Bowties are cool.

And now it's just a matter of time before either @bobknight33 or the @shinyblurry come in and try to defend creationism.

Oh, did I just accelerate that? Heh heh.... ding ding, round x + 1 bitches... time to get schooled again

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

He carries around that Smoke Detector because he's worried that one of the many gods he offends will set him on fire!!

*news *controversy *religion

Adding video to channels (Controversy, News, Religion) - requested by xxovercastxx.

Talking Head: "Do you believe that teaching kids that the world is anything but 4.5 billion years old is the same as teaching them that it's flat?"

Nye: "Well... The word 'same'... It's a pretty good analogy."

Meanwhile, before he even finished saying that much, the talking points ticker at the bottom pops up with "Bill Nye on creationism: it's like teaching the Earth is flat".

Thanks CNN. Thanks so much for reducing a complex and thought out response to a blurb that even a bite-sized, 24-hour news cycle brain can manage. God forbid you give the expert that you've invited onto your show a full 60 seconds of uninterrupted time to speak, without putting words into his mouth for him before he even says them. What if he runs long and cuts into celebrity breakup gossip hour? I tell you what, everybody sees the fall of print journalism coming but with stuff like this televised "news" can't be far behind.

Alright, you asked for it, so you got it.

I'm not going to argue against Bill Nye and try to discredit the evidence of radiometric dating. Instead, I will present some compelling evidence for a young Earth/Universe. I'll start off with this one:

1. Supernovas

When stars explode they leave behind SNRs, or 'supernova remnants'. The remnant is a radially expanding cloud of gas and debris, and based on the average expansion speed, we can determine based on that speed how long it would take for an SNR to reach certain expansion diameters.

In 30 years it is predicted the cloud would be about 13 light years across. In 125,000 years it would be 250 light years and in 6 million years it would be 1500 light years across. 6 million years of expansion is about the limit our current instrumentation will allow us to observe; after that it would be too diluted to observe.

Looking around the galaxy, we should be seeing SNRs of many different sizes, from 6 million years of expansion to 5 million to 1 million to a few hundred thousand years, down to recent times of the supernovas we have observed in our recent history. We should be seeing a whole spectrum of sizes, but we don't. In fact, there is no SNR that we have observed which exceeds around 7 thousand years of expansion. Occams razor again demands that we use the simplest explanation, which is that these stars went supernova very recently and are not billions of years old.

Further, we should be observing a certain quantity of SNRs in the galaxy. Based on the average of around 4 per year, in only a billion years we should expect to see around 7200 of them. On the other side, if it has only been 7000 years we should expect to see 125 of them. What we actually observe is around 200 SNRs which is a lot closer to 7000 years than 1 billion.. Occams razor says the simplest explanation is that the galaxy is young.

Old hat.

"We cannot observe supernova remnants across our entire galaxy – basically nebulae. Supernova events we can see across the visible universe, but the actual gaseous remnants are much fainter because they are more diffuse. Because of dust and gas in the way, we cannot see all the objects in our own Galaxy. Probably the farthest we can see into the galaxy is maybe to a distance of 10,000 light-years. The galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across. Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

So now, we need to multiply our 10,000 years by 25, giving us 250,000 years for the age of the galaxy.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

Sigh... Since I'm sitting here at work and lacking the ability to be constructive on my focused tasks, I'll use this as a distraction and save some other people time. BTW, I do enjoy how Occams Razor could only bring proof to the point you are trying to argue... Of course it couldn't be that you are wrong, could it?

Rebuttal: The number of supernova remnants observed

Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe?

Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ

It still boggles the mind that there are people actually seriously thinking that creationism is a valid theory.

Man know a lot but then we know so little. There is so much to explore and learn. Hubble looked at a black empty in space and found billions of galaxies.

Who is man to be to be the ultimate answer to all things Every decade or so an great discovery comes along and rewrites conventional science thinking.

It takes more faith to believe in creationism that to believe that there is a GOD.

You can not look around at life and simply stake a claim towards to evolution as the ultimate answer.

How does Particle and String theory? Or for that matter what about a Quantum Mechanics ? Really What would the evolutionist have to say about QM? These theories point more to a higher power.

Aside from the atrocious grammar, this statement is absolutely true.

The rest of your post, and shinys, is of course utter nonsense, but kudos for entertaining us.

The universe 6,000 years old? Uh, no.

Those of you who think this is the case - you fail the course and are assigned remedial education - make it count this time.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Even-Pat-Robertson-Denies-the-Earth-is-6-000-Years-Old

Even Pat is turning his back on this nonsense....

Even Pat Robertson Denies the Earth is 6,000 Years Old!!!! has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2.

I think you missed this in the conclusion section of the 2nd link:

"An accurate calculation of the age of the universe using available SNR data is already on the order of 12,000 to 50,000 years, and growing every continually as additional SNRs are detected."

This is still a very young Universe, so my point stands.

It really is depressing. Hundreds of years of careful study, interspersed with moments of genius, each backed with millions of man hours of experiment and analysis have revealed a truth that is almost inspirational. That the earth, and everything on it, is formed at the centre of stars and gradually came together in one of the most elegant and brutally efficient processes to arrive where we are now and that process continues!

And yet, bronze age idiots contort themselves to ridiculous extremes to justify a theory that is not only long since disproved but is actually far more boring and clichéd than the truth.

Doing a simple calculation of the area of a disk 10,000 light-years vs. 100,000 light-years (but 50,000 light-years in radius) yields an area of our galaxy about 25 times larger that we can NOT survey for supernova remnants vs. what we can.

That's incorrect. We have radio telescope images of the galactic center which is 26000 light years away. Second, the estimates are based not on what we can't see, but the percentage that we can see and then averaging for the rest.

The next part is that supernova remnants don’t just form out of nothing, they form from the explosions of dying stars. The stars that live and die the fastest still take about 10,000,000 years before they “go nova” and release a cloud of debris that will later become what we observe. That’s pretty much the minimum time a star can “live” during the current epoch of the Universe. Only after that will we see a supernova form.

Actually, O3 type stars can go nova in about 3 million years time, according to that model.

So, add that to our estimate of the age by the number of stars and we have 10,250,000 years, or 10.25 million years for the age of the galaxy. You should note at this point I’ve been saying “age of the galaxy.” That’s because this would only be used to date our galaxy, not the Universe as a whole. So you need to add in the time for galaxy formation … which is still a number that’s hotly debated, but no respected astronomer will say happens instantaneously.

You can't argue that the galaxy is that old because the stars are that old, when that is the thing in dispute. The argument is intending to prove the stars couldn't be that old in the first place, thus proving the galaxy is not that old.

BUT, there’s another complication to this situation which shows why this apparent “method” for dating our galaxy isn’t valid: Supernova remnants fade! They only are visible for a few tens of thousands of years. What does this mean for our estimate of 1,000,000 years for the age of our galaxy? Well, by the time the “oldest” supernova is fading, we starting to observe supernova 200! We should only expect to see in the neighborhood of a few hundred supernova remnants in our vicinity, regardless of how old our galaxy actually is."

According to

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html

"Obviously, Davies never went SNR hunting in a galactic environment, but I have. For one thing, an SNR becomes essentially invisible, even in a non-crowded environment, within 1,000,000 year tops, maybe less, depending on the specifics of the supernova and environment. But in practice they become essentially invisible long before."

So, they can be visible up to 1,000,000 years, yet we don't find even one at the maximum range of expansion that we are able to detect (or anywhere near it). We should be seeing the entire range of the spectrum, but the biggest we can find (according to their model), is 20000 years old. So this evidence doesn't hold up and the point remains.

You'd think that if shinyblurry was correct that scientists would agree with him. Scientists aren't trying to "prove" anything -- they want an orderly universe just as much as shiny does. What do they gain from insisting on the universe being older? Shiny and his ilk have an agenda -- scientists don't.

They have been known to be blinded by their egos, but that doesn't last that long. (Lots of new discoveries and theories have been poo-poo'd before they become accepted wisdom. Because the data is more important. Ego doesn't win in the long run.)

If a scientist could prove the existence of god, a scientist would.

Plenty of scientists do see the hand of god in the orderliness of the data, the elegance of the math, the clockwork of the mechanisms of the universe. They just don't insist on it for everyone.

PAT ROBERTSON THINKS SHINYBLURRY IS MISGUIDED. See link to vid above.

@lucky760, the above comment is an example of the eyestrain that comes from gray on blue. Since you say you like examples.

I am actually glad that shinyblurry appears to be interested in explaining his view scientifically. If he is earnest in his research, he will soon discover beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe is much, much older than he thinks.

I get the feeling religious folk think that scientists are "out to get them", that scientists have a preconceived notion of what it is they want to find, then bias their research towards that goal. No. Science is about discovering the truth of reality no matter whether we find it comforting or not. Pasting "alternate theories" that have not passed peer review as if they are equally as valid as experimentally tested, peer reviewed theories, is, well, unscientific. Many scientists present many theories all the time that are quickly proven wrong through peer review and experimentation. That's how we arrive at truth, by discarding all the stuff that doesn't fit and keeping the stuff that does. There's nothing "preconceived" about that.

Well, don't forget about peer review. That's the crucial thing that sets science apart from religion. No hypothesis becomes a theory until it's been road tested like a motherfucker. Since religion relies on "revealed wisdom," it can't possibly hope to keep up.

For instance, did you know that Galileo might have been wronged back in 1632 when he was ordered to stand trial in Rome for heresy?...and that this was revealed to the Pope...in 1992??

That's correct, it took 360 years for the Vatican to admit that the earth is not the center of the cosmos. Granted, there wasn't a lot of peer review happening in 1632...but it did happen eventually. More importantly, it happened in spite of religion, not because of it.

So with religion's impressive track record of getting it wrong, and more impressive foot-dragging, why should they be the authority about the age of the cosmos? Or condom use? Or homosexuality? They have proven themselves quite unable to do so.

Science is the one with the winning track record, fuckers.

You can't pick which evidence to consider. Radiometric dating tells us when the Earth was created. That's convincing evidence. Address it.

Also, do you think scientists have a specific "Earth age = 4.5 billion years" agenda that they're trying to prove? Or do you just think scientists are simply wrong in their conclusions again and again, and it's a coincidence that they keep arriving at roughly the same number across all the different disciplines?

Scientific disciplines that young earth creationism contradicts (from Wiki, which has citations):

Physics and chemistry (including absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology and dendrochronology among others.

Damn, this scientific conspiracy goes deep!

I'm just going to reply in general here; I'll reply in specific later. A few people have asked, what is the conspiracy? Do you not know that the scientific community is in a state of war with creation scientists? They are very keenly aware of the fact that anything that even remotely points to a young Universe will be lept upon by creation scientists and thrown back in their faces. I am very certain there is a concerted effort to suppress or dismiss such evidence. I have seen the vitriol that scientists heap upon creation scientists and it isn't pretty. Anyone pursuing projects which would help their cause would have their funding revoked, and they would be ostracized from the scientific community. I guarantee you that there is *no* research being done on the possibility of a young Universe. They consider it a proven fact, and they have built their theories on the back of it (none of their theories about anything these days work without deep time). Millions and millions of dollars and many reputations are on the line for deep time. It has become conventional wisdom, which is no longer science but philosophy.

Here is a book that may interest some:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Exploding_a_Myth.html?id=k7UwShwkKg0C

@shinyblurry -- dinosaur fossils. There are good hearted folks who believe that dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test their faith.

Are you one of those folks?

Who is man to think he has all the answers in a simple convenient package called "God"?

What arrogance to assume that we know the universe and all there is to it.

What stupidity to not aspire to learn the intricacies of reality.

What viciousness to force others to abandon their search for light in the void of space.

We should strive to be the best we can be, but the chains of faith are keeping us down in the mud.

Fuck yeah!

War on christmas? Heaviliy fortified, but we've established a beach head

War on traditional marriage? The enemy is in full retreat and soon the no-one will be able to get married unless given permission by a council of 2 lesbians, a gay guy and post-op transexual.

War on creationism? Was never much of a contest, but we pwned those superstitious motherfuckers hard.

Next up... war on babies!

This is an early hit piece on Rubio by obama's loyal media regime, the Communist "News" Network.

Rubio gave a misguided, faith-based answer in the hopes of offending no one. Duly noted, now howzabout questioning KING obama's corruption, tax hikes and spending addiction?

Economic Flat Earthers are far more dangerous than Creationists. It's been well-proven for 4 years now that obamanomics is a disaster and will continue making things worse. CNN isn't about to question KING Obama about anything.

Misdirection.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old. You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!


So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

You can't pick which evidence to consider.

Why not?

Radiometric dating tells us when the Earth was created. That's convincing evidence. Address it.

I've addressed it in the past but these debates don't go anywhere. I haven't found that anyone is willing to have an intelligent conversation on it.

Also, do you think scientists have a specific "Earth age = 4.5 billion years" agenda that they're trying to prove? Or do you just think scientists are simply wrong in their conclusions again and again, and it's a coincidence that they keep arriving at roughly the same number across all the different disciplines?

I think they're wrong in their assumptions, and that they interpret the evidence through the conclusion, rather than arriving at the conclusion because of the evidence. The empirical evidence that actually proves any of these theories is actually very weak or non-existent.

@shinyblurry -- dinosaur fossils. There are good hearted folks who believe that dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test their faith.

Are you one of those folks?

No. I don't know any Christians who believe that. I believe the fossils were all laid down very rapidly during the flood by hydrological sorting, and that certain groups of animals are in certain layers because that is when the water level rose above their ability to survive the catastrophe. The geologic record supports catastrophism:

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

Newton made his discoveries to bring glory to God, and he changed the world many times over. There is no reason not to pursue the mystery of the cosmos; and no one is saying we know everything. It is not arrogance however to say what the origin of the cosmos is, and how the laws governing it came to be. After all, scientists pronounce these things on a continual basis. What is arrogant is to believe that this is solely the domain of science.

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

Many creation scientists have advanced degrees and have published many papers. Why aren't they scientists? What makes a scientist a scientist?

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

There was a very concerted effort, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries to come up with evidence for an old age of the Earth to support the ideas of uniformitarian geology and macro evolution. There was an ideological war going on, just as there is today, between those secular scientists who wanted to establish their own secular idea of origins to undercut the account of biblical creation. Up until that point, all geologists were flood geologists. Now a days, you're right, they are resting on their laurels, because as I said it has become conventional wisdom, which is not science but philosophy.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old.

I grew up in a secular home with a great love for science, and I very activiely pursued studies in astronomy and biology. In all of my studies, I never heard so much as a peep about the controversy. There is an information filter on this subject, and it had kept me in the dark about the whole thing most of my life.

