RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,12:37   

Because the 'new page bug' accumulated in the old thread, we begin anew.

Quote
AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

When I first proposed my hypothesis a few days ago, I asked for comments and critique.  I have now received this and have updated my hypothesis to reflect this.  You can see this discussion under "AFDave's God Hypothesis."  Thanks to all of you for your feedback!

I will now restate my updated Hypothesis (added a few points) and set forth the updated rules and framework which I wish to use for my reasoning.

MY BACKGROUND
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), then a businessman. Having sold my second business, I am now what you might say "between businesses" and am spending a lot of time on non-profit endeavors. I do have an aircraft charter business (a single King Air to fuel my flying "habit") and I am into alternative motor vehicle fuels with the possibility of a future business venture, but I'm not currently doing anything big in business.  I was never a logician, by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field.  I also do not pretend to be a professional geologist, cosmologist, physicist, biologist, or Hebrew or Greek scholar.  But I do know some good ones and I read voraciously. What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists.  It appears to me that while there are many good scientists doing a truckload of good work for the benefit of humanity, there seems to be a big disconnect with reality when "science" begins speculating about how life began and developed.  I was pleased to see the article mentioned below by Meyer because it is now obvious to me that I am not the only one floating the "God Hypothesis" again. I am apparently in very good company and the pace of new research in this area is accelerating.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE)
I need to say right up front that my reasoning with respect to this "Creator God Hypothesis" DOES NOT follow the Deductive Framework.  I have stated prior to giving my hypothesis, that I cannot provide a watertight proof for God and I don't believe anyone can, so people are correct in saying that my hypothesis would fail using the deductive schema.  However, we CAN use Abductive Reasoning then draw an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), and as Meyer points out below, this gives us powerful support for believing that the "Creator God Hypothesis" may in fact be true.  So there is good news, O Seeker of Truth!  There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.  Stay with me through all of my points and I will show it to you in terms you can understand!  

Here's a little blurb on Abductive reasoning from Stephen C. Meyer.  I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend reading his entire paper (only 23 pages) called "The Return of the God Hypothesis" which can be found here ...

http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf

Abductive Reasoning
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, etc.)
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the God of the Christian Bible)
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true.  

Stephen C. Meyer notes that "The natural and historical sciences employ such logic [abductive] routinely.  For instance, Peirce argued that skepticism about Napoleon's existence was unjustified although his existence could be known only by abduction: Numberless documents refer to a conqueror called Napoleon Bonaparte. Though we have not seen the man, yet we cannot explain what we have seen, namely, all these documents and monuments, without supposing that he really existed" (Peirce, C. S. 1931. Collected Papers. Eds. Charles Hartshorne & Paul Weiss. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

UPDATED HYPOTHESIS
A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.

B. This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."

C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

E. Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.

F. God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly.  Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.

G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

L. God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures.  This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers.  This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.

M. Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

N. The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.

O. Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

P. The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts.

So now you have the "AF Dave Creator God Updated Hypothesis" ... this is my second draft and almost completely my own words.  While it is true that I have done extensive study, the only sentence to my knowledge "lifted" from an outside source is the first sentence of para (b).  This hypothesis covers many of the main points that I believe should be included, but I would welcome any constructive comments suggesting additions, modifications, or clarifications.

As soon as I am satisfied from my feedback from you that my framework of reasoning is sound, I will proceed to provide evidence which I believe supports each point in my Hypothesis.

This should be fun ... I welcome your comments!

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:10   

stevestory,
I think MidnightVoice had a good idea in the "Broken Thread" discussion.
Quote
Try locking the old thread and leaving a link to the new one as the last post.


Still Possible?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:13   

I'll add a link.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:35   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2006,17:37)
I suppose I should be more considerate and at least give you a fair chance to explain why it makes sense, even though it makes no sense to me.

Gee Dave, it makes sense to the rest of us. What's your problem? Do you think maybe the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you don't want it to make sense?

As I've said before, it's difficult to make a man understand something when his religious beliefs depend on his not understanding it.

The thing is, Dave, you have no valid reason for supposing the earth is only 6,000 years old. You know you've never been able to find any method of dating anything which always results in dates less than 6,000 years. The most you've ever been able to do is throw up your hands in defeat and claim that it's impossible, even in principle, to date anything other than by reference to your Bible (which, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, is not self-authenticating, and that it gets some things right is no guarantee that it gets everything right).

Did you read my post from yesterday, Dave? You have two choices: you can believe that everything ever written on science in the last hundred years that has any bearing on the age of the earth is wrong, or you can believe that one book is wrong. But for some reason, you take the infinitely more unlikely choice, and put your one book (which even you admit has errors in it) against the hundreds of thousands of other books, papers, articles, etc., and claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever that your book is right, and all the others are wrong.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:40   

Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after:
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection

Seems a bit - what's the word I'm looking for? - dishonest?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:45   

Quote
Did I read that right?

Nope, Davie-doodles.
 
Quote
I never noticed this before!  I was laughing so hard that John was griping about my miniscule range of Y-values being only slightly more miniscule than Dalrymples that I didn't even notice the X-axis values!

I never griped about any minuscule range of Snelling's Y-values; I wrote "Dalrymple's data is fine, accurate and well above the threshold of the instrumentation.  So is Snelling's."  I griped about your misleading plot that, due to inappropriate axis scaling, gave a false impression of the points not lying essentially exactly on a horizontal straight line.  Of course the range of Snelling's data is small; that's what we expect from a horizontal line. And that data defines a nice horizontal line when the axes are scaled appropriately, or when analyzed with an appropriate line-fitting algorithm.
   
Quote
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!

Nope, Davie-doodles.  Large.  Compared to the only relevant standard; the accuracy and precision of the measuring instruments.  I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
   
Quote
So you mean to tell me that you think this meteorite is 4.6 GYO because they measured these infinitesmally miniscule values and they plot on a nice line with a slope?  Wow!

Not quite, we think that meteorite is 4.6 GYO because we measured the ratios of isotopes with accuracy of 3-4 significant figures, and they plot on a nice line with a statistically significant slope.  As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!

I notice you're no longer claiming that Snelling's data doesn't define a horizontal isochron, and you have no response to my pointing out the difference between uptake of different isotopes of the same element and different elements.  Is it possible some facts have finally penetrated your pointy head?  My bet is no.
   
Quote

And mind you, I do understand why positive slopes LOOK like old age, but I just keep hearing Dalrymple's statements ringing in my ears ...        
Quote

The K-Ar method is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists.

May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
 
Quote
and ...    
Quote
Unlike argon, which escapes easily and entirely from most molten rocks,  

... and migrates IN also, JonF, as we have seen.

True (except, of course, there's been no discussion of the kinematics of argon in molten rock) ... but argon does not migrate in either direction after solidification, Davie-dork.  Argon moves freely in or out as appropriate in molten rock, doesn't in solidified rock.  That's why we can see excess argon in some (but not all) ancient rocks (if the argon were mobile there'd be no noticeable argon of any parentage), and it's why the K-Ar method works as well as it does.
   
Quote
And the famous Cherry Picking statement ...        
Quote

One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection

True in any field that involves selecting samples, and not evidence of cherry picking.

You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
Quote
And tomorrow ... Mineral Isochrons!

Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
   
Quote
(Oh BTW ... did anyone notice that the chart we just discussed with the miniscule range of values was primarily a MINERAL isochron chart?

Yup. Did you notice that Snelling's data is 100% whole-rock and defines a nice horizontal line with insignificant variation in 87Sr/86Sr and large variation in 87Rb/86Rb?  Therefore, at least some whole-rock isochrons are correct ... just as at least some K-Ar ages are correct because excess argon is not universal ... and we can therefore conclude that your hypothesis of a young Earth is falsified.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,14:50   

Quote (Russell @ Sep. 22 2006,19:40)
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine&#8482; Scissors:
 
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after:  
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection

Seems a bit - what's the word I'm looking for? - dishonest?

I missed that.  Just goes to show; the sheer quantity of Dave's pathetic attemps at deception precludes any one person tracking them all.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,01:38   

Russell ...  
Quote
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:
Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after: Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
What difference does that make?  Geochronologists have gotten so many "wrong" dates that they are adept at sample selection.  Why do you think K-Ar was so popular when Dalrymple wrote his piece but now it's not, according to Jon?  

But wait!  If they mess up they cherry pick them like in the example I gave you at Koobi Fora.

JonF...  
Quote
Yup. Did you notice that Snelling's data is 100% whole-rock and defines a nice horizontal line with insignificant variation in 87Sr/86Sr and large variation in 87Rb/86Rb?  Therefore, at least some whole-rock isochrons are correct ...
"Correct" WRT to what?  That's the whole problem.  You have this preconceived notion of "correct" dates and the whole geochronological community beats their drum to this tune.

No, Jon, my CGH is not falsified ... far from it.

JonF...  
Quote
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
No, just that I have led a horse to water once again, but I can only wait for him to drink so long.

 
Quote
May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
Finally agreed with the creationists by '84 that it's bogus, huh ...

JonF...  
Quote
You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
All explained in the RATE Books, Jon.  The RATE guys have left these antiquated ideas of time significance in the dust (and they are presenting in Dallas in 8 days ... there's still time to book a ticket!;).  Radioisotope signatures DO tell us something ... just not what you think they do.  This is why they are discordant most of the time as the RATE Team has clearly shown ...

Quote
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
Could you kindly show me where I said that?

 
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:15   

AFDave,
As a preamble, I'm a chemical engineer and have worked in the chemical/agricultural process industry for ten years.  Lucky for me I'm still in a position where I can use skills and knowledge that were taught in university.  Also, PSS stands for Project Steve Sibling since my brother is on the list.  Before university I was enlisted in the Air Force fixing jets (F-4G, F-4E, F-16, A-10, and others) and teaching pilots how to properly use new avionics technology on the planes.
I've worked and trained Air Force pilots before and know that their egos get in the way of there brains sometimes.  I found that the only way some of them accept a fact is to make them think they discovered it themselves (as opposed to having someone else pound it into their thick skulls).

My presentation of Material Science facts regarding crystal structure and formation (and JonF's additional and detailed information) are based upon measured values of observed phenomena.  These values have nothing to do with age of the earth.

So when you respond with  
Quote
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!
I wonder what you actually know about any of the basic sciences like physics, chemistry, math, statistics, etc.... being discussed.  At some point AFDave you'll have to take your Isochron argument back to the basic math and science of the method because your present line of arguments lead directly back to these facts.

AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?


Your lost in this argument and getting more desperate by the day.  Either learn some basics, accept some basics, or accept defeat of your argument and move on.

Mike PSS

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:16   

WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
3) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages
4) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds.  If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.
5) You were shown how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they are so blind they (and you) say it is only a mirage
6) You were shown how your own site which you love (Talk Origins) supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind
7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
9) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.
10) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
11) You were shown how many leading geologists have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
12) You have been shown that your "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time according to Encyclopedia Britannica, and is characterized by gaps, not a continuous sequence of evolutionary change
13) We touched on the fact that there has been a new term invented -- "Punctuated Equilibrium" -- Why?  Because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.
14) You have been shown two modern day examples--the Palouse Canyon and the Toutle River--of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock, showing exactly how the Grand Canyon was probably formed.
15) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.  When will they stop laughing at creationists who say the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly?
16) You have been shown that incised meanders such as those found in the Grand Canyon require soft sediments, thus showing that the Grand Canyon was formed while sediments were still soft in the Receding Phase of the Great Flood.
18) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils--which is pure speculation, not radiometrically as we are led to believe
19) You have been shown how K-Ar dating used to be the most popular radiometric dating method until geologists realized that there are all kinds of problems with it making it often wildly discordant from other methods
20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.

And much of this can be found at ...

Answers in Genesis International ... <a href="www.answersingenesis.org" target='_blank'>www.answersingenesis.org</a> which has many scholarly articles written by scientists with PhD's in many different fields.

Ditto for the Institute for Creation Research ... <a href="www.icr.org" target='_blank'>www.icr.org</a>

Where do we go from here?  We will finish our discussion of Radiometric Dating, then move to points in my "CGH" which have not yet been covered.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:29   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:38   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
Russell ...      
Quote
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine&#8482; Scissors:
Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after: Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
What difference does that make?  Geochronologists have gotten so many "wrong" dates that they are adept at sample selection.

Unsupprted assertion, as usual.
 
Quote
Why do you think K-Ar was so popular when Dalrymple wrote his piece but now it's not, according to Jon?

Because other methods are more accurate (although K-Ar is stil useful and used, and is accurate enough to disprove your hypothesis by orders of magnitude) and more widely applicable. 
 
Quote
 
Quote
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
No, just that I have led a horse to water once again, but I can only wait for him to drink so long.


  • Passing the mixing test is not sufficient evidence for a mixing line.
  • Their own data doesn't support their conclusion; many of their samples failed the mixing test!  They have no evidence that it is even reasonable to interpret those isochrons as mixing lines.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing. No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.

You've been led to the water many times, Davie-doodles.  Drink up!
 
Quote
 
Quote
May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
Finally agreed with the creationists by '84 that it's bogus, huh ...

Nope.  Just not as widely used, because improved methods have been developed.
 
Quote
 
Quote
You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
All explained in the RATE Books, Jon.  The RATE guys have left these antiquated ideas of time significance in the dust (and they are presenting in Dallas in 8 days ... there's still time to book a ticket!;).  Radioisotope signatures DO tell us something ... just not what you think they do.  This is why they are discordant most of the time as the RATE Team has clearly shown ...

Then tell us, Davie-poo, what's  the significance of the patterns of isochron slopes, the patterns of isochron intercepts, and the patterns of concordance between differnt methods.
 
Quote
 
Quote
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
Could you kindly show me where I said that?

Oh, so many places to choose from! here:
 
Quote
JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...

Oh really?  OK, fine.  Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also.  You cannot have it both ways.  The Whole Rock Isochron method assumes a homogeneous daughter ratio.  It is either homogeneous or it is not.  If it is, then Rb is homogeneous also.  If it is not, the the WRI diagram is rendered useless.

And here:
 
Quote
The above picture shows a typical lava flow.  Now the theory says that for the isochron to be valid, the initial Sr ratio of 87Sr/86Sr is HOMOGENEOUS.  Now one could argue whether or not the flow above is actually homogeneous, but for the whole rock isochron method to work, this is the assumption.  The typical assumed initial value is around 0.70 depending on whether you are talking about island volcanoes or continental volcanoes.  I think it's a little higher for contintental.  But in any case, it is ASSUMED to be homogeneous.  Now IF the 87Sr/86Sr ratio is homogeneous, this means that the 87Rb/86Sr ratio is ALSO homogeneous, and this means that we would have only ONE data point on the isochron diagram if we were to analyze any sample in the lava flow.

{emphasis added}

And here (the same post in which you made it absolutely clear that you thought the intial daughter ratio was assumed rather than calculated):
 
Quote

BUt again, you are missing his point which is that WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS are either (a) homogeneous and meaningless (single point), or (b) heterogeneous and invalid (no way to determine initial daughter ratio ... remember, Jon, we are not talking about single crystals yet, we're talking about big samples containing all kinds of crystals)

Remember, Davie-dippers, we're talking about Snelling's big samples containing all kinds of crystals, and a whole-rock isochron that demonstrably is not a single point and has an intercept that determines the intial daughter ratio.
 
Quote
 
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

Ah, I guess you don't have the faintest idea what significant digits are.  Not surprising. From significant digits:

"The digits of the decimal form of a number beginning with the leftmost nonzero digit and extending to the right to include all digits warranted by the accuracy of measuring devices used to obtain the numbers. Also called significant figures."

{emphasis added}

Davie-moron, significant digits have nothing to do with graphs or graph scales.  If we measured 87Rb/86Sr as 1983.0, that would be accurate to five significant digits because the accuracy of the instrumenttion warrants it.    If we measured 87Rb/86Sr as 0.18573, that would be accurate to five significant digits because the accuracy of the instrumentation warrants it. The absolute size of the number does not matter, the size of the number relative to the accuracy of the instrumentation matters; and by that measure (the only meaningful one), Dalrymple's numbers are large.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:53   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:14   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,06:38)
 
Quote
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
Could you kindly show me where I said that?

Sure:

 
Quote
JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...

Oh really?  OK, fine.  Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also.  You cannot have it both ways.  The Whole Rock Isochron method assumes a homogeneous daughter ratio.  It is either homogeneous or it is not.  If it is, then Rb is homogeneous also.  If it is not, the the WRI diagram is rendered useless.


--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:30   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16)
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC


Um, not exactly, Dave. These points, these things you've "shown" us, have been refuted again and again and again and again. Do follow the links, Dave; they'll refresh your memory.

 
Quote
Where do we go from here?  We will finish our discussion of Radiometric Dating, then move to points in my "CGH" which have not yet been covered.


Glad to see you're finally giving up on radiometric dating, Dave (even though you'll never admit defeat, it's not like it isn't obvious you have been). Of course, you've only managed to completely mangle your understanding of basically two radiometric dating techniques out of the 40 or so that exist, but that's okay. I'm sure you're sick of getting the snot kicked out of your arguments (even though you'll never admit it).

So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:41   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:53)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
 
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.

He hasn't come up with a case for anything yet.  Assertions, yup, by the barrelful.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:41   

ericmurphy:

 
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:56   

BTW, Wesley mentioned a while ago that the bug which bedeviled the former thread seems to result from very long posts. So those of you who make such posts might want to break them into chunks.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,06:19   

Recapping...
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after:  
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
to which the irrepressible AF "Don Quixote" Dave responds:  
Quote
What difference does that make?
Well, now. That's a good question. Why did you excise the bolded part? To save precious bandwidth?

What we have learned so far:
No matter how thoroughly, devastatingly, "over-killingly" Davie's bizarre take on reality is demolished, he will keep summarizing all his ignominious defeats and retreats as glorious victories, thus firmly securing his reputation as the "Baghdad Bob" of internet creationists. One could, I suppose, go back and re-demolish each one of those "victories", but then one will have fallen for Davie's ploy of having one run around in infinite circles, covering the same old ground over and over.

Instead, one might ask Dave why, if actual practising scientists have been so decisively shown wrong on these extremely basic points, why are these "fallacies" still universally accepted in textbooks and in the professional scientific literature and practice?

Though that, too, would be covering old territory, as Davie will undoubtedly return with some variation of the "Atheist/secular humanist" conspiracy.

Here's one question, more or less randomly chosen from what must be at this point hundreds of dodged unanswered questions, I'll take as emblematic of the rest: Davie dismisses all the isotopic dating results as "unreliable" or "meaningless". Which, if it were the case, would predict a random, meaningless, array of dates for the age of the earth. Yet he's been shown volumes of data that all converge on the same remarkably narrow age: 4.55 x 10^9 years.

Which brings us back to the Dalrymple quote, and Davie's artful editing of it. I believe Davie's hilariously lame response to the obvious question is "cherry-picking".  So Davie is accusing Dalrymple (and the entire scientific community, for that matter) of the most contemptible sort of malfeasance when they point out, as Dalrymple did in the quote, that samples are selected before analysis.

I'm seriously considering using highlights from this thread for the very purpose Davie claims to be passionate about: teaching kids. I'm convinced that any high-school science student incapaple of recognizing the difference between "science" and "deluded zealotry" is beyond the reach of more sophisticated logic, and should probably not be wasting the time of science teachers anyway.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,06:21   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,11:41)
ericmurphy:

     
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

Touché GoP.  Touché.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,06:44   

Since we're posting lists
A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
(1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
(2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
(3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
(4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(6)  If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
(7)  How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
(9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
(10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
(11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
(12)  How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(13)  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.
(14)  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?
(16)  If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?
(17)  Where's your evidence that those tens of millions of species radiated from the several hundred species of organisms that could possibly have fit on the ark, all in the space of a few thousand years? Ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution, at rates millions of times faster than proposed by the Theory of Evolution?
(18)  Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(19)  Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 6,000 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 6,000 meters of sediment?
(20)  Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(21)  Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(22)  Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(23)  How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(24)  If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(25)  Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft")
(26)  You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(27)  Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(28)  Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that wouldn't have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years
(29)  Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor
(30)  Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.
(31)  Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave? (32) Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.
(33)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(34)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(35)  Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
(36)  Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"
(37)  Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.
Quote
I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
> This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?
(38)   JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.
(39)   Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?
(40)  Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer p.125
(41)  How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?
(42)  The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.
(43)  Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
(44)  Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?
(45)  How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.
(46)  I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?
(47)  Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked: "okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong." And: "Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here. Cowardly Dave refused to answer.
(48)  Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase
(49)  Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them
(50) Why do you choose to lie deliberately so much, MaggotDave?

