AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Occam's Aftershave

form_srcid: Occam's Aftershave

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.242.8.162

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Occam's Aftershave

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Occam\'s Aftershave%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/04/08 06:33:33, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Thordaddy:  Why would we teach a behavior as "normal" if statistics show a high correlation (over-representation) between the behavior (homosexuality) and AIDS, STDs, drug abuse and domestic violence?


As others have alluded to, that correlation implies causation is a logical fallacy.

Correlation DOES NOT imply causation

This is Basic Logic 101, but it seems to have eluded Thordaddy.

Date: 2006/04/08 13:34:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Thordaddy: I mean, look at all the responses from supposed scientists, and the total denial of the fact that American homosexuals are HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in incidences of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early mortality.


And African-American males ages 18-29 are also HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in the same areas.  For the third time, correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

Has it ever dawned on your bigoted little brain that such numbers could be affected by the stress due to discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence that gays are subjected to?

The Australian Medical Association did detailed studies in 2002 that came to exactly that conclusion.

Please read carefully the sections on discrimination, and its negative effect on health.

Quote
1.Sexual Diversity in Society
1.1 Homosexuality is defined as the sexual and emotional attraction to members of the same sex, and has existed in most societies for as long as sexual beliefs and practices have been recorded. The proportion of the population that is not exclusively heterosexual has been estimated at between 8 and 11 percent. This figure will naturally vary depending on the definitions used to describe the continuum of sexual identity that exists in our society.

1.2 Societal attitudes towards homosexuality have had a decisive impact on the extent to which individuals have been able to express their sexual orientation. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Subsequently homosexuality was recognised as a form of sexual orientation or expression rather than a mental illness.2 This move by the medical professional was instrumental in improving the health and welfare of this population.

1.3 Strong family connections are important to the health and well being of individuals, and recently there has been greater recognition of the diversity of family structures that exist in our society. These family structures could include nuclear families, single parents, blended families from remarriages as well as gay and lesbian parents. Accurate statistics regarding the number of parents who are gay or lesbian is difficult to obtain, as this data is not routinely collected. However, the American Academy of Paediatrics states that ‘the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes towards parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents.’

2. Discrimination
2.1 The term “heterosexism” has been used to describe the discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) populations. Heterosexism encompasses the belief that all people are and should be heterosexual and that alternative sexualities pose a threat to society. In this way heterosexism includes homophobia, a fear of alternative sexualities, and transphobia, a fear of alternative gender identities. It may also include a fear of intersex people who do not fit neatly into the binary categories of male and female.

2.2 Discrimination may be overt as in verbal abuse and physical violence or as covert as the silence that surrounds talking about GLBTI issues. This affects all members of society as individuals comply with gender role stereotypes in order to avoid homophobic discrimination. It is a constraint on human behavior that serves to diminish individual potential for development as well as diversity in our community.

2.3 The common experience of discrimination means that the health of GLBTI populations differs from that of the general population. This discrimination leads to health problems that are shared by this group as well as health problems specific to each subgroup. For GLBTI individuals the impact of this discrimination can lead to a poorer general health status, diminished utilization of healthcare facilities and a decreased quality of health services.

3. Shared Health Issues
3.1 Society’s acceptance of diverse sexualities and gender identities is a major factor in an individual’s successful transition through various lifestages. These significant lifestages include childhood, youth, middle age and ageing. As GLBTI people transition through these lifestages there are a number of health issues that are commonly faced.

3.2 Mental health problems are statistically over-represented in this population throughout life due to exposure to discriminatory behavior. One of the main groups affected by homophobia is same-sex attracted young people, particularly those living in rural areas where there is greater social isolation from GLBTI peers and role models. A consequence of this discrimination for GLBTI young people is that they have increased rates of homelessness, risk-taking behavior, depression, suicide and episodes of self-harm compared to their heterosexual cohorts.

