Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CTD last won the day on October 15 2013

CTD had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About CTD

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
    Young Earth Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
  1. I see the attempts to misplace the burden-of-proof are likely to continue. I hope the readership is paying attention, and none shall fall victim to the obsolescent ruse. Well, none that don't intend to fall victim, at least...
  2. So the only data you've presented supports creationism? That hardly supports your assertion that you need to supply data because folks around here are not knowledgeable. But now that you've disclosed the non-standard definition of data in your equivocation, there's not much left to discuss. Position theft? Go for it. Facts and models should not be treated equally. So you don't know what part is wrong. Your lack of information is a sign you don't have any to begin with. Put up or shut up. If you think you know better, then explain. Your ability (or inability) to bring up any explanations or facts by your next post will tell us how much you really "know" about geology.You have no talent for baiting. The validity of your propaganda is not impacted in any way by how much I know or don't know about geology. Your claim was about how much you know. I see that you don't even know how to conduct a coherent conversation. Well, to be perfectly precise, you may indeed know and still choose to do otherwise. What information? And I already said I do not have a copy of his data. you don't ever read do you?You're the one failing to read. I did not ask if you had his data. I asked if you had - well, I'll just nest my own exact words up there for all to see what I asked. Keep your story straight. That's a false dichotomy. You yourself pointed out that not all geologists are evolutionists. I don't know why, but you did. While the knowledgeable evopusher holds this game in reserve most of the time and only resorts to it on rare occasions, equating conclusion with evidence is the cheerleader's bread-and-butter. That and repeating "mainstream is always right" mantras.
  3. Great. If the ratios remain the same, they'll give erroneous dates 1 billion years from now, just the same as they do today. Were there to be evolutionists present at that time, they'd take whatever fit their desires and leave whatever didn't. Simple. I understand you've just written off the only actual data you've presented in the entire thread as irrelevant. So presentation makes a difference? I disagree. Models are models, and calling them "fact" will only impress those who desire to be impressed by such. I bought it up becuase we were talking about models, in a sense of computer models. Or modeling back in time.Antihistory. Review and see, any who care. Why should I bother with your propaganda? Bragging about how much you think you know speaks for itself. Besides, you just got done complaining about staying on topic, 'member? Now rather than continually producing propaganda, how about presenting some actual data which is relevant to the discussion? It is customary to also present one's interpretation when presenting data, so it's not like it'd prevent anything. Do you not have handy access to any data which would be inconsistent with Mike Oard's idea? And you can look up the term if you have any question about what I mean when I say 'data'. I have no need of cryptic double-talk. I have a strong preference for clear, plain, everyday English. I find it most difficult to believe one could easily mistake which side I favour when discussing creationism and evolutionism.
  4. (response continued) In this case, evolutionist means people who accept evolution or something along those lines, in which case, my statement still stands, not all geologists accept evolution. You seem to have lost track of what you were responding to. I'm pleased that you are aware not all geologists are evolutionists. I don't even know why you try to argue about this. Actions speak much louder than words. Evidently you don't read many "peer reviewed scientific papers." Evolutonists pepper every paper they publish with irrelevant pro-evolution propaganda. If they investigate the small toenail they'll throw in five or ten sentences about "millions of years of evolution produced a design". And if, Darwin forbid, they discover something that doesn't fit, they always include a disclaimer "this should not be interpreted as a challenge to evo-x; more research is needed and somehow somewhere we pray someone will bend the theory to fit our findings." I think you misinterpreted the word establishments as some organizations when I meant scientific establishments such as the rock cycle, evolution, gravity, etc and how they work. 47256[/snapback] One does what one can when one encounters a text like: "If you think you guys really do have a case, by all means publish a scientific journal and I would love to look, read and analyze it. That is, after all, what science is all about, disproving a well known scientific establishment." An author who desired clarity would not intentionally phrase things so. This is more consistent with one who is carelessly propagandizing, and by coincidence, this particular paragraph is intended as propaganda from the get-go. Read it again and see. Really, who can't think of lots of other priorities in science? Curing diseases, finding new sources of energy, inventing a better toaster - you know, stuff like that. I don't think pride ever needs to enter the picture. It certainly won't do to make it the chief motivation. Even putting food on the table comes ahead of pride. Or does it? Well, one hopes... ------------------------------------------------ Editing because I forgot to thank you for the chuckles. Were all the misspellings in that post accidental, or were some gratuitous just to make it funnier?
  5. And would you have us believe these differences go away over time? Please explain how you think this is accomplished. I don't recall disputing data. Do you ever speak accurately of anyone's position? Refer to your own post, the one I responded to, where you said "Thirdly, I think you really need to look into this subject before you come crashing in with arguments. Most of the data I present here would not be need if you learned some geology." Your first post was in response to the video - not what anyone here said. You do so count on people failing to retain memory of context. Why one would count on such a failure in a forum where anyone can review at any time is something I have not figured out. And even in your first post, the only data presented is in #8 about water and heat. Seeing as practically every planet (I forget about Pluto) radiates more heat than it takes in, your calculations are hardly worth the trouble unless Mike Oard has proposed that the sun is the only source of heat. I haven't watched the video, so I don't know. But even if he had, you still couldn't easily attribute his mistake to anyone other than himself. Well, at least you shouldn't. So what data have you presented - and needed to present - because someone here hasn't studied? I tally zero. Seriously inadequate propaganda. The "rock cycle" is every bit as much a model now as it ever was. Printing it in textbooks does not change this. The why are you deciding to talk about it? You might be more honest than you know. Evolutionism doesn't care whether or not models work. Will they sell? More silly propaganda. I don't care what you think you understand.
  6. CTD