I would accept a global stratum that indicates a global flood. Such a stratum would have CLEAR indications of pre- and postflood strata bracketing it.
What creationists do is wave their delicate hands at ALL sedimentary layers and say "that MIGHT be one" without EVER clearly saying "here is the preflood basement...here's layer(s) X that were laid during the flood...and here are post-flood depositions."
Continents zooming around clearly did not occur 4300 years ago, nor is there any indication of a post-flood "ice age" which happened while the Egyptians and many others were still literate and writing. I'd accept a global strata, evidence of a massive die-off at that time, including freshwater fish, insects, plants, annelids, etc. but the fact is that no such layer can be shown to exist.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,07:05   

Let me be even more direct: I have no ideological inherent bias against the notion of a "flood" or a young earth for that matter. If such things were so, then the data would clearly indicate it. There would BE loud, clear unambiguous evidence of it everywhere. There would be short-half-life isotopes naturally occurring, there would be a global stratum, since floodwater carries suspended materials. There would be NO post-flood Egyptian or Sumerian civilizations. And a thousand other concordant facts. But NONE of those things are apparent, hence my rejection of this "hypothesis that is better than any other" since it has no factual basis.

Instead what there is evidence of is unfalsifiable fantasies by creationists--a flood that originates from water sources that "collapsed" and are therefore invisible now...a flood that left no clear traces that any creationist can clearly define....and  floodwaters that SHOT OFF INTO SPACE vanishing mysteriously. None of these things left a trace, they all are unfalsifiable, they all have no evidence at all to support them...but they are the mainstay of YEC (Christian) claims.

Creationists like Dave have no choice but to be dishonest, since the data is by far against them, yet he'll pretend to "win" arguments he knows nothing about, he'll repost a list of things he claims to have shown..while never having addressed directly those issues or any of the counterarguments directly under questioning. Anyone that reads the threads can see this is so, regardless of their views on YEC-ism, if they are honest.

As I said, I have no inherent bias against AirHead's claims, I was not born with a chip in my head forcing me to agree with an old earth, I am skeptical enough to reject claims that have sufficient evidence against them -- and theoretically, that COULD mean that I would reject an old-earth timeline...but the data is not against an old earth, it is clearly in opposition to AirHead's cartoon version of history.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,07:27   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:29)
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.

I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

JonF or ericmurphy have already pummelled him with Ar-Ar dating techniques (which are self-correcting to original daughter isotopes) but Dave has ignored this MANY times.

AFDave,
Don't hold back.  State what you truly believe about crystal formation and radioisotopic half-lives.

Mike PSS

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,09:01   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

Oops!  Looks like he already has:

 
Quote
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.


 
Quote
Yeah and if your meter is off by 5 orders of magnitude because you close your eyes to the possibility of a Creation event and a Flood event that might have caused accelerated decay, then you can take a BILLION measurements and you'll be wrong a BILLION times.


And again:

 
Quote
The RATE Group claims that there is direct observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period in the past--we will be looking at this


And radiohaloes?  Oh yeah, Dave went there, too:

 
Quote
Next, we will be moving on to Uranium and Polonium radiohalos, which, according to ICR, provide direct, observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period of time in the past ... we shall see!


All of which leaves me to wonder why Dave didn't just skip past all of the "sciencey" stuff and dismiss the dating methods based on accelrated decay right off the bat.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,09:09   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,15:01)
   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

Oops!  Looks like he already has:

     
Quote
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.

I stand humbly corrected in awe of your search prowess.

AFDave,
You missed (at least) one:    
Quote
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

21) You have been shown that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish.  (i.e. Portuguese = French + Spanish  and you didn't think I knew math!!!;))

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,10:28   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)

I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  

My opinion is that Davie doesn't think at all; he just regurgitates.  He hasn't caught on that, if accelerated decay happened, all this stuff about excess argon and mixing and what-not is irrelevant.  He also hasn't caught on (despite being told many times) that accelerated decay causes more problems than it solves; melting the Earth, killing people with the radioactivity from the radioactive atoms in their bodies, and what-not. Of course, accelerated decay is inherently and explicitly magic and not science.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,12:00   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

         
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

Okay, this is the evidence I would expect to see if Dave's "Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis" were correct:

  • Evidence that there was ever enough water to produce a layer of water approximately 5,000 feet above current sea level (this is a tough one to pin Dave down on, because he doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that even without taking mountain ranges into account, continental terrain varies between a few hundred feet below sea level and ~5,000 above sea level, and he's never been able to account for such variation, even with continents rushing around at hundreds of miles an hour). I would want a description in detail of where the water originated from, how it got there to begin with, how it supported the weight of the rock above it and managed to remain in liquid form, and what is now in the place where that mile-thick layer of water used to be.
  • Evidence of where and how that water got to the surface. Given that several billion cubic kilometers were ejected from some distance beneath the surface into the atmosphere, there should be some evidence of escape routes for the water, which would have eroded hardly at all in less than 5,000 years.
  • An accounting for what happened to the water after the flood ended. I.e., where did it drain to? Or was it ejected into outer space?
  • A global layer of sediment laid entirely by water, datable to ~4,500 ya (Dave can use any method outside of reference to the Bible for dating this sediment), consistent with a layer of water between 5,000–7,500 feet (i.e., 5,000 or more feet of sediment is inconsistent with a layer of water 5,000 feet deep) above sea level.
  • Evidence that every human settlement in existence at the time (c. 2,500 B.C.) was utterly destroyed by a mile-deep layer of water.
  • A layer of partially-fossilized remains of holocene organisms (and no others) concentrated in the layer of sediment deposited by the flood, in no particular order, since the kind of turbulence associated with a mile-deep layer of water deposited in less than a year would certainly not allow for any sort of "hydraulic sorting."
  • Much smaller diversity in living organisms than we currently observe, since 4,500 years is nowhere near enough time for several tens of thousands of "kinds" of organisms to have radiated into the tens of millions of species observed today, aside from some sort of ultra-macro-hyper-evolution far beyond anything asserted by evolutionary theory.
  • All mountain chains worldwide should show the same amount of (very little) erosion, because 1) they'd be only a few thousand years old, and 2) they're all post-flood, so none of the accelerated erosional forces Dave assumes would be available.
  • Very little in the way of sea life, due to the huge dilution of seawater by fresh-water rain, unless Dave claims the floodwaters were seawater, in which case there should be almost no freshwater fish, molluscs, or crustaceans.
  • Evidence of a genetic "bottleneck" in not only humans, but in all organisms, datable to less than 5,000 years ago. There should be very little genetic variability among humans (to say nothing of other organisms), since 5,000 years is not enough time for much genetic variation to accumulate.

These are just a few things I could think of in ten minutes or so. Anyone else, feel free to add, but I should point out that the absence of just a few of these pieces of evidence is more than sufficient to completely falsify Dave's "hypothesis."

I should also point out that since it's Dave's hypothesis, it's his job to come up with evidence to falsify it, not ours, and he has never done so. Evidently he doesn't think it's possible to falsify it, which would be in accord with his statements so far.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,13:04   

Also lots of discontinuities between fossils just below the flood level, compared to what lives/lived after the flood - on each island, continent, body of water, or other isolated region.

Ice caps should be no deeper than expected from < 4500 yr. accumulation.

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,13:27   

This is actually very useful.  Having come in so late to the conversation I never went back and read the previous 200 pages so I never saw the original hypothesis.  Just want to look at one point and that is section K:

The recording by Adam and Seth of these events that were passed down to Moses...

gonna need a reference on this one, in fact I don't think I've ever heard this before.  Can you supply some more info please?

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,15:32   

I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either)

1. You say that the fossils are sorted based on body size, speed and intelligence. I have found out a lot of dinosaurs were small, fast and smart. Why aren't they mixed with mammals of the same size, speed and brain size?

2. You say that different sized sediments fell out of the water at different times forming the layers we see. I would have thought that this would mean the fine stuff would be at the top. However, in the cliffs behind my house I see shale below layers with bigger grains, how come?

Jordan (age 9)

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,18:09   

Dave,

You never answered...

Does the sun revolve around the earth?....Is the earth the center of the universe?

It's in the Bible...spit it out.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,18:14   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

   
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

Paley,

You're like the third man in, in a hockey fight.  A born coward/pussy....pick you term.

How about posting something that proves 6000 year Creation.  Back it up or piss off.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,18:28   

I'm happy to report that the page just rolled over with no 'new page bug'.

cheers!

(shot of lime vodka with pomegranate juice)

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,19:30   

Quote (bystander @ Sep. 23 2006,20:32)
I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either).

Pretty embarrassing, isn't it, Dave, that a 9-year-old can ask questions about your "hypothesis" that you can't answer.

But you believe your hypothesis is correct because of "the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of it." Except you can't remember what any of that evidence is…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,00:56   

DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ... I have been unable to do so yet, and I assume others have not either.  I downloaded Jon Fleming's zip file but when I expanded it, I had the same original problem of too large a file size to handle.  If anyone (Jon?) knows how to make the thread into a downloadable text file (instead of an HTML file), this might work for everyone.  Then you could open it in notepad and search as needed.  I think many of you would be able to find what I have already said about many of your questions if you could do this.  I see that Improvius has already found my statements on accelerated nuclear decay--good!

FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?

WHO'S THE REAL REGURGITATORS?
JonF...
Quote
My opinion is that Davie doesn't think at all; he just regurgitates.  He hasn't caught on that, if accelerated decay happened, all this stuff about excess argon and mixing and what-not is irrelevant.  He also hasn't caught on (despite being told many times) that accelerated decay causes more problems than it solves; melting the Earth, killing people with the radioactivity from the radioactive atoms in their bodies, and what-not. Of course, accelerated decay is inherently and explicitly magic and not science.
Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.  

ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
You are correct that all the hoopla about excess Ar etc is NA if accelerated decay happened, but one of my goals is simply to get people thinking ... and pointing out that they have swallowed a very popular myth for many years is a good way to do it.  Some of you will say "Hmmmm ... I used to think Argon dating was accurate, but look at this evidence, and look at that evidence ... wow, I guess not.  I wonder what ELSE I've been taught is wrong."  IF accelerated decay happened, it happened mostly before life was created.

MAGIC? OR SIMPLY "HIGH-TECH"
I've said this before but it is worth repeating ...

"Miracles" by God or by any superhuman being are not really miracles at all ... they are simply high tech: technology which WE do not presently understand.  So they are miracles to US, but not to the Being performing them.  A native in the middle of deep dark Africa might think that our technology is magic also.  And to him it is.  But to us it is not because we understand it.  So let's quit spouting nonsense about "magic" and "miracles" shall we?

*******************************

Eric...you need to go read Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory again.  He answers a lot of your questions.  Not saying I agree with him totally, but he's got some good guesses.  Which parts of his answers to your questions did you not understand or agree with and why?  www.creationscience.com

Skeptic ... p. 82 of the old thread answers your question very thoroughly.  Hopefully a downloadable text file will be available soon.  I also hope to rev up my blog and post these things for reference over there.

Those folks asking about hydrodynamic sorting should also search my old thread.

Monday we will continue with radiometric dating and look at mineral isochrons, concordia/discordia, etc.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,01:02   

Quote
ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY

Interesting. Can your hypothesis explain this?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,01:09   

STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

 
Quote
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?


Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

************************

Details please, Jeannot?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,01:41   

There aren't enough details four you, Davey? You have a model but you're not quite sure whether it fits the 65-135 Myear-old crust near the shoreline and you want to be sure it's not 64-134 million years? Man, I wish I had an irony-meter. :D
You could just give your typical explanation like "accelerated decay made the tectonic plates look older than they are, tada!". And then "we have successfully covered plate tectonics, blah blah... I declare victory. :)"

Since you seem a bit lazy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,02:16   

:angry: "He's all over the place! 900 feet to 1300 feet!?!  What an #######!"   Airplane

 Part TWO!!!!  NOOOooooo!!!!!

 This guy isn't worth the first of any decent homo sapiens two cents!

 I beg of you all, let Dave die the miserable, lonely troll's death he deserves!  Not one lurker is ever going to be persuaded by his drooling lies and Xian faux-frindliness.

 Let him be remembered as the dumbest troll ever, with a permanent link to "Part 1" as his headstone (perhaps one like those painted styrofoam ones at the "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" tourist traps: "Here lies [how apt a metaphor!] Les Moore..."). but let it die!!!!!! :O

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,02:56   

Dave,

"FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?"

Now who is being disingenuous?  Are you attempting to interpret the written word of God?

So that whole Galileo being tossed in prison was just about turn of phrase??? Can't have it both ways.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,03:50   

Quote
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.

Yeah, like flying hydroplates of continents zipping around the Earth at speeds that would boil off every drop of water on the planet.
Or accellerated decay.
Or "fountains of the deep " that mysteriously vanished...
and floodwaters that flew off into space.
And a global flood that left no identifiable global strata, nor can any creationist identify the beginning of the flood anywhere by strata.
Or how about that testable hypothesis about "God created the Earth 6000 years ago?"
Or maybe the testable hypothesis of accellerated speciation that resulted in millions of new species in a two thousand year span?
Or how about that ice age that happened after the flood that NO ONE in history ever wrote about?
Or maybe the testable hypothesis of dinos that lived..AFTER the flood, 'cause NOAH, according to DumbAssDave...had dinos on the ark!! BWAHAHAHA
Yeah, real "testable" stuff there, Stupid.
By the way, AirHead, I love your pretense at "being scientific" after you fail to show how to falsify your hypothesis

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,03:59   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

       
Quote
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?


Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

************************

Details please, Jeannot?

Thank you AFDave for admitting that the science of crystal formation is valid in your worldview.  The question wasn't meant to be "STUPID", only to establish a baseline that we both can agree upon.

My point in asking this (and other) questions goes back to your arguments in p.194 - p.202 of the 1st thread.  You (and Arndts and Overn) say you can't have a whole rock Isochron sample vary it's Rb/Sr ratio but the science of crystal formation directly contradicts your claim.

If you wish to carry on with your "ALL ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES" claim then you have to show how the science of crystal formation supports your claim.

MANY (remember that definition) people warned you that you probably didn't know enough information to argue about Isochrons.  There are enough knowledgable people here to reveal what learning is required to understand this stuff.  However, your latest diatribe against "millionofyearsism" is troubling for this idea....
 
Quote
Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.

I'll leave this for another day.

Mike PSS

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,04:54   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ... I have been unable to do so yet, and I assume others have not either.

No problem here, Davie-dip; takes a minute or two to load (with images turned off) and search isn't really zippy, but it works.

Of course, if you're searching for answers to the tough questions that you've already given, you ain't gonna find any.  Hee hee hee hee..
Quote
I downloaded Jon Fleming's zip file but when I expanded it, I had the same original problem of too large a file size to handle.  If anyone (Jon?) knows how to make the thread into a downloadable text file (instead of an HTML file), this might work for everyone.  Then you could open it in notepad and search as needed.  I think many of you would be able to find what I have already said about many of your questions if you could do this.

HTML is a text file, Davie-doodles, which you can open in Wordpad or Notepad.  It's not as nicely formatted as it is in a web browser, but all the text is there.

I'll see what I can do.

No matter how you slice it, it's a big file.
Quote
I see that Improvius has already found my statements on accelerated nuclear decay--good!

Yup, but he didn't find any answers to questions, like "where'd the heat go?" and "what shielded Noah from the radioactive atoms in his own body, and in the animals, and in the gopherwood?".
 
Quote
MAGIC? OR SIMPLY "HIGH-TECH"
I've said this before but it is worth repeating ...

"Miracles" by God or by any superhuman being are not really miracles at all ... they are simply high tech: technology which WE do not presently understand.

Until you have evidence for this alleged high technology, it's arm-waving and invocation of magic.
 
Quote
Those folks asking about hydrodynamic sorting should also search my old thread.

Where they'll find you just asserted, provided no evidence, and ran away from the questions (e.g. Message 30422:
Quote (Jonf @ Sep. 3 2006,11:22)
OTOH,creationism predicts that anything is possible, and has no explanation for the observed facts of the fossil record other than magic; the so-called "creationist explanations" for the order in the fossil record (differential escape, hydrodynamic sorting, and ecological zonation) fall apart when examined.

Let's look at grass and fern pollen.  Grass and ferns grow pretty much everywhere that any plant grows on land.  Grass doesn't run very fast, and ferns are famed for their lack of running ability.  Grass pollen has the same hydrodynamic properties as fern pollen.  

But fern pollen is found in abundance in strata from circa 400 million years ago to the present, and grass pollen is only found in strata from circa 70 million years ago to the present.

How did that grass pollen get sorted out, Davie-diddles?

Or take plesiosaurs and dolphins.   They live (or lived) in the same environment, moved the same way, and have the same hydrodynamic properties.  Plesiosaur fossils are found in strata from 200-65 million years old and no more recent, dolphin fossils are found in strata from 13 million years old to the present.  How did that happen, Davie-poot?


Explain those, Davie-dumpling.  You haven't. You can't.

Your hydrodynamic sorting, ecological zonation, differential escape, or any combination thereof is falsified by the observed patterns of fossils.

And, of course, I found that by searching the downloaded copy in Notepad.  No problem.
 
Quote
Monday we will continue with radiometric dating and look at mineral isochrons, concordia/discordia, etc.

Running away again, hum, Davie-moron?  You finally realized that you did claim, multiple times, that a horizontal-line whole-rock isochron cannot be obtained from fresh lava, and that's your (and Arndts and Overn's) entire argument against whole-rock isochrons?  And that your claim is falsified by Snellings's, a creationist's, data?  And that this proves yet again that creationists think of everything in isolation, never cross-comparing?

Did you finally figure out what significant figures are?  Still got a problem with Dalrymple's numbers?  

Got any defense for the scaling of your graph of Snelling's data, other than "Davie's too dumb to figure out an appropriate scale and doesn't have a prayer of figuring out how to implement one in Excel"?

And, of course, the problems that terrify Dave beyond any others 'cause he can't address 'em:

  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing. No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.


Let's say that again, Davie-pootles:  No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern of concordance is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.  Your hypothesis doesn't explain the observed patterns.

So, to summarize what we've learned of radiometric dating so far:

  • A few rocks have excess argon which screws up K-Ar dating, but most do not.
  • There is no reason to suspect that even a majority of K-Ar dates are wrong.
  • Snelling's study of isotope systematics is irrelevant,  his claims are not supported by his data, and the claims are falsified by easily-available evidence.
  • The claim that any whole-rock isochron must initially start as a point on an isochron diagram (unless it is a result of mixing) is false.
  • There is no evidence that any appreciable number of whole-rock isochrons are not true indications of the age of the rocks.
  • There is lots of evidence that the vast majority of whole-rock isochrons are not the result of mixing, but rather are the result of radiaoctive decay in-situ over millions to billions of years.
  • Davie's young Earth is falsified.

Hee hee hee hee..

Hey, Davie, bet you're even more ignorant of concordia-discordia than you were of isochrons.  What do you wanna bet?  Hee hee hee hee...

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,05:41   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?

Wow, it looks like something finally got through to Dave.  And I thought he'd never admit the folly of a literal interpretation of the Bible.  That's excellent progress, Dave my boy!

Now I want you to try expanding on that concept.  Meditate on this question: how can you tell the difference between literal and figurative passages in the Bible?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,06:00   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,05:56)
DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ...

Dave, I have a searchable copy of the entire first thread (it's a webarchive format readable—and searchable—by Mac OS X's Safari web browser), so I know for fact that, e.g., you never even discussed the evolution of whales anywhere on this thread. At least when it comes to me, you can run, but you can't hide, and you can't lie about what you have and have not "proven," or even discussed.
   
Quote
Eric...you need to go read Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory again.  He answers a lot of your questions.  Not saying I agree with him totally, but he's got some good guesses.  Which parts of his answers to your questions did you not understand or agree with and why?  www.creationscience.com

Dave, I've looked at Walt Brown's Hydroplate "Theory" and various rebuttals of it, and I am well aware that 1) the "theory" is impossible on its face, and requires multiple miracles for it to have happened the way Dr. Brown claims it happened, and 2) there is no evidence, from geology, paleontology, or any other field, that Brown's claims are accurate. And just for review, Dave, you might want to read this again, assuming you ever read it in the first place.

Moreover, regardless of what Brown may think happened, he hasn't presented any actual evidence that it happened that way, and he presents none of the evidence I said I would need to credit a "global catastrophic flood hypothesis." In other words, he's answered none of my questions. If you think he has, feel free to post it here. Remember, this is your hypothesis, and it's not my job to hunt around for evidence supporting it; it's yours. If you can find any evidence at all of the kind I told Bill I would need to credit your "hypothesis," I strongly urge you to post it. You claim you've already seen such evidence, so it shouldn't take long to find it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
TangoJuliett



Posts: 12
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,07:43   

Quote (tiredofthesos @ Sep. 24 2006,07:16)
This guy isn't worth the first of any decent homo sapiens two cents!

 I beg of you all, let Dave die the miserable, lonely troll's death he deserves!  Not one lurker is ever going to be persuaded by his drooling lies and Xian faux-frindliness.


Easy there fella!  As a (mostly) lurker, I can certainly agree with this sentiment.  However, if you take Dave seriously, you'll most likely go insane or be filled with revulsion!  His value lies (aptly) in taking him humorously.  How could anyone be so astoundingly, moronically, and irrationally stupid?  And all in the name of some magic sky-pixie dictator fantasy worship?!?!?  It boggles the mind!  You simply can't script this kind of humor.

