Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, June 13, 2011

Intelligent Design and the Age of the Earth- Revisited

-
Here and on other blogs some people are asking about ID's position on the age of the Earth. Here I will atempt to answer that query.

ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds.

Now there are some who will complain that when one speeds up some processes there will be heat generated, for example from rapid rad decay. These people want to know where the heat went.

First we would have to know how much heat they are talking about and the verification of that. Then I would tell them to look at the Earth's core. IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transeferred to the core. An intelligent designer would know that the core requires heat to stay molten so it can provide a proper magnetic field along with plate tectonic recycling.

So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed).

253 Comments:

  • At 1:41 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds."

    I love it when you make up shit as you go along, "ID spokesperson".

     
  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard chimes in with its usual evotardgasm- moron spokeperson that he is...

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Tell us more about 'the ID position', Joe.

    Which holy book is it you use again? Aren't you Muslim, or was that a falsehood, also?

     
  • At 3:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Tell us more about 'the ID position', Joe.

    Already have.

    RichTard:
    Which holy book is it you use again?

    Use for what? I'm not religious. I don't go to church- my family doesn't go to church.

    RichTard:
    Aren't you Muslim,...

    You don't have ay idea what that means- being a Muslim.

    But anyway thanks for continuing to prove that you have nothing but ignorant spewage- ie evotardgasms- to offer.

    Strange, that...

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "You don't have ay idea what that means- being a Muslim."

    Really? I wouldn't know that it's one of the abrahamic faiths, then. Or that they have a God and a Prophet. Didn't you claim to be Muslim? That doesn't really fit with "I'm not religious". Now, now, bad dishonest creationist, what does the designer say about telling lies?

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    I wouldn't know that it's one of the abrahamic faiths, then.

    Islam- the Islamic Faith.

    See, you are ignorant. And wikipedia isn't much help as being a Muslim does not require one to be an adherent to Islam- that is according to Saudi clerics.

    But go ahead, keep commenting on things you obviously have no clue about...

     
  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Or that they have a God and a Prophet.

    BTW, Islam has one God and SEVERAL Prophets.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

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

    So are you or aren't you a Muslim? as you're "not religious".

    Joe, caught in more lies - shock horror.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard links to wikipedia and what it says supports my claim.

    The religion is Islam. You are still a moron.

    And you still don't know what a muslim is. wikipedia isn't going to help you...

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So are you or aren't you a Muslim? as you're "not religious".

    Joe, caught in more lies - shock horror.


    Having more honesty issues, Joe? Off to AtBC to point out your latest lies. Catch you later.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    HINT-

    All followers of Islam are Muslims but not all Muslims have to be followers of Islam.

    RichTard, caught in more ignorance- shock horror...

     
  • At 10:24 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

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

    "An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim."

    This isn't going well for you, is it? Still in that parking lot, liar?

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wikipedia admits that it isn't a credible source you moron.

    I will go with what the actual adherents to Islam say over what wikipedia sez. And the actual adherents tell me- that is Saudi clerics- All followers of Islam are Muslims but not all Muslims have to be followers of Islam.

     
  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So are you or aren't you a Muslim?

    First you have to tell me what that means. So far you have failed because you are ignorant.

     
  • At 11:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All followers of Islam are Muslims but not all Muslims have to be followers of Islam.

    wikipedia:
    "An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim."

    And THAT follows what I said.

    Geez Rich I don't need any more evidence that you are a moron...

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How many Prophets does Islam have Rich?

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger OM said…

    How old is the earth according to ID Joe?

     
  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    How many Prophets does Islam have Rich?

    A few. ANd a note on your semantic wankery:

    Did I say "have a God and a Prophet" or "have a God and one Prophet"?

    Let me help you as you seen so keen to dodge, and its funny to see you dig deaper. DO YOU FOLLOW ISLAM?

    [2.131] When his Lord said to him, Be a Muslim, he said: I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.
    [2.132] And the same did Ibrahim enjoin on his sons and (so did) Yaqoub. O my sons! surely Allah has chosen for you (this) faith, therefore die not unless you are Muslims.
    [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.
    [3.67] Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.
    [3.80] And neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims?
    [3.102] O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.
    [15.2] Often will those who disbelieve wish that they had been Muslims.

    Can you link to these (fabricated) 'Saudi clerics", Liar?

     
  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Did I say "have a God and a Prophet" or "have a God and one Prophet"?

    What is the difference?

    RichTard:
    DO YOU FOLLOW ISLAM?

    Why would I?

     
  • At 11:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Can you link to these (fabricated) 'Saudi clerics",

    You can go over there and talk to them for yourself- that is if they even let you in their country.

    Good luck with that ignoramus...

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    How old is the earth according to ID Joe?

    I see that you are still having issues with reading comprehension:

    ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed. That is key because we know that intelligent agencies can speed up processes- just look at manmade diamonds.

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed."

    That's not a position, its not even a methodology. A position would be a number or a range.

    ID's intellectual vacuity exposed once more.

     
  • At 11:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "You can go over there and talk to them for yourself- that is if they even let you in their country."

    Translation: Joe caught making stuff up again. it's too easy, because you're just not very bright.

     
  • At 11:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    DO YOU FOLLOW ISLAM?

    YES OR NO.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "ID's position on the age of the Earth is that it all depends on HOW the Earth was formed."

    RichTard:
    That's not a position,

    Yes it is. It is a rational and logical position. That is what has you confused.

    RichTard:
    A position would be a number or a range.

    Like astrology and numerology.

    RichTard:
    ID's intellectual vacuity exposed once more.

    Your position's intellectual vacuuity is expose on a daily basis.

     
  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "You can go over there and talk to them for yourself- that is if they even let you in their country."

    RichTard:
    Translation: Joe caught making stuff up again.

    Translation- Ruichtrd's ignorance gets exposed AGAIN so now it has to lash out.

     
  • At 12:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    DO YOU FOLLOW ISLAM?

    I AM NOT RELIGIOUS SO WHY WOULD I?

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And RichTard,

    All you need is a valid reference that says all Muslims must adhere to Islam.

    Good luck with that, ignoramus...

     
  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I AM NOT RELIGIOUS SO WHY WOULD I?"

    Oh, so you've never claimed to be a Muslim, Then?

     
  • At 12:17 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    So if ID cannot come up with an age for the earth would it not be reasonable for you to accept the generally accepted age until you or some other IDer is able to make a case for a different age?

    After all, don't you think it's a bit silly to claim that there is no trustworthy age of the earth when you are unable to dispute the methodology used to calculate the current age of the earth in any detail? I mean, yes of course it depends on how the earth was formed but that's not sufficient to dispute the current age is it?

    If you can come up with a better methodology then which is currently used perhaps you should present it?

    After all, we both have the same goal - to know an accurate age of the earth.

    And so far we only have 1 figure as you have not been able to provide one. So provisionally, until you can come up with something that can be shown to be more accurate, I'll go with the currently accepted figure.

    Tell me Joe, if it's not possible to calculate the age of the earth is it possible to put some limits on the age?

    I.E The earth is at least X years old because I am X years old myself.

    Therefore the absolute minimum age of the earth is X.

    Can you do that?

     
  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I AM NOT RELIGIOUS SO WHY WOULD I?

    I previously proved indisputable (at least not disputed by you) that you have claimed to be "John Paul" a creationist Muslim.

    So that's why you would. I determined that via my knowledge of cause and effect relationships. You claim to be a Muslim so I believe you.

     
  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The title of this post is
    Intelligent Design and the Age of the Earth- Revisited

    But it appears to me that ID has nothing to add to our understanding of the age of the earth apart from pointing out the obvious - if the earth was designed and created then it could appear to be any age when in fact it was not.

    So what? The same is true of anything, it adds nothing to our body of knowledge.

    E.G. It could be the fact that fossils are created by an evil intelligent designer and placed where they are to make believers doubt their faith.

    It could be that but we have to assume it was not for the purposes of science.

     
  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    I previously proved indisputable (at least not disputed by you) that you have claimed to be "John Paul" a creationist Muslim.

    Except that "John Paul" was more than one person and the choices, well "IDist" was not a choice. And you have no idea what it means to be a Muslim- you are ignorant.

