Ron Stringfellow Flood Evidence [sic] True Facts #7 DR What? Where? How? When? Who says? R

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Ron Stringfellow Flood Evidence [sic] True Facts #7 >DR> What? Where? How? When? Who says? Ron calls this "Evidence?!" >DR> This Bold, unsupported assertion. Where's the evidence? How does >DR> this support "Noah's Flood?" RS> This is the bulk of you asserive [sic] "truths" [sic]. Many of RS> the statements you answered such as the first "Grand Canyon" RS> statement asnwered [sic] you first accusation... In short- you RS> response amounts to a silly little godless humans "IS NOT". Oh, this is also so rich! I knew you'd refuse to address the facts. Why did you UTTERLY ignore the facts? Listen Ron. -Please- attempt to understand. At no time did I assert "truths!" Science IN NO WAY deals with "truth!" It deals with what is evidenced and what is most probable. I will once again point out what is SO DAMNED OBVIOUS that anyone with a working brain should have caught on: what you called "evidence" lacked any kind of support and were BOLD ASSERTIONS. You left it up to the reader to rely completely upon *your* *word* *alone*. This isn't evidence; it is called being arrogant, Ron. RS> David you bring up dating methods which I have shown to be RS> incosistent hence the need for MANY different methods of dating. RS> When one fails quick-resort to another. Oh, so cleaver Ron! You fail to note the fact that different methods of radiometric dating produce the SAME RESULTS. Instead of speaking from ignorance, why don't you look up the references on radiometric dating I included? Instead of taking my word for it, why the bloody hell don't you perform the experiments yourself? Take a class at your local community college and get some lab time. Pulverize a rock and put a sample in a heat inductor. Measure K-Ar ratios of one sample, and Sm90 in another sample, and a few other ratios in other samples. Vac the gasses into a spectrometer. Run a Radon222 baseline. Do this with many different rocks. Plot a line between K and Ar peaks. Plot a line between valleys. Calculate the volume. DO IT YOURSELF! You will PROVE to yourself that various dating methods yield the same results for the same sample. Are you afraid? RS> The bottom line what science believes today they will change in RS> ten years so any argument from a purely science direction is RS> inadequate and ineffective. Science doesn't believe anything. It isn't in the business to believe. The Scientific Method assigns a probability to what it knows; every time an observation demonstrates a hypothosis is correct, the more likely it is going to be correct the next time---- but science will never say that the very next observation "must" meet the hypothosis. The very next time you drop a hammer, it very likely will fall to the ground: but science also admits it may fly off into orbit around Saturn--- it's just so damn unlikely. Science doesn't PROVE anything; that's not its goal. RS> What I presented frm the scientific perspect is reason to believe. RS> In fact there is more reason to believe then not to believe..... RS> even from you own inconsistent methods. Find. Produce the evidence you claim you have, instead of bold, unsupported assertions. Why did you utterly *REFUSE* to address the facts presented to you? Explain how limestone is evidence for your "Noah's Flood." That is a simple request. What are you afraid of? Are you aware of the fact that Big Name Creationists mave called the submarine turbidity theory of some Grand Canyon formations FALSE? And that you didn't get your story straight? You said submarine turbidity is responsible, just as most scientists do, while Creationists say it isn't. Care to revise your assertions? (Press & Siever, _Earth_, 1974, pg. 429) Dr. Walter Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation, in his series "New Departures in the Origins Debate for the 90's," sponsored by Citizens for Origins Research and Education (CORE), says you're full of SHIt. He says submarine turbidity currents are =NOT= responsible for some canyons (they are). You say they are. Are your masters going to be pleased with you for going against standard Creationist dogma? Will they send you to hell? I'm here to help you gain your freedom, Ron, but you have to meet me at least a step or two along the way.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank