Creationist dishonesty: the case of RS Scadding

[Jose Fly]

Because I don't prematurely leapt to certainty based
upon presumption, prejudice or speculation? That
I'd consider & weight the possibilities? Nah.
Moreover, I've become even less trusting over time.
It's generous of you to alert me to my many flaws.

More passive aggressiveness? Fascinating.

 

[tas8831]

Were that so, you wouldn't be so abusive towards them with easy accusations of dishonesty.

So, you read the OP, yes?

At what point can the repetition of a false implication or claim - one that has been refuted for decades, the refutations being easily accessible and public - be considered an act of dishonesty? Do we just assume ignorance for all eternity?

Person X makes a claim.
Person Y says claim is false, and offers documentation
Person X makes excuse to reject documentation and carries on making false claim

Dishonest? Ignorant? Belligerent?

Person X makes same claim 1 year later.
Person Z says claim is false, and offers documentation
Person X again makes excuse to reject documentation and carries on making false claim

Dishonest? Ignorant? Belligerent?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, you read the OP, yes?

At what point can the repetition of a false implication or claim - one that has been refuted for decades, the refutations being easily accessible and public - be considered an act of dishonesty? Do we just assume ignorance for all eternity?

Person X makes a claim.
Person Y says claim is false, and offers documentation
Person X makes excuse to reject documentation and carries on making false claim

Dishonest? Ignorant? Belligerent?

Person X makes same claim 1 year later.
Person Z says claim is false, and offers documentation
Person X again makes excuse to reject documentation and carries on making false claim

Dishonest? Ignorant? Belligerent?

If being shown evidence for one's views doesn't sway the opposition,
is it always dishonesty? If so, everyone who disagrees with me is
dishonest? Nah.

 

[tas8831]

If being shown evidence for one's views doesn't sway the opposition,
is it always dishonesty? If so, everyone who disagrees with me is
dishonest? Nah.

One that disagrees with me solely by virtue of dismissing evidence that they are wrong - either dishonest or suffering from mental issues.

 

[Revoltingest]

One that disagrees with me solely by virtue of dismissing evidence that they are wrong - either dishonest or suffering from mental issues.

Sometimes one's evidence & argument aren't as cromulent as one thinks.
I run across this regularly here on RF.
People high on their own confidence & righteousness.
They tell me they have "The Truth", & how dumb & dishonest I am.

The irony is that it never occurs to them that they are wrong.
That's a trap best considering & avoiding.

 

[YoursTrue]

One of Darwin's arguments in favor of his theory was that of Vestigial Organs.
He wrote of such structures (he referred to them as 'rudimentary' in the 1st Edition):

"Rudimentary parts...are apt to be highly variable. We shall have to recur to the general subject of rudimentary and aborted organs... Thus rudimentary parts are left to the free play of the various laws of growth, to the effects of long-continued disuse, and to the tendency to reversion.
...A part developed in any species in an extraordinary degree or manner, in comparison with the same part in allied species, tends to be highly variable" p. 150-151​

And here, Darwin nearly predicts the subject of this thread's position (p. 416):

"Again, no one will say that rudimentary or atrophied organs are of high physiological or vital importance; yet, undoubtedly, organs in this condition are often of high value in classification. No one will dispute that the rudimentary teeth in the upper jaws of young ruminants, and certain rudimentary bones of the leg, are highly serviceable in exhibiting the close affinity between Ruminants and Pachyderms. "​

and later (p. 450-451):

"The meaning of rudimentary organs is often quite unmistakeable: for instance there are beetles of the same genus (and even of the same species) resembling each other most closely in all respects, one of which will have full-sized wings, and another mere rudiments of membrane; and here it is impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality, and are merely not developed: this seems to be the case with the mammæ of male mammals...
An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose; and remain perfectly efficient for the other. "​

But this is about Scadding, a relatively obscure zoologist, who penned an article in 1981 that creationists have been putting on a pedestal ever since.