You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

None of this has anything to do with the question of salvation. The conflict you're seeing is coming from a liberal movement within the church which tends to embrace secular values and rejects traditional interpretation of scripture. As numbers go, it is a small amount of people. As a recent survey shows, the majority of Americans (ie 46 percent) believe in creationism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

These views get overreprented in the media by liberals sympathic to their causes. It gets presented in such a way that it looks like it is the majority view when it is actually the minority view.

As far as what Creation scientists have to lose..not much. They already lost much of what they had to lose by becoming a creation scientist in the first place.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!

I don't agree with the catholic church on practically anything, let alone this.

So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

It's actually the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of man.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

Over 200 thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith, all over the world.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

All I'll say to this is that ad hominem attacks reveal more about your character than they do mine.

Based on other comments in this thread, are you claiming to know better than all the geologists in the world who claim there's sufficient evidence of an old Earth, people who have spent their entire professional lives working in the field?

I haven't found that anyone is willing to have an intelligent conversation on it.

The common factors in all those conversations are you and science. Do you think it's more likely that non-Bible-literalist people are mostly (all?) incapable of intelligent scientific conversation (including nearly all professional scientists), or that you, a single non-scientist, have the wrong idea about how to talk about science?

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism



And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.


You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth


You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.


And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

Based on other comments in this thread, are you claiming to know better than all the geologists in the world who claim there's sufficient evidence of an old Earth, people who have spent their entire professional lives working in the field?

If you reversed the premises and asked me this same question 130 years ago, all of the geologists would have been wrong according to you. As I said, it's conventional wisdom now and no one ever seriously questions it. Any evidence that appears to the contrary is consider anomalous and discarded.

The common factors in all those conversations are you and science. Do you think it's more likely that non-Bible-literalist people are mostly (all?) incapable of intelligent scientific conversation (including nearly all professional scientists), or that you, a single non-scientist, have the wrong idea about how to talk about science?

I meant here on videosift, on the subject of radiometric dating. I have had productive discussions on these topics with atheists. I'll give credit to those who engaged me on the actual science of this particular topic, though.

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism

If scientists are those that practice science then every creation scientist who has published a peer reviewed paper is a scientist.

http://creation.com/do-creationists-publish-in-notable-refereed-journals

And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.

Read the above link.

You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth

Some of the greatest scientists who ever lived were creationists, does that make all of their claims valid?

You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.

You said there was no persecution today, but in fact there is quite a bit. Christianity is illegal in 51 countries. It's almost getting to the point in America where sharing your faith might become a civil rights issue.

And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

God says what is true about you and me, and that's all that matters.

Wielding Occam's Razor in a defense of magic is absolutely hilarious.

God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

Well, to be strictly correct, one must say "some god" is an ever receding pocket. Not every person of faith rejects science.

And we care about accuracy, right?

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Bollocks.

Not once has a scientist made a discovery and gone "shit the bible was right about this the whole time".

If there are theologians on the top of that mountain,
1. they got there on the backs of scientists
2. they refuse to believe they're not still in a field
3. they're so blinded by their faith that they're missing the awesome view all around them

If scientists are those that practice science then every creation scientist who has published a peer reviewed paper is a scientist.

Well, yes. you can be a scientist and a creationist. That doesnt make Creationism science. The link you provided referred to a biologist creationist publishing a paper without creation/god/whatever mentioned and a creationist physicist publishing non-biological papers. All fine.

The site also says/implies that mentioning ceationism/design will prevent publishing. This is probably true in most cases, but not for the conspiratorial reasons creationists think.

Suppose you are a biologist working on understanding say, a particular enzyme, what it does and how it works, now suppose you reach a point where you just cant figure the fuck out how the enzyme is made exactly or exactly how it works. Now suppose you are writing an article for peer-review about said enzyme. Suppose you note in the article that you hit a dead end in your research, unable to figure out the excact workings of the enzyme: Thats fine.

What is NOT fine, however, is to speculate that unicornpiss is required for the enzyme to work. Thats not because your peers are biased against unicornpiss, its just that there is no evidence for it, no detailed description of what it is, what it contains, how it works or that it even exists, nor is there any reason to link it to a particular enzyme.

Replace "unicornpiss" with "creation" or "design" or "god" or whatever, the example still works.

In science you need to be specific, descriptive, and evidence-based. The reason words like Creation and Unicornpiss does so poorly in the peer-review wordcloud is because they are essentially dealing with the imaginary.

So if you want more creationism published, start by defining exactly what is meant by creation, design etc, who? what? how? is there a designer behind the flagellum? describe him/her/it! define the limitations, the exact method used, the magic involved in detail, then present the direct or indirect evidence of the now precicely defined designer.

At present this concept of design is just castle-in-the-sky nonsense. Empty piffle. A complete non-starter.

This is why the "mere mention" of "design" will get you "banned" from peer-review, because you could just as well have made a "mere mention" of Bigfoot and the loch ness monster in your zoology report, it's a big tell to your peers that you are a nut who fails to understand the nature of evidence and science, and a big sign that you are in for some fuzzy logic and dumb assumptions instead of solid science.

And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.

Read the above link.

That link does not provide evidence of any usefulness of "creation science" it simply mentions that some real scientists are also creationists. I think what Hatsix was asking for was if there has been any progress made because creation was assumed or discovered via actual science. Lets say a creationist that solves a particular problem in biology because he or she used creationism or "creation science" instead of, or in addition to, just, well... science.

At present, the very best we have seen of "creation science" are rather pathetic attemps at poking holes in evolution by people like Michael Behe who keeps yapping on about how something is "too complex" to have evolved. Even if these people had been completely successful of bringing down Darwin once and for all (they arent even close), that wouldnt be ANY help whatsoever to actually justify calling it "creation" science (or intelligent design).

After essentially nullifying and disproving everything we have learned about biology the last 200 years, you still have all the work ahead of you, I'm afraid. You now have to build a completely new framework and model for every single observation ever made in biology that makes sense of it all and explains why things are the way they are. Shouting that a thing is "complex" is not cutting it, I'm afraid. You need a new theory of DNA, Immunology, Bacterial resistance, adaptation, vestigal organs, animal distobution, mutation, selection, variation, genetics, speciation, taxonomy... well, as Dobzhansky put it: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" That quote is more relevant than ever.

@shinyblurry

I have a concession, perhaps a confession to make. An admission if you will. I accept your thesis: every scientist on earth, more or less (except a few religiously devout who still see the truth for what it is) are lying, or they are caving to the pressure of their lying peers, or they have been duped somehow to lie to you. In reality the universe is about 10000 years old, give or take. But all these scientists are, for whatever reason, contributing deliberately or undeliberately to the false claim that the universe and earth is many orders of magnitude older, something like billions of years old. Its all lies. Just about every scientist for the last 200 years have been contributing to this lie, and alternative ideas are being supressed for some dogmatic reason.

Lets suppose all that is true.

Suppose that all these lies, published in peer-review, has been backed up by equally lying peers.

Fine.

I give you that point

I dont think its logical, in fact I think its an insane conspiracy theory, but nonetheless, I concede the entire point. Right now.

How about that shit, eh?