Back in the 80's I used to watch televangelists just for laughs.  I found most of them to be hilariously funny.  Unfortunately, I don't have cable now so don't get to see much of them.  And, not surprisingly, Dave has taken their place for me in the humor department.  So I say let him drool and distort and wiggle and twist.  He's a great example of why I would never freely choose to be religious, in general, or Christian, in particular. Yes, he can be trying at times, but generally, I love the laughs.  I also appreciate the wit, humor, and knowledge of those who engage him on a regular basis.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,07:56   

Bwhahahahahahahahaha

hehehehehehehe.


Quote
Quote  by lies for kids AFD
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  



AFD you lying piece of ****.


You hold all evidence in total contempt,

You are pathologically incapable of accepting the rules of evidence.

If you were in a court you would be put away for contempt, for being the recalcitrant liar you are.

You and your fellow blow hard scam artists aka creationists, reduce your religion to nothing more than an ignorance peddling criminal activity.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,09:04   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:09)
... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

After having read about 150 pages of the previous thread, I assure you that you are in no position to be able to do this.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,09:12   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.

Super.  Then how long does, say, a quartz crystal take to form?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,10:53   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16)
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.

I thought I'd take this opportunity to show, once again, how much of a liar Dave really is. He claims to have already covered these 20 topics. I've already shown he hasn't even begun to prove any of these assertions, or even present any evidence for them, but I thought I'd show how much of a liar is with one of them in more detail.

As I stated earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread, but it's hard to prove a negative without posting all 20-some megabytes of the entire thread. But I can provide affirmative evidence that dave is lying when he says "No one has ever showed [sic] me how the LCA [of humans, chimps, and gorillas] of 8 my was arrived at."

In other words, Dave claims he hasn't been shown any evidence for the assertion that humans, chimps, and gorillas have a common ancestor. Now, if he'd said he didn't believe that evidence, that would be one thing. But let's see what incorygible had to say on the subject back in May, in a post that I think deserved something along the lines of talk.origins "post of the month" award:

 
Quote
Dave, while you're parsing the sequence similarities between chimps, humans and gorillas, I have this nagging fear that once again you're going to miss the point.  Those similarities are interesting, but they aren't as relevant as this is going to be.  (I nevertheless eagerly await your response.)

In the meantime, please pay attention to this post.  It’s going to be long, but I’m really going to try to meet you halfway.  It is often said by some overzealous "evolutionists" that Creationism makes no testable predictions.  While this is often true (“goddidit” predicts nothing), it is by no means universal: there are many places where Creationists say “goddiditthisway”.  We’re going to talk about one of those.  The age of the earth is another great example yet to come, but we’re going to talk about the relationship between humans and (other) apes.  We’re going to assume that your theory (I’ll bite the bullet and avoid the scare-quotes) is, as you have claimed many times, “just as good” as ours.  We’re going to use our respective theories to make predictions.  You game?

A few notes before we begin:  When I make predictions on your behalf regarding Creation theory, I will disregard age of the earth, resulting rates of mutation, etc., and assume only the following (correct me if I’m wrong on either): (1) God originally created a human kind and an ape kind, the latter of which includes gorillas and chimpanzees; and (2) DNA is a valuable tool for examining and comparing exactly how God designed his creations.  Are you okay with those?  I will use parentheses to denote phylogenies, with H=humans, C=chimpanzees, G=gorillas.  For example, (H(CG)) represents a phylogeny where chimps and gorillas are most similar and humans are an outgroup, whereas (G(HC)) represents a phylogeny where humans and chimps are most similar and gorillas are an outgroup.  Finally, note that when we talk about frequencies of predicted phylogenies below, these are the percentages of sequences for which two species are predicted to be more closely related than the third.  These percentages are not the same as actual sequence similarity.  In other words, don’t get confused with the percentages below and the percentage sequence similarities in my earlier post – they’re related, in that the percentages we’re talking about here reflect how often chimps are more similar to gorillas, etc., but they are not the same thing.

All good?  Away we go.

Let’s assume it is 1985, and you and I are in a coffee shop having a congenial scientific discussion about the new-fangled genetic technology that is just being developed (and won’t really come into its own for another 10-20 years or so).  We’ve been over the same old ground many times about your Creation theory and my theory of evolution, including why you distrust dating methods, why you distrust the fossil record, etc.  These are accepted areas of disagreement.  Today (1985), we’re going to use our theories to predict what genetics will reveal about the relationships between humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Specifically, we’re interested in novel mutations.  We both believe these are random changes in the genome.  I think they are responsible (along with natural selection and a host of other mechanisms) for the diversity of life on earth, whereas you think they reflect degeneration of God’s Creation since the Fall.  This disagreement in views won’t matter.  Since we only have the back of the envelope, we’re going to simplify mutation as completely random changes in any sequence of DNA that occur at the same rate in each of our three species.  We’re going to assume that the rate at which these random novel mutations accumulate is dependent only upon time, but we’re going to keep time relative (so as to avoid that whole millions vs. thousands of years problem).

We start with a few null hypotheses that neither of us believes.  We believe genetics will reveal some sort of phylogenetic relationship (as opposed to none, or a purely random relationship).  For example, from the evolutionary perspective, if humans, chimps and gorillas were unrelated, or if they diverged from a common ancestor at the exact same time, I might predict that when we look at their genomes, 1/3 of my predicted phylogenies would be (H(CG)), 1/3 would be (C(HG)), and 1/3 would be (G(CH)).  However, the fossil record gives me good reason not to believe the null hypothesis (which doesn’t mean we don’t check it!.  Similarly, from a Creationist perspective, if humans, chimps and gorillas were created as separate kinds, you might predict the same 1/3 for each phylogeny.  However, you believe chimps and gorillas were created as part of a single “ape” kind, and even if they weren’t, you might predict “common design” to create the appearance of relationships that would refute the null hypothesis.

So I start with my Theory of Evolution prediction, based on what we know of the fossil record in 1985 (the timelines have changed a bit since then).

Predicted initial conditions:  Humans, chimps and gorillas shared a common ancestor as recent as approximately 8 million years ago.  From that LCA (8 mya), the gorillas diverged from the line that would eventually become both humans and chimps.  Humans and chimps themselves diverged about 5 million years ago.

Predicted genetic relationships:  If we assume random, time-based mutations occurring independently in each line, then we can expect that each of the three phylogenies may be produced, depending on the sequence we are looking at.  For example, if a novel mutation in a given sequence occurs independently in the human line, than phylogenies based on that sequence will group chimps and gorillas: (H(CG)).  If the mutation occurs in the gorilla line, the sequence will group humans and chimps (G(CH)).  However, we should be able to roughly estimate the frequencies at which these predicted phylogenies will occur, based on the ancestry pattern found in the fossil record and the relative timeframes for each lineage to mutate.

As in our null hypotheses, if they all diverged from the LCA at the same time, we would predict a 33% occurrence of each "tree".  However, I believe they diverged in the manner and times above.  Chimps and humans shared a lineage for 3 million of the 8 million total years, and this would tend to increase the frequency of (G(HC)) phylogenies by an amount we can estimate.  I therefore predict the following frequency of phylogenies:

(G(HC)) = 39% (from independent mutations in the gorilla line: 0.5*(3/8)+0.33*(5/8)) + 19% (from accumulation of mutations in the shared human-chimp line: 0.5*(3/8) = 58%

(C(HG)) = 21% (from independent mutations in the chimp line: 0.33*(5/8))

(H(CG)) = 21% (from independent mutations in the human line: 0.33*(5/8))

So I predict 58% of the sequences we look at will group humans and chimps as closer to each other than to gorillas, 21% will group humans and gorillas as closer to each other than to chimps, and 21% will group chimps and gorillas as closer to each other than to humans.

You then counter with Creationist Theory.

Initial conditions: the human kind and the ape kind were separately created, and never shared a common ancestor.  Already we’re in trouble, because we have no information on the genome of those two ancestral kinds.  We have reason to suspect they were similar (common design, like Escorts and Tauri in 1985), but we don’t know how similar.  We can’t do the same kind of relative calculations that I did by assuming one common ancestor (which do not require knowledge of its actual genome, just that it was shared).  However, we do know that any differences between these two ancestral kinds should inflate the frequency of (H(CG)) phylogenies predicted.  So right from the initial conditions, you predict that, when we look at a lot of genes to get overall frequencies, the predicted frequency of the relationship (H(CG)) will be greater than 33%.

Creationist Prediction:  We don’t have any information on when (relative to initial Creation – actual years don’t matter for this) chimpanzees and gorillas diverged via “microevolution” (changes within a Created kind).  However, we know it was some time since the Fall.  Without relative time-spans like I had, we can’t do similar estimates like I did, but we can predict that the shared ancestry of chimps and gorillas prior to divergence will increase the frequencies of (H(CG)) even further (as it did for the (G(HC)) phylogenies in my example).

So you end up predicting that more than (far more than?) 33% of sequences we look at will group chimps and gorillas as closer to each other than to humans, less than 33% of sequences will group humans and gorillas as closer to each other than to chimps, and less than 33% of sequences will group humans and chimps as closer to each other than to gorillas.

So, armed with our predictions, we meet back up in a bar 20 years later to discuss the results.  I bring along some papers from the prolific new genetics literature.  Specifically, I show you the following:

Satta, Y., J. Klein, and N. Takahata. 2000. DNA archives and our nearest relative: the trichotomy problem revisited. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 14:259–275.

Chen, F.-C., and W.-H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergence between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68:444–456.

O’hUigin, C., Y. Satta, N. Takahata, and J. Klein. 2002. Contribution of homoplasy and of ancestral polymorphism to the evolution of genes in anthropoid primates. Mol. Biol.
Evol. 19:1501–1513.

Kitano et al. 2004. Human-Specific Amino Acid Changes Found in 103 Protein-Coding Genes. Mol. Biol. Evol.:936-944.

Combined, these studies examined hundreds of sequences for their predicted phylogenies.  Each one found that, on average, approximately 60% of these sequences predicted the (G(HC)) tree (i.e., humans and chimps closer to each other than to gorillas), and the remaining 40% predicted the remaining two trees in roughly equal frequencies (i.e., humans and gorillas closer to each other than to chimps, and chimps and gorillas closer to each other than to humans).  (You can look this up if you don’t believe me Dave – I’m more than halfway here.)

I order you a double scotch (you’re gonna need it! as we pull out the faded napkin and look at our predictions.

If you’re still with me, here’s the pop quiz:

What did Creation theory predict?

What did the ToE predict?

What did we actually see?


So, Dave—still saying it's ridiculous to claim that apes and humans have a common ancestor? Or that no one showed you how a date of 8 mya was arrived at?

Of course, on one level it is absurd to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor, because humans are apes. But I can fix that by asserting that humans and other apes have a common ancestor. I know saying that makes Dave's blood boil, but that's why it's so much fun to say it!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,12:32   

I notice that AFDave's posts are a bit more shrill and contain a bit less truthiness.  I think this little exchange is going on in the background (a la Top Gun).
Quote
Kids4Truth: “WHAT? WHERE'RE YOU--HEY, WHY THE HECK DON’T YOU POST?”

AFDave: “MY ARGUMENT DIDN'T ... AHHH...LOOK GOOD.”

Kids4Truth: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT DOESN'T GET TO LOOK MUCH BETTER THAN THAT?”

AFDave: “NO. NO GOOD.”


{Later at the water cooler…}
Ken Ham walks up to Andrew Snelling who waits near a Piltdown Man replica.

A. Snelling: “He just won't engage. He can't do it, Skipper. He can't get back on the horse.”

K. Ham: “It's only been a day. Keep sending him our reports.”

A. Snelling: “I've seen this before.”

K. Ham: “So have I.”

A. Snelling: “Some guys never get their cognitive dissonance back.”

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,15:02   

Dave, a couple of posts ago I asked you to present evidence for the outlets of the "fountains of the deep" water that produced your flood. I said that in the last 4,500 years they should not have eroded very much, and should be easy to locate.

So where are they?

4,500 years ago isn't very long ago, and these suckers should be huge to have disgorged several hundred million cubic kilometers of water in a matter of a few hours, according to Walt Brown.

So where are they?

By way of contrast, Dave, the Chicxulub crater dates to 65 million years ago, and it's underwater, but it took less than 10 years of looking to locate it.

And by the way, here's a list of evidence for the impact:

   
Quote

  • The iridium excess in the 65 My-old soil layer has been confirmed at many points around the world.
  • The same soil layer contains grains of quartz that were deformed by high shock pressures, as would occur in a giant explosion. (The deformation is a microscopic structure called "twinning," in the crystals).
  • The same soil layer contains enough soot to correspond to burning down all of the forests of the world. This suggests that massive fires were touched off at the time of impact.
  • The same soil layer, especially around the Gulf of Mexico, contains massive deposits of tumbled boulders, as would be generated in a large tsunami, or "tidal wave." The geographic distribution of tsunami deposits suggest the impact was in the Caribbean area.
  • After a decade of searching, scientists in 1990 identified the crater associated with this material. It is no longer visible on the surface of the Earth, but is buried under sediments. It straddles the coast of Yucatan. It is revealed by mapping the strength of the gravity field over that area, and by drilling; it has been dated to 65 My old.
  • Astronomers have charted numerous asteroids that cross Earth's orbit. From studies of orbit statistics, it is estimated that asteroids of 10 km size can hit the earth roughly every 100 My or so -- which fits with the idea that we actually did get hit 65 My ago by an object this size. (Smaller hits are much more common).


And just so you know, Dave: that list is an example of what "evidence" looks like. You know, that thing you've been unable to provide in support of your "hypothesis" for the past five months? Now, I'm sure you'll disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but you cannot deny that evidence has, in fact, been supplied. This stands in stark contrast to your inability to provide any evidence whatsoever for a flood, or a young earth, or indeed any other assertion you've made, that isn't far, far better explained by alternative theories.

But let's not get sidetracked here: WHERE ARE THE OUTLETS FOR THE "FOUNTAINS OF THE DEEP," Dave?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,15:52   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 24 2006,16:53)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16))
I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)

As I stated earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread

He did write that his pathetic atttempt at refutation is not in this thread, it's supposedly in AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,16:59   

Quote (JonF @ Sep. 24 2006,20:52)
 
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 24 2006,16:53)
   
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16))
I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)

As I stated earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread

He did write that his pathetic atttempt at refutation is not in this thread, it's supposedly in AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him.

Yeah, I found it. It's your typical argument from incredulity. Dave himself doesn't find the evidence that whales are descended from land mammals persuasive, based on his extensive background in paleontology, comparative anatomy, and cladistics.

He sure convinced me. I'd certainly expect an undergraduate EE to be able to look at web graphics depicting fossilized remains and determine cladistic relationships from them.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,17:13   

AFDave,
Let's kick it up a notch and start putting some of the pieces of the sciences together to get a clearer picture of what is going on in Isochrons.

You accept the science of crystalization.  
Quote
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably,{snip}
I asked this question because I wanted a baseline of agreement for our discussion.

I'm going to use an example at University of Wisconsin-River Falls Dept. of Planet and Earth Sciences.  Nothing special about this selection, just near the top of the Google search for "Olivine mineral formation".  One member of the faculty is a PhD of geology in the department.  Who he is doesn't matter for my point, BUT he has co-authored an article about the subject we are talking about, BUT we won't discuss ages or time just yet.  I'm just showing that this particular reference is valid to our discussion.              
Quote
{snip}, 1976, "Rb-Sr Geochronology of Granite Gneiss from Horse Creek, Tobacco Root Mountains of Montana", Geochron West, Summer, p. 49.

The department has catalogued a lot of Wisconsin minerals but I want to point to Olivine specifically since this mineral is found in magmas AND in chondritic meteorites (remember the Minster graph?).  The Olivine page lists the identified locations of Olivine found in Wisconsin.  The entries are by county and indicate platte map references for location so any other geologist who is searching for this particular mineral can "find it quite easily" (a relative statement I'm sure). Notice that the Olivine page (and the other mineral pages) don't mention age or time, only location and geographic structure.  The site also has a bibliography of numerous references here, here, and here.

The Olivine page also has this heading: OLIVINE (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 Orthorhombic.  Ignore the chemical formulae for now, we can get to that later.  However, notice the "Orthorhomibic" entry because this describes the crystal structure of Olivine.  In fact, almost all the entries in the list of minerals have a heading with a specified crystal structure of the mineral.

So.... Olivine is a crystaline mineral with orthorhombic structure found in numerous places in Wisconsin and catalogued extensively.  Nothing hypothetical about this information that I can see.  I'm going to end my boring entry right now since there is enough corroberrated information above to ask a NOT-SO-STUPID question.

AFDave,
Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?


If we can agree on the structural mechanics of Olivine then we can start on the chemistry.  Are you still game to continue with discussing Isochrons?
Mike PSS

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,17:53   

Oi, man. I hadn't read all of Stupid's "AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution " thread before...hah, he started out there just as arrogant and stupid as he did on the original thread of this. And got slapped around just as easily.
In particular, this claim set me laughing:
Quote
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Bwahaha. He abandoned that crap as soon as he could, after getting batted around like a pinata--he can't even claim a shred of "scientific" evidence at all, since his hypothesis isn't falsifiable and isn't science. What a wanker. I'll be glad when one of his kids grows up and learns enough to spit in his smug, stupid face (metaphorically speaking, of course, hahaha). $500 bets on "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French"...hahahaha, oh, man. That's almost as funny as him getting caught lying so many times. And quote-mining. And changing his claims. And running from data. And faking "data."
AirHeadDave is clear proof that being a creationist means you HAVE to lie -- he has no other option.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,18:38   

Quote
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,18:56   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

   
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

Paley, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for the Sun revolving around the Earth and a 6,000 year old universe. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,02:45   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,00:38)
   
Quote
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?

What I have found so interesting in this thread is how our resident YEC has tried to use the "paragons of YEC" at AIG and ICR to support his arguments yet someone like myself with an undergrad education and some time in my field can overcome these arguments with LITTLE effort.  Some critical analysis of the YEC papers is all you need to shoot down their claims.

In AFDave's present train wreck called Isochrons I'm not even trying hard to find references or facts to support my claims, yet what little I find and use is damning to AFDave's argument.

C'mon Dave!
Give us something tough!
Your wrong about Isochrons!
Post some more evidence from many different disciplines!


Mike PSS

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,03:44   

Mike PSS

Right now lies 4 kids AFD is in the middle of compiling one of his long screeds of utter vomit.

Like the mythical Cyclops he believes he is a giant among men, even though he is half blind and easily fooled.

AFD thrives on the energy of others, he literally craves to be told he is a lying, contempable arsehole.

Evidence? You will never get any from him, lies yes.

Now back to our reularly scheduled program.

Take it away..... lies 4 kids AFD.......

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,04:27   

Thanks for the legwork (and kind words) in digging up that post, Eric.  However, since that whole exercise started from an LCA estimated at 8 mya, and Dave has (for four months now) tried to weasel out of the questions posed in that post with his, "You never told me where you got 8 mya" (as if that was particularly relevant to the qualitative issue at hand), I will follow with a simple demonstration of how egregiously Dave is lying in his #2.

First, let's restate Dave's claim from September 23:

 
Quote
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.


Eric posts a response of mine to the first part. (I'll also refer to this post, which details genetic differences between humans and other apes, and was the source of the infamous "all you've got is 1%?!" argument.) As for Dave's second claim (and when humans and other apes diverged from a common ancestor is most definitely a secondary question Dave wants to distract us with, as opposed to the primary fact that they did), I submit the following:

First, my post on May 27 probably provided sufficient documentation for my methods to at least back down on any "how did you get THAT value" claim:

 
Quote
Dave, are you engaging?  This must be some kind of trick!  I wasn't going to reply further, but this is a fair question.  Unfortunately, I can only give you a general answer at the moment.

To get my estimates from the fossil record (and I should have been more accurate and said anything "non-genetic"), I initially searched ISI Web of Science abstracts from 1976-1985.  Unfortunately, I couldn't immediately find the information I was looking for in the abstracts themselves with a few quick search strings.  Online publication access doesn't generally go back that far (so I couldn't read the full papers I wanted to read), and you'll forgive me if I wasn't about to take any more time away from my actual work to trek across campus to the stacks.  Luckily, our lab library has a dusty shelf of old texts on human evolution (everything from Louis Leaky to Desmond Morris).  I picked an old physical anthropology textbook off the shelf (looked to be for an old undergrad course).  If I recall correctly, it was a 2nd edition published in 1987, which I figured was close enough.  I know the simplified numbers I used were the midpoints of ranges (4-6 mya and 5-10 mya, IIRC).  However, for the exact bibliographic information, you'll have to wait until I'm actually back in the lab (middle of next week) and get a chance to look it up again.  Okay?

In the meantime, maybe you could start on explaining why the Creation Theory prediction was QUALITATIVELY wrong?

Thanks.