Or, more accurately, they have been putting a quote, single sentence he wrote in that paper on a pedestal.
An example is here, from that great fibber for Jesus Dr. David Menton at 'Answers in Genesis':

The evolutionist S.R. Scadding, for example, has critically examined vestigial organs as evidence for evolution. He concluded: “Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.”​

Funny that Menton - nor the hundreds or thousands of other creationists that glowingly paste that quote - thought anything odd about the phrase "special evidence."

As can be seen in Scadding's paper, he actually sees vestigials as good evidence for evolution, but only as homologous structures:

Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs, i.e. structures similar i.n fundamental structure, position, and embryonic development,, but not necessarily in function. That al1 vertebrates, for example, are built along a common basic structural plan is obvious to any student of anatomy. While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument, given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution. Our knowledge of anatomy, necessary to identify homologies, is based on straightforward observation of adult or embryonic structure. However, when one begins to investigate the function of these structures necessary to identify vestigiality, the situation is not so clear. In many cases the functions of minor structures are not well understood. Identification of function is often based on experimental procedures, the results of which require some interpretation....​

later:

He described these as structures which are of no use to man but were of great, use to his ancestors and hence interprets these observations as supporting common descent. "In order to understand the existence of rudimentary organs, we have only to suppose that a former progenitor possessed the parts in question in a perfect state, and that under changed habits of life they became greatly reduced, either from simple disuse, or through the natural selection of those individuals which were least encumbered with a superfluous part ' aided by the other means previously indicated" (Darwin 1874, p. 24). Darwin never makes entirely clear why this particular class of homologous structures should provide such important support to his theory of descent with modification.​

Scadding's major problem, according to one critic, was his idiosyncratic definition of vestigial as being completely useless, and he sadly seemed to employ a common creationist "argument" indicating that a structure that can be claimed to do ANYTHING is thus not vestigial.

Scadding:

I would suggest that the entire argument that vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution is invalid on two grounds, one practical, the other more theoretical. The practical problem is that of unambiguously identifying vestigial organs, i.e. those that have no function. The analysis of Wiedersheim's list of vestigial organs points out the difficulties. As our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased.... Anatomically, the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function since the submucosa is rnuch thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lyrnphocytes (Cray and Goss 1973, p. L242)....The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus (Gray and Goss 1973, p. 118).... I would conclude that in practice it is difficult if not impossible to unambiguously identify organs totally lacking in function.​

These are standard creationist claims.

Naylor, in response:

ABSTRACT: Consideration of examples of vestigial organs and of the nature of scientific
statements (hypotheses) confirms the continued use of vestigial organs as evidence for the
theory of evolution. It is unreasonable to inf er any function for many vestigial
organs. whereas others possess altered or reduced functions. The claim that vestigial
organs cannot be used to support evolution is shown to be false.​

and more detail:

That the paper by Scadding is seriously flawed is evident even on cursory reading. I shall,
however. rebut the arguments case by case in order to document the strength of the argument
from vestigial organs.
Scadding (p. 173) begins with the assumption that vestigial organs are necessarily non-functional and that they are, in any case, "simply a special case of homologous organs." As a vestigial organ is obviously the homolog of some non-vestigial organ in another. related organism, the second assumption contributes nothing one way or the other to the argument. The first assumption is potentially damaging, but is fallacious on two accounts: first, it is incorrect to state that to be vestigial an organ must be non-functional; and, secondly, there exist organs for which all available evidence suggests that they are truly non-functional....


In addition, there are organs for which all available evidence suggests that the only reasonable
hypothesis is that they lack functions. To argue that someone, somewhere. at some time
may suggest an imaginative function for such organs is to very seriously misunderstand the
structure of science (see also below). Science is concerned with possibilities and
probabilities for which evidence from the material world allows continued testing. Science
does not deal in absolute proof, but with statements that seem reasonable given the
available data (e.g., Popper, 1959)....

