This nutball claims he is a Mensa member

The nutter did a part two. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir8f_...gspot%2Ecom%2F He attacks old earth pioneer Lyell. Lyell was wrong about the idea of constant erosion of Niagara Falls there calling the Falls older than it really was (it is 12,000 years old).
I'm thinking that these YECs have a mindset that if they can find anything wrong with science, than all science must be wrong, just like if anyone finds anything wrong in the bible.

Dang, I wish we could find something wrong in the bible :P

baconeatingatheistjew wrote

Dang, I wish we could find something wrong in the bible :P

:lol:

I noticed the "Part II", and he introduces his video as a "show or program". LOL He thinks he's on Prime Time TV or something.

I say he goes by the way of Venom FangX, and disables comments and video ratings soon.

Fundies are a bottomless pit of stupidity and ignorance. Here is a comment on this idiot's video:

"There is sorting and layering even in floods today. Things are sorted by location, weight, density, and other factors. Dinosaurs, like bear, deer, elephants, and rhinos, did not live in town with men. Their remains would not be expected to be found together often."

You Tube

Just got this youtube mail from someone named Skeptical Christian (is so not skeptical):
You were right when you said: "Besides, this [abiogensis] has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is fact." Evolution is a fact, within the paradigm of Naturalism.

Carl Sagan defined Naturalism well in his Cosmos series: "The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been. or ever will be." [This is the first sentence in his book, COSMOS.]

Since Nature/Cosmos is all there is, then obviously there is no God.

Since there was once NO life in the cosmos, [and there is no God to mess around with it] but now there is, then Abiogenesis is and must be a fact.

Since there was once but one life form in all the cosmos by Abiogenesis and yet now there is many (and there is no God to mess around with it) then Evolution is and must be a true fact.

Because the Cosmos is eternal, having always been, then deep time (i.e., Ga.--billions of years plus) is a fact of nature.

Notice that these facts and truths of the cosmos are derived solely by logic with no need of the scientific method. Since no one was there long ago to leave a record for us, this must be accepted as true based on trust in the superior logic of man.

The assumptions required to do the scientific method are also derived from Naturalism;

1. The cosmos is real and external to ourselves.
2. We have the mental capacity to at the very least be able to begin to understand the cosmos and how it functions.
3. The laws of nature are uniform across time and space.
4. The processes of nature are uniform across time and space.

Based on these 4 assumptions and the 3 facts of nature mentioned above nature can then be studied by the scientific method.

Note: Because Abiogenesis, Evolution, and Deep Time are facts of the cosmos, then they are known true and do not need to be and in fact, logically cannot be proved true. [they are already true!] Since they are already true, they are not hypotheses.

So no scientist can ever prove abiogenesis, evolution and deep time true. Karl Popper has shown that the scientific method cannot prove anything true. The best that the scientific method can do is falsify an hypothesis. Kuhn has shown, that the paradigm, such as Naturalism, defines how the scientific method is done. The truths of the paradigm (abiogenesis, evolution, deep time) guide the observation process, they lead the mind in developing the hypothesis, they interpret and explain the experimentally obtained data.

---
Crationists reject Naturalism and Sagan's idea of the Cosmos. We reject as logical children of Naturalism abiogenesis, evolution and deep time. We accept as true the instant Creation of the universe by God. We accept as true the creation of life and it's ecosystem on this planet in 6 days. We accept as true that there was a global cataclysm that caused the extinction of much life on earth, but for acquatic life, insectia and those on the ark. All of this is accepted as true based upon a loving, trusting relationship with God, believing what he says at truth.

All of this is true before applying the scientific method to the study of nature. Creationism supplies the same 4 assumptions listed above that are required to do the scientific method. We do science within the paradigm of Creationism, and do not try to prove Creation of the universe or of life. Nor do we attempt to prove the Flood true.

Rather these assumptions guide how we conduct our study of the created natural world by the scientific method.

Creationary scientists ask different questions about nature than evolutionary scientists. Creationists study how nature functions to 'think God's thoughts after Him.' Evolutionists study how nature functions thinking that they are studying how it originates. Creationists know how it originated--God did it. They do not try to see how it originated because they already know the truth of the matter.

[Sternwallow]

baconeatingatheistjew wrote

Just got this youtube mail from someone named Skeptical Christian (is so not skeptical):
You were right when you said: "Besides, this [abiogensis] has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is fact." Evolution is a fact, within the paradigm of Naturalism.

Carl Sagan defined Naturalism well in his Cosmos series: "The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been. or ever will be." [This is the first sentence in his book, COSMOS.]

Since Nature/Cosmos is all there is, then obviously there is no God.

Since there was once NO life in the cosmos, [and there is no God to mess around with it] but now there is, then Abiogenesis is and must be a fact.

Since there was once but one life form in all the cosmos by Abiogenesis and yet now there is many (and there is no God to mess around with it) then Evolution is and must be a true fact.

Because the Cosmos is eternal, having always been, then deep time (i.e., Ga.--billions of years plus) is a fact of nature.

Notice that these facts and truths of the cosmos are derived solely by logic with no need of the scientific method. Since no one was there long ago to leave a record for us, this must be accepted as true based on trust in the superior logic of man.

The assumptions required to do the scientific method are also derived from Naturalism;

1. The cosmos is real and external to ourselves.
2. We have the mental capacity to at the very least be able to begin to understand the cosmos and how it functions.
3. The laws of nature are uniform across time and space.
4. The processes of nature are uniform across time and space.

Based on these 4 assumptions and the 3 facts of nature mentioned above nature can then be studied by the scientific method.

Note: Because Abiogenesis, Evolution, and Deep Time are facts of the cosmos, then they are known true and do not need to be and in fact, logically cannot be proved true. [they are already true!] Since they are already true, they are not hypotheses.

So no scientist can ever prove abiogenesis, evolution and deep time true. Karl Popper has shown that the scientific method cannot prove anything true. The best that the scientific method can do is falsify an hypothesis. Kuhn has shown, that the paradigm, such as Naturalism, defines how the scientific method is done. The truths of the paradigm (abiogenesis, evolution, deep time) guide the observation process, they lead the mind in developing the hypothesis, they interpret and explain the experimentally obtained data.

---
Crationists reject Naturalism and Sagan's idea of the Cosmos. We reject as logical children of Naturalism abiogenesis, evolution and deep time. We accept as true the instant Creation of the universe by God. We accept as true the creation of life and it's ecosystem on this planet in 6 days. We accept as true that there was a global cataclysm that caused the extinction of much life on earth, but for acquatic life, insectia and those on the ark. All of this is accepted as true based upon a loving, trusting relationship with God, believing what he says at truth.

All of this is true before applying the scientific method to the study of nature. Creationism supplies the same 4 assumptions listed above that are required to do the scientific method. We do science within the paradigm of Creationism, and do not try to prove Creation of the universe or of life. Nor do we attempt to prove the Flood true.

Rather these assumptions guide how we conduct our study of the created natural world by the scientific method.

Creationary scientists ask different questions about nature than evolutionary scientists. Creationists study how nature functions to 'think God's thoughts after Him.' Evolutionists study how nature functions thinking that they are studying how it originates. Creationists know how it originated--God did it. They do not try to see how it originated because they already know the truth of the matter.

Parts of your post might be somewhat profound, but, one initial question, if God did it, just how did God do it? We might need to create some stuff sometime ourselves in the same sense as long ago we needed and found out how to make and use fire.

I told him that the Ark story was falsifiable, and has been falsified. He didn't reply to me.