Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote | Or it would be, except Dave can't even answer the most elementary questions about his own "hypothesis," e.g, how does the existence of the Andromeda Galaxy not falsify his 6,000 year old cosmos, how long would it take a globe of molten iron the size of the earth to cool to a solid surface, how the fact that watches don't reproduce doesn't invalidate his "watchmaker" analogy, how even one object dated anywhere via any method to more than 6,000 years doesn't falsify his "hypothesis," etc. These are basic questions that any simpleton should be able to answer, but Dave's not up to the task.
It's hard enough to keep Dave on-topic on this thread—actually, he's never actually been on-topic, since he's never provided any support for his hypothesis. I'd suggest any debates on other topics, e.g., Keynesian economics, be moved to another thread. |
Just an observation: AFDave completely ignores any issue that he has no cut-and-paste or canned YEC "argument" to use for an "answer". Something contrary to his beliefs has no existence (other than as an evil anti-faith claim) unless and until it has an answer that he is stupid enough to glom onto.
Of course the failures of his "answers" are spectacular, since neither he nor his sources have any reasonable grasp of science. But that's beside the point that he treats anything not having a YEC "answer" as if it doesn't exist, or with some idle boast that he's sure he could as handily defeat, say, DNA dating, as he has radiometric dating, or some such ignorant fantasy.
OK, this is not rocket science. However, it does point out how thorough his denial of any contrary evidence is, as anything not "explained", however badly, is denied point blank. AIG BS is just a further form of denial, of course, since he neither understands nor cares about the actual science. It is the denial that matters, not whether or not one could actually do science with his "hypothesis". Clearly one could not do science with his or AIG's "hypothesis", which makes these people hostile to working science.
It's worth noting that near the beginning of this thread AFDave claimed that he wasn't so much out to bring in new evidence as a new way of thinking. The trouble was that denial is not a new way of thinking. Indeed, it is something that most of us have taken some trouble to get away from. This doesn't change the fact that this "way of thinking" is all that AFDave has to offer, and it is something that prevents him from learning how to think in a way that treats data non-prejudicially.
That's a given, though, since he's only trying to shore up his prejudices.
Glen D
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
