"Eye Witness" claim of the YEC

[Jorge]

"Eye witness" vis-a-vis forensic science.

I see you pull out yet another slimey YEC canard "Wuz U dere, Charley??"

Well, you wuzn't dere either. And you're ASSUMING 1) God dictated all Scripture to an amanuensis.; 2) The Genesis creation accounts can be "read" only one way (which of course you and your YEC buddies here have been unable to articulate.); 3) The creation accounts were MEANT to give a scientifically accurate account of creation (which of course you and your YEC buddies here have been unable to articulate.); 4) That the modern YEC (edited out) Ancient ANE (added in edit) culture would have even the foggiest idea what a Hank Morris or Ken Hambone or Jon Sofarti say about it.

In summary, you ignore historical context and purpose -- or assume that your interpretation of these is the only correct one.

On the other hand, Creation itself leaves behind (gobs!) of evidence that we can study today WITH OUR OWN EYES!

Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of the Grand Canyon.

Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of igneous intrusions -- their geologic context as well as their radiometric age.

Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see of the various orogenic regions, which have similar geologic structures indicating the same method of formation (Plate Tectonics), yet vary GREATLY in their erosional appearance. For example the Appalachians vis-a-vis the Rockies, vis-a-vis the Canadian Shield.

Try explaining what OUR OWN EYES see (aided by instrumentation) in the decay rate of radioisotopes produced in SN1987A.

You've got it ALL wrong. To claim otherwise is gross dishonesty. Of course as per your usual reptilian style you will find a way to project that back to me -- but you're really just looking in a mirror.

K54

Man-o-man, I do pity your abstract students. Or was it "students in abstract"? Students in algebra? Students in abstract algebra? Yeah, that's it - I pity your students in abstract algebra!

Hey, now wait a minute, what the heck is "abstract" algebra? Oh yeah, I remember now, reminds me of a story ... I once had a girlfriend that I met at museum having a dome structure. She was part of a group and I was very cautious, making sure not to invade her space. I'm not one to play the field so I waited until she was alone in a module. There, I proposed and gave her a ring. Sadly, our one-to-one relationship ended. THE END

Jorge

[klaus54]

Man-o-man, I do pity your abstract students. Or was it "students in abstract"? Students in algebra? Students in abstract algebra? Yeah, that's it - I pity your students in abstract algebra!

Hey, now wait a minute, what the heck is "abstract" algebra? Oh yeah, I remember now, reminds me of a story ... I once had a girlfriend that I met at museum having a dome structure. She was part of a group and I was very cautious, making sure not to invade her space. I'm not one to play the field so I waited until she was alone in a module. There, I proposed and gave her a ring. Sadly, our one-to-one relationship ended. THE END

Jorge

Hey everyone -- Jorge made a funny!!!

Humor is often an effective Red Herring to avoid dealing with the issue.

The issue in this case is the YEC spinmeister phrase, "Were you there?".

I believe that is their main rhetoric salvo to attempt a flanking maneuver contra "historical" science.

K54

[Duragizer]

This is why programmers should never try to debug their own code. They can spot an error someone else made in a jiffy, but if they made the error they can stare right at it indefinitely and never see it. I think mostly this is explained by the notion that the programmers know what they meant, so they see their intentions rather than their code.

As someone who's had to go over their own screenplay at least ten times or so before they caught the majority of typos, I can vouch for this.