3.3 The experience of violence is higher for the GLBTI community than the general population10 and a recent survey of the GLBTI community in Victoria indicated that “over 70% of respondents had been subject to an experience of public abuse in the past 5 years”. This experience may range from verbal abuse to physical attack. The experience or threat of violence has the potential to have a significant impact on an individual’s physical and mental health.

3.4 Patterns of drug and alcohol use within the GLBTI community are greater that that of the general population. The increased incidence of smoking and alcohol intake is also of concern in relation to cardiovascular risk factors. There is support for the theory linking individual patterns of drug and alcohol misuse with experiences of discrimination.


AMA Position Statement on Sexual Diversity

If you wish to raise your kids to be as bigoted as you are, that's your decision.  Just don't expect them to get very far in the modern world.

Date: 2006/04/09 17:49:20, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Thordaddy: Do have problems with drug and alcohol therapy?

Is there not empirical evidence for transitioning from the homosexual lifestyle?

Are American homosexuals not overrepresented in AIDS, STDs, etc.?

I don't think homosexuality has any place in education especially K-6th grade.  Good, bad or ugly.

BUT, if you are going to teach about "homosexuality" then the DETRIMENTAL and DEADLY EFFECTS due to the pratice of homosexuality should be at the FOREFRONT.  

Why are we deceiving young children about a topic that has PROVEN dangerous and deadly for a large contigent of its practitioners?


And African-American males ages 18-29 are also HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in the same areas.  Do you think therefore we should stop teaching children in schools that all men are created equal?  For the FOURTH F*CKING time, correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

Thordaddy, you are either the most bigoted piece of sh*t to come down the pike in months, or the most stupid, or both.  How did you manage to totally ignore the studies that show that the increased risk health and social problems of gays are CAUSED in a large part to the discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence that gays are subjected to?  Sexual orientation does not cause the health problems, PREJUDICED ASSH*LES cause the health problems.

Here is the 2002 Australian Medical Association report AGAIN.  Read the d*mn thing, then tell me what it says about discrimination and its negative effect on health.

Quote
 
1.Sexual Diversity in Society
1.1 Homosexuality is defined as the sexual and emotional attraction to members of the same sex, and has existed in most societies for as long as sexual beliefs and practices have been recorded. The proportion of the population that is not exclusively heterosexual has been estimated at between 8 and 11 percent. This figure will naturally vary depending on the definitions used to describe the continuum of sexual identity that exists in our society.

1.2 Societal attitudes towards homosexuality have had a decisive impact on the extent to which individuals have been able to express their sexual orientation. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Subsequently homosexuality was recognised as a form of sexual orientation or expression rather than a mental illness.2 This move by the medical professional was instrumental in improving the health and welfare of this population.

1.3 Strong family connections are important to the health and well being of individuals, and recently there has been greater recognition of the diversity of family structures that exist in our society. These family structures could include nuclear families, single parents, blended families from remarriages as well as gay and lesbian parents. Accurate statistics regarding the number of parents who are gay or lesbian is difficult to obtain, as this data is not routinely collected. However, the American Academy of Paediatrics states that ‘the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes towards parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents.’

2. Discrimination
2.1 The term “heterosexism” has been used to describe the discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) populations. Heterosexism encompasses the belief that all people are and should be heterosexual and that alternative sexualities pose a threat to society. In this way heterosexism includes homophobia, a fear of alternative sexualities, and transphobia, a fear of alternative gender identities. It may also include a fear of intersex people who do not fit neatly into the binary categories of male and female.

2.2 Discrimination may be overt as in verbal abuse and physical violence or as covert as the silence that surrounds talking about GLBTI issues. This affects all members of society as individuals comply with gender role stereotypes in order to avoid homophobic discrimination. It is a constraint on human behavior that serves to diminish individual potential for development as well as diversity in our community.

2.3 The common experience of discrimination means that the health of GLBTI populations differs from that of the general population. This discrimination leads to health problems that are shared by this group as well as health problems specific to each subgroup. For GLBTI individuals the impact of this discrimination can lead to a poorer general health status, diminished utilization of healthcare facilities and a decreased quality of health services.