Edit: Also, Dave, please keep in mind that I know those numbers have changed (and say so in my original post).  For example, Dawkins (2004) gives 6 mya for chimps and 7 mya for gorillas, which would have made the numbers match up less well.  What actually matters isn't the mya, but the time shared vs. time separate.  For example, 3/8 shared (HC) that I used in our back-of-the-envelope calculation, vs. 1/7 shared (HC) that I would use if I started from Dawkins.  So the value of the numbers I arrived at, while remarkably close to the genetic data, is probably just a coincidence, and could easily have been different (and I am well aware of this).  So fun as it was to think that, if I had that textbook in '85 and had made my prediction, I would have been bang-on, this isn't really the point (kind of a fluke).  The point is that evolutionary theory points us in the right direction (and gets us pretty close), and creation theory points us in the wrong direction.  I'd be grateful if you could address that.  Thanks.


However, were that not sufficient, my post on May 29 answered his question fully (in more than enough detail for anyone honest to abandon claims that it had not been answered):

 
Quote
FYI (the source of my info in the little prediction exercise):

Lewin, R. 1984. Human Evolution: an illustrated introduction. Freeman, New York.

Stein, P.L. and Rowe, B.M. 1989. Physical Anthropology (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill , New York.

The Lewin text provides some good estimates of time bp (including the 5-10 and 4-6 that I ended up using), whereas Stein and Rowe further review fossil finds, comparative morphology, early protein sequence data, etc., and provide a series of (sometimes conflicting and often uncertain) dates (e.g., compare chapters 13 and 14), including those above).  Interestingly, back then, the timeline with gorillas splitting off earlier was the new kid on the block in the marketplace of ideas, though I get the feeling it had more traction in the primary literature than in undergrad texts.  Stein and Rowe still seemed to settle on placing gorillas in Panidae with chimps, but highlighted this was questionable.  Lewin's second edition (1989) is updated to less equivocally show the gorillas branching off first.

In framing my prediction, I ran with this "new" perspective (I could be accused of employing the benefit of hindsight, to be sure, but it beats wilfull blindness).  I suppose I could have gone with the old timeline (or the general uncertainty at the time), and run into the same problem as Dave's CGH (i.e., predicting more similarity between gorillas and chimps, or no definitive prediction at all).  Of course, in our little scenario, I would have revised that theory when the data came in (just as the field actually did -- hello, science!;), while the baraminology sect would continue to hide, deny and obfuscate their little "theory" right up until now.

Anyhow, as only one key participant in this discussion seems to have missed (thereby exhausting my patience), the key point relevant to this thread is NOT that evolutionary science at the time generated the right prediction (though it very well might have, and it was fun to try) -- it could have been wrong, but eventually revised to accomodate the new data.  The point, which you all know already, and which remains completely unaddressed by its proponent, is that a definitive prediction of the "CGH" is dead wrong.

I'll let others show why what is perhaps the most important prediction (i.e., a 6,000-year-old universe) is similarly out to lunch.


Dave, you have been lying about this for 4 months now.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,05:00   

Hmm, I forgot there was more, back when Dave first started claiming he was never told how the African ape LCA was determined.

On June 7, I post a further reply:

Quote
Quote (afdave @ June 12 2006,09:21)
I will say to Incorygible that I am still waiting to hear why you think it is valid to say that gorillas diverged at 8mya and chimps and humans diverged at 5mya.  I know you read it in a textbook, but my questions was, 'Why did the textbook think this is valid?  What is the basis for saying this?'

That would be as easy as reading my answers and checking the references, wouldn't it?  Lewin (1989; Chapter 3: Historical Views) gives a detailed history of scientific thought on human-ape relationships between the 1890s and the present.  He covers fossil hominid discoveries, early protein comparisons, etc., and the dates they suggested for branching in the ape lineage.  This includes the earlier and longer-held notion that chimps were closer to gorillas, and why this was overturned.  If you want even more details on some of this evidence, I provided you with a good reference (Stein and Rowe 1989) and relevant chapters.

Now, rather than implying that I don't answer your questions because I'm not spoonfeeding you dozens of pages of text, how about answering the one big question I posed to you many times regarding why your "Creator God Hypothesis" doesn't match the data?  This has nothing to do with what evoltuionary theory says and why.  Whether you view the "1%" as important or not, it is clear that the differences between us and chimps are smaller than your proposed "microevolutionary" variation within the "ape kind" (chimps and gorillas, plus we haven't even touched orangutans, which you would group in the ape kind, but have been known to be a significantly different outgroup since the 1920s).  Why do your Creator's code and the fossils of His Flood so strongly suggest to us that humans are just another ape, contrary to His book?


And then, after he persisted, on June 21, I painstakingly typed out a key chunk of the book I was using in an effort to finally put this "how did you get the 8 my" lie to rest:

Quote
Quote (afdave @ June 21 2006,11:21)
No conspiracy.  Just a rather arrogant consensus that the Bible is a fairy tale and anything that sound 'Biblical" or 'religious' is pretty much ignored with no investigation.

You're wrong, Dave.  You're not the first to use the Bible as a source of hypotheses.  It's been used in exactly that fashion for two thousand years.  Caused no small degree of consternation when those hypotheses didn't pan out.  Where the Bible matches the evidence (e.g., history), it remains a source of information.  Where it doesn't (e.g., science), there's not much left to investigate.  And "arrogance" is an interesting characterization by somebody with such lofty opinion of his own faith and knowledge that he's willing to discount practically every biologist, physicist, and geologist on the planet.

Quote
You keep repeating this, but why?  My question is why?  Why the millions of years?  Do you have some math formula or something?  Or is it just a regression of 'this book quotes this other book which quotes this other book which quotes this other book' etc. etc. all the way back to Darwin or somebody?  Who put it in print first in modern times that apes and humans had a common ancestor several mya?  And why did they say this?  That's what I am trying to get you to tell me.


Why, Dave?  Why?  I repeat it because it illustrates the difference between your worldview and mine, and the projections you make.  You are so confident in revelation without method, assertion without evidence, and knowledge without information that you assume that's where my "belief" comes from.  You really think we can trace scientific understanding of life and the universe back to the pronouncements of some prophet on a mountain top, analogous to the source of your knowledge.  Yes, Dave, books quote other books.  They summarize them, answering the "why" on one level.  If you want more, you go to those other books.  But if you really think all of evolutionary theory (or even just the phylogeny of the great apes) reduces to "who put it in print first", you just don't get it.

But to answer your simple (and rather irrelevant) question: "Who put in print first in modern times that apes and humans had a common ancestor several mya? And why did they say this?"

Once again, I will refer you to that Lewin book you said you read, specifically Chapter 3 "Historical Views", which I referenced for you:

"During the past century, the issue of our relatedness to the apes has gone full cycle.  From the time of Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel until soon after the turn of the centruy, humans' closeses relatives were regardes as being the African apes, the chimpanzee and gorilla, with the Asian great ape, the orangutan, being considered to be somewhat separate. Then, from the 1920s until the 1960s, humans were distanced from the great apes, which were said to be an evolutionarily closely-knit group. Since the 1960s, however, conventional wisdom has returned to its Darwinian cast."

...
[skip 2 pages of description regarding the players and positions in the first half of the 20th century]
...

"During the 1950s and 1960s, fossil evidence of early apes accumulated at a significant rate, and it seemed to show that these creatures were not simply early versions of modern apes, as had been tacitly assumed. This meant that those authorities who accpeted an evolutionary link between humans and apes, but did not accept a close human/African ape link, did not now have to go way back in the history of the group to 'avoid' the specialization of the modern species. At the same time, those who insisted that the similarities between African apes and humans were the result of common heritage, not parallel evolution, were forced to argue for a very recent origin of the human line. Prominent among proponents of this latter argument was Sherwood Washburn, of the University of California, berkeley.

"One of the fossil discoveries of the 1960s -- in fact, a rediscovery -- that appeared to confirm the notion of parallel evolution to explain human/African ape similarities was made by Elwyn Simons, then of Yale University. Ramapithecus was the fossil specimen, an apelike creature that lived in Eurasia about 15 million years ago and appeared to share many anatomical features (in the teeth and jaws) with hominids.  Simons, later supported closely by David Pilbeam, proposed Ramapithecus as the beginning of the hominid line, thus excluding a human/African ape connection.

"Arguments about the relatedness between humans and African apes took place against a rethinking about the relatedness among the apes themselves. In 1927, G.E. Pilgrim had suggested that the great apes be treated as a natural group, with humans evolutionarily more distant. The idea eventually became popular, and was the accepted wisdom until molecular biological evidence undermined it in 1963, the work of Morris Goodman at Wayne State University. Goodman's molecular biology on blood proteins indicated that humans and the African apes formed a natural group, with the orangutan more distant.

"Thus, the Darwin/Huxley/Haeckel position was reinstated, with first Gregory and then Washburn its champions. Subsequent molecular biological -- and fossil -- evidence seems to confrim Washburn's original suggestion that the origin of the human line is indeed recent, lying between 5 and 10 million years ago. Ramapithecus was no longer regarded as the first hominid, but simply one of many early apes."

...
[skip a few pages discussion of more recent fossil hominids, too use, etc.,  not to mention historical phylogenetic trees showing the perceived evolutionary relationships between men and apes, including a 1927 version with "negroes" and "negroids" divering not long after Neanderthal]
...

"During the past decade, not only has there been an appreication of a spectrum of hominid adaptations -- which includes the notion simply of a bipedal ape -- but the lineage that eventually led to Homo sapiens has come to be perceived as much less human. Gone is the notion of a scaled-down version of a modern hunter-gatherer way of life. In its place has appeared a rather unusual African ape adopting some novel, un-apelike modes of subsistence.

"Hominid origins are thereforenow completely divorced from any notion of human origins. Questions about the beginning of the hominid lineage are now firmly within the territory of behavioral ecology, and do not draw upon those qualities that we might perceive as separating us from the rest of animate nature. [HINT: These are "qualities" like writing, SATs, and table manners, Dave]  Questions of human origins have now to be posed within the context of primate biology."

...
[Exit the chapter on Historical Perspectives demonstrating that there was NO pronouncement by any patriarchal authority, but that thought developed, changed, and changed back more than once as the evidence appeared.  Turn to Chapter 9 on Molecular Perspectives, which describes dated fossil finds and DNA data.]
...

"The shape of the hominoid tree according to the molecular evidence available in the early 1980s was therefore as follows: gibbons split away first, about 20 million years ago; orangutans next, about 15 million years ago; leaving humans, chimpanzees and gorillas in an unresolved three-way split, close to 5 million years ago. A three-way split of a lineage is biologically unlikely, and in this case it meant that the timing of the different divergences was so tightly bunched that none of the techniques was able to prise it apart with any confidence.

"Meanwhile, most morphologists had since the 1960s accepted the notion of a human/African ape clade, with an African ape clade existing within that. The expectation among molecular biologists, therefore, was that their data would confirm this pattern. showing that the common ancestor of humans and the African apes diverged to produce the human lineage on the one hand and an African ape lineage on the other, which then subsequently split to produce gorillas and chimpanzees.

[WOW, eh Dave? In the early 1980s, they were still expecting chimps to be closer to gorillas.  Do you think a certain amount of your "I wouldn't invite a chimp to dinner" thinking led to that expectation?  Kinda different then your idea that we have an innate, arrogant urge to convince everyone he's a monkey, eh?]

"It was therefore something of a surprise when, in 1984, Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist, then of Yale University, published data on DNA-DNA hybridization that strongly implied that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Gorillas evolved from the human/African ape common ancestor between 8 and 10 million years ago, they concluded, leaving humans and chimpanzees briefly sharing a common ancestory of their own, and splitting at between 6.3 and 7.7 million years ago."

Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
               Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5

Then we have a tree, with Time -- Millions of years, illustrating:

Chimpanzee/Human: 5.5-7.7
Chimp/Human/Gorilla: 7.7-11.0
C/H/G/Orangutan: 12.2-17.0
C/H/G/O/Gibbon: 16.4-23

So, your question of how I arrived at my 1985 prediction, way back when?  Simple.  By 1985, molecular and fossil data had converged on a split between humans and other apes (i.e., chimps) at 5 million years ago (the number I used).  The gorilla estimate from 1989 was 7.7-11.0, but this included some of the new DNA techniques that we were supposed to be "predicting".  So I went with a ballpark around 8 mya, which was the upper end of the 5-8 mya range of the "convergence" between fossils and "molecules", nicely "between 5 and 15, but closer to 5" from early 1980s fossil discoveries, the lower end of the 8-10 mya range from the first 1984 foray into DNA technology (which I would have been rightly skeptical of, but intrigued, in 1985), and closest to the 5 mya for the "three-way-split" from established molecular studies.

That's where I got my dates for in my silly (but fun) little hypothetical exercise, Dave.  Don't you wish you could give an answer like that for your own arguments?  Something other than "it's obvious" or "imagine you went to dinner/bed/school with a chimp"?  Ever?


If this doesn't elevate Dave's lie from egregious to unequivocally sinful, I don't know what would. You are an evil liar, Dave.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,05:57   

You know, the interesting thing about Dave's take on all this is that he makes a big deal (one might say a huge deal) out of the fact that science cannot develop an irrefutable proof that, e.g., humans are more closely related to chimps than either is to gorillas, or that the universe is 13.7 by old. He's right about that; there are no such irrefutable proofs.

But what's the standard he holds the Bible up to in terms of "irrefutable proofs" of its inerrancy? Well, that's hard to say, because Dave has in fact admitted two things: 1) that no Bible he has ever read or even heard about is actually inerrant; and 2) although he's sure there used to be a version of the Bible that was the inerrant word of God, he's never read or even heard about such a version.

So on the one hand, Dave claims he believes the Bible is inerrant because of "the overwhelming amount of evidence" supporting such a belief. But when pressed to provide such evidence, he has come up empty-handed every single time.

And on the other hand, Dave admits that no currently-existing Bible actually is inerrant! Moreover, he admits he has never read an inerrant version of the Bible, and therefore has no way of knowing (other than by reference to non-existent evidence) which parts of the Bible are correct and which are not. Improvious asked Dave yesterday how he knows which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, and which are merely "figures of speech." It would be interesting to see how Dave would answer that question, if there was a chance he ever would.

So, on the one hand, Dave wants absolute proof of any assertion made by science, but on the other, doesn't seem to need any sort of proof, or even evidence, at all for an assertion made by the Bible. So much for his claims to be a "skeptic," or "scientific," or even honest.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,06:03   

LINK TO THE ORIGINAL "AFDAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS"

(Otherwise known as "The Greatest Thread of All Time")

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=13064

I see that the original thread is slipping into oblivion, so unless there is some other way to keep it readily available, I will just repost this link in this thread periodically.  I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.

If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.

More soon!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,06:57   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,12:03)
I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.

Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.  None of those embarrasing questions that you can't answer will show up on your blog, will they, Davie-doofus?  No questions about the pattern of grass and fern pollen in the geological column, the pattern of dolphin and plesiosaur fossils in the geological column, the pattern of concordance of radiometric dates, the falsification of your claim that whole-rock isochrons that don't result from mixing must be a single point, and on and on and on and on and on ...
Quote
If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.

I have both an HTML and PDF version with no images that load pretty quickly and search fast (1:15 from the beginning for a four-word phrase found only at the end); the load and search times are comparable to Notepad on a text-only version, and I'm loading full-bore Acrobat (not the reader).  Of course, the PDF and HTML versions are preferable to text 'cause you can set up links directly to appropriate messages with the "Permalink" link. (I know Davie-doodles couldn't stand claiming he's answered a question in the other thread without providing a link to exactly where he answered the question.) I'll make 'em available soon, but right now the FTP is gebroken 'cause my domain name expired yesterday with no reminder or even transmission of the invoice they generated on 8/19.  Grrrr!!
Quote

More soon!

Looking forward to your respoinse to Mike PSS on crystallization, and your response to me on the patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and radiometric dating concordance.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,07:31   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,11:03)
LINK TO THE ORIGINAL "AFDAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS"

(Otherwise known as "The Greatest Thread of All Time")

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=13064

I see that the original thread is slipping into oblivion, so unless there is some other way to keep it readily available, I will just repost this link in this thread periodically.  I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.

If anyone comes up with a downloadable text only file, this would also be nice to have available.

More soon!

Dave, I dare you to allow others to post comments to your blog. When you say you'll post "selected material," I can only imagine how dishonestly you'll quote mine others (and even yourself!) on your blog.

Also, you're going to have to find some way to download the file yourself that involves miracles of some sort, because even as a text file with no images, the AFDUCG"H" thread is several tens of megabytes. I managed to do it, but it's way too big to e-mail; otherwise I'd just send it to you.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,07:37   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 25 2006,11:03)
I will also be taking selected material and posting it on my blog for permanent reference.

Might I suggest including my above selection of posts, Davey? After all, even my deficient atheistic morality ranks lying as a reprehensible act, and I have openly and publicly accused you of such, and documented the reason therefore. I know I would feel the need to respond to such charges.

You could title your post, "An Evolutionist Accuses Me of Lying!"

Then you would post your claim of 23 September:

Quote
No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.


Follow it with the four posts I quote above, in their entirety, with the permalinks to the time and date they were posted.

Then post my charge that you are lying here, including this challenge.

Now explain why my charge is false. Justify your claim that no one has ever provided you with an explanation for how the LCA date came to be. Don't waste time on why you don't believe that explanation -- that's not your claim as you've stated it for four months, and you have had plenty of time (and encouragment) to revise it accordingly into something that wasn't misleading and misrepresentative (read: a LIE).

C'mon, Dave. You believe you are being honest, right? So right on your blog, show the world how we evolutionists have laid heinous charges of dishonesty upon you without justification. Dare ya.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,09:20   

I'm actually hoping Dave does manage to obtain a searchable version of his AFDUCG"H" thread soon, so he'll be able to post what he supposes are his responses to the very large number of questions and objections to his "hypothesis." I think it will be intriguing to see what Dave sees as "answers" to those questions and objections.

Yesterday I gave Dave an example of what actual "evidence" in support of an assertion looks like (in the context of the Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico), so he should be able to compare that evidence to what he thinks is "evidence."

But I think Incorygible has pointed out a major misconception Dave has about how science works. Dave seems to be under the misapprehension that science works the same way Bible study works. He seems to think that if you trace back the foundation for an assertion such as "Humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor ~5 million years ago, and the common ancestor of humans and chimps diverged from the common ancestor of gorillas ~8 million years ago," you'll eventually just come to an unsupported assertion made by "some scientist." He doesn't seem to get that scientists are not in the business (generally) of making unsupported assertions, and that assertions such as that about humans, chimps, and gorillas is based on actual research and investigation, a concept that is foreign not just to Dave, but to creationists of all stripes.

Thus, when someone like Incorygible presents Dave with a big long list of citations to original research papers, Dave just assumes that those research papers just make bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Which, of course, is far from the case, because otherwise those papers would never get past peer-review, and even if they did, they'd be utterly demolished by other workers in the field, in a manner not dissimilar to the way Dave's unsubstantiated assertions are demolished here.

You just don't get science, Dave. You don't understand that the science paradigm is very different from your paradigm of reference to books that are just assumed, as a matter of faith, to be accurate.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,09:32   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,15:20)
Thus, when someone like Incorygible presents Dave with a big long list of citations to original research papers, Dave just assumes that those research papers just make bald, unsubstantiated assertions.

This first of which is, of course, "there is no God."

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,15:34   

Quote (doering @ May 2 2006,13:23)
There is nothing more "absolute" in human knowledge than technological proof, it is more certain than mathematical proof.

Nonsense

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,16:42   

Quote (Robert O'Brien @ Sep. 25 2006,20:34)
 
Quote (doering @ May 2 2006,13:23)
There is nothing more "absolute" in human knowledge than technological proof, it is more certain than mathematical proof.

Nonsense

Wrong.







(See, I can do O'Brienesque answers, too! )

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,03:50   

THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS

Now available at my blog site ...

http://airdave.blogspot.com

******************************************

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ON "DATING"

(All quotes are from the 2006 online edition)

ROCKS ARE "DATED" PRIMARILY BY FOSSILS AND BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
       
Quote
[DATING ...] in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
I said this long ago and was laughed at of course, but it is still true and here it is confirmed again.  After the "date" is "determined" from fossils, then it is "confirmed" or "calibrated" with RM dating if possible.  This is one of the biggests shams in science today, friends.

CHERRY PICKING CONFIRMED AGAIN: ONLY "CERTAIN" ROCKS
       
Quote
Rubidium–strontium (Rb–Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not. Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering. Similar studies have shown that the samarium–neodymium (Sm–Nd) parent–daughter pair is more resistant to secondary migration but that, in this instance, sufficient initial spread in the abundance of the parent isotope is difficult to achieve.[This is what JonF was griping at me about on the Snelling data...]
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?  We cannot claim to truly know the history of ANY rock.  The simple fact that we have to cherry pick certain rocks to get "acceptable" dates proves that the whole approach is worthless simply because it confirms that we really do not know the initial conditions and the histories of the rocks.  And we MUST know these things if RM dating is going to be valid.

RM DATING IS NOW "AS GOOD" AS FOSSIL "DATING."
Here's another quote I like ...        
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.
... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.  See?  "with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units restricted to the most recent 12% or so of geologic time."  IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.  That's because ...