Theres just still one problem for creationism, and its fucking everywhere, its called EVIDENCE. Like maybe you are reading this on a smartphone, with a GPS in it. That GPS unit is communicating right now with 2 sattelites, in freaking ORBIT, triangulating your position right now. Thats some insane science at work right there, but actually thats not the crazy part: The crazy part is that it wouldnt work at all, unless the people who designed that GPS system understood Relativity. Thats right, Einsteinian freaking relativity. The satellites, and their speed relative to earth, would actually give the wrong postion if they relied on Newtons laws.

THOSE VERY SAME principles and knowledge actually is used to tell us how far away stuff in the universe is. some stuff are actually (As in your-GPS-can-ACTUALLY-tell-you-exactly-where-you-are kind of "actually")really fucking far atway, like billions of light-YEARS. which means the light left from other parts of the universe literally BILLIONS of years ago, before they reached our telescopes. Like Bill Nye explained, a smoke detector works on principles that we understand about the half-lives of atoms, again the same shit used to understand the age of fossils and shit we find in the ground. the LCD screen you are likely looking at is an innovation that comes from understanding wavelenghts of light, again used to measure the distance of galaxies that emitted light billions of years ago.

You dont have to trust scientists, most of the EVIDENCE is RIGHT FUCKING THERE, in front of you, in your pocket, in your hand, around your home, in every school, in every home, in every post office or courtroom, in the streets. ACTUAL REAL EVIDENCE, right there, PROVING, every second, that the universe is billions of years old.

Every scientist since Newton could be a lying sack of shit, all working on the same conspiracy, and it would mean fuck all, because the evidence speaks for itself.

The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

@BicycleRepairMan, that response is just brilliant ^^. On so many levels. Thank you. This is why I love the Sift. Right here.

130 years ago, the assumption in the Western world (where all the science was getting done) was the the Bible was correct. There was no geological scientific evidence either way. Then geological evidence started coming out that the biblical number was way, way wrong. That evidence was challenged and yet survived, so the accepted value of the age of the Earth changed. That's how science works; you change your mind in the face of evidence. That's how intelligence works, in fact.

It's the same evidence. There isn't creationist evidence and secular scientist evidence. They're both looking at the same evidence and interpreting it different. And there is plenty of geologic evidence of the flood. Recently, scientists have started to embrace catastrophism over uniformitarian because the evidence of a worldwide disaster is undeniable.

The evidence that was initially advanced for long ages by Charles Lyell was based on either misinterpretation or outright fraud. He claimed that Niagra Falls was eroding at the rate of one foot per year. He then made the leap that since the gorge was 35,000 feet long it was 35,000 years old. Very scientific. It has been confirmed however that the gorge erodes at 4 to 5 feet per year which means it is most likely under 7 thousand years old.

The "evidence" is obtained by making assumptions about the past that can't be proven, and you can't date the rocks without these assumptions. If you change the assumptions then you come up with much different dates.

It's like quantum physics. Everybody just assumed that all matter was made of solid matter that has definite speed and location, but it turns out that all matter is made up of things with probabilities only. No matter how much Einstein wanted to believe that all matter was solid all the way down, he had to agree that the evidence for quantum physics was undeniably accurate and that matter is composed of chancy waveforms. Anyone who studies it will have to come to the same conclusion. Same goes for what we're talking about.

Everyone who studies it does not come to that conclusion. The hard evidence you have for quantum physics does not exist for deep time. You can test quantum physics; you can't test deep time. All there is a pile of circumstantial evidence all based on the same unprovable assumptions.

"Any evidence...discarded" is misleading. If there's a single outlier result once, it may get some attention or it may be ignored. If there's repeatable experimentation that yields the same contradictory results again and again (dual slit experiment), or a theory that fits all evidence better than current models (quantum physics), it will stir controversy and get a lot of attention. Again, that's how science works.

Every time they measure the age of the rocks they get a range of dates, and then they discard the ones that don't agree with their assumptions as "anomalous". I think I've said this before..bif the evidence were there I would believe it. I used to believe it, but when I found out the extremely flimsy and weaknature of the evidence and realized I would have to put more faith in the scientists than I would the bible, so I decided to believe the bible instead. The whole thing stinks to high heaven but this is a religious proposition to many people. To them, they are satisfied with its explanation of reality and use it as an excuse to deny God. Take note of the awe and reverence and love people pay to the Cosmos and "mother Earth" because it is a religious experience you are witnessing They are seeing Gods glory in creation but they make naturalism their religion instead of acknowledging Him, and worship the creature rather than the Creator.

Psalm 19:1-2


The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

Bollocks.

Not once has a scientist made a discovery and gone "shit the bible was right about this the whole time".

If there are theologians on the top of that mountain,
1. they got there on the backs of scientists
2. they refuse to believe they're not still in a field
3. they're so blinded by their faith that they're missing the awesome view all around them

The conception of being able to uncover the laws governing the Universe by investigating secondary causes is an idea advanced by Christian scientists. It was the belief that God created a lawfully ordered Universe that we could investigate with our reason which led to what is called the scientific method today. Every discovery we've ever made confirms the regularity of the Cosmos and the intelligibility (which is evidence for intelligent causation)

“The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

At present this concept of design is just castle-in-the-sky nonsense. Empty piffle. A complete non-starter.

This is why the "mere mention" of "design" will get you "banned" from peer-review, because you could just as well have made a "mere mention" of Bigfoot and the loch ness monster in your zoology report, it's a big tell to your peers that you are a nut who fails to understand the nature of evidence and science, and a big sign that you are in for some fuzzy logic and dumb assumptions instead of solid science.

Design is a better hypothesis for the information we find in DNA, and the fine tuning we see in the physical laws. The reason design is a non-starter is because the idea this Universe was created by anyone is anathema to the scientific community:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

S. C. Todd,
Correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

After essentially nullifying and disproving everything we have learned about biology the last 200 years, you still have all the work ahead of you, I'm afraid. You now have to build a completely new framework and model for every single observation ever made in biology that makes sense of it all and explains why things are the way they are. Shouting that a thing is "complex" is not cutting it, I'm afraid. You need a new theory of DNA, Immunology, Bacterial resistance, adaptation, vestigal organs, animal distobution, mutation, selection, variation, genetics, speciation, taxonomy... well, as Dobzhansky put it: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" That quote is more relevant than ever.

Your error here is conflating micro and macro evolution. Creation scientists believe in micro evolution and speciation. That is part of the creationist model of how the world was repopulated with animals after the flood. Macro evolution, the idea that all life descended from a universal common ancestor, is not proven by immunology, bacterial resistance, adaptation, animal distribution, mutation, seclection, variation, speciation, taxonomy etc. The only way you could prove it is in the fossil record and the evidence isn't there. They've tried to prove it with genetics but it contradicts the fossil record (the way they understand it). So Creationists have no trouble explaining those things..and common genetics points to a common designer.

You dont have to trust scientists, most of the EVIDENCE is RIGHT FUCKING THERE, in front of you, in your pocket, in your hand, around your home, in every school, in every home, in every post office or courtroom, in the streets. ACTUAL REAL EVIDENCE, right there, PROVING, every second, that the universe is billions of years old.

Every scientist since Newton could be a lying sack of shit, all working on the same conspiracy, and it would mean fuck all, because the evidence speaks for itself.

