k.e
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
If anyone is interested in a useful summarizing tool have a look a Copernic Summarizer free 30 day trial available.
Coperinic Desktop (free) should be on everyones PC IMHO it indexes every single document on your pc and when finished gives instant return of every document/pdf/etc with the keyword.
Here is what it did to the first page of the 2nd AFD thread.
If anyone wants to run both threads through as a text file the concepts heading may be pretty useful. I don't have the time alas.
| Quote |
Concepts:
flood, quote, animals, humans, evidence, rock, water, layers, dave, deposits, sediment, God, reasoning, Christian, Scriptures.
Summary:
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!
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.
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."
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.
It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.
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.
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.
I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth.
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.
The K-Ar method is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists.
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.
And the famous Cherry Picking statement ...
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis.
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.
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
(Oh BTW ... did anyone notice that the chart we just discussed with the miniscule range of values was primarily a MINERAL isochron chart?
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.
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.
... and after: Quote One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis.
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?
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.
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.
Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.
Now the theory says that for the isochron to be valid, the initial Sr ratio of 87Sr/86Sr is HOMOGENEOUS.
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 ...
How much water was involved in the flood, Dave?
You claim that humans have been literate since your flood.
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE?
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.
Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?
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?
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.
Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so?
Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?
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.
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?
Dave claimed (p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated.
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?
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?
Such a stratum would have CLEAR indications of pre- and postflood strata bracketing it.
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.
Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened.
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).
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.
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.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summarized by Copernic Summarizer
|
--------------
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
|
) 