1) FOSSILS ARE KING (and Evo assumptions with them)
2) FOSSILS VERIFY RM DATES (and determine which ones are "wrong" and "right")
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.

******************************************************

CONCORDANCE OBTAINED BY "PROCESSING" INDIVIDUAL GRAINS?"
Moving along through the "Dating" article from EB ... we see that U-Pb dating supposedly is superior to other dating methods ... then we read something rather surprising ...

       
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating > Uranium–lead method > Double uranium-lead chronometers

Figure 2: Concordia diagram.
From T.E. Krogh, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 46; © 1982 Pergamon Press
The reason why uranium–lead dating is superior to other methods is simple: there are two uranium–lead chronometers. Because there exist two radioactive uranium atoms (those of mass 235 and 238), two uranium–lead ages can be calculated for every analysis. The age results or equivalent daughter–parent ratio can then be plotted one against the other on a concordia diagram, as shown in Figure 2. If the point falls on the upper curve shown, the locus of identical ages, the result is said to be concordant, and a closed-system unequivocal age has been established. Any leakage of daughter isotopes from the system will cause the two ages calculated to differ, and data will plot below the curve. Because each of the daughters has a different half-life, early leakage will affect one system more than the other. Thus there is a built-in mechanism that can prove or disprove whether a valid age has been measured. Historically it had been observed that the uranium–lead systems in the mineral zircon from unmetamorphosed rocks were almost invariably disturbed or discordant but yielded a linear array on the concordia diagram. Given a set of variably disturbed samples, an extrapolation to zero disturbance was possible (see Figure 2). More recently, it has been found that of all the grains present in a rock a very few still retain closed isotopic systems but only in their interior parts. Thus grains with a diameter comparable to that of a human hair, selected under a microscope to be crack-free and of the highest possible quality, have been found to be more concordant than cracked grains. In addition, it has been shown that most such grains can be made much more concordant by mechanically removing their outer parts using an air-abrasion technique (upper points in Figure 2).
Now am I reading this right?  You're tellng me that we can pretty much pitch all the mineral isochrons done on individual grains because they are open systems?  We have to strip away the outer part of the grain in order for the "dating" to be concordant?

*******************************************************

STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.
Incorygible ... I had not seen this table before this thread ... I guess it got lost in the many paragraphs that you posted ...        
Quote
"It was therefore something of a surprise when, in 1984, Charles Sibley and Jon Ahlquist, then of Yale University, published data on DNA-DNA hybridization that strongly implied that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Gorillas evolved from the human/African ape common ancestor between 8 and 10 million years ago, they concluded, leaving humans and chimpanzees briefly sharing a common ancestory of their own, and splitting at between 6.3 and 7.7 million years ago."

Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
              Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5
This is very close to a good answer.  At least I see where you got your answer.  However, what I am looking for is HOW they arrive at these figures.  Best I can tell, they find a "homonoid" fossils, try to find some datable rock layers close to it, come up with many discordant dates, then throw out the ones that are not "correct" and keep the ones that are "correct."  This I learned from Koobi Fora.  Is that close?  It is interesting that the divergence date has changed from 30 my to 5-8.  Why? (I know that some book says so, but I really mean "why?" fundamentally).  As for the molecular evidence, how does this work?  What are the fundamental assumptions?  Is it that "neutral" mutations happen at such and such a rate and we observe 1.5% sequence differences b/t chimps and humans, for example?  Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?  What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?

*****************************************************

EVERYONE IS BIASED
JonF...        
Quote
Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.
What have we here?  You think my selection criteria is biased or something?  Well, guess what?  You're right!!  I am biased and guess what else?  EVERYONE is biased.  That's what I've been telling you for a long time.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,03:59   

Dammit, quit shouting. It's too early.

Quote
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.


Yes, it is.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,04:45   

geez AFD how long did that last bit of creo-crap take you?

You have made a mistake, let me correct it for you.

   
Quote
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL a fable, EYEWITNESS imagined HISTORY, A COMPILATION authored  BY  MOSES by unknown people based on Gilgamesh and other ancient Myths OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS ancient fireside pre-literate tales, passed down through oral tradition


....get it right AFD, like every other stupid ignorant thing you write, your carefully planned, but crude, lies unveil your god to be the god of contempt for Man's revealed knowledge.

Oh by the way AFD what's the fastest growing religious group in the USA?  ....Yes AFD.....Atheism.

You can take some of the credit for that AFD.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,05:00   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS

...except for when it's figurative.  How do you tell the difference, Dave?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,05:00   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2006,09:45)
Oh by the way AFD what's the fastest growing religious group in the USA?  ....Yes AFD.....Atheism.

You can take some of the credit for that AFD.

Weta:

According to whom? (Hint: non-religious != atheist)

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,05:40   

The trends as I understand them are laid out here.

Christianity in America (and Canada) is dropping by almost one percentage point a year.

The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca.

Another tidbit:

Quote
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.


I think people like AFDave are doing quite a lot to contribute to that trend. Evangelical Christians are doing a lot to drive away intelligent people.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,05:44   

Quote
A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years.

Just like Dave.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,05:49   

AFDave,
Your assertion that        
Quote (afdave @ Posted on Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?  We cannot claim to truly know the history of ANY rock.
is funny in the extreme.  I know that you tried this argument in the past and were smacked down.  Are you now changing your Rb/Sr Isochron argument to the above position instead of what you argued three days ago?      
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 23 2006,09:16)
20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.
.
My verbose prose on crystallization was only the beginning of the science lesson in showing you how Rb/Sr Isochron methods are valid.  You haven't responded to my last question regarding Olivine and crystallization.  Here it is again.

Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?

We have a basis in understanding that we can agree upon and I'm trying to build upon this basis.  
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.

From this beginning I intend on showing you how electrochemical selection will vary the Rb uptake in a crystal formed in an olivine melt and how this uptake variability results in the linear relation found on the Isochron graph.

Your cherry picking argument can only be applied to the global scale, not the local scale.  You have to show that cherry picking a sample to fit the Rb/Sr testing method (remember, the rocks are chosen BEFORE they are tested so no age bias is introduced to the rock selection) somehow invalidates the results of the test.

AFDave, eventually the ony argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.  Here's the initial counter argument you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.
I look forward to another smack-down.
Mike PSS

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,05:57   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS

Dave, repeating the same old crap that's been completely blown away over and over again on this very thread, EVEN WHEN IT'S BOLD AND ALL-CAPS, doesn't make it any more true, or any less of a lie.

Now, with regard to your statement that because rocks are very carefully selected for radiometric dating, that amounts to "cherry-picking," that's got to rank up there with one of the dumber comments you repeatedly make. Would one's decision not to date a chunk of granite using C14 be "cherry picking"? Of course not. So why is being very careful to make sure a crystal you're using for U-Pb dating is a closed system "cherry picking"?

You're mistaking careful experimental technique for "cheating."

So you really believe that if you can't radiometrically date every single rock out there, you can't date any of them? Would you care to favor us with the logic behind that statement?

And one more time, for the learning-impaired: fossils provide relative dating of sediments; radiometric dating provides absolute dates. Get it yet? Of course not, and I could repeat it every day for a month and you still wouldn't get it, because you don't want to get it.

And you think I'm repetitive.

Well, here's one more thing I can repeat: where's your evidence for Biblical inerrancy, after you've already admitted it's not inerrant?
 
Quote
There is no 100% literal, inerrant translation ...

But I use NKJV ... it's close ...


Do you see why making statements like that persuade everyone here you're an idiot?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,06:19   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.

You're not going to wriggle out of this, Dave.

Your claim was that no one had ever shown you how a figure of 8 my for the divergence of humans/chimps and gorillas was derived. That was lie, because you were shown. Now, in a classic goalposts-moving maneuver, you change your claim to
Quote
Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?  What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?

That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence. (We already know why you don't believe the evidence: it's because you "resent" the notion that humans could be related to other apes.)

Incorygible already warned you not to change your claim to that you don't believe the evidence that humans/chimps and gorillas diverged 8 mya. But you went ahead and did it anyway, hoping no one would notice.

Busted, Dave. And not for the first time, nor the last.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,06:42   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,08:50)
THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS LITERAL, EYEWITNESS HISTORY, A COMPILATION BY MOSES OF ANCIENT TABLET RECORDS

Who are the eyewitnesses, specifically? If an eyewitness' name and actual quotation aren't preserved, do you still have an "eyewitness account"?

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,07:40   

Quote
STILL NO FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER ON WHY EVOS SAY CHIMPS/GORILLAS/HUMANS DIVERGED AT 8 MYA.

So with the insertion of "fundamental", you acknowledge that    
Quote
"No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at."

is a lie that you have been trumpeting for four months. I still have no "fundamental" answer for why you believe the garbage you believe, Dave, but I wouldn't claim you haven't  been able to "show me". That would be a lie, and I don't lie.
   
Quote
Incorygible ... I had not seen this table before this thread ... I guess it got lost in the many paragraphs that you posted ...

Of course. I'm sure it's a one-time mistake that won't happen again. After all, I know you wouldn't ignore the bulk of actual content on this board in favour of simply trumpeting your "victories" and making claims that no one has been able to answer your questions. Furthermore, speaking of "cherry picking", you wouldn't dare pull a table of numbers out of context from the paragraphs describing it (with citations), only to claim it was "lost" amidst that explanation and demand further explanation, right?
   
Quote
This is very close to a good answer.  At least I see where you got your answer.

Dave, if tables of data, multiple pages of explanatory text, numerous citations, and an extensive hand-typed selection (bordering on copyright infringement) from a published source are what you consider "close to a good answer" on an internet forum, then: (1) you have lazy, ridiculous standards; and (2) you should apply them to your own "answers" before lying about the quality of those provided by others.
   
Quote
However, what I am looking for is HOW they arrive at these figures.

*sigh* Read, Dave. Read. Read what I re-posted. Not satisfied? Read the many posts of mine that I didn't re-post (maybe more stuff "got lost in all those paragraphs"?). Finally, and most importantly, if you're still curious, READ THE FREAKING LITERATURE. Plenty of citations are given, and -- believe it or not -- you can use Google Scholar for more than counting "hits".
   
Quote
Best I can tell, they find a "homonoid" fossils, try to find some datable rock layers close to it, come up with many discordant dates, then throw out the ones that are not "correct" and keep the ones that are "correct."  This I learned from Koobi Fora.  Is that close?

No. Not close at all. Read, Dave. Read more. Learn. If you do that, then starting a sentence with "Best I can tell..." might actually carry a little weight. Until then, it means dick all.
   
Quote
It is interesting that the divergence date has changed from 30 my to 5-8.  Why? (I know that some book says so, but I really mean "why?" fundamentally).

New data. New methods. Excising of errors. Reduction of uncertainty. SCIENCE, Dave. The understanding it provides is known to change over decades. It's one of the main reasons that it provides a more accurate picture of the world than millennia-old texts and dogma.
   
Quote
As for the molecular evidence, how does this work?  What are the fundamental assumptions?  Is it that "neutral" mutations happen at such and such a rate and we observe 1.5% sequence differences b/t chimps and humans, for example?

Read, Dave. At least you're getting closer (I notice you've dropped "favourable" and replaced it with "neutral" in scare-quotes).  (Note that scare-quotes around "neutral" might be used to good effect by a scientist who actually understood this material, but I think you're implying something different entirely.) There are plenty of answers to this right in my posts (and those of others). Even better, there are literally dozens of citations to scientific literature and introductory texts that would give you a much better idea of how it works and what the "fundamental assumptions" are.
   
Quote
Do you now understand why I have been saying that you have not answered the question?

Yes. You have been lying. Period. You are a LIAR. Saying you have not read enough of what we have provided in way of an answer would be honest. Saying that you still do not understand that answer would be honest. Saying that we have not answered it is LYING, by any reasonable, objective assessment.
   
Quote
What I am really zeroing in on is WHY you buy the textbooks theories?  Why does Incorygible find all this text that you have posted convincing?

Incorygible has spent over a decade of his life, tens of thousands of his dollars, and a good chunk of his day EARNING his education in evolutionary biology. Over that time, Incorygible has forgotten more about what evidence "convinced" him than AFDave will learn here, even if AFDave suddenly became intellectually honest. Nevertheless, plenty of "convincing" stuff remains, which Incorygible has gone to great efforts to show AFDave. Incorygible also knows that, if one desires intellectual satisfaction beyond the level of introductory textbooks, it takes much, much more to learn exactly "how" any field of science actually works than even the most prolific internet posting, especially if one writes more than one reads. Incorygible does not "buy the textbook's theories", and would not be wholly convinced by two pages from any introductory textbook (although he might be provisionally accepting of most textbooks, because Incorygible understands the investments other researchers have made in obtaining their answers, and the vetting process by which those answers are deemed "convincing"). Incorygible can recognize would-be commenters who have not made this investment or properly vetted their convictions. In answer to AFDave's question, Incorygible pulled this specific introductory textbook for a particular pedagogical exercise in an effort to educate AFDave, who is apparently not up to the introductory level. For his own "convincing", Incorygible relies on a large selection of the even larger body of literature in evolutionary biology. Incorygible even contributes to that literature in his own field of specialty. After many years of reading, education and practice, Incorygible is, indeed, convinced. However, for Incorygible to impart this evidence-based conviction to AFDave, without lazy AFDave reading even the smallest smidgeon of the available literature (or even Incorygible's own posts) and without AFDave making the slightest honest effort toward his own education, would require direct neural manipulation beyond the present scope of medical science (not Incorygible's field). Nevertheless, here is Incorygible, and many like him, attempting to provide free, hard-earned answers to AFDave, after spending a morning providing some of those answers to dozens of students who have invested many more hours of honest learning than AFDave (and a fair chunk of change) for the opportunity. Meanwhile, AFDave, like a spoiled child, will simply claim yet again that Incorygible has provided no answers, and therefore has no answers. AFDave will claim that he is "bringing the truth" to Incorygible regarding evolutionary biology. Sad but true.

Read more, Dave. Or, at the very least, read something from a source not linked to AiG and their ilk. Read the evidence and arguments you try so hard to avoid. We've given you a good head start. Give us a reason to elevate your "Best I can tell..." assessment to a level above the perceptive ability of a deaf, dumb and blind amoeba.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,07:48   

Ved...    
Quote
Who are the eyewitnesses, specifically? If an eyewitness' name and actual quotation aren't preserved, do you still have an "eyewitness account"?
They were preserved.  They are Adam, Noah, the Sons of Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael & Isaac, and Esau & Jacob.  For example, Noah's account goes from Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a, concluding with the phrase "these are the generations of Noah."  Note that there is no name given in the first section which concludes with "these are the generations of the heaven and the earth" in Genesis 2:4a.  This makes sense when you realize that there was no human eyewitness alive yet to witness the acts of creation.  Note that it was probably Moses who inserted the names at the end of the proper section as he compiled these tablet records into one volume probably written on vellum.  See my blog at airdave.blogspot.com and the article referenced at the end of my blog article for more info.
Eric...  
Quote
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."

I want to know HOW it was derived.  I want to know stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  Or "Well, we have these fossils here and they look more like apes, but then we have these fossils here and they look a little more like humans, and when you measure the blah blah blah and subtract out the blah blah blah, then take the square root of blah blah blah, presto! you get 5 million years."

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,07:54   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
I want to know HOW it was derived.  I want to know stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  Or "Well, we have these fossils here and they look more like apes, but then we have these fossils here and they look a little more like humans, and when you measure the blah blah blah and subtract out the blah blah blah, then take the square root of blah blah blah, presto! you get 5 million years."

Oh, THAT...

Here you go!

Enjoy. Come back when you're done, and we'll talk about any remaining general questions or concerns you might have.

(If you want a narrowed down version, might want to search the thread for particularly relevant titles.)

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,08:18   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,13:48)
I want to know HOW it was derived.

Then it makes no sense whatsoever that you were not following up and reading all of the links and source material that people were citing here.

The truth is that you don't really want to know that stuff.  All you want to do is dig up little tidbits so you can use them out of context to support your own rationalizations.  You don't really want to know the truth.  You just want to know that you're right.

So, Dave, how do you tell the difference between the figurative and literal parts fo the Bible?

And how long does a quartz crystal take to form?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,08:20   

As an example:

Dave, I know that one of the very first papers we (repeatedly) recommended you read was the infamous Nature chimpanzee paper that was fortuitously published online in late May, right around the time that we started this discusson. We referenced it repeatedly. Did you ever read it?

Once again, that's:

Patterson, N., D.J. Richter, S. Gnerre, E.S. Lander, and D. Reich. 2006. Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees. Nature 441: 1103-1108.

If I recall correctly, I think someone even stretched the rules of academic subscriptions and sent you a copy? I might be wrong about that, but it is certainly easy enough to find at any library.

Did you read it, Dave?

Because I just pulled it up again for another (more useful) task, and I notice it begins:

Quote
The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently.

The genetic divergence between two species (the proportion of nucleotides differing between representative individuals of the two species) can be converted into a divergence time in terms of millions of years, provided that differences between genomes have accumulated at a constant rate as a result of new mutations1,2. The average genetic divergence, t genome, is sometimes used to estimate the speciation time, tspecies. However, t(x), the genetic divergence at any position x, fluctuates across the genome and is everywhere larger3 than tspecies (Fig. 1a, and Supplementary Note 1). Thus, its average tgenome necessarily exceeds tspecies.


Sounds a little like what you're looking for (and what you claim we haven't provided), eh? Read on, and it gets nice and specific about the calculations (but still written for a general scientific audience).

Did you read it, Dave?

Coincidentally (not really), you might find something similar in the publications from my post quoted by Eric, and many others.

Did you read them, Dave?

So...Dave...you were saying?

Dave?

  
Diogenes



Posts: 80
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,08:42   

Well I think some of you are being a bit hard on Dave.  I think he's right about taking the Bible as a record of actual events.  I would think most of us could agree that the Bible is as accurate, and should be treated as literally as we treat the Avesta, the I Ching, the Rigveda, or the Pali Canon.

--------------
:)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,08:55   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
Eric...    
Quote
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."

Dave, the only way you're going to "know" how it was derived is to go out and get a freaking education in the relevant fields to the point where you can understand the "how." Incorygible explained to you, in exquisite detail, the "how" of the matter, and you're blaming your own inability to understand the "how" on his explanation, rather than your own ignorance.

If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want! The problems are these: 1) you won't read the links, and you won't go out and get the actual articles where they're not available online; 2) even if you did read them, you don't have the specialized training necessary to understand them; and 3) are not willing to spend the time, money, and effort to obtain the necessary specialized training necessary to understand them! How is this anyone's fault but yours, Dave?

As Incorygible explained to you in exhaustive detail about one post above yours Dave, he does have the necessary specialized training and expertise to understand this stuff, and that's why he believes it. You don't, which is why you don't believe it. That, and the fact that you "resent" the notion that humans could be in any way related to other apes.

So what all this means is that when you said, "No one has shown me how the 8 mya date was derived," you were lying. You most emphatically were shown, in detail, how that date was derived. That you don't understand the methodology well enough to make head or tail of it doesn't change the simple fact that you were shown exactly how that date was derived.

Dave, I can't design an electronic circuit. Does that give me the right to say that it's impossible to design one? Because that's what you're claiming. You're claiming that because you don't understand how these dates were derived, that no one's shown you how they were derived.

It's like you're under the misapprehension that all of science should be instantly comprehensible by anyone with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering. That may have been true 500 years ago, but today, no one person has the training necessary to understand more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge. You don't have the training necessary to understand any of it.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:12   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 26 2006,14:55)
     
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,12:48)
Eric...            
Quote
That's not what you asked, Dave, and you know it. You asked how it was derived, not why anyone believes the evidence.
Yeah, how IS it derived?  Not "Here, Dave, here's what this textbook says."  Not "all these hundreds of experts had a bunch of meetings over the last 50 years and this is what they think."

ericmurphy,
AFDave only applies this method of argument to obfuscate matters.  When I try to engage him by explaining all the relevant facts needed to understand ONE aspect of crystal formation.... he ignores the facts and the questions posed.

incorygible,
Good third-person paragraph.  How many mistakes before you clicked your brain into third-person typing? :)
 
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 26 2006,13:40)
Incorygible has spent over a decade of his life, tens of thousands of his dollars, and a good chunk of his day EARNING his education in evolutionary biology. Over that time, Incorygible has forgotten more about what evidence "convinced" him than AFDave will learn here, even if AFDave suddenly became intellectually honest. Nevertheless, plenty of "convincing" stuff remains, which Incorygible has gone to great efforts to show AFDave. Incorygible also knows that, {snip}

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:21   

Incorygible ... you give me a link to Google Scholar with "evolution" as the search term?  Come on.  How am I going to narrow that down.  I realize that I am also guilty of this sometimes, but I will repeat that it is much more conducive to having someone read your reference if you can select the concise portions which are applicable to the point being argued.