Even a cursory glance at the morphological and evolutionary literature shows a plethora of
vestigial and rudimentary structures overlooked by Scadding. Some of these are undoubtedly
functioning in reduced and/or altered manner; for others it is not reasonable to hypothesize any
sort of function. A summary of examples follows:

A Mammals:
1. Teeth in embryos of whale-bone whales (de Beer, 1958).
2. Milk teeth, with replacement buds, in young platypus (Anderson and Jonas, 1967).
3. Upper incisors, which never cut through the gums, in embryonic calves (Darwin in
Stauffer, 1975).
4. Egg tooth and caruncle in some marsupial embryos (Hill and de Beer, 1950).
5. Variable expression of canines in modern horses -- usually present in males and
usually lacking in females (Simpson, .1951).
6. Vestigial incisors in rats, mice, and rabbits (Mose-Salentjin, 1978).
7. Vestigial pelvic bones in whales (Grant, 1963).
8. Rudiment of Jacobson's organ in human embryos (de Beer, 1958).
9. Body hair in embryonic whales and humans (de Beer, 1958).​

and so on.

Scadding did eventually respond (1982). He admitted what he had hinted at originally - that what most consider vestigial are actually just examples of homology, and that homology is good evidence for evolution:

Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality.​

He stuck to his guns re: vestigiality, but it seems that only creationists care, and only creationists cite his paper as anything other than a short-lived curiosity.

The dishonesty comes from the creationist insistence that Scadding's position (SOLELY the part about vestigial organs not being evidence for evolution) is unassailable, correct, and proves that vestigial organs can be ignored - all the while ignoring in toto his argument that they are just homologous structures which in and of itself is good evidence for evolution.

ALWAYS be wary of creationists bearing quotes.

I wonder if those who believe evolution think if creation were true instead of evolution, God should have made different things (like plants and dinosaurs) with entirely different systems, chemicals, or genes. No similarities, for instance.

 

[tas8831]

I wonder if those who believe evolution think if creation were true instead of evolution, God should have made different things (like plants and dinosaurs) with entirely different systems, chemicals, or genes. No similarities, for instance.

Cool insights, bro.

Anything of merit to add?

 

[Polymath257]

I wonder if those who believe evolution think if creation were true instead of evolution, God should have made different things (like plants and dinosaurs) with entirely different systems, chemicals, or genes. No similarities, for instance.

No, that is not what I think. But I *do* think 'He' would not be limited to working under nested hierarchies. There would be a *lot* more 'similarities' that cross taxonomic boundaries.

For example, all mammals have three bones in their ears. No birds do. I see no reason why a bird could not have such bones in its ear *except* that it is difficult for such to evolve. But, if designed, it would work just as well for birds as it does for mammals.

In essence, one of the best arguments *against* design is the fact that we *don't* see such neutral similarities when a good designer would freely use such. But, in evolution, such similarities do not evolve because there is no good developmental pathway for such.

I also think that a designer would not provide many birds with the *genes* for teeth if those genes never get turned on. Again, this sort of thing is expected under an evolutionary scenario, but is rather difficult to attribute to design.

 

[tas8831]

I wonder why creationists keep dishonestly using Scadding?

Desperation?


Malice?


Stupidity?

One of Darwin's arguments in favor of his theory was that of Vestigial Organs.
He wrote of such structures (he referred to them as 'rudimentary' in the 1st Edition):

"Rudimentary parts...are apt to be highly variable. We shall have to recur to the general subject of rudimentary and aborted organs... Thus rudimentary parts are left to the free play of the various laws of growth, to the effects of long-continued disuse, and to the tendency to reversion.
...A part developed in any species in an extraordinary degree or manner, in comparison with the same part in allied species, tends to be highly variable" p. 150-151​

And here, Darwin nearly predicts the subject of this thread's position (p. 416):

"Again, no one will say that rudimentary or atrophied organs are of high physiological or vital importance; yet, undoubtedly, organs in this condition are often of high value in classification. No one will dispute that the rudimentary teeth in the upper jaws of young ruminants, and certain rudimentary bones of the leg, are highly serviceable in exhibiting the close affinity between Ruminants and Pachyderms. "​

and later (p. 450-451):

"The meaning of rudimentary organs is often quite unmistakeable: for instance there are beetles of the same genus (and even of the same species) resembling each other most closely in all respects, one of which will have full-sized wings, and another mere rudiments of membrane; and here it is impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality, and are merely not developed: this seems to be the case with the mammæ of male mammals...
An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose; and remain perfectly efficient for the other. "​

But this is about Scadding, a relatively obscure zoologist, who penned an article in 1981 that creationists have been putting on a pedestal ever since.

