(facepalm) We do find volcanic activity. Just not eruptions large enough to rate a 6 or above on the VEI scale which is what the list shows. Seriously, how can anyone not understand such a simple concept?
Why? Empirical evidence is not relevant to your position, as you have said, so why should you or anyone bother to explain it?
But we do find volcanic activity. Those are eruptions beyond a certain magnitude, and there are plenty of smaller ones at all times. There’s nothing to explain, even if you cared about explanations, which you don’t.
Why should we dig up evidence for you when you will immediately reject it and instead put forward a conspiracy theory where scientists are fudging their reported data?
1 Like
What am I going to reject? We both agree something is wrong with the data. Why is some much of the history of volcanism missing? Give me your theory.
Here is a good example:
I dug up the data from the papers, and you immediately rejected it, replacing it with conspiracy theories about scientists making up the data.
2 Likes
Nice dodge. I guess we are finished here.
You rejected data from peer reviewed papers in this very thread. Why should anyone dig up this information for you when you will immediately reject it?
1 Like
@r_speir is like an onion. He has multiple layers of defense. Radiometric dates result from accelerated aging during the first creation day. They result from dating of nuclides and/or cyrstals originating way down in the mantle where things are really old. They result from contamination. They result from fudging and cherry-picking by scientists. The fact that the layers are mutually contradictory doesn’t prevent them from being trotted out at need.
6 Likes
Indeed. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
- Ask for empirical data from peer reviewed papers.
- Get the very data you asked for.
- Mock the person for repeating the data from peer reviewed papers, stating that you don’t have a common foundation with people who would report on the data in the scientific literature. Further claim that scientists are fudging the data in the papers, with no evidence.
- Ask for more empirical data from peer reviewed papers.
- Act confused when people refuse to do so.
2 Likes
None of the history of volcanism is missing as you have been shown multiple times. My theory is you finally realized how dumb you made yourself look and are now desperately scrambling for a way to save face.
2 Likes
Not quite. But what is glaringly lacking is the empirical evidence which should show a causal [and legitimate temporal] connection in historic eruptions. All you have is gaps and you refuse to explain it.
We have already agreed that to you empirical evidence is unimportant. So why do you keep harping on it?
1 Like
You will reject that empirical evidence as soon as it is supplied to you, so why should we present it? You have openly mocked me for reporting data from peer reviewed papers, for crying out loud.
1 Like
I appreciate your being here as a representative of those who argue for YEC or Young Life Creationism. It’s useful to review the quality of the current YEC/YLC scholarship from time to time. You, like PD Price and SFT provide helpful insight into the state of lay, but informed, Creationist thought.
1 Like