Quote:

Seriously - if you now begin to claim that all physicists, geologists, archeologists, palaeontologists are totally wrong in the age of earth and only you're right, you're really leaving the scope of a serious discussion.



Argumentum ad numerum? In the case of this debate, I would ask that you (since you have such an incredible team on your side) then use this wealth of knowledge to refute me, not try and impress me with all of the people that agree with you.

Quote:

At least it's then up to you to let us know some arguments for those wild claims. How old do you think is the earth?



I have, and you chose to respond to my claims by saying I'm wrong simply because professionals have all agreed to something that's contrary to what I believe. I think that by now its up to you to show how dating methods stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think the earth could be more than maybe 20,000 years old. I don't know for sure. The idea never really entered my mind to care about exactly how old the earth is. What's important is that I know the earth isn't anywhere near millions of years old, and it certainly isn't old enough for evolution to take place from molecules to everything we see on earth.

Quote:

That animals have lived millions of years ago is not a "presupposition." We know to a very high degree of certainty, fact even, that this is the case. There is a mountain of physical evidence and scientific data to support this theory.



I think its unscientific to say we know for certain, or for a fact, what happened so long ago. No one is that arrogant. Or maybe they are.

More on that later. For now, I'd rather pick apart that thing you quoted.

The constant name-calling in that source you references is just as bad as that Kent Hovand guy calling evolutionists cultists. Its typically a sign of feeling threatened, or the inability to effectively defend your beliefs.

Quote:

They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world.



Nor do we. Both creationists and evolutionists are dealing with the same evidence. By evidence I mean modern, current observable fact. Its the suppositions and viewpoints and bias that differ.

Quote:

Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds -- have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.



Straw man.

Quote:

Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah's flood.



The flood doesn't account for all of the fossils. There are other ways fossils can form, but I won't get into that because its unimportant.

Quote:

How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained.



Are you sure you even quoted scientists? Animals have been able to live in a sort of 'harmony' for quite some time now. How do elephants, and zebras, and girraffs and lions all live together? Is it really important. Unless you claim that man couldn't have coexisted with dinosaurs? Most of them (I'm assuming the larger ones that required more sustinance) probably died out shortly after creation was cursed. That hypothesis is about as scientific as slapping arbitrary dates on fossils based on how old I THINK they are. Of course, man has coexisted with predators before, I'm sure that dinosaurs wouldn't have been that big of a problem. Unless fictional movies are now scientific evidence?

Quote:

Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow 'drowned' by the flood.



A flood would probably upset the food chain, causing many animals to go extinct. The ones that we find fossilized were probably buried in the huge amounts of sediment disturbance.

Quote:

The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time



To a limited degree. While it is possible that some method (whether it be time, or a sorting by animal environments) sorted out animals from 'simple' to 'complex', its more likely that we'll find overlapping, or fossils being found out-of-bounds, etc. Which is what we continue to find.

Quote:

radioactive decay happens



Ok.

Quote:

and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.



Oh yeah, of course. This happens 100% of the time, because when the dates conflict one another, the date or dates that don't fit the supposition are discarded.

Fact is that dates conflict one another. So the 'normal' would be the supposition of what the date should be. Any method that doesn't agree with this is somehow contaminated. Its hard to argue with someone who won't listen to anything except what agrees with him.

Quote:

Although it may be important to you to believe that The Bible and everything in it is a factual account of reality from God, to everyone else it is as factual and scientific as a tomb of fairy stories.



Is this even an argument? Good for them, by the way. Trying to bully me into feeling bad for believing what I believe is a sign of weakness.

Quote:

Many creationists still think that there are scientific arguments in favor of creationism and bible belief is unrequired.



Good for them, if any of them want to enter the debate I'll set them straight. Until then, that's irrelevant.

Quote:

like radioactive decay



The problem isn't that radioactive decay happens. No one disputes that. Its the specific details. I'm not going to keep repeating my points ad nauseum just because you insist on ignoring them in favor of telling me about a FSM. I've already said why I believe dating methods to be fallacious, you can defend it or not.

As far as your perfect series of fossils, as predicted by IDers, the fossil series is starting to blur or fall apart altogether. If you want sources, just ask. They're all scientific discoveries that are starting to throw the series into question. Of course, some animals simply will never be buried at the same level as others. Trilobites, living in lower parts would probably never be found above a t. rex. That's just common sense and has nothing to do with evolution or a flood. Other fossils are starting to be found outside their timeline, and its happening constantly. It seems the more science discovers, the better off we crazies are.

Its a good time to be a creationist actually, because the same people who believe in evolution regardless of the evidence, are starting to find a lot of evidence against their beliefs. At this rate of discovery, it won't be long now before evolution itself is a fossil. The only thing holding us back now is the fear of having to find an alternative. But that'll pass in time.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."