Posted by bistiza on 12/21/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):

You think those are equally possible??? According to you, it's just as likely that the world is 10,000 years old as it is that the world is over 4 billion years old. Because, and this is fun, you "don't think there is enough evidence to make a positive conclusion on the matter." Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

All I've done is rendered an objective opinion based upon logic rather than being quick to agree with any theory on the matter.  Unless you find it "fun" to hear of an actual unbiased opinion on a somewhat controversial issue, your post makes no sense.

If you really crave hearing someone use actual logic to render an opinion so badly you feel the need to thank me for it, I truly do feel sorry for you.

Posted by bistiza on 12/21/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):
bad luck,

You just don't get it. You seem to think a controversy doesn't exist because you say it doesn't exist.

The fact is there are evidence on both sides of the issue and people who support both sides of the issue. That means it's controversial, no matter what you think of the matter.

If you can't accept there are opinions other than your own or the majority opinion or whatever it is you think, that's your problem. It doesn't make it true no matter how much you insist otherwise.

Posted by bistiza on 12/21/2012 3:32:00 PM (view original):

No, it's not controversial. The earth is billions of years old. That's a fact, not an opinion. Thank you for discrediting yourself.

Declaring your opinion on a scientific phenomenon as fact doesn't make it so. It only serves to show how little you know about science.

Science works by developing theories to explain things. Theories are never considered to be indisputable facts because science allows for changes based upon new information. This happens frequently, as I've already pointed out.

Sometimes, more than one theory offers an explanation for a scientific phenomenon. In those cases, often groups of scientists will differ on which theory they believe to be correct. Science is even more open to new information in these instances than in those with one general consensus from the scientific community.

As I stated, I believe we'll find more information on the possible answer to your original scientific inquiry in the future. As for right now, i don't think enough evidence exists for a truly objective observer - such as myself - to make a conclusion either way.

Other people who are less objective - such as yourself -  may find it easier to allow the opinions of those on one side of the issue or the other to sway them despite the controversy of the issue itself.

HOLY ****!!!

You're a real treat.  You should get your own call-in show on the radio on the graveyard shift.

Posted by bistiza on 12/21/2012 3:54:00 PM (view original):

You're a real treat.  You should get your own call-in show on the radio on the graveyard shift.

I'm just telling it like it is. When you see things from the objective point of view, its easy to keep from being swayed by one side or the other in scientific issues where there is no real consensus. I'm glad you enjoy it so much.

Not a real person.  An alias jerking the chains of those who aren't smart enough to realize it.

Nice to see you can finally admit to what you are, MikeT23. I said you were always looking to play "devil's advocate", but I think "an alias jerking the chians of those who aren't smart enough to realize it" probably describes you better. So kudos on not only admitting what you are but redefining it much better as well.

What you state here isn't even close to reality. Whether you will admit it or not, a statistically significant number of scientists do NOT agree the earth is billions of years old.