Or, more accurately, they have been putting a quote, single sentence he wrote in that paper on a pedestal.
An example is here, from that great fibber for Jesus Dr. David Menton at 'Answers in Genesis':

The evolutionist S.R. Scadding, for example, has critically examined vestigial organs as evidence for evolution. He concluded: “Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.”​

Funny that Menton - nor the hundreds or thousands of other creationists that glowingly paste that quote - thought anything odd about the phrase "special evidence."

As can be seen in Scadding's paper, he actually sees vestigials as good evidence for evolution, but only as homologous structures:

Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs, i.e. structures similar i.n fundamental structure, position, and embryonic development,, but not necessarily in function. That al1 vertebrates, for example, are built along a common basic structural plan is obvious to any student of anatomy. While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument, given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution. Our knowledge of anatomy, necessary to identify homologies, is based on straightforward observation of adult or embryonic structure. However, when one begins to investigate the function of these structures necessary to identify vestigiality, the situation is not so clear. In many cases the functions of minor structures are not well understood. Identification of function is often based on experimental procedures, the results of which require some interpretation....​

later:

He described these as structures which are of no use to man but were of great, use to his ancestors and hence interprets these observations as supporting common descent. "In order to understand the existence of rudimentary organs, we have only to suppose that a former progenitor possessed the parts in question in a perfect state, and that under changed habits of life they became greatly reduced, either from simple disuse, or through the natural selection of those individuals which were least encumbered with a superfluous part ' aided by the other means previously indicated" (Darwin 1874, p. 24). Darwin never makes entirely clear why this particular class of homologous structures should provide such important support to his theory of descent with modification.​

Scadding's major problem, according to one critic, was his idiosyncratic definition of vestigial as being completely useless, and he sadly seemed to employ a common creationist "argument" indicating that a structure that can be claimed to do ANYTHING is thus not vestigial.

Scadding:

I would suggest that the entire argument that vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution is invalid on two grounds, one practical, the other more theoretical. The practical problem is that of unambiguously identifying vestigial organs, i.e. those that have no function. The analysis of Wiedersheim's list of vestigial organs points out the difficulties. As our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased.... Anatomically, the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function since the submucosa is rnuch thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lyrnphocytes (Cray and Goss 1973, p. L242)....The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus (Gray and Goss 1973, p. 118).... I would conclude that in practice it is difficult if not impossible to unambiguously identify organs totally lacking in function.​

These are standard creationist claims.

Naylor, in response:

ABSTRACT: Consideration of examples of vestigial organs and of the nature of scientific
statements (hypotheses) confirms the continued use of vestigial organs as evidence for the
theory of evolution. It is unreasonable to inf er any function for many vestigial
organs. whereas others possess altered or reduced functions. The claim that vestigial
organs cannot be used to support evolution is shown to be false.​

and more detail:

That the paper by Scadding is seriously flawed is evident even on cursory reading. I shall,
however. rebut the arguments case by case in order to document the strength of the argument
from vestigial organs.
Scadding (p. 173) begins with the assumption that vestigial organs are necessarily non-functional and that they are, in any case, "simply a special case of homologous organs." As a vestigial organ is obviously the homolog of some non-vestigial organ in another. related organism, the second assumption contributes nothing one way or the other to the argument. The first assumption is potentially damaging, but is fallacious on two accounts: first, it is incorrect to state that to be vestigial an organ must be non-functional; and, secondly, there exist organs for which all available evidence suggests that they are truly non-functional....


In addition, there are organs for which all available evidence suggests that the only reasonable
hypothesis is that they lack functions. To argue that someone, somewhere. at some time
may suggest an imaginative function for such organs is to very seriously misunderstand the
structure of science (see also below). Science is concerned with possibilities and
probabilities for which evidence from the material world allows continued testing. Science
does not deal in absolute proof, but with statements that seem reasonable given the
available data (e.g., Popper, 1959)....

