By-Tor.com

I wonder if dinosaurs can ged bird flu...

It was the chicken and with the bird flu will they start laying blue eggs or maybe a golden egg for scientist's to examine towards evolution?

BEWARE OF THE FISH FLU!!!!!

Do u think it is a possiblity that perhaps in the past there was a type of bird flu or some sort of affliction in chickens that brought on the egg in an attempt at survival?

Devil's Advocate wrote:YEC-ism is not credible in the light of the evidence.

What Austin claims to be an assumption of K-Ar dating methods is not necessarily so.

When you say:

This shows that scientists expect no Argon in the rock when it is formed.

you are mistaken. All you have is Austin's assertion; no-one has shown it to be true.

I could probably give you a few links from T.O ....

So you won't listen to any who believe in a young earth? Not at all. Well, that is too bad. Seems to me that science has strongly believed many things that we now see to be untrue and the majority would stand against all who said anything that challenged the beliefs of that time, refusing to look at any science they did, claiming those who challenged them were liars or kooks and merely making assertations.

Austin could be right.

awip2062 wrote:So you won't listen to any who believe in a young earth? Not at all.

Wait, did I say that? You have to read that stuff to see specifically where it's wrong.

Seems to me that science has strongly believed many things that we now see to be untrue ...

It always comes down to evidence. In the case of YEC-ism, there is abundant evidence that it's wrong.

Where "science" (by which I assume you mean scientists) has said something is false when it turned out to be true, there has generally been insufficient evidence.

Austin could be right.

About what? His Mt St Helens radiometric dating adventure was an exercise in fraud.

His assertion that radiometric dating assumes the sample initially had no argon is false. I'm pretty sure he would've known about argon-argon dating, which was developed for the very purpose of not making any assumptions of the initial levels of argon in the sample. As such, it seems highly likely that Austin knew that his statement was false.

Further reading.

And in a lot more detail, here.

Devil's Advocate wrote:

awip2062 wrote:So you won't listen to any who believe in a young earth? Not at all.

Wait, did I say that? You have to read that stuff to see specifically where it's wrong.

That is what your response appeared to me to mean. It sounded like you have made your decision. Done. Fini. You have decided it is not credible and that is that.

Devil's Advocate wrote: Where "science" (by which I assume you mean scientists) has said something is false when it turned out to be true, there has generally been insufficient evidence.

I was thinking of how the scientific establishment has persectued various of their fellows for things that our young children know to be facts now. Events like the hostility Joseph Lister received regarding his work on antiseptic techiniques, and Pasteur being vilified and ridiculed for saying there were microbes in the air.

Austin could be right.

Devil's Advocate wrote: About what? His Mt St Helens radiometric dating adventure was an exercise in fraud.

Pretty strong accusation, calling him a liar, multiple times.

Xanadu wrote:I wonder if dinosaurs can ged bird flu...

Not really, a Xan, the chicken probably did come from a dinosaur thru evolution, so in reality... what came first, the dinosaur or the egg?

awip2062 wrote:

Devil's Advocate wrote:

awip2062 wrote:So you won't listen to any who believe in a young earth? Not at all.

Wait, did I say that? You have to read that stuff to see specifically where it's wrong.

That is what your response appeared to me to mean. It sounded like you have made your decision. Done. Fini. You have decided it is not credible and that is that.

I see.

Well, you're right that I've made my decision. I decided, long ago, to go where the evidence leads.

Devil's Advocate wrote: Where "science" (by which I assume you mean scientists) has said something is false when it turned out to be true, there has generally been insufficient evidence.

I was thinking of how the scientific establishment has persectued various of their fellows for things that our young children know to be facts now. Events like the hostility Joseph Lister received regarding his work on antiseptic techiniques, and Pasteur being vilified and ridiculed for saying there were microbes in the air.

Well I don't know if "hostility," vilified" and "ridiculed" are overstating matters or not, but what is notable is that they were putting forward new ideas for which evidence was, at that time, scarce.

YEC, in contrast, is an old idea, long since disproved by the evidence.

Devil's Advocate wrote:

Austin could be right.

About what? His Mt St Helens radiometric dating adventure was an exercise in fraud.

Pretty strong accusation, calling him a liar, multiple times.

Yes, it is. But as you'll see from my other post, I backed it up. With evidence.

OK' Huck and Becky, I guess I'll straddle the fence here and spit out my theory.

1. I believe in evolution through the hardships of the environments extreme circumstances is accerlated, other wise it is slower.

2. The possibility that there is a god or higher being is likely. Was it really a meteor that wiped out the dinosurs or did aliens want to clean up before there big experiment? I know why the Eygptians had such odd shaped heads. Cause the cone heads came to visit and drank massive quantities of alcoholic beverages,(SNL ) not to mention the limited gene pool.

My dogs had french toast for breakfast this morning, now their speaking french.

I'm throwing flaming turds just for the attention

Devil's Advocate wrote:

awip2062 wrote: I was thinking of how the scientific establishment has persectued various of their fellows for things that our young children know to be facts now. Events like the hostility Joseph Lister received regarding his work on antiseptic techiniques, and Pasteur being vilified and ridiculed for saying there were microbes in the air.

Well I don't know if "hostility," vilified" and "ridiculed" are overstating matters or not, but what is notable is that they were putting forward new ideas for which evidence was, at that time, scarce.

try telling Galileo and the such that they weren't ridiculed, vilified and yes had hostility vent towards them...

Was there a scientific establishment in Galileo's day? His troubles came from the religious authorities.

I did say 'and such' and you, DA, know that certain people from history would have had a hellish life cuz of their 'scientific' ideas..

What we're looking for here, to have a valid comparison to YECism, is a scientist (or small group of them) who held to an old theory while their peers endorsed a new one.

And of course we want this example to turn out to have the old theory eventually found to be right.

And to further increase the similarity to YECism, let's have the new theory supported by all the evidence, and the old theory by none of it.