3. Shared Health Issues
3.1 Society’s acceptance of diverse sexualities and gender identities is a major factor in an individual’s successful transition through various lifestages. These significant lifestages include childhood, youth, middle age and ageing. As GLBTI people transition through these lifestages there are a number of health issues that are commonly faced.

3.2 Mental health problems are statistically over-represented in this population throughout life due to exposure to discriminatory behavior. One of the main groups affected by homophobia is same-sex attracted young people, particularly those living in rural areas where there is greater social isolation from GLBTI peers and role models. A consequence of this discrimination for GLBTI young people is that they have increased rates of homelessness, risk-taking behavior, depression, suicide and episodes of self-harm compared to their heterosexual cohorts.

3.3 The experience of violence is higher for the GLBTI community than the general population10 and a recent survey of the GLBTI community in Victoria indicated that “over 70% of respondents had been subject to an experience of public abuse in the past 5 years”. This experience may range from verbal abuse to physical attack. The experience or threat of violence has the potential to have a significant impact on an individual’s physical and mental health.

3.4 Patterns of drug and alcohol use within the GLBTI community are greater that that of the general population. The increased incidence of smoking and alcohol intake is also of concern in relation to cardiovascular risk factors. There is support for the theory linking individual patterns of drug and alcohol misuse with experiences of discrimination.  


AMA Position on Sexual Diversity and Health Issues

If you're so worried about the health issues of gays adversely affecting society, then stop being such a d*ckheaded bigot.

I apologize to the rest of the board for my strong language, but few things hit my hot button like willfully ignorant prejudice.

Date: 2006/04/10 04:18:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Thordaddy:  Diseases are caused by DISCRIMINATION?

It seems like diseases are AVOIDED BY USING DISCRIMINATION.

This is the most laughable and unscientific dogma I've come across in awhile, Mr. Aftershave.

Take your liberal talking points to an unscientific forum.


OK, you're both bigoted and stupid.  Thanks for clearing that up

Susceptibility to diseases (including things like alcohol /drug abuse) is greatly increased for people under severe stress.

Sever stress is caused by being the victim of discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence.

Many gays are the victims of discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence.

If I used words with less syllables, would that help you understand?

I ask you again - do you thing we should stop teaching racial equality in schools because certain minorities are over-represented in health related issues?

Also, please tell us what you define to be the gay "lifestyle".  AFAIK for every confrontational gay who makes the evening news, there are a hundred other non-hetero folks leading quiet, normal lives.  These quite folks are our neighbors and friends.  They obey the laws, pay their taxes on time, worry about the economy, defend their country in the armed services, cheer the local sports teams, cry during sappy movies, love their parents, partners, and children.  Just like every other American.

Why in the world should they be ostracized and even killed for their sexuality (remember Matthew Sheppard?) because of bigoted assh*les like you?

Date: 2006/04/10 09:41:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Chris Hyland wrote:

Quote
I'm very curious to know your definition of homosexual behaivour.


Ghost of Paley wrote:

Quote
sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know.



Hi Ghost,

Quick question – how do you define gender?   Is it just the physical equipment a person is born with?  Are there only two genders, male and female?  What about hermaphrodites?  What gender are they?

My point is, the natural world is not limited to our binary constructs like masculine and feminine.  In the natural world nonfatal variations in phenotype expression are not uncommon, and appear across a continuous spectrum.    Similarly, variations in sexual preference appear across a continuous spectrum, from straight to bi to gay, and all shades in between.  Sexuality is determined by a myriad of factors – biological, genetic, environmental.  Those in society who define sexuality solely based on the plumbing between one’s legs, and who demonize those who don’t fit some narrow minded ideal are doing a great injustice to us all.

Date: 2006/04/10 15:42:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Ghost of Paley said:
Quote
But you're trying to build a rule from the exceptions. Most people are pretty clearly male or female.