The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

Have you ever heard of the horizon problem? The big bang model suffers from a light travel time problem of its own, but they solve it by postulating cosmic inflation, which is nothing more than a fudge factor to solve the problem. First, it would have to expand at trillions of times the speed of light, violating the law that says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. There is also no theory compatible with physics that could explain the mechanism for how the Universe would start expanding, and then cease expanding a second later. It's poppycock. See what secular scientists have to say about the current state of the Big Bang Theory:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

As far as how light could reach us in a short amount of time, there are many theories. One theory is that the speed of light has not always been constant, and was faster at the beginning of creation. This is backed up by a number of measurements taken since the 1800s showing the speed of light decreasing. You can see the tables here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n1/velocity-of-light

Every time they measure the age of the rocks they get a range of dates, and then they discard the ones that don't agree with their assumptions as "anomalous".

That's a ridiculous claim. Reference? And I mean a reference that includes your assertions of "every time", "discard", "assumptions", and "anomalous" as applied to geologists.

@shinyblurry

Your error here is conflating micro and macro evolution. Creation scientists believe in micro evolution and speciation.

The error is entirely on your part. I am conflating the two, because they ARE THE SAME THING. Creationists are the ones who are trying to divide evolution up into two things so that their whacky worldview can include things that have been observed in real time, so as not to look completely at odds with reality. Unfortunately they are still completely at odds with reality.

Its like if I divided between micro time and macro time, and in some context we actually use words to describe very long spans of time ie: "geological time", "deep time" and so on, but these are not different concepts from the time it takes to boil an egg. Time is still time. 5 billion years is alot longer than 5 minutes, but its just more of the same.

The exact same thing is true for evolution.

me: The earth is definately NOT ten thousand years young.

@shinyblurry Have you ever heard of the horizon problem?

Sigh. Orbiting earth is also hard, and there are hundreds of problems with it, which is why mankind went thousands of years without doing it. But long before we actually managed to do it, we knew that it should be possible, because we knew the earth was a sphere. I can imagine there was lots of heated discussions on how to do it, that would be little comfort to a flat-earther. "See! You cant put things in orbit, earth must be flat!" Like thats how stupid you sound when you go "Horizon problem! The universe must be 6000 years old!"

Why do you even bother reading about things like the Horizon problem? Are you seriously suggesting that this makes your case?

Whether the universe is six thousand or 13.72 billion years old is not in scientific dispute, ok? we might have to finetune it give or take a few million years, but there is no doubt about the general size of the number. If everybody has fucked up completely the last 100 years, then perhaps one could imagine the number needs to be trippled or cut in half or whatever (I really doubt it because we now have correlating data from so many fields) but 6000 years? Thats a JOKE. Its complete and utter nonsense, It's balls-out-clownshoes-and-two-fucking-trouts-on-your-head-barking-wackaloony-insane-babble-from-crazyland-wrong to the nth degree.

It's balls-out-clownshoes-and-two-fucking-trouts-on-your-head-barking-wackaloony-insane-babble-from-crazyland-wrong to the nth degree.

Sigh. Orbiting earth is also hard, and there are hundreds of problems with it, which is why mankind went thousands of years without doing it. But long before we actually managed to do it, we knew that it should be possible, because we knew the earth was a sphere. I can imagine there was lots of heated discussions on how to do it, that would be little comfort to a flat-earther. "See! You cant put things in orbit, earth must be flat!" Like thats how stupid you sound when you go "Horizon problem! The universe must be 6000 years old!"

Why do you even bother reading about things like the Horizon problem? Are you seriously suggesting that this makes your case?

What I am suggesting is that both Creationists and secular scientists have an imperfect understanding of the problem, but Creationists do have a plausible explanation with evidence to back it up.

Whether the universe is six thousand or 13.72 billion years old is not in scientific dispute, ok? we might have to finetune it give or take a few million years, but there is no doubt about the general size of the number. If everybody has fucked up completely the last 100 years, then perhaps one could imagine the number needs to be trippled or cut in half or whatever (I really doubt it because we now have correlating data from so many fields) but 6000 years? Thats a JOKE. Its complete and utter nonsense, It's balls-out-clownshoes-and-two-fucking-trouts-on-your-head-barking-wackaloony-insane-babble-from-crazyland-wrong to the nth degree.

The correlating data you are looking at is a hall of mirrors. Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions. The light travel time is based on similar assumptions. Embedded in all of the estimations of an old age are unprovable assumptions that have no empirical evidence to prove they are true. They are in fact unknowable.

It's really not important to me to prove to you how old the Earth is. It's your worldview that the Earth is very old and it's intrinsic to how you view reality, and to try to excise that from your mind would be like trying to separate conjoined twins. All I really want you to know is that there is a God out there who loves you, and His name is Jesus Christ.

No, they are not the same thing, and they are not creationist terms. If you didn't know that then you need to do a lot more research. Find out what the actual empirical evidence is, and not just agree with the conclusions. Yes, I know that time is the secular miracle worker:

However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once....Time is in fact the hero of the plot.

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

Try to reign in your personal disgust for creationist material and read how the process works. I don't have a secular reference because I don't find one that outlines all of this in one place:

http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

Aright. I'll check that out in the next couple days.

No, they are not the same thing, and they are not creationist terms.

Yes, they are in fact the same thing, and yes, I know creationists didnt come up with the terms, predictably, since they have never come up with a single useful term or idea in the history of everything. They can be useful terms to describe the short-term and long-term effect of evolution, but creationist use the term to shield themselves from admitting that they deny reality. Lets just take one example: genetic variation, according to creationists then, genetic variation is real and actually happens, your genes are slightly different from other human genes, ie: there is variations within a species.

But this is the same kind of variation there is BETWEEN species, its the SAME FREAKING THING, but when the difference is large enough, individual organism can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring. That is in fact the definition of "species". Conceptually, there is no difference between the genetic difference between you and me and the genetic difference between you and a tomato, its just MORE difference.

I honestly dont know how to respond to this time=miracle nonsense, the point is that because there is variation and mutations, speciation will happen over long stretches of time, now you might say "biologists sure needs lots of time for evolution to work" but the thing is that other, unrelated fields of study, like chemistry, physics and cosmology have independently reached conclusions about how old the universe is, and its billions of years old. We KNOW that, not from inventing a number large enough to allow evolution to work its "miracles", but because its the only logical conclusion based the available evidence.

The correlating data you are looking at is a hall of mirrors. Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions. The light travel time is based on similar assumptions. Embedded in all of the estimations of an old age are unprovable assumptions that have no empirical evidence to prove they are true. They are in fact unknowable.

Everything in that paragraph is wrong. These things are NOT based on assumptions, but empirical evidence, calculations and experiments. In fact, the knowledge has not only been confirmed by experiments and evidence, and as I tried to explain earlier, YOU ARE RELYING ON TECHNOLOGY BASED ON THAT KNOWLEGDE TO READ THIS SENTENCE. It is literally being proved right in front of your eyes.

I read it and found it interesting, but it sounded highly inconsistent with the scientific mind to just dismiss evidence that doesn't fit. That's what religious or otherwise dogmatic people do. So I decided to find out something about how reliable the method and the dates are.

I found this, which I think directly addresses your issue. It suggests that anyone who makes the claim that geological dating is circular or that certain data is ignored simply doesn't understand the science.

Tell me what you think:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#Circularity

@shinyblurry Radiometric data is based on uniformitarian assumptions.

Also vice versa. Which might sound circular, but isnt. Uniformitarianism is of course the simplest assumtion (occams razor) but it also correlates well with the available evidence. If natural laws acted differently in the past, we would presumably find EVIDENCE that it did. And correlating data is not a "hall of mirrors, it is evidence of correlation. This is basic statistics and empiri.

