Summations Only

Chief among the things Faith doesn't understand when she says things like... ...is the concept that it only takes one exception to falsify an hypothesis. No one expects creationists to explain every event in history, just to address the observations that falsify their claims. It would be helpful if creationists, like real scientists, outlined in advance the findings that they agree would falsify those claims.Edited by Capt Stormfield, : syntax

It is reassuring to know that your resentment of science antedates your belief in religion. It really does explain a great deal about your refusal to learn and your apparent antagonism toward those who have..

Would it be impolite to inquire why, of all the sciences, you picked these two as examples? In my experience, the discourse around all of science is roughly equivalent in terms of presenting nuanced discussion in some rough proportion to the sophistication of the audience.If you make an inquiry of a software engineer regarding how to get the recycle bin off your desktop, would you expect a complex discussion of interface design and end-user behavior, or just an "assertive" answer that reflects the endpoint of a long conceptual journey? And if you did demand a complex answer, would it not be a bit, oh, let's call it assholeish, to then complain about the fact that you don't understand the answer?Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo

I wonder what YEC creationists think about the current volcanism in Hawaii? Why does all the action these days seem to be on the south-eastern end of the chain? It seems to be a nice combination of historical science explaining the location and relative weathering of the existing islands (and the Hawaiian-Emporer seamount chain), and also offering a prediction of Loihi, now under construction.

You mean just like the good creationists of the late 1700's? The ones whose honesty, after evaluating the available and growing body of evidence, forced them to conclude that their a priori assumptions had been wrong? The ones that founded the modern geology you reject?Is that the context you mean?Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.

Kind of like when there's a couple feet of snow in the yard that has been there for a few weeks and suddenly there are these white flakes coming out of the sky and they're landing on the snow and it's getting deeper....but winter is over. We're all done with winter. The white flakes landing on the snow now are entirely different. They're not part of the "snow in the yard" they're just snow. Totally different.

Wow.
Just wow.

Yeah, it's weird how normal people think flat strata form from flat geological features. As opposed, I suppose, to thinking they would form from the pointy parts that are being eroded down into those flat places...Oh, wait....

It's almost as if the ground had moved around underneath them, rising up and such. I'd think they got eroded down to the bottom and made the flat strata. Don't worry though, fresh ones popped up in other places. They're in the process of eroding down into the new flat areas that some gormless creationist will be puzzled about in a billion years or so. You realize they're not done yet, right? Kind of by definition, if you can see them.Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo

So when we look at a layer of sediment being deposited on top of existing layers, we can't tell if it's newer than the layers it's being deposited on? What with the "time scale" no longer working and all?You are batshit crazy.

The only problem is that you don't understand the implications of your own idiotic babbling. Your words are unconnected to reality. As I pointed out a few posts ago, saying that the column has stopped forming is like going outside in a snowstorm and declaring that the has snow stopped accumulating as of five minutes previously, and that the snow falling now, piling up on the existing snow, has nothing to do with that.You are completely fucking nuts.