    Lack Of Full Stratigraphy

    Exactly what is found at the Grand Canyon (sandstone,shale,limestone).Sucessive layers that are always sorted according to density....Hmmmm. Enjoy. 46633[/snapback] Piece of cake. You underestimate the readership. You have inserted at term, "solely", in order to create an illusion of having a point.
  7. CTD

    Bang Schmang

    Something interesting from a Space dot com Article It may upset the thinking; it may not. Contrary to the hype we so often encounter, the scientists involved here are not out to create a new paradigm, overturn a "major theory" and win the Nobel Prize. Myself, I very much doubt there exists a "theory of galaxy evolution" any more than any of the other kinds. Perhaps another thread is in order? What's funny isn't so much the news itself. If you follow science very much, you may be yawning. That's what's funny. Think back on how many discoveries have had the potential over the years to completely falsify the antihistory - yet nobody ever bats an eye. Evo-cosmology is every bit as "immune" to falsification as anything you can name. Blind faith trumps evidence so consistently that news like this almost does merit a yawn. I think that is funny (and sad, but we're talking evolutionology here don't forget).
  8. CTD

    Peer Review = Valididty

    You know how to get me to follow a link. In the past, I avoided taking the links to the "next Dumb Idea" there. What was I thinking!!! I must make up for lost laughs at once!
  9. CTD

    Bang Schmang

    Ready for more funny? "There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike." Evo-cosmologists can't even keep their own story straight. The "explanation" at http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/astro...rselecture.html Whoops! Clearly an observer elsewhere, moving only 150 km/s would see things differently. One is tempted to ask if we're moving "away from the big bang on one side and toward it on the other", if we're getting respectively farther away and closer. Either would be a serious no-no, of course, but then what manner of "motion" is this if we're not moving? You can't even model that if you use 500 nonsense dimensions. Moving is moving no matter what. It gets funnier if you keep reading. They used bold, so I'll use italic. Well, just pay attention to the last sentence. Is the Milky Way then the only galaxy "moving with respect to the big bang"? That sounds mighty unique to me! The double-talk is plenty polywrong, but I won't go into the parts that don't strike me as funny. That last part about motion not being involved is deceptive. They're still considering it as motion - they just consider the imagined "expansion" to be the cause of the motion. (And "dark energy" is the cause of the expansion...) But hey - when you're contradicting yourself, equivocating's a convenient way to confuse or distract the victim, right? Well, the inattentive victim, anyhow.
  10. CTD

    Peer Review = Valididty

    You need to equivocate a lot harder if you want it to be difficult to understand. Nobody can fail to see through this weak attempt. Also, what's the point in trying to convince everyone I know so little, if not to sway opinion? Or what's the point in trying to convince them the "researchers" know that which cannot be known? If you choose to continue, please try to be amusing.
  11. So "no geologist" cares whether or not evodates are accurate? So what! That doesn't prevent investigation. Maybe some people actually do care. You can try to fault them I guess, but it's a clearly and obviously antiscientific attitude. You haven't presented any data at all. In case you never noticed, "the rock cycle" is a model. Terms should be accurate and honest. There is no requirement to employ any special terminology. If you think scientists are restricted to "sciency" terms, you haven't been exposed to very many. You don't present evidence; if you wish to call your arguments something other than arguments, equivocate away. Science is about trying to find truth. "Disproving establishments" is probably not what many individuals are about. In real science, it is ideas that may become established - not organizations, and only ideas which result from proper procedure need apply.
  12. CTD

    Peer Review = Valididty

    I suggest you review the context if you wonder what I'm talking about. Um, let's see... There are gases which have been designated "greenhouse gases". Since they are in the atmosphere the world must always continue to get hotter and hotter and hotter no matter what. Well, unless we all agree to pay triple taxes and give up having jobs. In that case, it would magically all work out. Yes, I understand the hype quite well. Just as with evolutionism, the problem you face is people who do understand the silly game(s). That piece of propaganda is totally unrelated to your previous propaganda. You're just spewing randomly. The evidence indicates otherwise, and in no uncertain terms. You clearly said folks should heed the "researchers". That's untrue. I do compromise. At least I have on too many occasions to count. You should restrict what you say about me to what you actually know about me. In matters like "Which movie shall we watch?" I compromise frequently. In matters like "What colour are my black shoes?" I do not compromise. I think any fairly young child is capable of fully understanding the difference. Are you challenging me to a game of get-the-last-post?
  13. Careful Scott - you just fell into the trap of calling conclusions "data". Data itself assumes nothing beyond the accuracy of the report.
  14. It was a very magical timeframe. New phyla even stopped evolving after it was over. If "Cambrian explosion" doesn't work as a propaganda tool any more, perhaps "magical phyla evolution era" would work?
  15. Oh, and there are also snowfall differences - at at least I think there are - between the GISP2 Greenland site and other places around the world where ice is cored, places like Antarctica.

Important Information

Our Terms