Even a cursory glance at the morphological and evolutionary literature shows a plethora of
vestigial and rudimentary structures overlooked by Scadding. Some of these are undoubtedly
functioning in reduced and/or altered manner; for others it is not reasonable to hypothesize any
sort of function. A summary of examples follows:

A Mammals:
1. Teeth in embryos of whale-bone whales (de Beer, 1958).
2. Milk teeth, with replacement buds, in young platypus (Anderson and Jonas, 1967).
3. Upper incisors, which never cut through the gums, in embryonic calves (Darwin in
Stauffer, 1975).
4. Egg tooth and caruncle in some marsupial embryos (Hill and de Beer, 1950).
5. Variable expression of canines in modern horses -- usually present in males and
usually lacking in females (Simpson, .1951).
6. Vestigial incisors in rats, mice, and rabbits (Mose-Salentjin, 1978).
7. Vestigial pelvic bones in whales (Grant, 1963).
8. Rudiment of Jacobson's organ in human embryos (de Beer, 1958).
9. Body hair in embryonic whales and humans (de Beer, 1958).​

and so on.

Scadding did eventually respond (1982). He admitted what he had hinted at originally - that what most consider vestigial are actually just examples of homology, and that homology is good evidence for evolution:

Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality.​

He stuck to his guns re: vestigiality, but it seems that only creationists care, and only creationists cite his paper as anything other than a short-lived curiosity.

The dishonesty comes from the creationist insistence that Scadding's position (SOLELY the part about vestigial organs not being evidence for evolution) is unassailable, correct, and proves that vestigial organs can be ignored - all the while ignoring in toto his argument that they are just homologous structures which in and of itself is good evidence for evolution.

ALWAYS be wary of creationists bearing quotes.

 

[Audie]

I wonder if those who believe evolution think if creation were true instead of evolution, God should have made different things (like plants and dinosaurs) with entirely different systems, chemicals, or genes. No similarities, for instance.

You have missed the difference between magical thinking
and rational thinking.

Or religion and science, if you like.

You choose to believe as it suits you, but
not because of facts, or logic.

I dont "believe" evolution, I understand it.

I understand that two and two is four.

Rational, logical, fact based, scientific etc thinking
has to do with the best explanation for actual data.

For your part, you could not possibly understand
"god" and you demonstrably do not understand
evolution. If you did, you would have a hard time
not accepting it as real. At least, you'd be able
to present no fact or any sort that is a reason not to.

Kind of like how there are no facts to discourage
"belief"in Australia.

I understand the point of your question.

The creationist argument is that god had
good general designs and made things
like theme and variation. Reasonable enough.

Worth some study.
Does the intensive study of, say, comparative
vertebrate anatomy well support that idea,
or, does it suggest something else?

Your handicap in these discussions is, as I
see it, that you do not have the educational
background to make a good argument.

For example-if asked onstage to say in
two or three sentences the evidence for
the bones in a human ear being derivwed
from the gill arches of a fish, could you do it?

IF NOT, then we suggest you learn what you
are arguing against.

I might as well try arguing against Christianity if
all I knew was learned from walking past
churches and seeing what the sermon of the
day was to be.

You'd be rightly dismissive of that, would you not?

 

[YoursTrue]

You have missed the difference between magical thinking
and rational thinking.

Or religion and science, if you like.

You choose to believe as it suits you, but
not because of facts, or logic.

I dont "believe" evolution, I understand it.

I understand that two and two is four.

Rational, logical, fact based, scientific etc thinking
has to do with the best explanation for actual data.

For your part, you could not possibly understand
"god" and you demonstrably do not understand
evolution. If you did, you would have a hard time
not accepting it as real. At least, you'd be able
to present no fact or any sort that is a reason not to.

Kind of like how there are no facts to discourage
"belief"in Australia.

I understand the point of your question.

The creationist argument is that god had
good general designs and made things
like theme and variation. Reasonable enough.

Worth some study.
Does the intensive study of, say, comparative
vertebrate anatomy well support that idea,
or, does it suggest something else?

Your handicap in these discussions is, as I
see it, that you do not have the educational
background to make a good argument.

For example-if asked onstage to say in
two or three sentences the evidence for
the bones in a human ear being derivwed
from the gill arches of a fish, could you do it?