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I AM NOT RELIGIOUS SO WHY WOULD I?"

    RichTard:
    Oh, so you've never claimed to be a Muslim, Then?

    You don't have any idea what that means.

     
  • At 2:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So if ID cannot come up with an age for the earth would it not be reasonable for you to accept the generally accepted age until you or some other IDer is able to make a case for a different age?

    You are ignorant- Materialism didn't come up with the age of the earth- atheism didn't come up with the age of the earth.

    And as I said until the people claim9ing to "know" the age can say how it was formed- with a testable scientific hypothesis- why should I listen to them?

    OM:
    After all, don't you think it's a bit silly to claim that there is no trustworthy age of the earth when you are unable to dispute the methodology used to calculate the current age of the earth in any detail?

    I think it is a bit silly to blindly follow those who spew out a number that "sounds good to me", given the data.

    OM:
    Tell me Joe, if it's not possible to calculate the age of the earth is it possible to put some limits on the age?

    I never said it was impossible to calculate the age of the earth.

    However I do know your position requires great eons of time and that is why you accept the current age even though you don't have any idea if that is enough time.

     
  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Poor Joe, he's having a meltdown. Claiming other people don't understand things, and the obfuscating, not clarifying. This is what happens when you repeatedly get caught in lies. He'll be asking for a 'face to face', soon.

     
  • At 2:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But it appears to me that ID has nothing to add to our understanding of the age of the earth apart from pointing out the obvious - if the earth was designed and created then it could appear to be any age when in fact it was not.

    Possibly- however we would be looking at a totally different geology and cosmology. So just as saying Stonehenge was designed it would add something.

    But anyway all your griping about ID is not going to help you supprt your position.

     
  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "But anyway all your griping about ID is not going to help you supprt your position."

    But at least 'our position' generates fruitful, empirical, numerable science, unlike your religiously driven navel-gazing.

     
  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Poor RichTard- ignorance exposed all he can do is spew more false accusations and whine like a little baby who has lost its bottle.

    You're pathetic Rich- you really think your ignorance means something and when you get slapped with your ignorance all you can do is act like the asshole everyone knows you for.

     
  • At 2:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "But anyway all your griping about ID is not going to help you supprt your position."

    RichTard:
    But at least 'our position' generates fruitful, empirical, numerable science...

    Keep telling yourself that- put on your ruby shoes, close your eyes, click your heels together and keep repeating that- someday it may come true- most likely after pigs start flying...

     
  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Poor RichTard- ignorance exposed all he can do is spew more false accusations and whine like a little baby who has lost its bottle.

    You're pathetic Rich- you really think your ignorance means something and when you get slapped with your ignorance all you can do is act like the asshole everyone knows you for."

    Says teh guy who can't commit to teh age of the earth. All Science so Far!

     
  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Keep telling yourself that- put on your ruby shoes, close your eyes, click your heels together and keep repeating that- someday it may come true- most likely after pigs start flying..."

    Says the guy who can't commit to an age for the earth.

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Look Joe, here you are:
    http://tinyurl.com/42o7jx6

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Poor RichTard- ignorance exposed all he can do is spew more false accusations and whine like a little baby who has lost its bottle.

    You're pathetic Rich- you really think your ignorance means something and when you get slapped with your ignorance all you can do is act like the asshole everyone knows you for."


    RichTard:
    Says teh guy who can't commit to teh age of the earth. All Science so Far!

    Sez the guy who couldn't produce any science to support his position...

     
  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Keep telling yourself that- put on your ruby shoes, close your eyes, click your heels together and keep repeating that- someday it may come true- most likely after pigs start flying..."

    RichTard:
    Says the guy who can't commit to an age for the earth.

    Sez the guy who can't produce any science to support his position.

     
  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Look Joe, here you are:
    http://tinyurl.com/42o7jx6


    Yes I am well aware of when we posted that.

     
  • At 4:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh, there's lots of science on the age of the earth. And no reason to not like it, unless your holy book says so.

     
  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Oh, there's lots of science on the age of the earth.

    Oh, not really- still no testable hypothesis on the earth's formation. So that would be one reason not to like it.

    And as a matter of fact the ONLY reason to like it is if your position requires billions upon billions of years.

    But then again no one knows how many billions of years your position requires- no science to put a number on it.

     
  • At 4:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And BTW I am not religious so I don't have a holy book. I just have a heap of skepticism for people who think the earth and solar system formed by accidental collisions of cosmic debris brought on by gravitational collapse of a molecular cloud...

     
  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I just have a heap of skepticism for people who think the earth and solar system formed by accidental collisions of cosmic debris brought on by gravitational collapse of a molecular cloud...

    And your alternative is?

     
  • At 7:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The evidence points to design.

     
  • At 4:58 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The evidence points to design.

    Your alternative *age* for the earth is?

     
  • At 6:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    THAT depends on HOW it was designed- geez we have only been saying that for years...

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    THAT depends on HOW it was designed-

    Sure. But the thing is until you can come up with an age then it seems we have two choices:

    A) 4.5 byo
    B) Don't know.

    Of the two A) is more useful. It might be right, it might be wrong but it's more useful then "Don't know".

    So ID fails to provide a more useful alternative once again. Why should we give up a data point that is supported by significant evidence in favour of "don't know"?

     
  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Of the two A) is more useful. It might be right, it might be wrong but it's more useful then "Don't know".

    HOW is it useful? If it is wrong then it's only "use" is to confuse us and force us down the wrong path of investigation.

    OM:
    So ID fails to provide a more useful alternative once again.

    But neither materialism, atheism nor reductionism came up with the age of the earth. And the age given has yet to shown to be of any use whatsoever.

    OM:
    Why should we give up a data point that is supported by significant evidence in favour of "don't know"?

    The "significant evidence" that is based on our ignorance and someone's worldwiew?

    LoL!

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I say "don't know" is more useful because it is an impetus to figure it out.

    And what you are saying is that a broken clock is more useful than no clock at all- and that is just plain stupid.

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    HOW is it useful? If it is wrong then it's only "use" is to confuse us and force us down the wrong path of investigation.

    The key word is "if". You've not show the generally accepted age of the earth to be wrong, all you've done is pointed out the obvious - if the earth was deliberately designed then the age we have calculated is probably wrong.

    Yet your "evidence" for that claim is simply your incredulity. Hardly convincing.

    But neither materialism, atheism nor reductionism came up with the age of the earth.

    What we do know is that by excluding supernatural causes from the calculation we can come to a conclusion based on evidence alone.

    And the age given has yet to shown to be of any use whatsoever.

    To you, perhaps not.

    The "significant evidence" that is based on our ignorance and someone's worldwiew?

    Based on years of work that you simply don't understand.

    And if anybody is offering "ignorance" as an explanation it's you. According to you we cannot know the age of the earth because you are not convinced it formed via natural processes. So we discard the value that has been determined by examining the evidence in favour of what? Your disbelief?

    That'd be funny to put in the geology textbooks.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I say "don't know" is more useful because it is an impetus to figure it out.

    What's the hold up?

    And what you are saying is that a broken clock is more useful than no clock at all- and that is just plain stupid.

    Yet the clock is working, telling the time, you just don't believe it. You can't point to a single piece of evidence that supports the current age of the earth and say why it's wrong, all you can do is make the most general comment possible "If X then Y".

    Yes Joe, if the earth was designed we would probably not be able to use current methods to determine it's age. But nobody thinks that it was apart from a few cranks.

    Even the "privileged planet" does not dispute the generally accepted age of the earth, does it?

    And you wonder why you get called a creationist.

    Tell me Joe, if it's not possible to calculate the age of the earth is it possible to put some limits on the age?

    I.E The earth is at least X years old because I am X years old myself.

    Therefore the absolute minimum age of the earth is X.

     
  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    ID tells us we can't know anything. Magic stuff.

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evolutionism is based on our ignorance- ignorant stuff.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    You've not show the generally accepted age of the earth to be wrong, all you've done is pointed out the obvious - if the earth was deliberately designed then the age we have calculated is probably wrong.

    No one has verified the accepted age of the earth. It is useless.

    OM:
    if the earth was deliberately designed then the age we have calculated is probably wrong.