Quote
The genetic divergence between two species (the proportion of nucleotides differing between representative individuals of the two species) can be converted into a divergence time in terms of millions of years, provided that differences between genomes have accumulated at a constant rate as a result of new mutations1,2.
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.  Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?  This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)

**************************

When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.  A lot of Hebrew and Greek scholars have spent an enormous amount of time studying other texts and comparing them with the Biblical texts to see which parts are literal and which parts are figurative.  The RATE Book has a whole section proving why Genesis was intended to be taken as a literal, historical account.  But most of it is not rocket science.  Some is, to be sure, but most is not.  For the most part, we can look at the word for "day" in Genesis where it talks about the "evening and the morning were the fourth day" etc., and we can compare this with other instances of the usage of that same word, and we can pretty easily see that the author meant a literal 24 hr day ... not 1000 years or a million years, or what have you.

****************************

Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:40   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,14:21)
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.

Dave, he linked to this months ago, which you would have realized if you'd read it the first time. But even if you hadn't read it back then, wouldn't it have been a clue when Incorygible stated to you that he had posted it back in May, when it first came out? Or did you miss that part, too? How large and bold does the type have to be before you read it, Dave?

 
Quote
Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?  This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)

No. Dave, if you want to understand this, you need to develop the intellectual toolkit necessary to understand it. It can't be "distilled down" to where someone with a pea-brain can understand it. Don't complain that someone hasn't "shown" something to you, when the real issue is that you can't understand the explanation in the first place!

And Dave, the problem isn't that we don't "understand" your creationist drivel. We "understand" it just fine. We understand that it's undifferentiated bullshit, we've explained to you exactly why it's undifferentiated bullshit, and you ignore us.

 
Quote
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?

Or, more to the point, how do you determine where the Bible is right, and where it isn't? Given that you've already admitted that the Bible is not inerrant. So how do you know where it's right, and where it's wrong, Dave?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:41   

Quote
RM DATING IS NOW "AS GOOD" AS FOSSIL "DATING."

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.  See?  "with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units restricted to the most recent 12% or so of geologic time."  IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.  That's because ...

1) FOSSILS ARE KING (and Evo assumptions with them)
2) FOSSILS VERIFY RM DATES (and determine which ones are "wrong" and "right")
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.


The first attempts to characterize the "relative" age of the landscape using fossil was done in the 1830s, almost 30 years before Darwin's work. Similar patterns of fossils were discovered in landscapes in different countries, and these were the first attempts of using the geological process of superposition. The actual pattern of fossils made sense in the light of the TOE, and then finally in the early 1900s the first absolute dating methods were discovered with  radioactive decay and radiometric dating. To say that the method requires knowledge of evolution is absurd. It requires you to assume that certain species lived at the same time together, and that the species should correlate in some way with the stratographic column. Eric, deadman, JonF and others showed you this many times before, and even offered you a testable method for carrying this out. The assumption of evolution becomes an independent verification when species complexity decreases with age.

This doesn't begin to address other dating methods either, which the thread has called you on many times.

   
Quote

Here's another quote I like ...        
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.


I love how you can understand the deep innerworkings of an entire field of science from a few quotes. I wish I had that talent.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:45   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:21)
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.

So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?

Also, how long does a quartz crystal take to form?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:46   

Quote
Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.

AFDave,
This is where you go wrong.  The point isn't concise, or containable in an executive summary.  I'm trying to lead you down the primrose path of knowledge here in bite size pieces.  Each bite size piece is an executive summary of a whole body of knowledge.  There are at numerous seperate professional disciplines involved just to understand radiometric dating.  You have to understand what olivine is (geology), how the crystals formed (material science, chemistry, chemical and mechanical engineering), how isotopes and radioactivity work (nuclear physics), how radioisotope testing equipment works (mechanical engineering, physics, electronic engineering), and that's just off the top of my head.

When your argument is about "all Isochrons are mixing lines" then you are arguing DEEP into the basic knowledge base of the method (radiometric testing).  To support that argument you need to comprehend and understand ALL of the knowledge base listed above.
However, you don't have to be an expert in all the fields listed above.  You could purchase the radiometric testing machine and TRUST that the people that designed it and put it together knew what they were doing.  You could install the machine and calibrate it according to the instruction sheet that comes with the equipment.  You could then follow all the instructions (like proper sample selection) and test your materials.  The instructions probably have some checks and balances for your data to make sure the machine is working properly.  Voila, a valid data point.  Rinse and repeat.  That wasn't hard.

If you want an executive summary then talk to me about the economic viability of investing in an alternative fuels plant (ethanol or biodiesel).  I'm involved in the operation, modification, testing, and optimization of these things.  Landfill Gas?  No problem.  Wood Combustion?  Bring it on.  Executive summaries work in business, not always in science.

Mike PSS

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:48   

And, you know, this is classic Dave: first he complains that you haven't shown him something, even after you've shown it again and again and again. Then he complains that you haven't really shown it to him; you've just sent him links to a bunch of articles that say something, without showing  how that conclusion was arrived at. Then, when you point out that those articles show exactly how that conclusion was arrived at, in excruciating detail, he complains that the explanation is too complicated, and could you please distill it all down to an executive summary he can actually understand.

And then, if you actually complied with that request, he'd accuse of you of just giving him a biased interpretation of the data, rather than the data itself.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,10:04   

I give you guys executive summaries all the time to try to make my points understood, the latest being the issue of Biblical Literalism.

Why is it so hard for you to do the same?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,10:11   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:04)
I give you guys executive summaries all the time to try to make my points understood, the latest being the issue of Biblical Literalism.

Why is it so hard for you to do the same?

Think about it, Dave.

If you think the Bible (especially Genesis 1 and 2, which are like 800 words long) is as complex and difficult to understand as, say, genomics, or the Theory of Evolution, or Quantum Chromodynamics, or superstring theory, or comparative anatomy, or nuclear chemistry, then you're even dumber than you appear (and you appear pretty dumb).

You can't just do an executive summary of topics like radiometric dating, Dave. Sorry; it just simply cannot be done. Why is this such a tough idea to get through your noggin?

Also, when are you going to address the glaring problem with your Biblical Literalism, which is that you've already admitted that the Bible is not inerrant, and you have no way of knowing which parts are correct and which parts are not?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,10:41   

OK Dave,  Here's an executive summary for you.

Bible - Goddidit.
Your arguments - Wrong
My arguments - Right.

Is that what you wanted?  Be concise in your requests.

I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.

Mike PSS

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:17   

Improvius...
Quote
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."  However, it is interesting to note that many of the ancients who lived a very long time ago (like longer ago than 2000 BC) knew that the earth went around the sun and they knew the length of the period, the earth-sun distance, the number PI, and many other scientific facts.


Mike PSS--  
Quote
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:35   

Quote

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!


Sweet! Ghost of Paley has a new challenger for the most "more on XXXXXX which I will completely garble tomorrow!"

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:47   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Improvius...  
Quote
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."

Dave, you said we could discern between literal and figurative statements "by knowing something about customary usage."  So you must be able to tell that any biblical statements WRT the sun rising are figurative because it was the "customary usage" at the time of writing.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:49   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ON "DATING"

Not a particularly reliable source.  It's too dumbed-down to be really accurate.
 
Quote
ROCKS ARE "DATED" PRIMARILY BY FOSSILS AND BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
           
Quote
[DATING ...] in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
I said this long ago and was laughed at of course, but it is still true and here it is confirmed again.  After the "date" is "determined" from fossils, then it is "confirmed" or "calibrated" with RM dating if possible.

That quote does not support your claim. Yes, stratigraphy and index fossils are involved in dating.  No, the date is not determined from fossils, absolute dates are determined from radiometric dating and index fossils are used to correlate between locations.
 
Quote
CHERRY PICKING CONFIRMED AGAIN: ONLY "CERTAIN" ROCKS
           
Quote
Rubidium&#8211;strontium (Rb&#8211;Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not. Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering. Similar studies have shown that the samarium&#8211;neodymium (Sm&#8211;Nd) parent&#8211;daughter pair is more resistant to secondary migration but that, in this instance, sufficient initial spread in the abundance of the parent isotope is difficult to achieve.[This is what JonF was griping at me about on the Snelling data...]
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?

By cross-correlation with other methods, some not radiometric.
 
Quote

Here's another quote I like ...            
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.
... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.

Not implying any such thing.
 
Quote
IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Not quite.  Now we can obtain the same precision on near 100% of geologic time, and verify the fossil dating.
 
Quote
Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.

Yes, yes, yes, Davie-doodles, your lack of reading comprehension is showing again.  They explicitly said that RM dating allows us to verify our fossil-based data. "Isotopic dating ... is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history."  "Virtually all of Earth history" ain't no stinkin' 88%, Davie-dip, it's 99.9% or so.
 
Quote
CONCORDANCE OBTAINED BY "PROCESSING" INDIVIDUAL GRAINS?"
Moving along through the "Dating" article from EB ... we see that U-Pb dating supposedly is superior to other dating methods ... then we read something rather surprising ...

           
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating > Uranium&#8211;lead method > Double uranium-lead chronometers

Figure 2: Concordia diagram.
From T.E. Krogh, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 46; © 1982 Pergamon Press
The reason why uranium&#8211;lead dating is superior to other methods is simple: there are two uranium&#8211;lead chronometers. Because there exist two radioactive uranium atoms (those of mass 235 and 238), two uranium&#8211;lead ages can be calculated for every analysis. The age results or equivalent daughter&#8211;parent ratio can then be plotted one against the other on a concordia diagram, as shown in Figure 2. If the point falls on the upper curve shown, the locus of identical ages, the result is said to be concordant, and a closed-system unequivocal age has been established. Any leakage of daughter isotopes from the system will cause the two ages calculated to differ, and data will plot below the curve. Because each of the daughters has a different half-life, early leakage will affect one system more than the other. Thus there is a built-in mechanism that can prove or disprove whether a valid age has been measured. Historically it had been observed that the uranium&#8211;lead systems in the mineral zircon from unmetamorphosed rocks were almost invariably disturbed or discordant but yielded a linear array on the concordia diagram. Given a set of variably disturbed samples, an extrapolation to zero disturbance was possible (see Figure 2). More recently, it has been found that of all the grains present in a rock a very few still retain closed isotopic systems but only in their interior parts. Thus grains with a diameter comparable to that of a human hair, selected under a microscope to be crack-free and of the highest possible quality, have been found to be more concordant than cracked grains. In addition, it has been shown that most such grains can be made much more concordant by mechanically removing their outer parts using an air-abrasion technique (upper points in Figure 2).
Now am I reading this right?

Nope.  I don't know why you bother to ask that, the answer is always the same.
 
Quote
 You're tellng me that we can pretty much pitch all the mineral isochrons done on individual grains because they are open systems?

Nope.  He's not talking about isochrons. He's talking about a particular set of elements, one of which (lead) is fairly volatile as elements that are solid at STP go.  He's talking about metamorphic rocks, which are always tricky.
 
Quote
We have to strip away the outer part of the grain in order for the "dating" to be concordant?

Sometimes yes and mostly no.  That article's pretty seriously out of date.  Since then instrumentation advances and sample preparation advances have cut down the need to strip away the outer part of the grain.  Sometimes we still have to strip away the outer part of the mineral grain for the dating to be absolutely concordant (but not often) BUT you don't understand what "concordant" means in this context.  Here "concordant" means" "absolutely exact agreement", and "discordant" means that the two methods disagree. The air abrasion technique is used to get concordant samples when the discordance is very small and there's reason to suspect differential leaching of lead from different parts of the sample. Even with "discordant" results, it's clear approximately how old the rock is; the air-abrasion technique is used to take results that are already accurate to a few percent and get the accuracy down below 1%. With or without discarding the outer layer of metamorphosed zircons, the rocks are far older than you think.

One of the great things about U-Pb concordia-discordia dating is that it often returns a valid and accurate date when the sampels are discordant, sometimes even seriously discordant.  The reasons why are well understood.

And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
 
Quote
   
Quote
Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.
What have we here?  You think my selection criteria is biased or something?  Well, guess what?  You're right!!  I am biased and guess what else?  EVERYONE is biased.  That's what I've been telling you for a long time.

Yup. but you're an ignorant liar ; I make mistakes once in a while, but at least they're honest mistakes.  Are you going to post any pf the many questions you have been ducking and can't answer?  Or are you going to cherry-pick to try to give the impression that your claims stand up to casual inspection?  I know the answer ...

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:52   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,16:17)
Mike PSS--        
Quote
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Dave, you've got it exactly backwards. The fact that you think it's even possible to do an "executive summary" of an entire field of scientific investigation shows just how abysmally ignorant you really are.

You think you've shown us "lot of how [radiometric dating] actually works"? Good grief, man! What you've really shown us is that you don't have a clue how it actually works! You've made mistake after mistake after mistake in your understanding of radiometric dating techniques, which JonF has, to his infinite credit, painstakingly corrected. So you think JonF and Mike are just "pretending" to understand radiometric dating? Then where does that leave you? You don't even pretend to understand it! You admit it doesn't make any sense to you.

Mike is trying to establish that you know anything whatsoever about radiometric dating, crystal formation, or indeed anything about any relevant field, in order to determine how he can do an executive summary you can understand without leaving out crucial information. I know, from my long experience of wading through your drivel, that it's an impossible task, because you don't want to understand; your entire worldview depends on your not understanding.

Mike will eventually come to the same conclusion, but hopefully not before he's done a lot of interesting and informative posts. Interesting and informative posts for the rest of us, at least; I doubt you'll get anything out of them.

And speaking of "defending" things—would you care to estimate what century it will be before you get around to defending your own hypothesis, which is ostensibly what this thread is all about?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:53   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,11:49)
AFDave, eventually the only argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.  Here's the initial counter argument you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.

And The Constancy of Constants, Part 2

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,12:03   

Dave, thanks for the reference concerning the theory of eyewitness account of genesis.  I see some problems with it but that was the view from 10,000 feet so I'll get back to you after closer inspection.  I did notice in that post your refernce to me and the wish that I embrace the truth of YEC.  I feel I must respond to that.  To start with I have two quick questions:

Do you know the actual origin of the 6,000 years chronology?

Would it be any less miraculous if God had created the universe in 6,000 years, 6 billion years or 60 billion years?

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,12:03   

The first thread, with all images removed:

AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (no images) PDF.zip 8.75 MB, 13.1 MB unzipped.

AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (no images) HTML.zip, 3.8 MB, 27.5 MB unzipped.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,13:12   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,14:12)
incorygible,
Good third-person paragraph.  How many mistakes before you clicked your brain into third-person typing? :)

More than one! :) I think it only comes naturally to cranks and other assorted crazies (such as the one to whom I was replying in kind). ;)

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,13:25   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Mike PSS--        
Quote
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!

Ad Hominum Ad Nausium from AFDave.

Can I call "shenanigans" and get AFDave back on track?

Dave,
Nowhere in your quoted reply do you address the pertinent information regarding Olivine crystal formation.  Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Mike PSS

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,13:33   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,14:21)
Incorygible ... you give me a link to Google Scholar with "evolution" as the search term?  Come on.  How am I going to narrow that down.  I realize that I am also guilty of this sometimes, but I will repeat that it is much more conducive to having someone read your reference if you can select the concise portions which are applicable to the point being argued.

The body of scientific understanding pertaining to evolution, or even just the evolution of humans and other great apes, is not concise. Period. The Google search was meant only to illustrate this. You can take the Coles Notes version you've been supplied. Or you can put the time and effort into achieving something closer to the education that specialists (like those you routinely argue with) have, beginning with the appropriate papers that we have laid out for you. Your choice.

 
Quote
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.  Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?


First: Dave, as Eric points out, you "got this out of me" as soon as you asked. Before you asked, actually -- I brought it up.  I cited this paper right around the time you were discovering (for the first time, apparently) that genetic research has conclusively demonstrated that humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps to gorillas. Remember that, Dave? Liar.

Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields. The data summarized in these executive summaries is found in the specialist journals and (in even more abundance) in the databases, drawers and minds of those actually doing the work. If you can't count yourself a member of the "scientific" audience, well, tough titty said the kitty. If you don't even understand the language, don't bother arguing fundamental science with those who do possess such a background because you simply don't meet the minimum requirements. There's nothing wrong with that (we all possess specialized knowledge), unless you are in the vain habit of arguing entire fields of science with specialists therein. And (before you pull out any analogy involving church history) practically ANYONE can learn the language, if they are so inclined, with enough time and effort. You haven't done this yet. Come back and argue science when you can comprehend it.

You may think think this is elitist (as much as any meritocracy is). Fine. You may point out that this elitism is the reason your brand of "evidence" is more popular among the lay public. You'd probably be right. Regardless, it is what it is. After trying very hard to encourage you to begin to understand some of this stuff at an appropriate level, I don't care care what you think. Science is indeed a tough titty and you, Dave, are just another displaced runt.

 
Quote
This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)


Does that "evolution" Google Scholar search give you any reason to suspect your job is easier than mine? Or should I thrown in "or geology", "or radiomentric dating", "or cosmology"...

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:01   

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 26 2006,19:33)
Or you can put the time and effort into achieving something closer to the education that specialists (like those you routinely argue with) have, beginning with the appropriate papers that we have laid out for you. Your choice.

LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

Making up that imaginary data to refute real data was pretty close, though.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:18   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

For your viewing pleasure:

Quote
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:30   

eric:
Quote
Dave, the only way you're going to "know" how it was derived is to go out and get a freaking education in the relevant fields to the point where you can understand the "how." Incorygible explained to you, in exquisite detail, the "how" of the matter, and you're blaming your own inability to understand the "how" on his explanation, rather than your own ignorance.

If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want!


Dave, I've argued with Eric about many subjects, and I've never seen him this angry. Why do you tease him so?  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:40   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 26 2006,19:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

For your viewing pleasure:

Quote
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...

Indeed. Actually, not "speaking the language" is as apt an analogy as any.

I'm natively fluent in English, and will debate in English (or even debate its proper usage) with any native English speaker. I could get by pretty well with French in either France or Quebec (even know how to adjust accordingly), but would know to ask for clarification (in French) and would accept correction graciously from its native speakers. I might even be able to eek out an existence in (tee hee) Portugal, based on its Latin roots. Put me in China and I wouldn't know where to begin (but I probably wouldn't start by demanding they all speak English instead).

That's where Dave is. China. And he don't speak no Chinese. So he's busily demanding (in English, no less) that the entire country switch to the revealed truth of English because he can't find the fucking bathroom. The inevitable result is, of course, that Dave will shit his pants. Repeatedly. As he has.

Dave, you really stink by this point.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:55   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 26 2006,19:30)
eric:
   
Quote
If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want!


Dave, I've argued with Eric about many subjects, and I've never seen him this angry. Why do you tease him so?  :D  :D

Bill, for all our disagreements, and my belief that you're mistaken about virtually all of science, most of history, and all of politics, you've never acted as absolutely bone-stupid as Dave is. And Dave is not, as far as I can tell, actually stupid. He's that way on purpose, i.e., he's deliberately obtuse. I've just never seen anyone behave so deliberately idiotically. (But I have to admit; it's strangely entertaining to watch, kind of like watching a slow-motion train-wreck.)

When Dave complains over and over about how no one has ever shown him something, and then three people demonstrate with actual links to their actual posts that they have indeed shown him, and he still insists that they never showed it to him, it gets exasperating. But Dave's not teasing; he actually thinks he's being honest.

And that's the scary part.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,02:29   

I did not bother with an answer to most of JonF's "rebuttals" today because they are weak.  I particularly liked the one where he said my 2006 EB article is "out of date" ... also, EB is not accurate because it is "dumbed down."  Fine Jon, let's call up the author and see if he likes that characterization.

But I will answer this one ...

JonF...
Quote
And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
I DO "dare" address this.  I've been addressing it for a long time.  There is a reason why you have "observed concordance between different methods.  The answer is ...

FOSSILS ....

Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

***********************************

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Mike PSS...
Quote
Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.  I'm quite sure you do.  But that is an entirely different thing than being able to defend it reasonably and convince me that the "dates" obtained are real.  And I don't think you have made any mistakes in your arguments other than the fact that I really don't know what your argument is or what your point is.  But I am happy to hear it.  Now ... I do know what olivine is and I understand crystal formation somewhat.  What does this have to do with RM Dating being a valid indicator of true age.

Incorygible...
Quote
Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields.
So you are telling me I need to go buy this particular copy of "Nature" and then I will understand your position on why the molecules point to 5 my?  Which issue is it again?  I assume we are talking about a $10 or less copy, right?  It's not availabe for free  online?

Me...
Quote
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...
Thanks.  And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)

Skeptic...
Quote
Dave, thanks for the reference concerning the theory of eyewitness account of genesis.  I see some problems with it but that was the view from 10,000 feet so I'll get back to you after closer inspection.  I did notice in that post your refernce to me and the wish that I embrace the truth of YEC.  I feel I must respond to that.  To start with I have two quick questions:

Do you know the actual origin of the 6,000 years chronology?

Would it be any less miraculous if God had created the universe in 6,000 years, 6 billion years or 60 billion years?
I have only known about the 2 references I gave you for 3 months or so, so I could use some time to inspect the whole thing closer myself.  But my initial study seems to indicate that it is a very good theory.  I have not found any holes yet.  I did not intend to reference any individuals in my post on my blog.  I will search that out when I have time and delete it.

