturn's rings, Earth's slowing rotation, moon's recession, dinosaur DNA on bones, dinosaur bones.

Click to expand...

This is better than you deserve.

GodsSamus said:

So basically if I proved the Earth is 6,000 years old,

Click to expand...

That is an impossibility because that assertion has been disproved itself.

Furthermore, none of your arguments even come close to demonstrating your claim.

thereby DESTROYING your religion,

Click to expand...

Evolution is not a religion. To continue to call it such is a lie.

you would call it irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Evolution still occurs regardless of the age of the earth.

Bad news. This reversal hypothesis is based on no evidence.

Click to expand...

Another lie because this has been explained to you before as well.

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

No, you clearly don't.

The plate tectonics would destroy the Earth by way of enormous earthquakes.

Click to expand...

And that proves my point that you don't know what you're talking about.

Plate tectonism that produces mountains still is happening today, but the earth hasn't been destroyed. We observe these motions and mountain building events with global positioning satellites.

More evidence that have yet to be refutted by evidence: mud on the sea floor, population curve, oldest desert, oldest coral reef, oldest tree, 2LoT (You need to be able to USE the energy in order to overcome this law), comets, spiral galaxies, Saturn's rings, Earth's slowing rotation, moon's recession, dinosaur DNA on bones, dinosaur bones.

Click to expand...

These arguments have been refuted for your benefit several times in the past.

Example: the second law of thermodynamics. The sun provides useful energy, indeed, so your lack of understanding here is glaring.

In fact, I can't think of a single one of those uninformed arguments that has not been demonstrated false for your benefit.

The very fact that you list them so nonchalantly again absolutely destroys your credibility.

stone said:

pardon me, would someone tell me what this strawman word is supposed to mean?

Click to expand...

As a rhetorical term, "straw man" describes a point of view that was created in order to be easily defeated in argument; the creator of a "straw man" argument does not accurately reflect the best arguments of his or her opponents, but instead sidesteps or mischaracterizes them so as to make the opposing view appear weak or ridiculous.

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

GodsSamus said:

Why should Evolutionism be exempt from careful examination of the evidence both for and against it?

Click to expand...

1. Define "evolutionism". Until and unless you do I'll assume that you mean science in general.

2. I dare you to present any piece of valid evidence against evolutionary theory. Note that valid evidence can not be found at websites like that of professional liar hovind, or on the sites of the openly non-scientific creationist organizations aig, icr or whathaveyou. Using stuff from there would be tantamount to arguing the validity of nazi ideology by using nothing but quotes from Mein Kampf.

My prediction:

You will continue to regurgipost PRAMTs from hovind et cetera and turn even more people away from your religion because these people will equate the nonsense you post with "all christians are idiots".

But go ahead and surprise me

GodsSamus said:

BAd news. YOU'RE the one who's willingly ignorant. Honestly, I was wrong, and I admit it. YOu, however, don't believe in any evidence contradicting your religion.

Click to expand...

Thrice in a row is enough.

*PLONK*

Oh, and one final advice while you spend your time in my ignore list... quantity doesn't equal quality. Nonsense regurgiposted a million times stays nonsense.