    And the evidence says it was designed.

    OM:
    Yet your "evidence" for that claim is simply your incredulity.

    Wrong again, as usual. However if you had evidence to support your position then we wouldn't be having this chat.

    OM:
    What we do know is that by excluding supernatural causes from the calculation we can come to a conclusion based on evidence alone.

    ID doesn't require the supernatural and your position requires something beyond nature as natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

    The "significant evidence" that is based on our ignorance and someone's worldwiew?

    OM:
    Based on years of work that you simply don't understand.

    It is based on a worldview and ignorance.

    OM:
    According to you we cannot know the age of the earth because you are not convinced it formed via natural processes.

    Not according to me, asshole. And design is a natural process.

    There still isn't a testable hypothesis for how the earth was formed.

    OM:
    So we discard the value that has been determined by examining the evidence in favour of what?

    The evidence that was brought forth by our ignorance and a worldview?

    LoL!

     
  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I say "don't know" is more useful because it is an impetus to figure it out.

    OM:
    What's the hold up?

    What's the hold-up with the testable hypothesis for your position?

    And what you are saying is that a broken clock is more useful than no clock at all- and that is just plain stupid.

    OM:
    Yet the clock is working, telling the time, you just don't believe it.

    You just believe the clock is working because you want to.

    OM:
    Yes Joe, if the earth was designed we would probably not be able to use current methods to determine it's age. But nobody thinks that it was apart from a few cranks.

    Strange how you cannot produce a testable hypothesis for your position- sure sign of a crank and a coward.

    OM:
    And you wonder why you get called a creationist.

    Right- according to you and RichTard a creationist is someone who follows the evidence.

    OM:
    Tell me Joe, if it's not possible to calculate the age of the earth is it possible to put some limits on the age?

    Strawman as I never made the claim that it is impossible to calculate the age of the earth.

    You are a fucking asshole- no wonder the vast majority of people think your position is total nonsense.

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Strawman as I never made the claim that it is impossible to calculate the age of the earth.

    Then do it!

     
  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    no wonder the vast majority of people think your position is total nonsense.

    Likewise the vast majority of educated people, scientists and educators think your position is *not even wrong*.

    Sure, the average Joe might well believe that man/the earth was created in his current form a few thousand years ago but so what? Is science a popularity contest? NO.

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    according to you and RichTard a creationist is someone who follows the evidence.

    So, from following the "evidence" for the age of the earth (alternative ID version) what have you discovered?

    Joe, where does the first factual error appear on this page that summarised the formation of the earth?

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

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    And design is a natural process.

    Is it? So the earth was designed by a natural process: agree/disagree?

    The bacterial flagellum was designed by a natural process: agree/disagree?

    The HIV virus was designed by a natural process: agree/disagree?

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Likewise the vast majority of educated people, scientists and educators think your position is *not even wrong*.

    Strange that they cannot 1) Support their position and 2) Mount a rational argument against ID.

    OM:
    Sure, the average Joe might well believe that man/the earth was created in his current form a few thousand years ago but so what?

    Another strawman. o wonder the vast majority of people who know you say that you are an asshole.

    OM:
    Is science a popularity contest? NO.

    Science requires evidence and your position doesn't seem to have any.

     
  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Strawman as I never made the claim that it is impossible to calculate the age of the earth.

    OM:
    Then do it!

    Not enough data- moron.

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Right- according to you and RichTard a creationist is someone who follows the evidence.

    OM:
    So, from following the "evidence" for the age of the earth (alternative ID version) what have you discovered?

    What does that even mean?

    OM:
    Joe, where does the first factual error appear on this page that summarised the formation of the earth?

    Where is the first verifiable fact on that page?

     
  • At 3:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And design is a natural process.

    OM:
    Is it?

    Do you think cars were supernaturally designed? Or are you just an obtuse moron?

    OM:
    So the earth was designed by a natural process: agree/disagree?

    It is a possibility.

    Nature: originated by a natural process: agree or disagree

     
  • At 4:10 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Not enough data- moron."

    What data, SPECIFICALLY, would you need?

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just the data that the OP is all about- moron.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    There are no specifics in the OP, Joe.

    Tell us what the experiment should look like.

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    SPECIFICALLY I NEED THE DATA ON HOW THE EARTH WAS FORMED- MORON.

    Experiment? Geez I have only been asking that of you and your ilk for decades-> that is some experiment that would provide positive evidence for your position or at least some testable hypothesis.

    So have at it or just admit that you are a coward and then go away.

     
  • At 4:10 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    SPECIFICALLY I NEED THE DATA ON HOW THE EARTH WAS FORMED

    Well you can either wait for a time machine to be invented so you can go back and see for yourself or you could use the same evidence everybody else uses.

    Do you dispute this: The oldest rocks found on Earth date to about 4.0 Ga, and the oldest detrital zircon crystals in some rocks have been dated to about 4.4 Ga, close to the formation of the Earth's crust and the Earth itself

    ?

    Did you notice this sentence:

    Nearly all branches of natural science have contributed to the understanding of the main events of the Earth's past.

    ?

    So lots of independent data threads all point to the same age. It's called "consilience" Joe.

    "The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs."

    And as such our understanding of the formation of the earth is supported by multiple threads of evidence. I.E. It's correct. And the theory has been tested in such a manner.

    What's the ID theory of the moon's formation Joe? Does "it was designed" cover that as well?

     
  • At 4:11 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    It is a possibility.

    Many things are possible, but science is about ruling out things. Does ID allow you to perform any experiments to rule out one or more options? If not, what use it is?

     
  • At 4:13 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Strange that they cannot 1) Support their position and 2) Mount a rational argument against ID.

    They did already, it was called "Dover" and you lost. And it's all written down for everybody to see.

    Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

    A That's correct.

     
  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Strange that they cannot 1) Support their position and 2) Mount a rational argument against ID.

    OM:
    They did already,

    Liar.

    OM:
    it was called "Dover" and you lost.

    No one supported your position at Dover and no one mounted a rational argument against ID at Dover- you are a moron.

    As for Behe- nice out-of-context quotes- you really have no clue- wanker.

     
  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Many things are possible, but science is about ruling out things. Does ID allow you to perform any experiments to rule out one or more options?

    Wait= YOUR position doesn't do that- your position doesn't have any experimental support.

    You are a liar and a loser.

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Well you can either wait for a time machine to be invented so you can go back and see for yourself or you could use the same evidence everybody else uses.

    What "data" is that? Be specific.

    OM:
    Do you dispute this: The oldest rocks found on Earth date to about 4.0 Ga, and the oldest detrital zircon crystals in some rocks have been dated to about 4.4 Ga, close to the formation of the Earth's crust and the Earth itself

    Of course- it cannot be verified.

    And I am STILL waiting for that testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth- coward.

    Nearly all branches of natural science have contributed to the understanding of the main events of the Earth's past.

    Yet STILL no testable hypothesis for the earth's formation.

    Fucking COWARD

     
  • At 7:58 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Of course- it cannot be verified.

    What form would such "verification" take Joe? It seems to me using your standards we cannot verify that the sun rose yesterday.

    Using my knowledge of cause and effect relationships I say we can verify such things.

    We note that radioactive decay proceeds in a statistically predictable way. So we can determine the age of things many thousands of years into the past by examining the ratios of such radioactive elements.

    As for Behe- nice out-of-context quotes- you really have no clue- wanker.

    What difference would the context have made Joe? Please do tell.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What form would such "verification" take Joe?

    The same form ALL verifications take.

    OM:
    Using my knowledge of cause and effect relationships I say we can verify such things.

    You don't appear to have any knowledge

    OM:
    We note that radioactive decay proceeds in a statistically predictable way.

    Not all the time- moron.

    OM:
    So we can determine the age of things many thousands of years into the past by examining the ratios of such radioactive elements.

    That is what you believe.

    As for Behe- nice out-of-context quotes- you really have no clue- wanker.

    OM:
    What difference would the context have made Joe?

    All the difference in the world.

    Any chance of you producing a testable hypothesis for your position?

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Not all the time- moron.

    Example please.

    All the difference in the world.

    Well, why don't you tell me then?

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The topic is "Intelligent Design and the Age of the Earth- Revisited".