Origin of the 6000 year chronology:  Not much time right now, but off the top of my head, I think there are several people groups who have historically kept track of years in a way closely resembling the 6000 year chronology.  If I recall, the Jews have something called "Anno Mundi"  ... I'll check into this and get back to you.  In any case, my chronology comes from Bishop Ussher.

***************************************************

Gone for 3 days to Silver Dollar City!  Don't know if I will have time to post or not.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,02:46   

Dave - presumably you believed this 6000 year old guff last year? In that case, is the earth now 6001 years old then? Or in your world, is gawd holding back the age of the earth and keeping it steady at 6000 years? Or taking off a year at the start instead?

So, what is the age of the earth then as you see it? 6000 years? 5999? 6001?
If it's 6000, presumably there must be a point where it tips over to 6001? Would that be new years day? If so, why? If not, what day does it flip over to 6001 years on? Simple  questions, but i dont expect a reasonable answer. Prove me wrong! Give me a date/time when the earth will be 6001 years old instead of 6000.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,03:04   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

You have not shown one iota of evidence for your fossil overlord conspiracy theory.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
notta_skeptic



Posts: 48
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,03:13   

I know this is off-topic, but I just found out this morning that I have the opportunity to go to a public lecture by Dr. Kenneth Miller this afternoon at the National Institutes of Health. He's speaking to researchers, medical professionals, and interested parties on evolution. You can see the webcast at NIH webcast (I have no idea if this is available for all or just over NIH intranet, but I think it's freely viewable by anyone.) And tomorrow, I'm going to be participating in a national 'convocation' in DC on science eductation across the US and helping to develop national policy on strengthening science teaching K - 16. It's people like Dave who give me the impetus to stand up in these meetings and explain exactly why we need better educated science teachers. If Dave had ever had a good teacher, he/she might have been able to explain to him the difference between a "guess" and a "theory". Dave shows little evidence of knowing what either one means in a scientific context.

--------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

  
notta_skeptic



Posts: 48
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,03:17   

Oops! Forgot the time for the Miller webcast: 3 - 4 PM Eastern Daylight Time. Sorry.

--------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,03:39   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
Incorygible...  
Quote
Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields.
So you are telling me I need to go buy this particular copy of "Nature" and then I will understand your position on why the molecules point to 5 my?  Which issue is it again?  I assume we are talking about a $10 or less copy, right?  It's not availabe for free  online?

*sigh* No, Dave. If you read that paper, you will have read that paper. If you understand that paper, you will have a better understanding of "my position" on why the molecules point to 4-6 my. If you understand the brief synopsis of the current state of the field provided by the authors, and if you follow up on the citations they provide for a more detailed examination of work in the field, you will have an even better understanding.

You were a CEO (or similar), right? You asked for an executive summary. Here it is, equivalent to an executive summary of earnings in one department in the last quarter. Read it, and you'll have a better understanding than the press releases and third-party speculations you're working from now. But, as CEO, would you assess your company's performance based purely on one executive summary for one quarter? It's a good place to start, but you might want a deeper understanding of trends, etc., right?

To truly understand my position on evolution, or even on molecular phylogenetics, you would have to sit in on more than a few university-level courses, read hundreds of textbooks, read literally thousands of papers, attend dozens of conferences, have a few beers and "back-of-the-envelope" sessions with dozens of prestigious scientists actually doing the work, do some of the work yourself, publish peer-reviewed papers where you apply the same principles, use the principles in a very practical facet of your job (determining populations or units of fish species that qualify for protection as endangered species, for example), and so on.

Until you do that (and do similar for the geologists, linguists, and anthropologists that you argue with here), you won't "understand" our positions in the slightest. We've given you the public, press-release version. We've pointed you to the executive summaries (and I am willing to email you the Nature paper and any others you might like to see, assuming my institutional subscription covers them -- PM me with an email address). But you simply CANNOT hope to develop the painstakingly earned depth of knowledge in these fields that the people publishing them actually have. That's okay, since you claim not to want it. However, you should realize that, when you go to toe-to-toe with them within their fields in an effort to discredit them, you are way out of your league. (Picture a dogfight between a trained military pilot and a biologist who read the "executive summary" on jet aircraft.)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,06:00   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
I did not bother with an answer to most of JonF's "rebuttals" today because they are weak.  I particularly liked the one where he said my 2006 EB article is "out of date" ... also, EB is not accurate because it is "dumbed down."  Fine Jon, let's call up the author and see if he likes that characterization.

Yeah, Dave, that's what you said about the Theobald paper I sent you back in May. It's a 20,000 word paper with close to 200 references, and your response was, "it's weak." Could you find any holes in it? Did you even understand it? Doubtful. I'm still doubtful you even read it.

So when you say you think JonF's scathing rebuttals of your limp-wristed attempts to debunk the entire field of radiometric dating are "weak," we give that comment all the credibility it deserves.

And Dave, an EB entry could have been published yesterday and still be out of date, if it doesn't reflect current research on the topic. On fast-moving topics, e.g., genomics, EB entries are out of date before they even hit the printing press. That's why you don't reference EB articles if you want to be taken seriously by professionals practicing in the field. You come off as what you are: a dilettante.

 
Quote
But I will answer this one ...

JonF...    
Quote
And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
I DO "dare" address this.  I've been addressing it for a long time.  There is a reason why you have "observed concordance between different methods.  The answer is ...

FOSSILS ....


Um, no. Fossils never provide an absolute date, as has been pointed out to you a dozen times. JonF is talking about the concordances between different radiometric methods, genius. What possible connection do fossils have  with that? When two entirely different radiometric techniques provide the same age for a given sample, where do fossils fit into that?

 
Quote
Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.

Dave, you've got to knock off this lying:
 
Quote
My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

So you were either lying when you typed this yesterday, or you're lying today. Which is it, Dave?

 
Quote
But my initial study seems to indicate that it is a very good theory.  I have not found any holes yet.

You mean, other than the hundreds of holes we've pointed out to you again and again and again, Dave? The questions and objections we've raised that have totally stymied you?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,07:57   

Time to up your dose AFD.

Your magical reality must require truck loads.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,08:55   

I'd looked over AirHead's posts the last few days and thought about responding, but then decided not to -- the truth of the matter is that Stupid's ideas won't make a bit of difference except to those kids whose college entrances he manages to screw up, in which case, they'll resent him and his lies even more, which is fine with me.

But I was amused enough by a couple of things to make a comment today. First: Dave's stupid claim about  
Quote
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

Except when no fossils at all are used, eh, AirHead? Like with lunar samples? Meteorites? Ancient prebiotic rocks? Thousands of dates don't rely on fossil calibration, hundreds of thousands. Little things like those that you haven't managed to come close to discrediting -- and instead just showed how truly stupid you are?

Here's another wonderfully stupid claim from Stupid, perfectly illustrating how far from reality his "10,000-foot view" is:  
Quote
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"

The problem with your claim is immense here, AirHead. In regard to your claim about all fossils, everywhere, and all strata, everywhere being part of the same deluge, you have been questioned and found wanting.

Your "hypothesis" here doesn't even come close to dealing with the reality of strata and fossil data. Your claim is that it's ALL part of the same deluge, remember? Yet it's sorted...and like the question from the young person on page 2 on this section of your thread about HOW they got sorted....you can't explain it. Nor does the ICR...in fact, the "study" by the French "scientist" who has no degree (remember?) showed that even in the artificial setting he concocted, he couldn't get grains of 3 kinds to do what he needed them to do.
Furthermore, you couldn't show how eolian layers got in the mix, AirHead...shown by those terrible little spider tracks in the Coconino sandstone that you still can't explain. Nor can you explain the limestone layers preferentially deposited in the midst of this raging flood...limestones that are over 95% pure. Nor can you explain ( and you haven't even tried explaining) the paleosols in the Grand Staircase ( and don't try to play even more stupid than you are and say you haven't been shown examples...yes you have, Jon cited a ton of them)...and on and on and on, dozens of questions that negate your claim that the mere existence of lots of layers and lots of fossils supports your view.

It doesn't support your hypothesis..it supports the idea of deep time and a succession of fossils.  

And speaking of those fossils, I see you're still claiming that layers in the Grand Staircase are not radiometrically dated, despite the fact that I gave you dozens of dates on the Morrison alone. Do you really think lying so blatantly helps you? You began your original thread on your "hypothesis that is better than any other" by lying...and you continue it still. Bravo! You can lie for months at a time. Great. Now how about dealing with all the questions asked you about your hypothesis? Oh, yeah, you can't answer those, so you just puke up more ICR and AIG nonsense ( despite being lied to BY THEM...BWAHAHA, there's a turnaround...liars lying to each other).

So...how's about that Barringer meteor crater that is radiometrically dated at 49,000 years old and penetrated the layers of the Grand Canyon that you say are only 2300 years old?

How about those civilizations that had writing and wrote continuously before and after your alleged flood? And they didn't DIE!!.Bwahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN. Questions are being asked...RUN!!!!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,09:16   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 27 2006,14:55)
Quote
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"

And get doctorates in biology while virtually never rejecting evolution. And get astrophysics PhD's while NOT understanding that all the light they're looking at aren't really from far off galaxies, but were miracled into place. And get MD's while NOT understanding that you can drink any poison and not be harmed as long as you believe in Jesus...

Clearly, the dumbest people in the world are all the experts.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,09:20   

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 27 2006,08:39)
 To truly understand my position on evolution, or even on molecular phylogenetics, you would have to sit in on more than a few university-level courses, read hundreds of textbooks, read literally thousands of papers, attend dozens of conferences, have a few beers and "back-of-the-envelope" sessions with dozens of prestigious scientists actually doing the work, do some of the work yourself, publish peer-reviewed papers where you apply the same principles, use the principles in a very practical facet of your job (determining populations or units of fish species that qualify for protection as endangered species, for example), and so on.

Or, Dave, you could recognize that you don't begin to have the necessary intellectual toolkit to understand this sort of highly-technical information, forget about your methodologically-dubious attempts to do end-runs around the hard parts, and accept the fact that the guys who have spent their careers studying this stuff (and the other guys who review their work to make sure it represents solid science) know it way, way, way better than you ever have a prayer of knowing it, and take their word for it.

When the entire scientific community (i.e., the relevant part of that community, not the engineers, the mathematicians, the astronomers, or the biblical scholars, for crying out loud) accepts that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas, maybe it's time for you to accept it as well. After all, guys who are way smarter than you are, e.g., Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Ed Witten, or Lisa Randall, accept the fact that they don't know nearly enough about primate evolution to critique the work of recognized experts in the field. What make you think you're qualified to do so?

If you were really interested in evidence supporting the (HC)G) phylogeny, you'd actually study that evidence (and not rely on the non-specialist critiques on AiG). You'd delve into the actual original research, and in order to do that, you'd need to have a pretty good understanding of the underlying science, which you most emphatically do not have.

Remember way back in May, on the very first day of this thread, when I admonished you about saying  you would "forgive scientists if they admit their errors and fix them"? You think you're going to find "errors" in Incorygible's, or JonF's, work, to say nothing of scientists of international reputation? This is exactly the kind of arrogance that drives people crazy around here, because God, Dave, no one I have ever seen in any Internet forum discussing science has less right than you do to be arrogant when it comes to science.

You're still laboring under the misapprehension that science is easy, Dave, and reading a few websites like AiG and ICR (which are not intended for even a scientifically-literate audience, let alone an audience of scientists) is enough to get you up to speed on topics like radiometric dating, primate genetics, stratigraphy, astrophysics, etc. But science isn't easy. It's extremely hard. Just getting knowledgeable about one tiny little subspecialty (Lake Victoria cichlids, and you'll note that the first paragraph of that abstract contradicts your young-earth "hypothesis," which should once more give you an idea of what you're up against in trying to disprove and old earth) can take an entire career. But you have the monumental arrogance to think you can take in all of science in one big year-long gulp from the muddy puddle of creationist websites, and get anywhere disproving all of science.

And you still can't come up with any actual support for your own hypothesis!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,09:26   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Mike PSS...              
Quote
Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.  I'm quite sure you do.  But that is an entirely different thing than being able to defend it reasonably and convince me that the "dates" obtained are real.  And I don't think you have made any mistakes in your arguments other than the fact that I really don't know what your argument is or what your point is.  But I am happy to hear it.  Now ... I do know what olivine is and I understand crystal formation somewhat.  What does this have to do with RM Dating being a valid indicator of true age.
So AFDave.  When you said something like this but only 15hours 12minutes before you said this...          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.  {my bolding in both blocks}
what was your point?  Ad Hominums are easier than addressing the issues.  AND what does Eric have to do with this?  Those are totally your words and quotes?  

Moving on.... I'll work with you on your request.  I'll try and summarize the following statement.  BUT first we have to agree upon the statement.  Do you agree to address the issues behind my summary of:

How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
My summary will serve as my attempt to refute your claims of:
  • Whole rock Isochrons result in only single points from a sample (argued by Arndts and Overn also).
  • All whole rock Isochrons are better described as mixing lines.
After my summary you can review and respond to my summary as you see fit.  But first....

Do you agree to the above statement?
WARNING TO AFDAVE:  I am not indicating ages, time, or half-lives in my argument so any counter-arguments about time are not allowed.  I'm only trying to show the natural, physical processes for crystal formation as it relates to Rb/Sr testing and how these processes form the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graph.  My only contention is that Rb87 atoms decay to Sr87 atoms following published nuclear physical processes over some unspecified time (OR you can think of this numerically, some quantity of Rb decays to Sr after crystal formation but the quantity has no relation to the time involved if you want to bend your mind this way).  I can elaborate on this warning more if you don't understand ALL the implications related to this warning.

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave, remember you can accept ALL Isochron graphs right now.  Just admit your argument against the Isochron testing was wrong (you can even say MISTAKEN).  You can STILL argue about time scales while accepting that the METHOD of whole rock Isochron testing is valid (in other words the data and graphs are correct but those funky time stamps on the side are wrong).  I'll stop pummelling you with this boring crystal stuff if you move your arguments to half-lives and accellerated nuclear decay rates.  Don't say I didn't warn you though  
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,11:49)
AFDave, eventually the only argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,09:29   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 27 2006,14:55)
I'd looked over AirHead's posts the last few days and thought about responding, but then decided not to -- the truth of the matter is that Stupid's ideas won't make a bit of difference except to those kids whose college entrances he manages to screw up, in which case, they'll resent him and his lies even more, which is fine with me.

But I was amused enough by a couple of things to make a comment today. First: Dave's stupid claim about  
Quote
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

Except when no fossils at all are used, eh, AirHead? Like with lunar samples? Meteorites? Ancient prebiotic rocks? Thousands of dates don't rely on fossil calibration, hundreds of thousands. Little things like those that you haven't managed to come close to discrediting -- and instead just showed how truly stupid you are?

Here's another wonderfully stupid claim from Stupid, perfectly illustrating how far from reality his "10,000-foot view" is:    
Quote
It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"

The problem with your claim is immense here, AirHead. In regard to your claim about all fossils, everywhere, and all strata, everywhere being part of the same deluge, you have been questioned and found wanting.

Your "hypothesis" here doesn't even come close to dealing with the reality of strata and fossil data. Your claim is that it's ALL part of the same deluge, remember? Yet it's sorted...and like the question from the young person on page 2 on this section of your thread about HOW they got sorted....you can't explain it. Nor does the ICR...in fact, the "study" by the French "scientist" who has no degree (remember?) showed that even in the artificial setting he concocted, he couldn't get grains of 3 kinds to do what he needed them to do.
Furthermore, you couldn't show how eolian layers got in the mix, AirHead...shown by those terrible little spider tracks in the Coconino sandstone that you still can't explain. Nor can you explain the limestone layers preferentially deposited in the midst of this raging flood...limestones that are over 95% pure. Nor can you explain ( and you haven't even tried explaining) the paleosols in the Grand Staircase ( and don't try to play even more stupid than you are and say you haven't been shown examples...yes you have, Jon cited a ton of them)...and on and on and on, dozens of questions that negate your claim that the mere existence of lots of layers and lots of fossils supports your view.

It doesn't support your hypothesis..it supports the idea of deep time and a succession of fossils.  

And speaking of those fossils, I see you're still claiming that layers in the Grand Staircase are not radiometrically dated, despite the fact that I gave you dozens of dates on the Morrison alone. Do you really think lying so blatantly helps you? You began your original thread on your "hypothesis that is better than any other" by lying...and you continue it still. Bravo! You can lie for months at a time. Great. Now how about dealing with all the questions asked you about your hypothesis? Oh, yeah, you can't answer those, so you just puke up more ICR and AIG nonsense ( despite being lied to BY THEM...BWAHAHA, there's a turnaround...liars lying to each other).

So...how's about that Barringer meteor crater that is radiometrically dated at 49,000 years old and penetrated the layers of the Grand Canyon that you say are only 2300 years old?

How about those civilizations that had writing and wrote continuously before and after your alleged flood? And they didn't DIE!!.Bwahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN. Questions are being asked...RUN!!!!

It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,10:08   

Re "and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,""

Wonder if the phrase "water cycle" would ring any bells here...

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,10:17   

After a 4 month dry spell, AFDumdum has a new post up at his blog.

 
Quote
Monday, September 25, 2006

THE BOOK OF GENESIS: EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM THE DAWN OF TIME

Today I will do a book review of a book entitled "Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis." What this book does is show clearly that Genesis is "Eyewitness History" re-establishing the pre-JEDP view of the Book of Genesis. The book was written by Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman and edited and updated by his son, Professor of Assyriology Donald J. Wiseman. This material has been referred to by some Bible commentators including Henry Morris and R.K. Harrison, but I had never personally examined the book. I found a used copy (had to pay $85!;) and what a treat it has been. Absolutely fascinating book!


Comments are turned off, presumably because Dave's family knows about the blog, and Dave doesn't want them seeing what we have to say about his horribly bad thinking.

http://airdave.blogspot.com/

   
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,10:30   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29)
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.

Which would be kind of sad entertainment, really, if said 6th-grader's headless corpse didn't then get up, time after time, and prance around the playground with his arms upheld in victory. At which point you feel compelled to grab another handful of popcorn. Hit 'im again, Mike!

Or even knock his block off yourself a few times. He doesn't even realize it's gone, so it's easy to excuse as a victimless crime, despite the obviously shameful mismatch.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,11:47   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)

No, Dave. By far the dumbest thing I've ever heard said here is that 5,000 (or 50,000, of 500,000) feet of water could have laid down 5,000 feet of sediment, to say nothing of 17,000 feet of sediment. You simply refuse to address this bone-simple problem that completely blows your "global catastrophic flood hypothesis" away.

You simply don't have nearly enough water to accomplish what you need to accomplish. (In actual fact, you don't have any water, let alone enough water.) Do you think no one has noticed this glaring problem with your "hypothesis," Dave?

So what's your answer (for easily the twentieth time)? How do account for the 5,000—15,000 feet of sediment, when you yourself have only proposed 5,000 feet of water? What's your explanation for this glaringly obvious discrepancy between your "hypothesis" and reality?

And this is only one of many, many, many problems with just the "global catastrophic flood" part of your "hypothesis." The rest of the elements of your "UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis" are similarly at odds with observation. In other words, your whole "hypothesis" is bleeding not from a thousand cuts, but from a million sucking chest wounds, Dave.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,11:56   

Wow. I just checked out Dave's blog for the first time, and what a feeling of déja vu that precipitated. After looking at it, I can pretty much guarantee he will never, ever turn on comments. Can you imagine what would happen over there to his "Creator God Hypothesis" if he ever did? It would look just like this thread.

I think it's a testament to Dave's believe in the strength of his own arguments that comments are disabled on his own blog. If he really thought he was obliterating our arguments left and right, why would he not want those same arguments on his own blog so he could show them to all his friends?

So it really is just braggadoccio, Dave. You don't even believe you're winning any arguments here; you just pretend you do.

[edit] I just noticed that in the picture of Dave's family on his blog, there are six individuals. Shouldn't there be seven? DAve + Wife + Five Kids = ? Or is this one of those "Portuguese" things? Or maybe someone just couldn't make it to the photo op?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,12:09   

Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something.

But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,13:54   

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 27 2006,15:30)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29)
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.

Which would be kind of sad entertainment, really, if said 6th-grader's headless corpse didn't then get up, time after time, and prance around the playground with his arms upheld in victory. At which point you feel compelled to grab another handful of popcorn. Hit 'im again, Mike!

Or even knock his block off yourself a few times. He doesn't even realize it's gone, so it's easy to excuse as a victimless crime, despite the obviously shameful mismatch.

A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,13:57   

Quote
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.


Don't worry, it was a legally sanctioned fight. The sixth grader just has a bad promoter.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,14:13   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 27 2006,18:54)
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.

What do you mean? Dave thinks he's winning!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,15:19   

Quote
It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.

