BluesBassist

Really? Please direct me to published research in mainstream scientific literature which falsifies evolution. (Hint: no such research exists, because evolution is as accepted by the scientific community as relativity, quantum mechanics, and other fundamental scientific theories.) Wow, what makes you think a particular pigmentation pattern must be produced by ancestors who had a monotone pigmentation of every color in the pattern? And even if that were true, how does that falsify evolution? You probably claim you are descended from your great-great grandparents. So, where are they? As far

Daniel,Your first sentence of the preceding is apparently correct, but everything that follows is incorrect.1) The age of the Earth is determined by several independent lines of evidence involving radiometric dating methods, NOT carbon dating. (Not that carbon dating is invalid where it is appropriate to use.)2) Radiometric dating methods make NO assumptions regarding the early composition of the atmosphere, nor that the Earth is at least 1 million years old (nor any other unwarranted assumptions). These methods rather use basic, well-known laws of physics and chemistry.3) We know with 1

The independent dating methods are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There is also the fact that light from distant stars and galaxies, etc, has taken much longer than 10000 years to get here. The known astrophysics of the solar system formation implies an old Earth. There is also all the geological evidence. It has been known since before Darwin's time that the Earth must be very old.Anyone who disputes all this is a complete and total moron, period.

If this is true, then yes, both Yorke and the supposed "scientists" with whom he works are complete idiots.

The claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old blatantly contradicts not only evolution, but virtually all of basic science, such as physics, chemistry, and geology. It is no less ridiculous than believing the Earth is flat.I find it rather scary that there exist people sufficiently irrational or idiotic (or both) to hold this belief. If true, it would mean DN is either profoundly irrational or a complete idiot (or both). That is the type of person even I could pwn at poker.I therefore doubt DN is a YEC.

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed here before...There is a post on 2p2 by Barry Greenstein in which he claims Daniel N told him he thinks the Earth is only about 6000 years old (!). Will Daniel or anyone confirm this?If this is true, I'd love to go against Daniel HU with my entire bankroll...

I agree that a Christian isn't necessarily irrational, and I didn't mean to imply that, if for no other reason than that most people are too complex to simply label that way. I prefer to speak of ideas as being rational or irrational.I also agree that believe in "god" can, in principle, be argued via reason (regardless of whether the argument is correct). For example, the great medieval Catholic philosopher/theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, is known for (among other things) claiming that theistic belief can be justified rationally using the logic of the Ancient Greeks. Although I think Aquina

You just effectively answered your own question. You admit many Christians like to evangelize. Obviously, you have every right to your beliefs and to express them publicly. However, if you do that, be advised some people will find your beliefs irrational and nonsensical, and it's expected that you will be refuted. Do you really expect everyone to remain silent while you express nonsense?For me personally, I will debate believers because I highly value reason, and therefore I feel that publicly expressed irrational ideas should be publicly contradicted by rational ones. Also, in some cases