    Correct me if I'm wrong but so far what we've determined is that

    ID says the currently accepted age of the earth is wrong, but can't say why it's wrong, how much it's wrong or tell us the correct age.

    ID says the currently accepted theory of how the earth formed is wrong but does not propose an alternative apart from "it was designed" nor a way to investigate that.

    So ID replaces an age of the earth based on sound, verified science with a great big question mark.

    Way to advance the sum of human knowledge!

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    The topic is "Intelligent Design and the Age of the Earth- Revisited".

    And that is all explained in the OP.

    Apparently you are too stupid to understand it.

    OM:
    ID says the currently accepted age of the earth is wrong,

    No, it doesn't.

    OM:
    but can't say why it's wrong,

    I told why it could be wrong and no one has verified it is right

    OM:
    ID says the currently accepted theory of how the earth formed is wrong...

    Seeing that you cannot produce a testable hypothesis I doubt there is such a theory.

    IOW you are a scientifically illiterate moron.

     
  • At 8:48 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Seeing that you cannot produce a testable hypothesis I doubt there is such a theory.

    So you don't even know if there is a theory or not but you've already decided whatever it is is wrong!

    Way to follow the evidence where it leads!

    I told why it could be wrong and no one has verified it is right

    I noted that multiple independent lines of evidence all point to the same ago, as described in the Wikipedia page. Can they all be wrong?

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So you don't even know if there is a theory or not but you've already decided whatever it is is wrong!

    If there isn't a testable hypothesis there isn't a theory. And seeing there isn't a testable hypothesis...

    OM:
    I noted that multiple independent lines of evidence all point to the same ago, as described in the Wikipedia page.

    That is what you believe but until there is a testable hypothesis you don't have anything.

     
  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What does ID give us regarding the age of the earth that we did not already know?

    Apart from "if our understanding of how the earth formed is significantly wrong then the age is probably also wrong" which goes without saying and adds nothing.

    Seems to me you are unable to provide that key piece of information, you instead just do the usual ID tactic of picking at the existing data and claiming "it can't be verified" but failing to replace that (claimed) faulty data with more accurate data.

    IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transeferred to the core.

    A simple bit of math shows that the heat generated by the amount of accelerated nuclear decay you'd need to squeeze what we see as millions/billions of years into a few thousand would vaporise the earth.

    So we can rule that out. Even RATE admit that, they said:

    "One major obstacle to accelerated decay is an explanation for the disposal of the great quantities of heat which would be generated by radioactive decay over short periods of time. For example, if most of the radioactive decay implied by fission tracks or quantities of daughter products occurred over the year of the Flood, the amount of heat generated would have been excessive, given present conditions."

    You can see the calculations for yourself here:

    http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

     
  • At 9:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    What does ID give us regarding the age of the earth that we did not already know?

    You don't know anything.

    OM:
    Apart from "if our understanding of how the earth formed is significantly wrong then the age is probably also wrong" ...

    IOW any heat generated by rapid decay could have been transeferred to the core.

    OM:
    A simple bit of math shows that the heat generated by the amount of accelerated nuclear decay you'd need to squeeze what we see as millions/billions of years into a few thousand would vaporise the earth.

    And another strawman.

    BTW I have had a discussion with Meert- he doesn't know what he is talking about.



    We don't have such an understanding.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    That is what you believe but until there is a testable hypothesis you don't have anything.

    Ah, but it has been tested and is being tested all the time. And nothings changed for 20 odd years

    Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System. The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).

    note this line specifically:

    To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System.

    If I need to explain why this answers your "cannot be tested" point then you don't understand it enough to be able to comment.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    You don't know anything.

    Enough is know to come to a determination of age which has not bee contradicted by any evidence you've provide so far.

    Whereas ID cannot even put a figure on it.

     
  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    BTW I have had a discussion with Meert- he doesn't know what he is talking about.

    Where is the error in the math I linked to then?

    Should be easy for you to point out the error.

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That is what you believe but until there is a testable hypothesis you don't have anything.

    OM:
    Ah, but it has been tested and is being tested all the time.

    Liar.

    No one knows how the earth was formed. All people can do is guess based on their worldview.

    And there isn't any evidence that the solar system formed via blind, undirected physical processes.

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Enough is know to come to a determination of age which has not bee contradicted by any evidence you've provide so far.

    It hasn't been verified either.

    Believe what you want- it is all you hve.

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW I have had a discussion with Meert- he doesn't know what he is talking about.

    OM:
    Where is the error in the math I linked to then?

    Where was he right?

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    No one knows how the earth was formed. All people can do is guess based on their worldview.

    What world-view is that then? As the evidence for the age of the earth is derived from multiple disciplines is it possible that everybody involved has exactly the same worldview?

    Fact is the age of the earth is accepted by people all around the world regardless of their religion etc.

    And there isn't any evidence that the solar system formed via blind, undirected physical processes.

    Apart from the absence of evidence that it was not. What's your *positive* evidence that the solar system was designed?

    Until you provide that then there's simply no reason to assume that it was formed by anything other then blind, undirected physical processes.

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Where was he right?

    His sums add up! It would be trivial for you to show were the math is wrong. But you can't can you?

    So accelerated nuclear decay is only feasible if you invoke a miracle to disperse the heat generated.

    And when you have to invoke a miracle anything is possible and you've left the world of science behind.

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    It hasn't been verified either.

    Believe what you want- it is all you hve.


    In fact it's you that is operating with a belief about the age of the earth. I don't need to "believe" anything as it's all supported with physical evidence. Evidence that you are unable to dispute in any meaningful way.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    In fact it's you that is operating with a belief about the age of the earth.

    Nope- I am operating with logic and reasoning- you are just too ignorant to understand that.

    OM:
    I don't need to "believe" anything as it's all supported with physical evidence.

    Without a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth you don't have any evidence.

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    His sums add up! It would be trivial for you to show were the math is wrong.

    Prove it. Also he is using the strawman of a 6,000 year old earth.

    OM:
    So accelerated nuclear decay is only feasible if you invoke a miracle to disperse the heat generated.

    No miracles required- just engineering.

    However your position requires miracles as it is obvious you cannot produce a testable hypothesis for it.

     
  • At 10:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No one knows how the earth was formed. All people can do is guess based on their worldview.

    OM:
    What world-view is that then?

    The one that sez all is reducible to matter, energy, physics and chemistry. The one that fails for the origin of the universe.

    OM:
    As the evidence for the age of the earth is derived from multiple disciplines is it possible that everybody involved has exactly the same worldview?

    I doubt that it is derived from multiple anything.

    And it is very telling that you cannot produce a testable hypothesis- coward.

    OM:
    Fact is the age of the earth is accepted by people all around the world regardless of their religion etc.

    So what? Not one of them can produce a testable hypothesis.

    And there isn't any evidence that the solar system formed via blind, undirected physical processes.

    OM:
    Apart from the absence of evidence that it was not.

    So you don't have any positive eviodence and you are scientifically illiterate.

    Tell me something I don't know.

    What's your *positive* evidence that the solar system was designed?

    Just what I have presented on my blog and others have written about.

    Again yor ignorance is meaningless.

    OM:
    Until you provide that then there's simply no reason to assume that it was formed by anything other then blind, undirected physical processes.

    Plenty of reasons unless you are an ignorant wanker happy with ignorance.

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Prove it. Also he is using the strawman of a 6,000 year old earth.

    Well, how old do you think the earth is then?

    6,000 years?
    6,0000 years?
    6,00000 years?

    How can 6,000 years be a strawman when you won't even say how old you think the earth is?

    No miracles required- just engineering.

    Anything is possible Joe, but you've no evidence for that.

    Tell me, why would "engineering" be needed to solve the problem of the heat generated by accelerated nuclear decay? Why not just avoid accelerating nuclear decay rates in he first place?

    I mean, why would "engineers" build the earth then accelerate the rate of nuclear decay knowing they would have to get rid of that heat without vaporising the earth?

    Fact is that "variable nuclear decay rates" are only needed in the first place because creationists don't like the fact the measured rates of decay point to millions and billions of years.

    So, sure, "engineering" could have removed the heat but you are left to explain why that all had to happen in the first place at all!

    LOL.

     
  • At 10:11 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Plenty of reasons unless you are an ignorant wanker happy with ignorance.

    But we have a measured age of the earth supported by multiple lines of evidence!

    You can't even say how old you think the earth is at a minimum!

    It seems to me that as ID cannot even come up with a figure nor can you explain how it would go about coming up with such a figure then ID is where the ignorance is.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I doubt that it is derived from multiple anything.

    Yes, your doubt is the deciding factor, lol!

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "No miracles required- just engineering."

    They we'll find physical, mechanical evidence as proof! Excellent! where should we look, Joe?

     
  • At 10:44 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The one that sez all is reducible to matter, energy, physics and chemistry. The one that fails for the origin of the universe.

    But we're talking about the age of the earth no?

    And how do you know every single person who contributed to our current understanding of the age of the earth holds to that worldview?

    You don't.

    I doubt that it is derived from multiple anything.

    You doubt, but you don't know. I've already said that it is. Why don't you look into it yourself? It's not like you are going to believe me.

    And it is very telling that you cannot produce a testable hypothesis- coward.

    I already have, and I've explained how it's been tested!

    Just what I have presented on my blog and others have written about.

    Yeah, right. I'm talking about "evidence" not claims that the current understanding is wrong without any justification or evidence.

    Fact is you can't even say what ID would do differently in determining the age of the earth, and that's oh so very telling.

     
  • At 12:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But we have a measured age of the earth supported by multiple lines of evidence!

    That is what you believe.

    However without a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth it isn't science.

    OM:
    You can't even say how old you think the earth is at a minimum!

    YOU can't even provide a testable hypthesis for your position meaning it ain't science.

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    However without a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth it isn't science.

    As explained already, the test has already been performed. Just read the wikipedia page!

    Please tell me how you would go about testing your alternative ID hypothesis for the formation of the earth? When you think of it that is.

     
  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    How can 6,000 years be a strawman when you won't even say how old you think the earth is?

    No evidence for a 6,000 year old earth, moron.

    OM:
    Anything is possible Joe, but you've no evidence for that.

    Look who's talking- the asshole whose entire position is evidence-free.

    OM:
    I mean, why would "engineers" build the earth then accelerate the rate of nuclear decay knowing they would have to get rid of that heat without vaporising the earth?

    Strawman.

    OM:
    Fact is that "variable nuclear decay rates" are only needed in the first place because creationists don't like the fact the measured rates of decay point to millions and billions of years.

    Fact is you don't have any idea how much yime your position requires.

     
  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "No miracles required- just engineering."

    RichTard:
    They we'll find physical, mechanical evidence as proof!

    Science isn't about "proof" however there is plenty of evidence for design and STILL no testable hypothesis for your position.

     
  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    However without a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth it isn't science.

    OM:
    As explained already, the test has already been performed.

    Liar- strange how you cannot produce the testable hypothsis here- coward.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    No evidence for a 6,000 year old earth, moron.

    On what basis are you saying that? Right now it seems that you don't know how old the earth is and have no way to find out so how do you know one way or the other?

    Fact is you don't have any idea how much yime your position requires.

    What's yime?

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Science isn't about "proof" however there is plenty of evidence for design .

    Like what? What evidence do you have that the solar system was designed? Chisel marks on the moon?

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger OM said…

    For example:
    The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.[27] The currently accepted method by which the planets formed is known as accretion, in which the planets began as dust grains in orbit around the central protostar. Through direct contact, these grains formed into clumps up to 200 metres in diameter, which in turn collided to form larger bodies (planetesimals) of ~10 kilometres (km) in size.[28] These gradually increased through further collisions, growing at the rate of centimetres per year over the course of the next few million years.[28]
    The inner Solar System, the region of the Solar System inside 4 AU, was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, so the planetesimals that formed there could only form from compounds with high melting points, such as metals (like iron, nickel, and aluminium) and rocky silicates. These rocky bodies would become the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). These compounds are quite rare in the universe, comprising only 0.6% of the mass of the nebula, so the terrestrial planets could not grow very large.[10] The terrestrial embryos grew to about 0.05 Earth masses and ceased accumulating matter about 100,000 years after the formation of the Sun; subsequent collisions and mergers between these planet-sized bodies allowed terrestrial planets to grow to their present sizes (see Terrestrial planets below).[29]
    When the terrestrial planets were forming, they remained immersed in a disk of gas and dust. The gas was partially supported by pressure and so did not orbit the Sun as rapidly as the planets. The resulting drag caused a transfer of angular momentum, and as a result the planets gradually migrated to new orbits. Models show that temperature variations in the disk governed this rate of migration, but the net trend was for the inner planets to migrate inward as the disk dissipated, leaving the planets in their current orbits.[30]


    And we test these ideas by looking for their entailments. If we find meteorites of an unexpected age the hypothesis is disconfirmed. Etc etc.

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

    What does ID have to say?

    Nothing.

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No evidence for a 6,000 year old earth, moron.

    OM:
    On what basis are you saying that?

    Produce it then or shut up, asshole.

    Science isn't about "proof" however there is plenty of evidence for design .

    OM:
    Like what? What evidence do you have that the solar system was designed?

    Just all the evidence I and others have already presented and you are ignorant of.

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.

    HOW IS THAT TESTABLE?

    Notice the words "thought to have formed".

    There isn't anything in that piece that is testable- you are a moron.

     
  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Just all the evidence I and others have already presented and you are ignorant of..

    I'm not ignorant of it, just unconvinced. Typically if I want to be convinced of a scientific point I'll expect to read it in a scientific venue, not some book.

    HOW IS THAT TESTABLE?


    It's testable because we can say "if it happened like that what evidence can we look for that will support or disconfirm that theory?"

    That's how you go about testing things.

    Notice the words "thought to have formed".


    Yes, Joe, because unlike religion science does not prove things, rather it provides support of a greater or lesser degree to a hypotheses.

    What's your hypotheses for the formation of the earth?

    There isn't anything in that piece that is testable- you are a moron.

    No, that's why nobody is collecting samples from various places in the solar system to test these ideas.

    http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news116.html

    The primary goal of the Stardust mission was to collect samples of a comet and return them to Earth for laboratory analysis. Comets are ancient bodies of frozen ice and dust that formed beyond the orbit of the most distant planet. They were expected to contain materials that the solar system formed from, preserved in ice for billions of years. When the international team of 200 scientists began examination of the returned particles, we found that the particles were indeed ancient building blocks of the solar system but the nature and origin of the particles was quite unexpected. Before the mission, there were very good reasons to believe that we knew what comets would be made of and there was a general expectation was that the particles collected from comet Wild 2 would be mainly be dust that formed around other stars, dust that was older than the Sun. Such particles are called stardust or pre-solar grains and this was the main reason why the mission was named Stardust.

    What we found was remarkable! Instead of rocky materials that formed around previous generations of stars we found that most of the comet's rocky matter formed inside our solar system at extremely high temperature. In great contrast to its ice, our comet's rocky material had formed under white-hot conditions. Even though we confirmed Comets are ancient bodies with an abundance of ice, some of which formed a few tens of degrees above absolute zero at the edge of the solar system, we now know that comets are really a mix of materials made by conditions of both "fire and ice". Comet ice formed in cold regions beyond the planet Neptune but the rocks, probably the bulk of any comet's mass, formed much closer to the Sun in regions hot enough to evaporate bricks. The materials that we collected from comet Wild 2 do contain pre-solar "stardust" grains, identified on the basis of their unusual isotopic composition, but these grains are very, very rare.


    Yep, simply not testable.

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Typically if I want to be convinced of a scientific point I'll expect to read it in a scientific venue, not some book.

    Then you're not conviinced of much of anything- especially pertaining to the formation of the earth and the evolution of living organisms.

    The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.

    HOW IS THAT TESTABLE?

    OM:
    It's testable because we can say "if it happened like that what evidence can we look for that will support or disconfirm that theory?"

    You are full of shit and a clueless liar.

    http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news116.html

    Nothing there about a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.

     
  • At 1:02 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Nothing there about a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.



    Quite right. What's your point?

     
  • At 1:03 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Then you're not conviinced of much of anything- especially pertaining to the formation of the earth and the evolution of living organisms.