Maybe in their physical equipment, but most certainly NOT in their sexual orientation.  Multiple studies show that between 2-4% (not the often misquoted 10%) of people in the world identify themselves as gay or bi.  Even erring on the low end, that’s over 100 million clearly non-hetero folks.  A not insignificant number, wouldn’t you agree?

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=88

Ghost of Paley said:
Quote
We can't design social norms around the exceptional cases - that would be like architects designing doorways with the NBA center in mind.


But we must design social norms to accommodate the exceptional cases.  Should we regress to a hundred years ago, when physically handicapped people were considered second class, denied civil rights, and placed in circus sideshows?  It’s not like those ‘tards such as Stephen Hawkings ever contribute to society, right?

Ghost of Paley said:
Quote
Perhaps.....but maybe there's a good reason for the taboo. Most social rules have developed for a reason. Even libertine societies were not equally tolerant of all types of homosexual behavior. I'm not a big fan of wiping out a suite of sexual mores without giving some thought to the possible consequences: Free love brings free diseases, and medicine's defenses can be circumvented through microevolution. Open relationships often lead to jealousy, contempt, and homicide. Get rid of marriage, and you often reap a crop of fatherless kids just looking for trouble. All of our little countercultural experiments have had unintended consequences, often disastrous.


You just defined homosexual behavior as “sexual contact between members of the same gender. Romantic kissing, petting, and well.....you know.”  Now you are equating accepting homosexual behavior to “wiping out sexual mores” and “free love” and “open relationships” and “end of marriage”?  How in the world can you make that logical connection?

Here’s a though experiment for you

You walk through the park and see a man and a woman making out like high school kids.  Someone tells you “They’re on their honeymoon”, so you can bet they’ll be doing that “well,,,you know” stuff at night.  You walk away smiling

A week later you find out that the woman was actually a guy in drag, and that they pretended to be a hetero couple because they weren’t allowed to marry as a same-sex couple.

Now tell me - how was society harmed by their relationship? What sexual mores got wiped out?  How did their actions condone “free love”, or “open relationships”?  Or signal an “end to marriage”?

That is not a far-fetched scenario, BTW.  Many same-sex couples are desperate to show their commitment in a legal marriage.  Last year when the mayor of SF briefly instructed City Hall to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, over 4000 couples from all over the U.S. showed up the first week alone, totally swamping the office.

Those with non-hetero orientations have never asked for special rights.  They just want the same rights guaranteed every other person under the Constitution. The right to marry the person they love.  The right to not be fired or beaten because of those they go home to at night. The right to not live in fear.  

Ghost of Paley said:
Quote
Every action you take affects another human being. And it's easier to destroy a village than rebuild it.


That’s right.  Every time ANY person of ANY orientation is unfairly discriminated against, or ostracized, or threatened, or tied to a fence post and beaten to death, we ALL are adversely affected.

Date: 2006/04/11 15:13:32, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey Ghost,

You forgot to explain how allowing a same-sex couple to make the legal committment of marriage will lead to sexual mores getting wiped out.  Or lead to a massive wave of “free love” and “open relationships”.  Or signal an “end to marriage”.

Please provide some details, not just your idle speculation.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Date: 2006/04/11 16:02:28, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Isn't it fun to watch a homophobic bigot like Thordaddy try to justify his bigotry?  Especially when he's so ignorant on the topic he thinks the term homosexual only refers to males?  Wouldn’t surprise me at all if our Thordaddy has some gay leanings himself, and only posts his hateful rants here to ease his sense of self loathing.

Quote
Thordaddy: Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice.


Suuuuuuure it is, if you discount all the current studies that show an evolutionary advantage to having gays around to help with child-rearing, and those that show a dramatic statistical correlation between the chances of being gay and having a certain amount/type of siblings.  Of course you also have to totally ignore the personal testimony of millions upon millions of gays who will tell you that their sexual preference is not a conscious decision.  I guess if you have your head up your ass as far as Thordaddy, it's easy to block out those things you don't want to hear.

