Jeering -- politer than CTD's but the same tactic nonetheless -- does not change the fact that:
You have so far not presented any evidence here that the geologic column is a myth, nor have you been able to falsify any of the information I have presented which shows it is a reality.
This time you have made no attempt to use any evidence at all. I was hoping that the post before that was the beginning of a new trend.
He most certainly was using a simple, generic word in a context that has nothing to do with technically describing how the sun works.
Sorry but no.
From a
website that's right up your street (bold my emphasis):
Dr. Kent Hovind, [www.drdino.com] explained the science to us so we could understand. In the NASA excerpt, quoted above, we learned that "most" of the mass of Jupiter is Hydrogen and Helium, a most explosive mix, if it is mixed with sufficient oxygen in order to burn this mixture. Dr. Hovind says Jupiter does not contain enough oxygen in order to sustain the type of continuous burning that would be needed to produce a star. Now, we understand and now it all makes sense. No matter how large the initial explosion might be, the lack of sufficient quantities of oxygen would snuff out any resulting fire rather quickly.
In case that isn't enough evidence for you, here's another example from astronomy. From his 1995 seminar:
Hovind (in an attempt to claim the planets ought to be cooler if they are as old as cosmology would have them): "If we walked into a room and found a cup of coffee on the table that was boiling hot, I would say, Dont touch that...Its so hot, yet it has been sitting there for 4,000 years. Dont you think that is a little far fetched? The planets are not billions of years old."
He doesn't know that radioactive decay keeps the earth warm and that tidal stress heating keeps other bodies in the solar system warm.
You believe the words of this scientific ignoramus over meticulous research published in journals by people who have been educated in their specialisms for years and do this stuff every day.
I'm not speaking about dating methods being invalid, although a good argument has been made by many credible scientists that they are bad.
Let me make a guess: you will not explain why here, because you know that I will pick apart their claims. Though you're welcome to have a try because otherwise you are simply continuing your slander against the scientific community.
There is no geologic column.
Then explain why my dating links are incorrect. You are ignoring them. Tell me one place where you think the column doesn't exist as scientists would expect it to.
This is how it is being taught in textbooks. Hovind provides visual evidence of this. I've see it myself.
You will find no claim of "fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils" in textbooks. I have shown you clearly here that this is incorrect, most obviously so. What he was probably showing you is relative dating methods, which are used along with absolute dating methods, though no doubt he conveniently omitted the latter.
A predictable reply, though we'll let the readers judge who is offering faulty logic and meagre evidence. You have made no attempt to address my links here and are talking as if that information doesn't exist. Is that logical?
Finally to repeat my previous comment, the changes in organisms over time are simply what they are, and they can be observed in the fossil record. Any concept can be misunderstood or abused. People have done the same in the past with the Bible yet you don't dismiss it because of their beliefs or actions.