    When your ideas have been peer reviewed and tested against all comers them perhaps you'll have a point worth listening to.

    Until then it's just shits and giggles mate. Shits and giggles.

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nothing there about a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.

    OM:
    Quite right. What's your point?

    That is what I have been asking for. That is what you have avoided posting.

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    When your ideas have been peer reviewed and tested against all comers them perhaps you'll have a point worth listening to.

    Then, by YOUR standards, your position obviously doesn't have anything worth listening to.

    Nice job, ace.

     
  • At 4:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 9:02 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Is there any reason why you refuse to publish my comment where I note that even the RATE creationists admit that accelerated nuclear decay requires a miracle to dissipate the heat?

     
  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are an ignorant asshole-

    Your comment is here, asshole

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RATE:
    "One major obstacle to accelerated decay is an explanation for the disposal of the great quantities of heat which would be generated by radioactive decay over short periods of time. For example, if most of the radioactive decay implied by fission tracks or quantities of daughter products occurred over the year of the Flood, the amount of heat generated would have been excessive, given present conditions."

    Nothing about a miracle in that.

    Was there something else that you didn't post?

    Also it refers to the flood year whereas I am referring to the formation of the earth.

     
  • At 12:38 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Also it refers to the flood year whereas I am referring to the formation of the earth.

    Oh, what flood was that?

    You do know there is no physical evidence what-so-ever that there was a global flood a few thousand years ago Joe?

    What's the date of this "flood year" you mention?

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Blogger afarensis, FCD said…

    "One major obstacle to accelerated decay is an explanation for the disposal of the great quantities of heat which would be generated by radioactive decay over short periods of time. For example, if most of the radioactive decay implied by fission tracks or quantities of daughter products occurred over the year of the Flood, the amount of heat generated would have been excessive, given present conditions."

    Yes but the following paragraph says:

    "At least one theory of cosmology has been proposed which would compensate for this large amount of heat and possibly even result in net volumetric cooling in places. Such theories seem to ultimately to depend upon supernatural intervention at the time of Creation, Fall, and the Flood. God's intervention is explicitly stated in Scripture (II Peter 3:5,6 and implied elsewhere). Although these theories have not been adequately explored at this time, they could well result in an alternative explanation to many processes in the earth and cosmos. The group is strongly committed to exploring various ways in which data for large quantities of radioactive decay can be explained within a young-earth time frame. In this effort, the group is committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible which honors God as Creator and Sustainer of this world."

    Which sounds pretty miraculous to me.

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Oh, what flood was that?

    Seeing it is YECs that would be the flood of Noah's time.

    OM:
    You do know there is no physical evidence what-so-ever that there was a global flood a few thousand years ago Joe?

    What would the evidence look like? IOW how do you know there isn't any evidence of a global flood?

     
  • At 4:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    afarensis FCD:
    Which sounds pretty miraculous to me.

    Well living organisms arising from non-living matter via blind, undirected physical processes sounds pretty miraculous to me.

    The earth and solar system arising from cosmic collisions also sounds pretty miraculous to me.

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger afarensis, FCD said…

    Way to dodge the point...

     
  • At 9:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What point?

     
  • At 11:47 PM, Blogger afarensis, FCD said…

    You said the Rate research did not require miracles or supernatural explanations in order to be valid. Clearly you were wrong.

     
  • At 5:51 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What would the evidence look like?

    It would look the same as other evidence of floods in the geological record.

    IOW how do you know there isn't any evidence of a global flood?

    It's amazing how ignorant you are of your own movements history.

    We know there is no evidence of a global flood as a long time ago the first geologists were creationists out looking for such evidence. They had gone out to find evidence of exactly what the bible says - a global flood.

    And what those creationists found changed everything. And many of them stopped being creationists as *they found no evidence for a global flood* whatsoever.

    So the reason we know there is no evidence for a global flood is that people who believed it was there had to admit that is was not when they looked for it. If it had been nasty darwinists saying that you'd not believe it but as it's fellow creationists what choice do you have?

    So, Joe, If you really believe there was a global flood what is *your* evidence for it?

     
  • At 5:52 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,

    The earth and solar system arising from cosmic collisions also sounds pretty miraculous to me.


    What about all the thousands of other planets and solar systems out there? Were they all created "by hand" as it were or just this one?

    How do you know?

     
  • At 5:53 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Also it refers to the flood year whereas I am referring to the formation of the earth.

    Was the earth formed a short time before the "flood year"? How long, thousands of years? More?

     
  • At 7:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    afarensis:
    You said the Rate research did not require miracles or supernatural explanations in order to be valid.

    I didn't say that.

     
  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What would the evidence look like?

    OM:
    It would look the same as other evidence of floods in the geological record.

    Prove it.

    IOW how do you know there isn't any evidence of a global flood?

    OM:
    It's amazing how ignorant you are of your own movements history.

    Non-sequitur and it ain't my movement- asshole.

    OM:
    We know there is no evidence of a global flood as a long time ago the first geologists were creationists out looking for such evidence.

    What would such evidence look like?

    OM:
    They had gone out to find evidence of exactly what the bible says - a global flood.

    And what EXACTLY would that evidence look like and where in the Bible does it say it was just a flood?

    My bet is that you have no idea what such evidence would even be. Nor do you have any idea that it could be found thousands of years after the fact.

     
  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Was the earth formed a short time before the "flood year"?

    Don't know.

    I notice you are still too much of a coward to post a testable hypothesis for your position.

     
  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The earth and solar system arising from cosmic collisions also sounds pretty miraculous to me.

    OM:
    What about all the thousands of other planets and solar systems out there?

    Your position doesn't have a testable hypothesis for those either.

    Coward.

     
  • At 8:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Well done Joe - you've come out of your creationist closet.

     
  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah, THAT makes sense- because RichTard et al., cannot support their position I am coming out of my creationist closet.

    Nice to see that you are still a mental midget, Rich.

     
  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM, NOT ME, posts something by the YEC RATE group that said something about the year of the Flood:

    "One major obstacle to accelerated decay is an explanation for the disposal of the great quantities of heat which would be generated by radioactive decay over short periods of time. For example, if most of the radioactive decay implied by fission tracks or quantities of daughter products occurred over the year of the Flood, the amount of heat generated would have been excessive, given present conditions."

    I respond to it saying it doesn't say what OM posted it for and it refers to something I never did, ie the flood.

    Now Richie Retardo gets his little clit all tingly because he thinks I am the one bringing up the Flood, when in fact I am just questioning OM about it.

     
  • At 1:17 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Let's go back to this idiocy:

    "So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed)."

    Why did they specifically pick 4.5 BYO, Joe?

     
  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Let's go back to this idiocy:

    "So the bottom line is when someone tells you that the Earth is 4.5 byo, all they are really doing is telling you the speculation based on the assumption (that the Earth was not intelligently designed)."


    How is that idiocy? Please be specific.

    RichTard:
    Why did they specifically pick 4.5 BYO, Joe?

    Isn't that pretty much the age mainstream has provided?

    And isn't that the age no one can verify?

    And isn't it true that you don't have any idea if that is enough time for yur position?

    And we are STILL waiting on that testable hypothesis for your position (pertaining to the formation of the earth).

    Why are you evotards too cowardly to support your own position?

     
  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And isn't that the age no one can verify?"

    But how did they get there? DId one guy say 6,000 yearsm and another 6 trillion, and so on, or did it get more and more refined as science went on?

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, you're a great example of what is wrong with ID:

    You don't like the current age of the earth, but can't calculate a better one.
    You think design can be measured using SI / CSI, but can't calculate it.

    ID - Doesn't like science, but can't do anything except be upset with it.

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    But how did they get there?

    Not by any methodology that can be verified.

    Ya see first they need a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.

     
  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Not by any methodology that can be verified."


    You don't understand consilience, do you? Moreover, all the dating experiments can be repeated, exposed to disinformation, and therefore verified.

    JOE@SCIENCEFAIL.

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Joe, you're a great example of what is wrong with ID

    EvoTards are so clueless. YOU are a great example of what is wrong with your position.