And there's that "gay lifestyle" T-wad keeps harping on.  I wonder if he'll ever tell us what it means?  Do 100% of gays lead this "gay lifestyle"?  50%?  5%?  Do the gay police arrest you if you're gay and don't behave like T-wad expects?  Nothing like a little group stereotyping to help with your demonization, right?

All blacks are lazy and shiftless
All hispanics are thieves
All asians can't drive
All gays choose the "gay lifestyle".

Quote
Thordaddy:  And I am not silent on your irrevelant topic of lesbianism.  Your question shows how absurd it is to teach EITHER homosexuality or lesbianism to young school children.  Just because lesbianism doesn't have outrageous levels of disease is only a greater indication of how "unnatural" and "abnormal" homosexuality really is.  There are very DISTINCT differences between lesbianism and homosexuality.  Should we teach those differences?


NOW we’re getting somewhere.  Maybe T-wad can tell us those very DISTINCT differences between female same-sex couples and male same-sex couples.  

I bet I know what the real difference is.  When T-wad sees two gay males kissing he goes “Ewwww, that’s icky!”, but he’d pay good money to watch two hot looking gay women making out.  Am I right Thordaddy?

Sir Toejam has been correct along.  There’s no reason to argue with such an idiot homophobe.  It’s just good mental exercise, and may help the occasional lurker get a long hard look at just how low a bigoted Christian fundy can sink.

Quote
Thordaddy:  How much more honest do need me to be?


Well T-wad, any honest thing you post from here on out will be your first.

Date: 2006/04/11 16:28:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Ghost of Paley said:

Quote
Furthermore, many gays have embraced a decadent lifestyle, alienating potential allies to the cause. Look at the typical gay parade. Do these people realise how they damage their movement?


How many gays embrace a decadent lifestyle?  100%?  50%? 10%?  How many is "many", and how did you determine that number?

And what is a "decadent" lifestyle?  PDAs in front of some 80 year old WASP prig?  Wanting to have a committed same-sex relationship with someone you love?

You are arguing the same group stereotyping that is a hallmark of every hater who tries to justify his prejudices.

many blacks are lazy and shiftless
many hispanics are thieves
many asians can't drive
many gays live a decadent lifestyle

I just took Thordaddy to task for exactly the same thing.  He's a hopeless flaming homophobe - you at least seem a bit more sane and rational.  Do you see how your stereotyping drags you down to his level?

And did it ever occur to you that the folks celebrating their sexuality in a parade do so because it is a highly visible but non-violent means of protesting and bringing attention to the discrimination they suffer?

Good thing Rosa Parks and ML King didn't realize how they were damaging their movement by being such uppity nigg*rs, eh?

Date: 2006/04/11 18:45:56, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Here we see the Thordaddy the bigoted troll in full bloom

First the moron posts this

Quote
Thordaddy:  Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice.


Then the moron links to NARTH, a right-wing Christian anti-gay organization whose "sexual reparative therapy " for "curing" homosexuals has been denounced and condemned by virtually every professional medical and teaching association in the country, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American School Health Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association.

After all that, the moron references quotes that directly contradict his claim that homosexuality is solely the result of a freely made lifestyle choice.

wow.....just wow.

T-daddy, shouldn't you be off burning crosses, or marching with Fred Phelps somewhere?

Date: 2006/04/12 09:51:37, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
All quotes from Thordaddy

Quote
What exactly is a "homophobic bigot?"


Someone like you with an irrational fear of any person who has a different sexuality than what you deem “correct”, and who espouses discrimination against those persons based on your fears.

Quote
Isn't that a type of stereotyping that you roundly condemn?


Nope.  Stereotyping in making a judgment on ALL members of a group based on the actions of a few individuals, like demonizing all gays based on the few militants you see on TV.  You as an individual are showing to be a homophobic bigot based on your individual actions here.

Quote
And then you demonize me by claiming my homosexuality?