Suppose you didnt know anything about humans, and you wanted to know how long they lived in earth years. Now suppose you had a sample of 3:

Person 1: 3 years old
Person 2: 43 years old
Person 3: 81 years old.

Now, from this very limited dataset, Your conclusions about the human race would almost certainly be wrong. From the mean of 42,3 there is a standard deviation of 39, which means that you'd assume that only 68% would be less than 80 years old. You'd reckon that 95% would be less than 140 years old etc.
In other words: Pretty useless.

But if you had the age of, say, 10000 random people, things would start to look very different. From such a dataset, you could see that there would be a very steep drop-off rate above 80, with noone above 110 or so, and so you could start making qualified guesses, in fact, they would no longer be guesses, but conclusions based on data.

And this is where we are with fossils and dating. We dont just make wild guesses on the basis of 2 or 3 fossils and one shitty chemistry experiment involving half-lives; We have literally thousands of datapoints. If this is a hall of mirrors, then Satan is truly one crafty bastard making a pretty impressive one for us.

@BicycleRepairMan

Also vice versa. Which might sound circular, but isnt. Uniformitarianism is of course the simplest assumtion (occams razor) but it also correlates well with the available evidence. If natural laws acted differently in the past, we would presumably find EVIDENCE that it did. And correlating data is not a "hall of mirrors, it is evidence of correlation. This is basic statistics and empiri.

Thank you for your considered reply. Well see, here's the thing. Creationists and evolutionists are not looking at two sets of evidences. We are looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently. There isn't creationist evidence and evolutionist evidence, there is just evidence which we both interpret according to the assumptions we bring to it. We are both looking at the same geologic record and saying it happened much differently. The evidence yields different conclusions depending on what assumptions you bring to it.

Uniformitarian is only the first assumption scientists bring to the evidence. The secondary assumption is that the different layers represent vast amounts of time. They come to this conclusion because they observe the rates of these processes are very slow today, and since in uniformitarian, the present is the key to the past, they assume that present day geological features must have taken millions or billions of years to form because of present day rates. Because of this, the completely exclude the hypothesis that the features we see could form very quickly. Therefore, they are biased in their interpretation and will miss the evidence which actually points to rapid formation. I'll give you a good example:

"Previously geologists had thought that constant, rapid water flow prevented mud's constituents -- silts and clays -- from coalescing and gathering at the bottoms of rivers, lakes and oceans. This has led to a bias, Schieber explains, that wherever mudstones are encountered in the sedimentary rock record, they are generally interpreted as quiet water deposits."

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/7022.html

For a long time geologists believed that mudstones could only form a certain way, which is by slow moving water. They had completely ruled out that it could be formed rapidly. Therefore, whenever they saw mudstones the "story" the rocks told them was that of a slow process taking vast amounts of time. Yet, mudstones, they have found, can be deposited very rapidly. This is actually evidence for a global flood because mudstones make up 2/3s of the record for sedimentary rock. Yet they never saw that because of their assumptions of everything taking vast amounts of time to form. This is a classic example of how the assumptions you bring changes the interpretation of the data. Same mudstones, but the different assumptions yielded a different conclusion from the same evidence.

This is further complicated by the matter of evolution. Biostratigraphy has played a decisive role in determining the relative ages of rock layers around the world, which brings with it a whole other host of assumptions. Because evolution requires vast amounts of time, and they interpret a certain evolutionary progression through the fossil record, therefore they again make the assumption different layers must represent vast amounts of time, based on their evolutionary assumptions. They then use that assumption to validate their uniformitarian assumptions and call this evidence.

The main issue is the assumption of uniformitarian to explain the fossil record. It denies that a catastrophe like a global flood could have caused the features we see today. The geologists believe things happened very slowly, whereas creation geologists believe they have formed very quickly. There is a whole lot of evidence which shows that layers could be laid down rapidly, and canyons and other features could have been cut very quickly. Geologists do acknowledge this, which is why there is another branch of geology called Catastrophism:

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

They can not deny that many of the things they thought took millions of years "stalactites forming, fossilization, formation of oil and precious metals) can actually happen very quickly. They still deny, however, that a global catastrophe could have been responsible for all of it, despite the fact that the whole Earth is covered by sedimentary rock which is primarily laid down by water.

And this is where we are with fossils and dating. We dont just make wild guesses on the basis of 2 or 3 fossils and one shitty chemistry experiment involving half-lives; We have literally thousands of datapoints. If this is a hall of mirrors, then Satan is truly one crafty bastard making a pretty impressive one for us.

Again, it is the assumptions you bring to that data which colors the interpretation. I can also tell you that the assumption that decay rates never change is wrong:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5441/882.summary

Pressure and chemistry can alter decay rates according to that experiment. In that instance, they were able to alter the decay rate by 1.5 percent. In much more extreme conditions, however, the decay rate could change significantly. It shows that the uniformitarian assumptions of radiometric dating can and will produce unreliable data.

These are things that they don't teach you in science class. When it comes down to it, there is no actual proof for deep time in the fossil record, when we're talking about actual empirical evidence. We only have circumstantial evidence based on assumptions which I have shown to be faulty. That is where the hall of mirrors comes in, where everything you see is reflecting the assumptions you make. It is what is called a worldview, which is like a set of glasses you use to see the world. Everyone has a worldview. The apriori assumptions you make about reality constitutes your worldview. That is what is going on here..their worldview of the world forming from purely naturalistic processes, and that slowly over vast amounts of time, is a bias which skews all of their data to that direction, when as I showed previously with the mudstones that it could just as easily point in the other direction.

@messenger Thank you for your reply. I go into more depth about this issue in my reply to Bicycle repairman, so instead of repeating myself, I'll direct you to that.

I will elaborate a bit. Here is the key sentence from that link:

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others.

Notice it says there are constraints on the age placed by such things as stratigraphic position, but then they deny circularity. It's actually using the stratigraphic position which entails circularity! They did say there are "many other" methods, but you'll notice that they didn't discuss any of them. That is because stratigraphy is the primary way they "check" the accuracy of the data. Well, then you have to ask, how do they determine what the stratigraphic position is? Well, since they are mostly dealing with sedimentary rocks, the way they tell the differing layers apart is by their index fossils. They are often sitting in the wrong order, and one part of a layer can differ from another in how it was formed, so they use the index fossils to tell them what layer they're actually dealing with. So if the stratigraphic position is determining the relative age, then the fossils are actually dating the rocks and the circularity is not overcome.

@messenger @BicycleRepairMan

I want to share this video with you because it really gets to the heart of the issue. It shows how the conception of deep time came about, the history of it, the experiments that supposedly proved it, and the minds that contributed to it. It is presented by a PHD in Geology, a former atheist and professor who has published many papers and was involved in the scientific community before going into creation science. It can get pretty indepth and some of it was over my head. All in all, it is very interesting, even if you don't agree with all of the conclusions:

You're cherry-picking. That sentence isn't the key one. I'm not sure what is meant by that sentence (the use of "constraint" is ambiguous), but it would be utterly unscientific if it meant that the stratigraphic position pre-determined the outcome. Geology would be scientistic nonsense like ID, not science.

Even the next two sentences demonstrate this: "There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied."

If geologists were in the habit of treating data this way, scientifically-minded people who entered the field would be disgusted and leave, and form their own new scientific discipline of the study of the earth. The fact that this hasn't happened means the geological method appears scientific to scientific-minded people, if not dogmatists.