    You cannot produce a testable hypothesis for it yet you think it is science. You then erect strawman after strawman about ID and think yoiu have accomplished something.

    RichTard:
    You don't like the current age of the earth, but can't calculate a better one.

    As I said, moron, I need more data. Anyone who wants to calculate the age of the earth has to have a testable hypothesis for how it was formed as that is directly linked to its age.

    RichTard:
    You think design can be measured using SI / CSI, but can't calculate it.

    Strange that I have calculated it and told others how to do so. IOW your ignorance is still meaningless.

    And strange how you cannot support your position. And that is all that is required to refute ID.

    RichTard:
    ID - Doesn't like science

    Except it is obvious that you don't have any idea what science is.

     
  • At 10:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And we are STILL waiting on that testable hypothesis for your position (pertaining to the formation of the earth).

    Why are you evotards too cowardly to support your own position?


    To RichTard science is erecting strawmen of your opponent's position and never supporting your own.

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Not by any methodology that can be verified."

    RichTard:
    You don't understand consilience, do you?

    The design inference is based on a consilience of evidence. But thanks for the false accusation.

    RichTard:
    Moreover, all the dating experiments can be repeated,...

    Experiments can be repeated but that doesn't mean anything. The age still cannot be verified and it is meaningless without that missing testable hypothesis

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The design inference is based on a consilience of evidence."

    WRONG - Its based on (bad) anology.

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The design inference is based on a consilience of evidence."

    RichTard:
    WRONG -

    Nope- what I said is quite correct.

    ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.


    RichTard:
    Its based on (bad) anology.

    The anolgies are bad just because you say so?

    Or are you just jealous because your position doesn't even have any analogies to call upon?

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism."

    That's right - BAD ANOLOGIES.

     
  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "ID is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism."

    RichTard:
    That's right - BAD ANOLOGIES.

    So now KNOWLEDGE is a BAD thing to have?

    I always knew your position was built and relies on our ignorance but now you have gone and proved that is so.

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    According to Richtard's "logic" the currently accepted age for the earth is based on a consilience of ignorance.

    Way to go ace...

     
  • At 11:01 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So now KNOWLEDGE is a BAD thing to have?


    Not at all. But taking knowledge of one thing and misapplying it to another because of perceived similarities, isn't science.

    ID, Can't tell you how old the earth is, can't calcultate CSI, not much good for anything (except apologetics), eh Joe / Jim / John the Musilim creationist?

     
  • At 11:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So now KNOWLEDGE is a BAD thing to have?

    RichTard:
    Not at all.

    Strange how your position is so against it then.

    RichTard:
    But taking knowledge of one thing and misapplying it to another because of perceived similarities, isn't science.

    So then why do YOU continually do it? That is all your position is, really.

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh Joe, you're flailing. And your creationist underpants are showing. ID - simply isn't generating anything, is it?

     
  • At 11:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Oh Joe, you're flailing.

    Nice projection.

    RichTard:
    And your creationist underpants are showing.

    Your skid marks are showing.

    RichTard:
    ID - simply isn't generating anything, is it?

    Your position can't even generate a testable hypothesis. How pathetic is that?

    Your position relies on our ignorance. How pathetic is that?

     
  • At 11:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    My position can make claims about the age of the earth, the date at which first life appeared, etc.


    ID can't do that.

    SCIENCEFAIL.

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    My position can make claims about the age of the earth, the date at which first life appeared, etc

    How can it when it cannot produce a testable hypothesis for either the formation of the earth or the origin of living organisms?

    MAJOR SCIENCE FAIL

    IOW Rich, you are full of shit. Obviously you are just too ignorant to realize it.

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "How can it when it cannot produce a testable hypothesis for either the formation of the earth or the origin of living organisms?"

    Let's see ID's testatble hypothesis:

    Oh wait, ID can't even comment on things ages.

    Wah wah wah.

    So once again science > ID.

     
  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Oh wait, ID can't even comment on things ages.

    Oh look, RichTard can only leap to faulty conclusions.

    Astrologers make claims too, Richtard. Psychics make claims. Both are right up the same one-way dead-end road your position's claims are.

    So once again Richtard proves he is scientifically illiterate.

     
  • At 1:58 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Physics didn't find Tiktaalik, did they?

     
  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No an astology-like "prediction" helped. LoL!

     
  • At 3:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "No an astology-like "prediction" helped. LoL!"

    And this highlights why you're an idiot. Astrology, like ID, doesn't make testable, positive predictions like look for X in Y. They both keep it real nebulous and untestable.

     
  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "No an astology-like "prediction" helped. LoL!"

    RichTard:
    And this highlights why you're an idiot.

    And that highlights why you are an ignorant fuck.

    RichTard:
    Astrology, like ID, doesn't make testable, positive predictions like look for X in Y.

    Astrology, like your position, doesn't make testable, positive predictions. And the reason Shubin looked where he did was due to faulty data. That you cannot understand that proves that you are a mental midget.

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    169 comments in and what has ID told us about the age of the earth that we did not already know?

    Name a single thing!

     
  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    And the reason Shubin looked where he did was due to faulty data.

    And what did he find?

    You've already said it was not a transitional.

    Funny how everybody else disagrees with you.

    Either you are wrong or they are all wrong. Everybody.

    Which is it. Hmmm

     
  • At 3:48 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Astrology, like your position, doesn't make testable, positive predictions.

    Can you give me an example of the sort of testable, positive prediction that you think non-telic evolution should be making but is not?

     
  • At 3:51 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    How can it when it cannot produce a testable hypothesis for either the formation of the earth or the origin of living organisms?

    There is indeed a good hypothesis about planetary formation. Currently being investigated by some Leicester Uni post-grads.

    Have a look: http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2011/may/leicester-students-to-experience-weightlessness-in-gravity-defying-experiment

    The four students from the University of Leicester, UK will investigate a ‘condensation mechanism for non-ideal kinetic gases of varying temperature’, and its relevance to the formation of planets and ‘rubble pile’ asteroids in the early Solar System.

    What does ID predict as the outcome of this experiment?

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Shubin looked where he did was due to faulty data. That you cannot understand that proves that you are a mental midget."

    Hypothesis testing

    (1) Schubin is the luckiest man alive finding a very rare fossil in the wrong place and the wrong time

    (2) Idiot Joe has got it wrong again.

    Hmmm......

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Shubin looked where he did was due to faulty data. That you cannot understand that proves that you are a mental midget."

    RichTard:
    Hypothesis testing

    (1) Schubin is the luckiest man alive finding a very rare fossil in the wrong place and the wrong time


    AGAIN THE DATA HE HAD SAID NO TETRAPODS BEFORE 385 MILLION YEARS AGO AND TETRAPODS AFTER 365 MILLION YEARS AGO. THE NEW DATA HAS TETRAPODS APPEARING BEFORE 390 MILLION YEARS AGO. THAT MEANS SHUBIN'S DATA WAS WRONG, IE FAULTY.

    Moron.

     
  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    169 comments in and what has ID told us about the age of the earth that we did not already know?

    AND STILL NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS FOR YOUR POSITION.

     
  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And the reason Shubin looked where he did was due to faulty data.

    OM:
    And what did he find?

    Tiktaalik- just as I have been telling you.

    OM:
    You've already said it was not a transitional.

    I said in order for it to be a transitional from fish to tetrapods 1) It has to be found in the proper strata and palce and 2) there has to be genetic data to link to the transition.

    Tiktaalik satisfies neither of those.

    OM:
    Funny how everybody else disagrees with you.

    Only evotards disagree with me. And that is typical.

     
  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Can you give me an example of the sort of testable, positive prediction that you think non-telic evolution should be making but is not?

    Your job is to post predictions your position makes, if any. Then we can discuss them. However it is obvious that you are too much of a coward to do so.

     
  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    There is indeed a good hypothesis about planetary formation.

    Naw, just an idea.

    OM:
    What does ID predict as the outcome of this experiment?

    What do blind, undirected processes predict?

    Personally, I doubt much of anything will happen in 20 seconds.

    Heck someone could have doing this type of stuff on shuttle missions or even on the space station.

     
  • At 6:37 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Your job is to post predictions your position makes, if any. Then we can discuss them.

    But according to you I cannot because there are none. So therefore we need to talk about ID. ID and the age of the earth.