Not at all, just pointing out a plausible reason for your hate filled anti-gay diatribes.  Do you have a better explanation?

Quote
LOL!  Am I afraid of "males" or "sameness?" If homosexuality is genetically-based then what do I have to be afraid of exactly?  


Absolutely nothing, yet you obviously are petrified of gays to the point of actively denying them their civil rights.

Quote
Boy, that isn't the same science I'm reading.  My science says there MAYBE a genetically-based predisposition towards homosexuality with environmental factors playing a key role effecting that disposition.  As for "evolutionary advantage" to homosexuality, that's seems a stretch since survival through reproduction is the primary function of evolution.  You are asserting an "orientation" that rejects reproduction, but perhaps helps the results of reproduction?  Again, what is the need for homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint?


Links to studies showing the evidence for positive evolutionary benefits have already been provided.  That you are too stupid or too lazy to read and understand them is your problem.  Altruism doesn't make sense for an individual but is an evolutionary evolved trait too – every single individual need not maximize his reproductive potential as long as the population reproductive potential is positively affected.

Quote
You've already shown that stereotyping doesn't bother you when you stereotyped me as a "homophobic bigot."  


No stereotyping – you’re an individual assh*le bigot.

Quote
The "gay lifestyle" is one in which someone engages in gay sex and associates their identity with their sexuality and follows a very recognizable and distinct ideological system. I wouldn't claim that all gays are active in this respect, but there are certainly many who are.  Your feigned ignorance does nothing to change this fact.


Please elaborate on this very recognizable and distinct ideological system.  How does it differ from the “heterosexual lifestyle”?   What percentage of the gay population with this lifestyle is “many”, and how did you determine the actual numbers?

Quote
You claimed that discrimination causes AIDS.


Of course this is a blatant lie.  I corrected your lie by stating

Discrimination causes severe stress
Severe stress cause health problems, both physical and emotional
Health problems negatively affect the spread of AIDS

I like when you repeat such easily exposed lies; it makes my job of highlighting your dishonesty that much easier.

Are you claiming that homosexuality causes AIDS?

Quote
Using discrimination is the BEST WAY TO AVOID AIDS especially for practicing homosexuals.


Maybe we should discriminate against those d*mn queers by making them all wear striped uniforms with pink triangles affixed.  That seemed to work once before as I recall.  Is that your solution?

Fred Phelps is waiting for you Thordaddy, you’re his boy!

Date: 2006/04/12 12:34:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
All quotes by Thordaddy

Quote
Homosexuals (gay males) are estimated to be about 1-2% of the American population.  About 60% of new AIDS infections are contracted through homosexual sex (anal sex).  This is an incredible overrepresentation.


You just go on and on about this statistic without ever addressing WHY this came to be.  You take a small section of the population, actively discriminate against them, ostracize them, deny them the right to make legally committed relationships, tell them they’re worthless sinners who will burn in h*ll, physically beat them, then wonder why some of them adopt a selfish “society hates me anyway, so I’ll screw around and enjoy life for me before they kill me” attitude??

Quote
Again, if the homosexual act is indistinguishable from the homosexual then how can we teach young children about the "normalcy" of homosexuality?


So that’s your understanding of human sexuality?? – homosexuality is defined only by a desire for anal sex??  No love, no attraction, no commitments – only butt f*cking?  Gawd, no wonder you’re such a moronic bigot

Quote
If science tells us that one's environment plays a major role in manifesting a possible genetic homosexual predisposition, aren't we in fact teaching young children to engage in dangerous and deadly behaviors with our non-discrimination and tolerance policies?


So you think that teaching that same-sex attraction falls within the normal range of human behavior, and that folks in that category aren’t automatically perverts, sexual preditors, evil sinners, or monsters is the same as encouraging children to engage in dangerous and deadly behaviors?  You fundy bigots will stoop to any level to justify your Bible-base prejudices, won’t you?

Here’s an idea – we teach children the scientific truth.  You are for science, right?