Quote
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.
I feel great about it all  :D Considering that Dave had the temerity to call my ancestors "devolved," I'm glad to kick him in the huevos when I get the hankerin'. Steve is just making fun of my lisp, the bastard...Signed, Drederick "deadman" Tatum.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,16:29   

AFDave got me thinking (note to self; check expiration date of my medication) and one of his primary arguments has one more hole {glaring inconsistency, logical gap, sucking chest wound, whatever}.

One of his primary (there's that word again) arguments against RM dating is:      
Quote
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?


JonF, deadman, ericmurphy and others have said quite clearly that proper sample selection for testing counters this argument.  Another counter used is how does AFDave explain the date ranges that DO result from the proper samples.

But Dave's argument is ALSO against the METHOD of RM testing along with the results.  From his statement, he believes that ALL samples, no matter what their position or origin should give concordant results otherwise the technique of RM testing is somehow not worth anything.  I can hear AFDave saying right now; "Unless and until RM testing can atain this level of performance, I can't believe it."

I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D

AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,17:49   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29)
I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D

Which will be a great idea, once he actually starts presenting it.

But Dave's whole premise that you can't trust any testing methodology unless it's 100% accurate is facially absurd. No testing methodology is 100% accurate, but that doesn't stop Dave from going to the doctor. If the doctor came to Dave and said to him, "I've got bad news: your test results come back, and it looks like there's a possibility you've got colorectal cancer" (no tasteless jokes, please), would Dave's response be, "I don't need any exploratory surgery, because your test isn't 100% accurate and therefore is worthless"? Doubtful.

But Dave's issues with radiometric dating are psychological, not methodological. Dave is well aware of the fact that radiometric dating (among zillions of other things) is the death knell for his worldview, and therefore he simply cannot accept that it is accurate. Therefore, it's imperative that he try to find some way to discredit in his own eyes, which initially I thought he was able to do, but given that he does not allow comments on his own blog, I'm starting to think otherwise. I think Dave realizes he's been defeated here (don't worry, Dave; I'm not expecting you to admit it), but he can't ever stop fighting, which means he'll be our favorite Creationist piñata for some time to come.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,17:52   

Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D"

You'll have to find it, first. ;)

Henry

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,20:03   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29)
I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D

AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines.

The only evidence DDTTD has presented here is that he's a liar and a willfully ignorant moron (as well as a coward).

From his own blog;

Quote
I actually enjoy getting comments from people who DISAGREE with me. The stronger your disagreement and the more intelligent you sound, the better!


He thinks he's being clever by making statements like this.

His sole purpose here is to be (symbolically crucified) banned.

He's too cowardly to die for what he believes (like the apostles supposedly did), he won't take a physical beating for what he believes. He won't even take an intellectual/psychological beating on HIS OWN BLOG! That's why comments are turned off on his blog and why I'm sure he hasn't shown any of his friends this website.

Our Radical Diletantte Dave is merely tolerated by those in his life because he's a competent taxi driver.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,03:56   

Quote
Our Radical Diletantte Dave is merely tolerated by those in his life because he's a competent taxi driver.


Yeah I'll bet that's the one time when he doesn't make people pray when they are in his company...just before take off.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,04:27   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2006,23:52)
Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. :D"

You'll have to find it, first. ;)

Henry

But in AFDave's mind, he has produced at least two pieces of evidence.

1) MASSIVE amounts of water-laid sediment.
2) A book.

Everyone else on this board has ripped this evidence to shreds.  I'm just saying that if AFDave wants to present these (and other) items that he terms as evidence for his arguments that he hold it to the same standards he holds for RM dating.

I'm purposefully avoiding any direct attacks on Dave's character.  I know this leads to (what I think are) boring posts, and I could cut loose any minute, but it doesn't serve MY purpose here. ;)   His last bit of theater, accusing me of "pretending to know this stuff" caused me to walk away from the keyboard and think before I typed.  I don't want AFDave to have any "outs" in my present discussion about crystal formation and Isochrons.  The evidence is rock solid  :p and everyone knows that AFDave has only one option, to argue against the actual age results.  If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,04:37   

Mike PSS
Quote
If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly.



For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.

You can lead an loony to a psychiatrist but you can't make him listen, as long as he holds his fingers in his ears and jumps up and down and screams lalalalalalalala.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,05:48   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37)
For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.

…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,06:17   

ericmurphy said.
Quote
…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.


I certainly don't want to discourage Mike PSS from further posts..,EXCEPT for AutisticFartDave the rest of the posts have been very enlightening.

But to give AFD his due.... without him we wouldn't be treated to a full scale pathological cognitive dissonance of biblical proportions, he's like a huge fridge to which little magnetic snippets of real science have been attached, except the light doesn't go on when you open the door...we just get the dank smell of rotting jesus fish. NPD? we should donate this thread to the American Psychiatrists Association as an example and AFD you should respond in kind by donating your body to science, I'm truly interested to see if there is *ANYTHING* inside your skull.
Now don't forget, in your will don't say “Donate my body to pseudoscience!”

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,07:33   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 28 2006,11:48)
   
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37)
For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory.

…But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated.

And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too.

Wriggle around.   AFDave tried both barrels of a shotgun approach.  But thanks to stevestory's disarming reply that turned into a slapstick comedy moment.  Cue clown car and circus music.


Ahhhhhh....   Good times....

  
Diogenes



Posts: 80
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,08:42   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29)
[massive snippage]
Thanks.  And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)
[snip]

For me, this pretty much sums up the entire debate.  Dave is of the belief that the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, in Geology, Astronomy, Physics, and Biology, from different countries, different backgrounds, and different religions, all to a man are either liars or idiots.  

Furthmore he is of the belief that a laymen armed with a Bible in one hand and the Encyclopedia Brittanica in the other can easily with a single picture, or a quick phrase destroy the founding principles of a branch of science, even when competing against experts in the individual fields who have dedicated their lives to understanding the field, and can do so for all the branches of science.  The fact that he often asks for help understanding a principle before he rhetorically rapes that principle is not a problem apparently.

Everyone else that posts on this thread appears to disagree with Dave.  Given the rather large chasm between the view of reality between the two parties, I'd guess the odds are against either changing the mind of the other.

--------------
:)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,08:50   

Quote (Diogenes @ Sep. 28 2006,13:42)
Given the rather large chasm between the view of reality between the two parties, I'd guess the odds are against either changing the mind of the other.

I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,14:30   

Eric:

 
Quote
I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!


But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
G. cuvier



Posts: 2
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,14:41   

Having read this thread from it's inception, let me just say that it has been hysterical. Everyone's responses to AFDave reminded me of this...
Robot Chicken - One-sided Fistfights

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,14:52   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:30)
But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)

Yep. He's much worse. The list of questions Dave's never answered gets longer every week.

I'm talking about questions that Dave's never even acknowledged, let alone answered.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,18:18   

Quote
But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?

Like eric said, yeah, he's much worse. In fact, I and others have told him explicitly that he would be answered if he asks a direct question...and he has been answered each time he has asked one. Whether he ACCEPTS the answers is irrelevant, what counts is the QUALITY of the responses, which have been very high in each and every case.
The same can't be said at all about DumbAssDave's responses, nor has he even addressed dozens of questions that have been posed to him. So, yeah, he's  inferior in that regard. He has a LITTLE "skill" in avoidance, denial, unresponsive reversals, etc., but he's not nearly as accomplished in the art of weaseling as you , GoP -- perhaps because he's just a tad more stupid, but with a touch more moral fiber, low as it is. Now, shoo, and go play with your silly little geocentric model that you got slapped around with, stupid.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,03:09   

MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance.  Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.  Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have?  Well, you have ...

a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine.  Be my guest.  

I see someone was surprised that I said that if you have to be selective to get "datable" rocks, then this throws ALL rocks into question.  The reason for this is simple.  What is the criteria for "correct" dates?  I have said it is fossils which is actually not specific enough.  It is actually Fossils plus the whole Fairy Tale of Evolution.  This answers Deadman's objection.  It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.  If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.

I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing."  This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature.  And it is a fascinating search.

Every once in a while you all give me a glimpse into your minds and how you determine truth for yourselves.  I get these opportunities every time you speculate about some aspect of my life.  It is interesting because I know the truth about my own life far better than Origins issues, so it is quite obvious and funny when I see some of you making some wild speculation about some aspect of my life.  I've had people think I claimed to be a fighter pilot, had people say I washed out of pilot training in the Air Force, people that said I couldn't make rank, and got helicopters forced on me because I couldn't fly anything else and on and on.  I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.

The latest fun has been Steve Story speculating about my blog site ...  
Quote
Comments are turned off, presumably because Dave's family knows about the blog, and Dave doesn't want them seeing what we have to say about his horribly bad thinking. http://airdave.blogspot.com/
Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning.  As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now.  I'm spending my forum time here.  But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

Another good one is Eric counting my family members ... he has heard me say there are seven people in my family, but he only counts 6 in my family picture.  Hmmmm ... he says, "a Portuguese moment for poor Dave?" (betraying that he still thinks I was wrong about Portuguese)  I'll leave this one hanging and see if there are any rocket scientists here who can figure this one out.

I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution.  And of course, there is the persistent notion that since "95% of the scientists in the world believe something, it must be true."  (**cough cough** forget about Galileo and Copernicus) And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.

I see that Aftershave finally got slapped down for his foul mouth (er ... keyboard) ... I remember admonishing him and others in this regard months ago.  I said that all he was really accomplishing was making Evos look bad.  Steve Story apparently agrees now.  I guess I should have kept my mouth shut since it is to the advantage of my cause for Evos to look bad.  But I do feel sorry for the underdog and I can't help but wish for him to have a sporting chance.  Seriously, my true goal for ALL is that you would come to the knowledge of the truth.  I have no interest in "winning" a personal war.  I only want others to benefit from the knowledge of the Truth in their lives as I have benefitted.  I do realize that the odds of hardened skeptics coming to a knowledge of the truth are slim, which is why I take my message to kids, but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.

No time right now to give you any more info on RM Dating.  If anyone wants to try to convince me why Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time, I'm all ears.  Hopefully, I will have time next week to dive into this topic a little more.

I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months.  I will let you know when new articles appear there.

***********************************************

Mike PSS...
Quote
How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
No disagreement here.  I just don't think it proves Deep Time.  As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong.  Now ... convince me of something if you can.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,03:47   

AFD projects:
Quote
Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning.


Is that right AFD? ..terrific..get them to logon and say hello..I say you're lying.


Quote

As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now.  I'm spending my forum time here.


Really? ...another bald faced lie. You're too chickensh*t to turn on comments. Spin away AFD you're not convincing anyone.

And now the money shot .....all creos do it ....as sure as the Pope is a Catholic.. they can't help themselves.
Let me help you fix your next comment for you AFD.

Quote

But your MYcomment provides an interesting parallel to the EvolutionistCreationist Approach to Truth.  What you I WANT to believe seriously clouds your MY thinking and causes you ME  to arrive at erroneous conclusions.


Say whatever you like AFD, what you do not realize is that every single loony creo that has popped up here and on PT has EXACTLY the same Modus Operandi.

They each naively without the slightest hint of self awareness make the same mistake...you are just a parody..and no university in the world teaches a parody as science.

Go for it AFD...project your faults for all to see.... you are just a total loser.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,03:53   

AFD makes another hollow boast:
Quote
I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months.  I will let you know when new articles appear there.


Why bother?

All you have done is C&P'ed creationist claptrap and hogwash.

If you were honest you would just provide the links to this thread......coward.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,03:57   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

This seems to be the core of your Grand Evolutionist Conspiracy hypothesis.  But I don't think you have any supporting evidence for it.  In fact, the reality seems to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying.  I think I have a fairly objective view of the whole situation, and it seems obvious to me that the YECs such as yourself have far more of a psychological stake in the age of the earth than any of the "evolutionist" scientists.  As far as I can tell, the only people who are "seeing what they want to see" in regards to science are the fundamentalist Christians.

I'll grant you that there has been a lot of idle speculation WRT your personal life and issues, but I think that's beside the point.  Such things are already acknowledged as emotional reactions to your inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend simple logic.  But, as far as I can tell, the science discussed here (with the exception of any YEC claims that you present) bears no such bias.

YOU are the one who is desperate to match facts to your beliefs - not the scientists.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,04:45   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,08:09)
a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Schrodinger's Cat just rolled over in its box.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,05:09   

Quote
This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature.


That's fine if your version of "Truth" does not require being able to answer questions.

Quote
And it is a fascinating search.


I'll bet it is! A limitless flight of fancy unconstrained by buzzkills like reality? Pass some this way.

 
Quote
I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution.


That's fine if you don't feel particularly compelled to actually understand that which you are refuting.

 
Quote
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.


Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

 
Quote
but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.


Technically true, perhaps, and generally true if you are referring to the informative posts of others. But when it comes to yourself, Dave, I think you seriously misunderstand what we are learning from you. Plato you ain't, big guy.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,05:55   

Interesting that Dave has time to post a 1,000-word essay on why he's not losing here, but no time to post his objections to isochrons.

And Dave? You need a lot more than advanced degrees in 10 different fields to be able to "refute" evolution. Evolution is a fact, and no one who has actually studied the subject in any depth at all doubts it. In fact, you don't even doubt it. In fact, your "hypothesis" requires evolution rates far beyond anything contemplated by any theory of evolution, if you think the several thousand "kinds" on the ark have diversified into the tens of millions of species currently in existence in less than five thousand years. (Strange how silent you've been on this issue, like so many other issues, such as the depth of sediment your "flood" needs to account for.)

And that's why we know you're "losing," Dave. Your "hypothesis" has a number of absolutely fatal flaws to it (the above-mentioned two are representative of dozens), and your inability to address these critical problems with your theory means you are, indeed, "losing." As I pointed out to Bill, not only do you not answer these questions, you don't even acknowledge them.

Oh, so you want to refute the theory of evolution? Is that what you meant to say? Well, you're still going to need advanced degrees in ten subjects or more, because contrary to your bone-headed misapprehensions about how science works, the evidence in favor of the theory is mountainous.

And one more thing, Dave: "evolutionists" don't require the earth to billions of years old. The vast majority of complex multicellular life has arisen in less than the last billion years. For the first three billion years, life basically amounted to bacteria. So why do "evolutionists" "need" the earth to be 4.55 billion years old? They don't. They think the earth is 4.55 billion years old because the evidence supports that date. You're the one with an emotional attachment to a world six orders of magnitude younger than that, because otherwise your whole life becomes based on a lie. So don't go around accusing scientists of having an agenda. Your agenda couldn't be any clearer if you came out and admitted it (which, in some cases, such as the phylogeny of great apes, you already have).

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:03   

Yeah ShitForBrains Dave, I sure got 'slapped down' alright!  :D  :D  :D

I bet the readers and lurkers here will accept my honest statements with vulgarities over your sugar-coated and flowery set of outright lies any day of the week.  Want to start a poll and bet on it?

When are you going to discuss the C14 calibration like you promised Davie?
When are you going to discuss the time required to form limestone?
When are you going to discuss the time required to form 1000 ft. of limestone, erode a canyon in it, then cover it with 17,000 ft. of sediment?
When are you going to discuss the two dozen sequentially buried mature forests in Yellowstone?

See Davie, stevestory can delete my harsh language when I slip across the line (as I occasionally do) and it won't alter my scientific arguments one little bit.

If he started deleting your lies, there would be nothing left but a blank white page.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:04   

Quote
Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.

No, THEY said it. YOU parroted it, without knowing what the #### you were talking about. So much so that you felt compelled to invent fantasies out of whole cloth.
Quote
This answers Deadman's objection.  It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.  If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.
Actually, no it doesn't answer my objections. As I previously posted, in the lunar and meteorite and prebiotic rock samples...all the radiometric methods used ...agreed. That is what you failed to address..the actual data. You have given what you think is a psychological reason for all scientists everywhere to FAKE dates...but you have not shown that they ARE fake. The term you are searching for here in psychology is "projection," little ProvenLiarDave.
Quote
I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing."

You have a hypothesis that you are attempting to support, yet you cannot support it by answering questions, thus your "hypothesis that is better than any other" fails at several levels of requirements. This eliminates your hypothesis as valid or viable until corrected.  If you believe this is "fallacious" to think so, please explain your reasoning and cite the fallacy -- because this is a basic tenet of science, Stupid, a thing you again, fail miserably at grasping.

Your intellectual dishonesty forces you to avoid or otherwise lie, Stupid--you have no choice. This sort of thing is admirably illustrated by the fact that you have not directly responded to Jon or Mike's explanations/queries on the subject of whole-rock dating, again.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:13   

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 
Quote
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.


Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:17   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 29 2006,11:13)
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 
Quote
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.


Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.

Ah! Silly me. I keep forgetting that evolution = geology.  My bad.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:21   

Quote
No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.

I was the one a few months back who asked Dave questions about ANY businesses based on YEC models
 
Quote
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?  

Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  

and
 
Quote
If the YE model is the ‘truth’ and is so superior to the OE model, why has no YEC figured out a way to make money from it?  Why aren’t you, the super-duper businessman, making money from it?  Looks like you would have no competition IF you could figure out a good business case.  AFAICT, the only way to make money from YE is to sell pseudo-scientific books and videos to boobs like yourself who are desperate to have their delusions reinforced


As you note, Dishonest Dave never could come up with an answer.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:54   

Dave,
When will the earth be 6001 years old? Is there a specific day? Is it new years day?
Or is gawd keeping it at 6000 for ever?
It's a simple question but i dont expect an answer.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:07   

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,11:17)
Ah! Silly me. I keep forgetting that evolution = geology.  My bad.

Actually, more generally, "evolution" = "any scientific fact or theory that conflicts with my worldview." This may come as a surprise, but theories of cosmology or, e.g., stellar evolution are actually parts of the Theory of Evolution, to the extent that they require the universe to be more than 6,000 years old. It's a little-known fact that there is a conspiracy among cosmologists, astrophysicists, high-energy physicists, geologists, and evolutionary biologists, and others to defraud the public into thinking the Bible is false.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:27   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 29 2006,11:21)
I was the one a few months back who asked Dave questions about ANY businesses based on YEC models
   
Quote
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?  

Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  

and
   
Quote
If the YE model is the ‘truth’ and is so superior to the OE model, why has no YEC figured out a way to make money from it?  Why aren’t you, the super-duper businessman, making money from it?  Looks like you would have no competition IF you could figure out a good business case.  AFAICT, the only way to make money from YE is to sell pseudo-scientific books and videos to boobs like yourself who are desperate to have their delusions reinforced


As you note, Dishonest Dave never could come up with an answer.

Are you serious?

Snake oil peddlers the world around use YEC models to make money. Dr. Dino? Tent revivals?

Hmm. Interesting that they are all making money by asking for donations from those who believe them isn't it?

Dave, Core samples? Let me know.

PS:
Quote
afdave  
Quote
Posted: May 18 2006,22:21    

...Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

afdave  
Quote
Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?  



afdave    
Quote

Posted: May 19 2006,08:37  
Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.

BWE    
Quote

Posted: May 19 2006,14:22  
Davey-dog. You are an idiot. Define Spanish. Be careful, that's a trick question. Next Define spanish around the time of song of roland.  

I'll take your bet. But the stakes are different. If I win, I get to write a post on your blog, if you win, you get to write a post for my blog. and one more thing, please answer some age of the earth questions.


Just because I think you are stupid, I am not going to do any preliminary research.

And I am making some assumptions about your claim:

1) the portuguese language substantially changed beginning in the year 1143.

2) The Spanish you are referring to is Castilian

3) The french language and the Castillian language are the major components of modern Portuguese.

4) the dialect of Portuguese you are referring to is the one spoken in Lisbon.

5) That you are making an all or nothing claim similar to  your others (there are no gray areas)
link
link here

So you see, when you say that you didn't lose the portuguese thing, you get responses that disagree.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:29   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 29 2006,12:03)
See Davie, stevestory can delete my harsh language when I slip across the line (as I occasionally do) and it won't alter my scientific arguments one little bit.

If he started deleting your lies, there would be nothing left but a blank white page.

I entertained this idea w/r/t Ghost of Paley--not allow any new posts from him which didn't provide the models and evidence he's claimed for a year to have. I discarded the idea after about 1 second when I realized it would effectively end Paley's participation on this board, forever.

   
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:49   

And the down side to that would be what, precisely?

Sheesh, with the ghast of Paley around, who needs dogs pooping on the lawn?   At least some owners clean up after their dogs...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:53   

Shirley said:
Quote
And the down side to that would be what, precisely?


Touché...

Ah well ......there's no party without punch.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:54   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 29 2006,12:27)
So you see, when you say that you didn't lose the portuguese thing, you get responses that disagree.

Dave, not only did you lose the Portuguese thing, you never even argued your position. If this were a court case, I'd say you lost by having your default taken.

Your claim was a linguistic claim, Dave, requiring linguistic evidence to support it. You never provided any liguistic evidence at all, instead providing a pastiche of irrelevant historical trivia.

So you not only lost, Dave; you didn't even put up a fight.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,08:04   

AFDave,
I see you restate your case about mixing lines about Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graphs.          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective&q