    So far what we have is this

    Personally, I doubt much of anything will happen in 20 seconds.

    As the sole ID based prediction for what will happen when that experiment is run.

    Seriously. It's not much but it is in fact all that there is regarding ID and the formation of the earth.

    But Joe, if you can't give me an example of the sort of testable, positive prediction that you think non-telic evolution should be making but is not then how do you know it's not making them now? How can you tell? If you know what it should be doing and it's not then prove it by telling me what it should be doing, then we can objectively see if that's the case. Or not.

     
  • At 7:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But according to you I cannot because there are none. So therefore we need to talk about ID.

    No need to talk about ID with a coward and a scientiofically illiterate fuck such as yourself.

    Personally, I doubt much of anything will happen in 20 seconds.

    OM:
    As the sole ID based prediction for what will happen when that experiment is run.

    Wow, you are an sshole of great magnitude. PERSONALLY means it has nothing to do with ID- dumbass.

    OM:
    But Joe, if you can't give me an example of the sort of testable, positive prediction that you think non-telic evolution should be making but is not then how do you know it's not making them now?

    Because cowards like you cannot provide one testable positive prediction I feel safe in my inference.

    Strange how evotards keep asking me to support their position. Pathetic losers...

     
  • At 5:04 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Wow, you are an sshole of great magnitude. PERSONALLY means it has nothing to do with ID- dumbass.

    I don't see any other ID supporter predicting the outcome of that experiment.

    Therefore you speak for ID on this matter.

     
  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Spoken like an asshole.

    Thanks for continuing to prove what everyone already knows....

     
  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    If you can't give me an example of the sort of testable, positive prediction that you think non-telic evolution should be making but is not then how do you know it's not making them now?

    How can you tell? If you know what it should be doing and it's not then prove it by telling me what it should be doing, then we can objectively see if that's the case. Or not.

    I'm not asking you to "support my position" as I know you are unable to do that. I'm asking to support yours.

     
  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    If you can't give me an example of the sort of testable, positive prediction that you think non-telic evolution should be making but is not then how do you know it's not making them now?

    Because no one can produce one. That is how I know.

    And until someone produces one my claim is safe.

     
  • At 7:46 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Strange how evotards keep asking me to support their position. Pathetic losers...

    It's funny but on this thread you have what you asked for - a testable hypotheses regarding the formation of the earth.

    Yet you don't actually seem that interested in it, what we could learn from it and what it can tell us about the "design" of the earth.

    I guess you are not very interested because the results, whatever they are, won't support ID because ID can't take a position on any ID prediction regarding it.

    Let's face it, if the experiment shows that accretion is a viable method for the formation of the earth then that undermines ID. There's no situation where ID can win here.

    I guess ID supporters prefer to keep their "predictions" more generic then this experiment. You know, "things will be more complex the more we look at them", that sort of thing.

     
  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    And until someone produces one my claim is safe.

    And what claim is that?

    Fact is that the theory of evolution predicted the location and form of Tiktaalik.

    Regardless if you think it was a transitional or not, the fact is that it's location and form was predicted in advance. They went and looked and found what they expected to find. A fish with wrists! What place that has in the history of life is debatable (as you are fixated upon) but that does not change the fact it's yet another successfully fulfilled prediction of evolution.


    ID has never done anything similar. Never.

     
  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Because no one can produce one. That is how I know.

    I just produced one. The specific location and form of Tiktaalik was predicted in advance.

    And predicted correctly.

    So now you know.

     
  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Fact is that the theory of evolution predicted the location and form of Tiktaalik.

    No, it din't. he theory diodn't predict fish you moron. It didn't predict tetrapods so it couldn't predict a fishapod and it certainly didn't predict a fishapod millions of years after tyetrapods sowed up.

    OM:
    Regardless if you think it was a transitional or not, the fact is that it's location and form was predicted in advance.

    Faulty data- they ue faulty data yu moron.

    And the prediction had NOTHING to do with acumulated getic accidents- meaning you are an ignorant fuck.

     
  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    It's funny but on this thread you have what you asked for - a testable hypotheses regarding the formation of the earth.

    Liar.

    OM:
    Let's face it, if the experiment shows that accretion is a viable method for the formation of the earth then that undermines ID.

    Let's face it that experiment has nothing to do with the formation of the earth.

    Only a moron would think it does.

    Ya see if nothing happens it will not refute anything.

     
  • At 8:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    I just produced one. The specific location and form of Tiktaalik was predicted in advance.

    The prediction was wrong and it isn't a prediction borne from accumulating genetic accidents.

     
  • At 8:35 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    The prediction was wrong and it isn't a prediction borne from accumulating genetic accidents.

    In what way was it wrong?

    In what was was it right?

    And regardless of what the fossils show, if you insist upon genetic "evidence" for these events then that simply shows your dishonesty as we know there is no such evidence available. But it gives you an easy out, regardless of what the fossil evidence is you'll simply claim as it's not supported by genetic evidence it does not count.

    Funny how you are the only person with such a clause. Everybody else accepts the fossil evidence without demands for such spurious "genetic support".

    World 1
    Joe 0

     
  • At 8:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The prediction was wrong and it isn't a prediction borne from accumulating genetic accidents.

    OM:
    In what way was it wrong?

    The way I have been telling you and you ignore as if you ignorance means something.

    fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods

    That is what the evidence says. And that is not what your position predicted- loser.

    OM:
    And regardless of what the fossils show, if you insist upon genetic "evidence" for these events then that simply shows your dishonesty as we know there is no such evidence available.

    Without that genetic evidence all you have is "it looks like a transitional to me" and that ain't scienc.

    OM:
    Everybody else accepts the fossil evidence without demands for such spurious "genetic support".

    Liar.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Faulty data- they ue faulty data yu moron.
    "

    Again, the data was not fault. You may (mistakenly) have issue with the interpretation of the data, but that data is factual observations.

    So Evolution successfully predicts things. ID - not so much.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Faulty data- they ue faulty data you moron."

    RichTard:
    Again, the data was not fault.

    Yes, it was and I told you why. That you ignore that and press on demonstrates that you are a willfully ignorant, scientifically illiterate loser.

    RichTard:
    You may (mistakenly) have issue with the interpretation of the data, but that data is factual observations.

    Factual observations show fish-> tetrapods-> fishapod

    I don't have any issue with that OTOH you appear to be too stupid to understand it, and you are blaming me for something.

    RichTard:
    So Evolution successfully predicts things.

    Except accumulating genetic accident evolution didn't predict that and the theory of evolution didn't predict fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod.

    You lose, again, as usual. Moron.

     
  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yes, it was and I told you why"

    No, you've simply shown you don't understand the subject matter.

    "Except accumulating genetic accident evolution didn't predict that and the theory of evolution didn't predict fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod."

    You're an idiot if you think that's what's going on. Oh wait, you are. Given species overlap, and the fact we're not obligated to find THE VERY FIRST example of organisms fossilized, this isn't what's going on, you're just being dense (again). Stick to the Koran.

    IDIOT boy.

     
  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe wrote: Factual observations show fish-> tetrapods-> fishapod

    Hard to decide which is sillier, this or the question if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

    What do you think, boys?

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Factual observations show fish-> tetrapods-> fishapod

    oleg:
    Hard to decide which is sillier, this or the question if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

    So now scientific evidence is silly? Or is oleg still just a loser?

    Oleg Tiktaalik was found well after tetrapods roamed. Tiktaalik has not been found before tetrapods roamed.

    Or are you still too stupid to use logic and reasoning?

     
  • At 10:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Yes, it was and I told you why"

    Richtard:
    No, you've simply shown you don't understand the subject matter.

    Once again the evidence shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapod---- Tiktaalik was found many millions of years AFTER tetrapods roamed. Obviously you are too stupid to understand what that means.

    "Except accumulating genetic accident evolution didn't predict that and the theory of evolution didn't predict fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod."

    RichTard:
    You're an idiot if you think that's what's going on.

    That is what is going on. Your ignorance is not a refutation.

    RichTard:
    Given species overlap

    this has nothing to do with specoes overlap as there isn't any evidence of such an overlap you ignorant fuck.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home