Summations Only

So you ignore direct and non-contraversial evidence.You're the criminal denying that the fingerprints on the gun are hers and insisting we believe an invented and unevidenced alibi about being somewhere else instead.Dating is the smoking gun. If you can't disprove that you're lost in an Alice in Wonderland world of fancy.

You do if your objective is to convince anyone that you're right and science is wrong. Otherwise, you're free to howl at the moon. Well I agree that it helps your case to have ANY evidence at all to support your proposition. But as you haven't and science has direct evidence that you agree you can not argue against, it's case closed. You're making no headway at all. No-one here thinks that you've demonstrated anything except how wrong you are. What you're doing is making yourself and your cause look very foolish. Of course you are impressing yourself, but that's not the game is it? By whom and how? Creationists have all given up on it. Correct science started out knowing nothing about radioactive decay, now it knows a large amount - including how to date stuff. What new investigation? Science has the answers for dating and has for many years. And, it confirms the earlier data we had before radiometric dating was known. It didn't have to, but it did. Funny coincidence?

That's obviously wrong but never mind, let's say that it isn't, just for a laugh. But all you have is exactly the same set of facts that that I have but you're making different shit up about it.So now we're equal, I've thrown away 200 years of multidisciplinary science and you've thrown away what you made up in your head last week. We're equal. (In your towering mind only of course.)But look! I have this totally independant and direct proof of an old earth supported by several different and independent direct measurements that all coincide. What's more you accept that you and no other creationist can find anything wrong with the analysis.We have the dating, we win.

So a scienfic fact isn't right until it's submitted to someone who can't understand it because she hasn't had the training, hasn't the motivation and doesn't have the intelligence to peer review it?That makes a lot of sense.I suppose the correct methodology is to test whether the result confirms or denies a biblical story?

And now you're changing the subject. You made this general statement are you retracting it?

This is a strange thing to say but it might help you understand something. The question is, why would anyone reject the Flood if there was evidence for it?Most here are cultural Christians, we know the bible and it's supporting religions and what it claims about the afterlife. It's an attractive deal, just be good for a while here, worship the Lord and spend eternity in paradise. Why would anyone give that up? In the past people gave up their lives for it.The difficulty is that the flood - and other YEC beliefs - have no evidence and several sets of independent evidence tells us they're simply wrong. Beyond all doubt wrong. Not even probably wrong. Just plain wrong.So science and most branches of Christianity has abandoned the primitive beliefs about the bible we had before we knew anything about the world, not because they wanted to, but because of the evidence. The early scientists actually set out to prove the beliefs right, they believed in the Flood and everything else. They weren't looking to disprove it. But that's what the evidence shows.

You are ignoring the point. Again.The people that did the early work on geology believed what you believe. They set out to prove young earth and flood but found that the evidence denied it. And of course everything discovered since confirms that early finding.What you describe above is called motivated thinking, if the only way the evidence makes sense is if you believe something, then you are selectively thinking. You're force-fitting the facts to the belief by cherry picking, ad-hocing and ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your belief. Like you, the early worker's motivated thinking was about proving the ideas in the bible. They wanted it to be true but the facts eventually ovewhelmed them.Science takes ALL the facts and forms a cohesive theory around them. Its motivated thinking is to find the theory of best fit that uses ALL the facts. If the evidence pointed to a young earth, science would follow that path simply because it has to, it can't do anything else - it's built to do it that way. It can be wrong - but it's self-correcting, because it uses all the facts. Science didn't set out to show that the bible was not literally true, it has no motivation to do that, in fact scientists have the same motivation to find this God of yours as you do, but the evidence is against it.This is why you fail. In order to hang on to your belief you are forced to ignore facts that don't fit - dating methods, genetics, order in rocks and fossils, no global flood zone in geology, no rabbit in the Cambrian, no genetic bottleneck etc etc. Your belief prevents you fully considering evidence that contradicts your belief.There is literally nothing that can change your mind is there?

Why are you in a science forum? This mindset is non-scientific, no progress is possible. Putting aside that there is no flood model, who is going to do this work? As far as I'm aware there is no-one working scientificly on any of the inconvenient facts disproving your beliefs. The reason being that there's no reason to. The matters are settled.

Well this is great news, perhaps we can move beyond you making shit up to some science. Let's see it then.

You're not alone, apparently there's a large body of other nutters out there. I was listening a similar delusionals talking about the flat earth yesterday as there's a conference going on here for them. 200 other idiots. They had similar sounding fake science arguments to you, just a different topic. People can and will believe almost anything.Anyway, look, where is this science? You've had 2,000 years to develop it and 200 years since it was challenged by real science. Your lot had a massive start and you're saying that you have absolutely nothing to show us? Not one single paper? Nothing?

It's at least 2 centuries old. Garbage. But that aside, you have nothing to show for at least 2 decades of work? Nothing? But you have nothing at all to do it with and never will have. Meanwhile real science work continues and simply piles on more confirmatory evidence. If there's an error somewhere science will find it, not people like you with no education, training or practical experience sitting at your PC making shit up.

Nope, you're just changing the subject again. I was asking for your science. You are admitting that you have none, despite decades of trying. If it was going to collapse it would have done it 50 years ago when molecular genetics came along or when radiometric dating became prevelant or when cosmological knowledge was developing. Instead, all these things - and more - added to the mass of knowledge from other disciplines confirming their conclusions. This didn't need to be so, but it was.It's not going to take a while, it's not going to happen. This is confirmed by your side's total inability to produce ant scientific evidence at all.

Better proof for the non-existence of god would be hard to find.

And biology and geology, and genetics and palaeontology and cosmology and molecular genetics and physics.....I think I've spotted a trend.

We all agree that you have a big problem. Yes we can. We can do it very simply. We both know that the bottom layer had to be laid down before the top layer. So the deeper we go, the older the rocks get.Your difficulty is in explaining why certain fossil plants and animals are only EVER found in certain layers of rock. And always the same layers for the same fossils. Floods do not and can not sort fossils in order. For that you need a miracle.Strawberries are only ever found in red jelly. Kiwi fruit in green jelly and green jelly is ALWAYS found above red jelly. To be that way your mother put the red jelly in first with the straberries and the green jelly in second with the kiwis - after the red jelly had set. If she'd put it all in together and shaken it all up she'd have yellow jelly with kiwis and strawberries throughout. And that's your proof that 'certain plants and animals' lived at at certain times - if only relatively.Then just to put the cap on it, radiodating directly proves that red jelly is older than green jelly. And by how much.So there it is, as simple as it can be made to be. All you have to do to prove all thi wrong is find a kiwi fruit in with the strawberries. Your inability to do this should tell you something.