Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/ ^ | September 29, 2003 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[Dataman]

Therefore the planes have ridden the ice deepr into the icepack as the ice has moved.

Nice guess. Are you aware that a plane must have its center of mass ahed of its aerodynamic center? Like an arrow, the nose of a plane is the heaviest. So what was this downward force that pushed the planes deeper, yet kept them from going nose-down?

Yet another problem: Flowing ice destroys rocks yet 80% of the rescued planes could be used. Any force that is going to drive planes 250 feet into the ice is going to destroy them.

[Dataman]

We know evolutionists have no agenda whatsoever, right? They don't use Haekel's embryonic evolution in their texts or the peppered moth "proof" do they? How about the evolution of the horse? No sir, they have no agenda. They welcome discussion of the weakness of darwinism in the classroom because it shows how bullet-proof their theory is. They humbly accept blame for most of the numerous discovered hoaxes done in the name of science. They never ridicule the poor idiots who disagree with them, not even if the disagreement comes from their own group. They humbly and patiently wait for us to find our own way. They're so nice and understanding I just know they couldn't have an agenda.

[ThinkPlease]

We know evolutionists have no agenda whatsoever, right? They don't use Haekel's embryonic evolution in their texts or the peppered moth "proof" do they? How about the evolution of the horse? No sir, they have no agenda. They welcome discussion of the weakness of darwinism in the classroom because it shows how bullet-proof their theory is. They humbly accept blame for most of the numerous discovered hoaxes done in the name of science. They never ridicule the poor idiots who disagree with them, not even if the disagreement comes from their own group. They humbly and patiently wait for us to find our own way. They're so nice and understanding I just know they couldn't have an agenda.

Poor Dataman. Trying to be like Kent Hovind, yet failing so miserably. Woe be it to the creationist who has to rely on lies and mistruths to get attention! Poor thing!

[DittoJed2]

We know evolutionists have no agenda whatsoever, right? They don't use Haekel's embryonic evolution in their texts or the peppered moth "proof" do they? How about the evolution of the horse? No sir, they have no agenda. They welcome discussion of the weakness of darwinism in the classroom because it shows how bullet-proof their theory is. They humbly accept blame for most of the numerous discovered hoaxes done in the name of science. They never ridicule the poor idiots who disagree with them, not even if the disagreement comes from their own group. They humbly and patiently wait for us to find our own way. They're so nice and understanding I just know they couldn't have an agenda.
You pretty much have'm pegged.

[ThinkPlease]

Condescending comment aside, the article is from a semi-technical article (there are more technical ones on the site as well) and Mr. Oard is a meteorological scientist. Dismissing him as "non-scientific" and this site as "non-scientific" does nothing for your case.

I too am underwhelmed by Dr. Oard's work, because of the unsupported assumptions it makes early on, and the severe lack of detail within the work itself. It could be that there is more detail within the work referenced that was authored by Oard, but that will be hard to find. But until there is more detail given on Oard's models, I can only comment on his unsupported assumptions of a young earth. Sadly, most of his references are offline refs, so I may have to report back tomorrow to see if his references support his assertions.

[DittoJed2]

Do you care to refute a single thing that he said in the post you responded to or do you just enjoy shooting off your mouth?

[Dataman]

Poor Dataman. Trying to be like Kent Hovind, yet failing so miserably. Woe be it to the creationist who has to rely on lies and mistruths to get attention! Poor thing!

It is hard to reconcile the raw emotional responses of many of you evos with the rational control you feign.

[Dataman]

You pretty much have'm pegged..

[Dimensio]

Poor Dataman. Trying to be like Kent Hovind, yet failing so miserably.

Does that mean that Dataman is accurately and honestly representing facts and findings, and not presenting things out of context or with grevious and easily identified errors?

[ThinkPlease]

It is hard to reconcile the raw emotional responses of many of you evos with the rational control you feign.

Considering this is the first reply I've made to you in (I'd guess) almost 4 months, I'd have to say I've had pretty good luck keeping you and your outrageous comments on VI.

Answer me this, how can you repeat the same outrageous statements time after time after being corrected each time? Seems to me that you might be engaging in some odd behaviour by doing so. On usenet, we have a technical term for that behaviour. Any guess what that might be?

[ThinkPlease]

Sadly, no

[Dataman]

I'd have to say I've had pretty good luck keeping you and your outrageous comments on VI.

Please put me back on.

Answer me this, how can you repeat the same outrageous statements time after time after being corrected each time?

Answer me this: How can you make such accusations without proof. Never mind. I know how.

[jennyp]

A "lame" attempt at spin yourself. Of course the depth was much greater than expected (where is that predictive power of good science?) but the number of layers in the ice indicated the planes had been there for many thousands of years.

I thought I posted a response to this last nite, but apparently the Internet burped. Basically I too want to see a cite for your claim that the planes were under thousands of layers. Neither the AiG article nor the ICR article (the two most-cited sources) mention anything about the planes being buried under too many layers.

[Dimensio]

Well, I understand Hovind's history, but you said that Dataman was trying to be Hovind and failing miserably. That could be interpreted to mean that, despite his best effots, Dataman is managing to tell the truth with every statement made.

[Dataman]

I too want to see a cite

What's a cite?

Let me say as politely as possible that this subject has nothing to do with "brights" unless you, the bright, are asking me, the dim, to do your research for you. I remember seeing the layers myself since it was either TLC or the Discovery channel that had cameras in the shafts. They showed the rescuing process and the layers. They mentioned the problem that 4.5 feet of ice per year presents. If you need a web photo, feel free to use the search engines available with which, I understand, you are familiar.

[js1138]

I think the original ice core "discrepancy" claim was aimed at me. I responded in post #260 that the claim was unrelated to actual ice core dating metnods. It simply doesn't address any issues in ice core dating. Simple as that.

[Ogmios]

Those rocks are under the ice sheet, not flowing within the ice sheet, therefore they are crushed as the ice flows over the top of them.

The planes on the other hand are within the ice sheet, and flow with the ice sheet, and 80% of the plane is original, but had to be fixed and repaired before being used. The planes were and are extensively damaged from the weight bearing down upon them from the ice on top of them.

[Ogmios]

I am sorry that you felt that that was condescending, I was not trying to be.

Your source may be a meteorologist, but he is actually pretty ignorant as far as what the ice cores mean, or what they are. He has taken a specific problem, that scientists take into consideration, and blown it up into something that it is not. A major problem with dating the ice cores.

He is a young earth creationist, therefore his work will be suspect and is.

It is sloppy, it is not at all true, and only those with little or no scientific knowledge would take him seriously.

Sorry, but that is the way I see it.

Believe him if you want, but he's so far away from the truth, that if he were shooting, he wouldn't be hitting the broadside of a barn.

[Ogmios]

They don't, he is a young earther, and starts from that assumption, since the earth is not young, his answers will be and are full of holes, missing evidence, and anything at all looking remotely true.

The poor man starts from the wrong assumption and goes downhill from there.

[Ogmios]

Was that a raw emotional response?

If so, I don't see it, then again, I am new to this forum, so maybe here it is.