foraker

You were supposed to have a Fairweather-esque hissy fit and panty bunching. We have our standards, you know.

It's funny how people get all worked up about sexually transmitted anything in this country but don't bat and eyelash over billions of dollars going to agribusiness or the military industrial complex or developers. Unlike the aforementioned, however, Texas appears to let you opt out. Learn to read.

without looking it up: a)how many teaspoons in a gallon? b)how many milliliters in a liter? if you answered both correctly, how long did it take you to figure out (a) vs. (b) if you still like english/imperial units, as yourself why you think it's easier, faster, and less error-prone to memorize tables of values than it is to know how to multiply and divide by 10.

because it's one of those things we're really really exceptionally good at...

Don't both of those companies tithe to the Church of Satan? I read it on teh intertubes. It must be true. Verily, thou shalt burn in Hell for drinking from their poisoned cups.

Of course he's laughing his ass off. We're a bunch of monkeys in suits who somehow have convinced themselves that they hold an important, pivotal role in the universe. "If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars and beetles." -- J.B.S Haldane

i think he just wants to eat the jello....

but 'maser of ceremonies' sounds like a lot more fun, doesn't it? who wouldn't want that job? "Your voices are making me sick. Get off the stage." [maser][/maser] "Next!"

Ah, yes. Published here: Presented: Fifth International Conference on Creationism Nice try. BTW: I know John Baumgardner. He does much better when he sticks to his studies of mantle convection and doesn't branch out into geochemistry.

Almost there. Reference to where it was published please? See? You're learning!

All I want are articles in the standard peer-reviewed scientific literature that people can look up. Science. Nature. Journal of Geophysical Research. Something. Not some web site. Not some book published by the Institute for Creation Research. Some place where the author actually had the cojones to publish along side real scientists instead of hiding in the grey literature. I've seen plenty of controversial articles published before, certainly one creation-themed paper could slip past the peer review process.

All I'm doing is asking for is proper scientific references and data. Is that too much to ask? I see lots of arguments, but not a lot of data. I can make lots of arguments too if I don't have to back them up with anything. Best way to eliminate ad hominem attacks is prove your point, n'est-ce pas?

Reference and data, please. Why is it so hard for you to provide these? Is it because you don't understand the arguments being made? I'd find that easy to believe given your understanding of thermodynamics.

Not really. JayB would probably do a better job at it as he's far more articulate. He's probably smarter than me, too, by ignoring the whole thing.

Ah, yes. Him.... Please point to Gish's articles in the standard peer-reviewed scientific literature (e.g. not his own books). Even controversial ideas get published there, though they do tend to at least follow what is considered scientific methodologies.

In case you're confused: This is an example of data: This is an example of a scientific reference: Griffiths, R.W. and Campbell, I.H. Interaction of mantle plume heads with the Earth's surface and onset of small-scale convection. J. Geophys. Res. 96(B11): 18,295-18,310.

References and data please. Still waiting....

We're still waiting for the data that supports your cut-and-paste 'arguments' that lack proper references.

Why? you will not beleive it, may not even read it. According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation. I can read this well enough to know you don't understand science very well.

I can assume, then, that you are a moral relativist as well because, in this scheme, there is no 'right' and 'wrong'. There is no Heaven and Hell because God and Satan haven't finished arguing about what to do with Adam and Eve yet.

You'd better get started then. We're waiting. You are engaging in what is known as 'science by assertion', i.e. "I say it is so, therefore it must be". If you're going to buck the conventional wisdom, you're going to have to do better than that. Maybe just give us three or four fully substantiated counter examples for evolution. That shouldn't be beyond your abilities, correct. Or are the pre-Socratics beyond your abilities as well?

Which holes would those be? Please specify and show actual data supporting your arguments. Please show how this data contradicts all other data supporting evolution.

apparently, man was only allowed free will for a split second before it was taken away.

And your arguments involving a never-observed never-measured supernatural phenomenon are somehow better than readily observed and measurable phenomenon reinforced with solid theory? Why is, say, evolution amenable to religious attacks but not quantum theory? They're both 'theories', right? Shouldn't you be 'teaching the controversy' in physics classes? Or do you only go after perceived 'low hanging fruit'?