IF NOT, then we suggest you learn what you
are arguing against.

I might as well try arguing against Christianity if
all I knew was learned from walking past
churches and seeing what the sermon of the
day was to be.

You'd be rightly dismissive of that, would you not?

Judges and juries make decisions because they weigh the information the lawyers present. Sometimes they are wrong in their decisions.

 

[Audie]

Judges and juries make decisions because they weigh the information the lawyers present. Sometimes they are wrong in their decisions.

Dont remind me to never waste time with
you again, I wont see it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Judges and juries make decisions because they weigh the information the lawyers present. Sometimes they are wrong in their decisions.

In fact, different countries have different types of legal systems. Yes, juries and people can be prejudiced, they can be wrong, even in life-and-death situations, condemning innocent persons or freeing the guilty based on so-called evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In fact, different countries have different types of legal systems. Yes, juries and people can be prejudiced, they can be wrong, even in life-and-death situations, condemning innocent persons or freeing the guilty based on so-called evidence.

Just because you won't let yourself understand the nature of evidence does not mean that it does not exist. And this is rather sad since it makes it impossible for you to debate properly. All you can do is to raise ad hoc complaints that no one can take seriously.

 

[tas8831]

So why do so many creationists continue to use the Scadding quote to argue against evolution?

Ignorance?

Malice?

Dishonesty?

Desperation?

Do they think that they possess special knowledge that nobody else would be able to discover (i.e., delusional)?

 

[Audie]

So why do so many creationists continue to use the Scadding quote to argue against evolution?

Ignorance?

Malice?

Dishonesty?

Desperation?

Do they think that they possess special knowledge that nobody else would be able to discover (i.e., delusional)?

I came up with this analogy-say there is a video of junior
stealing the cookies.

Mom may be impressed by the ingenuity of the story
of how he did not do it,and the conviction with which
it is told-but still, she does have the video.

To a creo, the bible far surpasses any video.
So it is impossible for the evos to be right, no
matter what.

So what if there is the occasional slip on the part
of one who soldiers for god?

As for special knowledge, it is remarkable to see
how the creo knows more than any scientist on
earth, without even studying!

But they have been granted of god the sure and
certain knowledge of the six day poof, the flood,
so, them secularist atheist scientists are like the
kid with the cookies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So why do so many creationists continue to use the Scadding quote to argue against evolution?

Ignorance?

Malice?

Dishonesty?

Desperation?

Do they think that they possess special knowledge that nobody else would be able to discover (i.e., delusional)?

Yes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because you won't let yourself understand the nature of evidence does not mean that it does not exist. And this is rather sad since it makes it impossible for you to debate properly. All you can do is to raise ad hoc complaints that no one can take seriously.

Could be you don't take them sesriously

I came up with this analogy-say there is a video of junior
stealing the cookies.

Mom may be impressed by the ingenuity of the story
of how he did not do it,and the conviction with which
it is told-but still, she does have the video.

To a creo, the bible far surpasses any video.
So it is impossible for the evos to be right, no
matter what.

So what if there is the occasional slip on the part
of one who soldiers for god?

As for special knowledge, it is remarkable to see
how the creo knows more than any scientist on
earth, without even studying!

But they have been granted of god the sure and
certain knowledge of the six day poof, the flood,
so, them secularist atheist scientists are like the
kid with the cookies.

There are those that believe each day is 24 hours long. But I don't believe the Bible and reality leads to that conclusion, even though it speaks of days of creation. Each creative day was a period of time, distinctive from the other. It could have been each thousands of years, could be more. And a good notice of the 7th day (the last day) shows that it has not closed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just because you won't let yourself understand the nature of evidence does not mean that it does not exist. And this is rather sad since it makes it impossible for you to debate properly. All you can do is to raise ad hoc complaints that no one can take seriously.

When I bring up the examination of the age of fossils, it seems I must go to someone more knowledgeable than you and those on these boards about that to explain it thoroughly. Perhaps I will. Thanks for the thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could be you don't take them sesriously

No one should take ad hoc arguments seriously since by definition they have no evidence.