It's far more likely that you, a dogmatist and a non-geologist, are cherry-picking information to come up with data that supports your dogma. Dogmatists, by definition, cannot be relied upon for unbiased information that either challenges or confirms their dogma. Their dogma pre-disposes them to coming to wrong conclusions far more than non-dogmatists.

Anything scientific can be independently verified by someone else, and if a scientists makes a strong claim and it's later proven wrong, that scientist's credibility is shot and their career severely damaged. So-called ID "scientists", on the other hand, can make all the wild assertions they want, and if something is proven false (again) they lose nothing, and may even gain standing in the ID community for trying -- they've shown their heart is in the right place, even if they're incompetent scientists.

I'll take 10 minutes to respond to your comments, but I'm not taking 1.5 hours to watch more non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms. If there were strong enough evidence that the Earth were a few thousand years old, there would be a branch of geologists studying it. And I'm excluding the dogmatic "creation geology". It is pseudoscience.

FWIW, according to Wikipedia: "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy". Do you think you can knock all those scientific fields down as well? Have at it.

Also, "former atheist" means "current dogmatist". You don't find it astounding that his conversion happened to coincide with his discovery that the evidence didn't hold up? I do. Evidence of non-scientific thinking.

You're cherry-picking. That sentence isn't the key one. I'm not sure what is meant by that sentence (the use of "constraint" is ambiguous), but it would be utterly unscientific if it meant that the stratigraphic position pre-determined the outcome. Geology would be scientistic nonsense like ID, not science.

Yes, and that is the point. If Geology worked like that it would be scientific nonsense, and it does work like that. The stratigraphic position is determined by the index fossils and radiometric dating. The age of the index fossils is determined by the stratigraphic position and radiometric dating. Radiometric dating itself is "checked" by stratigraphic positioning. That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

On the other side the date is determined by the uniformitarian assumptions about radioactive decay rates in the past, and many other things. It assumes, among other things, that the rate will never change. As I showed in my reply the Bicyclerepairman, the rates can indeed change.

Even the next two sentences demonstrate this: "There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied."

Now this is the intellectually dishonest part. They say they can't choose where a fossil will be, but they have already the determined that the presence of certain fossils and radiometric dating igneous layers above and below it determines the age of that layer. They don't choose where a fossil is, but they do choose what the age of the layer is that contains the fossil based on their assumptions. So they are basically saying that radiometric dating and stratigraphy is validated by index fossils and radiometric dating, and vice-versa.

The date that is returned is indeed chosen by the scientists as it is based on uniformitarian assumptions that they've made about the past. Perhaps you don't understand how it works, but there is nothing about the rock which reveals its age. They use the secondary evidence of how much radioactive decay of certain elements they believe have occurred, but if the rates aren't always constant, the measurement is worthless. As I showed in my reply to Bicyclerepairman, even secular scientists have acknowledged the rates can change. Therefore it is unreliable on its own, and what is essentially happening is that they are propping up one unprovable assumption with the evidence interpreted through another unprovable assumption.

If geologists were in the habit of treating data this way, scientifically-minded people who entered the field would be disgusted and leave, and form their own new scientific discipline of the study of the earth. The fact that this hasn't happened means the geological method appears scientific to scientific-minded people, if not dogmatists.

It's far more likely that you, a dogmatist and a non-geologist, are cherry-picking information to come up with data that supports your dogma. Dogmatists, by definition, cannot be relied upon for unbiased information that either challenges or confirms their dogma. Their dogma pre-disposes them to coming to wrong conclusions far more than non-dogmatists.

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time. Most of the contention comes down to how fast or slow certain geological features take to form. Scientists have staked all of their modern research on the theory of deep time, and they interpret all of the evidence through that conclusion. In other words, it has become conventional wisdom..IE, dogma. Please read my reply to Bicyclerepairman to see how bias effects interpretation.

If you examine the history of science, you will see that scientists have had it wrong many times and wasted decades and decades of research on things ultimately proven to be false. The near universal agreement of scientists on any issue is not any indicator of truth.

I'll take 10 minutes to respond to your comments, but I'm not taking 1.5 hours to watch more non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms. If there were strong enough evidence that the Earth were a few thousand years old, there would be a branch of geologists studying it. And I'm excluding the dogmatic "creation geology". It is pseudoscience.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint. Your dismissal of the material as "non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms" flatly shows your intellectual incuriousity, not even having looked at it. Dr. Emil is an accomplished geologist and his discussion is framed in the terminology and methodology used in that field. If you want to debate this subject, you should at the bare minimum understand the basics of the position you are defending and the position you are arguing against. Also, the video is about 1 hour with 30 minutes of questions.

FWIW, according to Wikipedia: "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy". Do you think you can knock all those scientific fields down as well? Have at it.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence. If you can show deep time is false, then all of it crumbles.

Also, "former atheist" means "current dogmatist". You don't find it astounding that his conversion happened to coincide with his discovery that the evidence didn't hold up? I do. Evidence of non-scientific thinking.

It's interesting you're still inventing reasons why you shouldn't watch the video. You don't know anything about the man but you make wrongheaded assumptions about him. Such as that he converted because he had doubts about the evidence in Geology not holding up. Yet, that isn't the reason he converted, and it had nothing to do with his work as a geologist. Your conclusions here are evidence of non-scientific thinking.

That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

It would sound circular if none of those had any other basis for their timelines other than each other, which, not being an expert, I have to guess is not the case. You, the one making the enormous claim that the entire field of geology is unscientific, have to demonstrate that.

I found some more cherry-picking. From that article about mudstones, you take this one quote: "One thing we are very certain of is that our findings will influence how geologists and paleontologists reconstruct Earth's past" and determine from it that the age of the planet will be scientifically revised from many billions of years to a few thousand. You have no basis for that. Also, why are you quoting geologists? That isn't even a science, I thought, right? Is it just because these ones happen to sound like their story could be twisted to agree with yours?

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely: " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If by that quote you mean that old people tend to have a hard time changing their minds about things in face of contradictory evidence, you're right -- that's human nature. If you mean that scientific theories change randomly because new opinions grow and the old ones die out like cultural habits, you're wrong.

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time

This is another grand claim. Can you give a verifiable non-biased (non ID) reference as to the deliberateness of the shift, and the pre-formed idea that they needed to conjure up vast amounts of time? Science doesn't become conventional wisdom without a preponderance of evidence to back it up. It doesn't mean any of it is correct, just that there's a lot of supporting evidence.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint.

No. You're the one making ridiculous claims. I'm rebutting for fun, for sport. I don't believe your religion is real. I trust scientists more than dogmatists, and if I have to choose how to spend 1.5 hours, it's going to be reading Feynman or watching TYT or studying math or practising card tricks. You brought up the topic, and I happen to only care enough about it to rebut a bit, not to dedicate hours to it. Also, you have a history here of providing horribly unscientific quotes and references without any attempt at intellectual honesty, and based on that, I can guess the quality of that video, and I don't need to spend 1.5 hours only to be disappointed in myself for trying. If I were really that curious, I would go to the geology department of my university and ask some professors about the circular argument, and what the original basis was for the dating. If you care that much about actually finding the truth, you'll do just that. But I think you're too afraid to learn something contradictory to your dogma.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence.

Non-ID reference for the flimsiness required for grand claims.

How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being. The video I provided is very good and it chronicles the history of deep time, as well as the science behind it, in exacting detail using the methodology of geologists. You could watch 10 minutes of it, and if you decided you didn't like it, you could turn it off.

As far as the paradigm shift goes, here is a quote from the father of uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

From a lecture in King’s College London in 1832

I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said that ‘for the sake of revelation as well as of science—of truth in every form—the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see. He completely excluded the testimony of scripture apriori before he even began. That is the beginning of why there was a shift in geology as the intelligentsia embraced his theories and began to teach it at Universities. There was no spectacular confirmation of any of this; in fact the evidence he gave about Niagra Falls to supprt his theory has been completely falsified.

How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being.

You, as a devoutly religious person, trying to reframe my flippant attitude as dogmatism is like a child playing at being a police officer talking to a real police officer and going, "Wooooo woooooo woooooo I'm a police officer! I caught a hundred bad guys today! I'm taking you to jail!" You can't expect me to take you seriously. Every paragraph you write shows your lack of scientific understanding and unwillingness to honestly seek truth. If I saw some scientific thinking or efforts on your part to see things from my point of view, I'd gladly continue to make the extra effort, as I did for many months (was it years?). Consider I've spent most of our conversation time trying to understand your point of view, but you have never once inquired about mine. And then you accuse me of being "incurious".

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

"... the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence"

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see.

This is the nut of it for me with you. This illustrates your perfect failure to understand science. If you can't see why just from reading it, I don't have the skill to show you.

You, as a devoutly religious person, trying to reframe my flippant attitude as dogmatism is like a child playing at being a police officer talking to a real police officer and going, "Wooooo woooooo woooooo I'm a police officer! I caught a hundred bad guys today! I'm taking you to jail!" You can't expect me to take you seriously. Every paragraph you write shows your lack of scientific understanding and unwillingness to honestly seek truth. If I saw some scientific thinking or efforts on your part to see things from my point of view, I'd gladly continue to make the extra effort, as I did for many months (was it years?). Consider I've spent most of our conversation time trying to understand your point of view, but you have never once inquired about mine. And then you accuse me of being "incurious".

Every paragraph you write to me lately is simply stringing the same three ad homs together in a different order (you are a dogmatist, you dont understand science, you dont engage with critical thinking). This is all that you ever really say to me, and when you're not saying it, you're pointing at something else to make the argument for you. Your point of view is apparently whatever scientists say is true, and that is the essential argument you are presenting; it must be true because scientists couldn't be wrong.

I have inquired about your views; we have had extensive conversations about what you believe and why you believe it. I'm interested in what you think; I'd love to actually have an actual conversation about this but you have already said you're not interested in putting any effort into it. How can it be my deficiency when you don't even understand the basics? It is an intellectual incuriousity; you see it as nonsense without even understanding what the creationist position actually is. You just dismiss it out of hand.
This is the nut of it for me with you. This illustrates your perfect failure to understand science. If you can't see why just from reading it, I don't have the skill to show you.

Yes, this looks good to the empiricist, who doesn't understand the problem of induction. There is no such thing as pure interpretation without bias. You are always bringing certain assumptions to table. What he is really saying when he says to exclude scripture is this: we reject the idea of a global catastrophe in geology, or that the features we see today could have formed quickly. They therefore interpreted all of the data through their uniformitarian assumptions and excluded that hypothesis completely. It wasn't that they had hard evidence, it was that they interpreted the evidence through the predetermined conclusion. I gave you a good example of this but you essentially ignored it.

Every paragraph you write to me lately is simply stringing the same three ad homs together in a different order (you are a dogmatist, you dont understand science, you dont engage with critical thinking).

They're not ad homs. They're what I see. They're substantiated by fact. "Crackhead" would be an ad hom because I have no reason to believe that you are addicted to illegal narcotics. But it's empirically true that religious canon is dogma and you believe religious canon, that you repeatedly speak in non-scientific ways, and that you jump to convenient conclusions as part of your argument style rather than investigating the claims you're making.

You say you've inquired about my views. I don't remember that happening, except when you were baiting me into a certain admission that you had a prepared answer for. But then you didn't listen to my response to your answer, at least not in an open-minded and critical way. You regularly claim to have the answer. It's only when forced into a corner based on the fact that you're human and fallible that you ever admit you technically could be wrong. You just proved it again, BTW. "Your PoV is apparently blah blah blah." There's all sorts of possible PoVs that I could have, but dogmatically believing in everything a scientist says couldn't be one of them. As a scientific person, that's not a possible position for me to hold. You haven't accepted that you have lost credibility due to your lack of scientific understanding. You never ask how your understanding is wrong. If you wanted to learn, there's all sorts you could learn, but you retreat into playing the victim. If you've got nothing left, you claim you're being attacked. I'm arguing against you, and then honestly explaining why I'm not putting in any more effort; I'm not attacking. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm telling you mine, my opinions about you, what those opinions are based on and what they entail for the limit of where I'm willing to go in our conversations.

I may or may not understand the basics of your current argument about uniformitariansim, and so forth, but I sure understand the basics of scientific thought, and that comes first. I can read a book or watch a lecture and learn about uniformitariansim, but when I come back, you still won't understand how to talk scientifically. That's why I'm not going to bother talking to you about science except to hear your reasons for claiming something in modern science is pseudoscience (If I were dogmatic about science, I wouldn't even ask you), and if I think your argument is strong enough, I'll get interested and maybe learn something. I have learned some things, but none that overturn the science you claim it does. The fact that you think you have presented enough information to overturn anything in science shows how little you understand science.

So, you wanna be openly curious about my religious views, I'm here for you. I'll talk about that as long as you want. You want to have a real conversation about science? You have to accept that you don't understand what science is first. Are you humble enough to admit you might not understand it? As always, curious, open-minded and willing to be surprised.

You do a lot of talking about what I do and don't know, with vague accusations of not speaking scientifically, or thinking scientifically. Give me a specific example, with a fact based argument backing it up, and we'll talk about it.

I never said I provided enough evidence thus far to convince anyone that the theory of Uniformitarian geology is fundamentally flawed; however I did present many substantive arguments, particularly to bicyclerepairman. You didn't really address any of them, but rather came back with your routine argument from incredulity (how could the scientists be so wrong?). I provided the video to give you a more thorough explanation but you refused to even look at it. If you don't understand the argument then what case do you have against it? What you are saying basically is that while you don't understand the argument, you know what science *sounds* like, so therefore you can dismiss everything I'm talking about. I really don't think you understand it as well as you think you do..so let's talk about it. Show me where you think I'm going wrong. Don't give me a vague generality (you dont use critical thinking) but lay it all out, point by point..since you're a self-proclaimed expert, break it down and make your case.

The answers to all your questions are in the previous post. I'm not interested in arguing logically with you about why I don't want to argue logically with you. I'm personally satisfied you don't understand science and that it's beyond my power to get you to understand that you don't understand. This belief of mine means I don't want to talk science with you anymore. Arguing with you is an infinite recursion loop and I'm stopping it here.

So, if you like, you may read my previous message carefully, if only to understand the impression you have formed on me, and by inference, probably on others as well. I don't care if you accept my opinion about you as correct. I don't need to be right. I don't need to demonstrate that I'm better than you at scientific thought. My ego is not at all wrapped up in anyone's perception.

Now, all that only applies to talking about science. If you want to talk about anything else (though probably not in this thread since this is a scientific one), I'm still here.

That's fine Messenger. I appreciate your conversation and I am happy to converse with you on whatever topic suits your fancy. God bless.