1) evidence shows homosexuality to be caused by a complex combination of genetic, hormonal, and  environmental factors.  The exact percentages are unknown and are probably different for each individual.
2) There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest same-sex attraction is a conscious choice.
3) Same-sex attraction falls within the normal, acceptable range of observed human behavior
4) Everyone deserves to be treated with equality, dignity and respect, and not discriminated against due to religiously based prejudices

Then, we offer to the older children a frank course in sex education, including the risks of STDs from unprotected sex, both hetero and homo.

That would go a long way towards solving the health issues and make for a better society, but of course it leaves you with the problem of gays being evil sinners who should burn in h*ll.  Guess you’ll have to keep lighting those crosses on people’s lawns.

Date: 2006/04/12 13:26:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy, you’re really a confused little Fundy, aren't you?

You keep confusing homosexuality with “unprotected anal sex.”  You seem to use the terms interchangeably.  Why is that?  Is that what your preacher taught you about human sexuality?

Thordaddy said:
Quote
I can link to plenty of evidence that shows homosexuality to be a very dangerous and deadly behavior.
 

Please do so.  Just don’t make the mistake of linking to studies showing unprotected anal sex to be a very dangerous and deadly behavior.  That is know to be dangerous for ALL couples, both hetero and home.  I want to see your evidence that homosexuality (which means same-sex attraction) is by itself a very dangerous and deadly behavior.  

There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love.  Show us how they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior.  

I asked

Quote
Please elaborate on this very recognizable and distinct ideological system.  How does it differ from the “heterosexual lifestyle”?   What percentage of the gay population with this lifestyle is “many”, and how did you determine the actual numbers?


And you replied
Quote
YOU!!!!!!


I take that as an admission you can’t answer the question, and were just lying again when you made the claim.

Quote
But do you disagree that discrimination CAN PREVENT the spread of AIDS?


Lining AIDS patients up against the wall and shooting them can prevent the spread of AIDS, does that mean we should do it?

18-29 yr. old African-American males are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of the crime rate in America.  Does that mean we should discriminate against ALL young African-American males?  

There are laws with severe penalties for knowingly passing on the AIDS virus.  The laws apply to ALL people regardless of sexual orientation.

How does denying ALL gays their civil rights, and discriminating against ALL gays prevent the spread of AIDS?

BTW, don’t think for a second that anyone buys your “it’s due to AIDS” reason that you’re so anti-gay.  You’re just using that as an excuse for your religious-based bigotry, and we all know it.

Date: 2006/04/13 20:17:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
T-daddy:  If the public school system adopts a policy of "non-discrimination" towards "sexual orientations," is this not tantamount to saying that there is NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATIONS for discriminating against gays?


That's right.  There is NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION for discriminating against gays.

The laws of this country apply equally to ALL citizens.  You cannot discriminate against an ENTIRE GROUP based on the actions of INDIVIDUALS. The Constitution doesn't allow it.

If INDIVIDUALS break the law, INDIVIDUALS are punished, not ENTIRE GROUPS.

The last time group discrimination was tried in the U.S. was the Japanese interments of WW2.  That was as shameful an episode as any screw-up the U.S. Government has done.  Everyone in the country now recognizes that such group discrimination is wrong, immoral, and illegal.  Everyone except bigoted homophobic fundy d*ckheads like you that is.

Quote
T-Daddy:  And if this is the stance, then how is this not equivalent to teaching the "normalcy" of homosexuality?


Homosexuality IS within the normal observed range of human behavior.  This is based on thousands of years of empirical evidence from every single culture that's ever kept written records.

Quote
T-Daddy:  Are there not rational reasons to discriminate against homosexuality especially in areas of public health and social cohesion?


No, there are NO RATIONAL REASONS to discriminate against homosexuality in ANY area.  Homophobes like you are fueled by your Biblical based hatred and prejudice, not by anything rational.

Thordaddy, you claimed:

Quote
I can link to plenty of evidence that shows homosexuality to be a very dangerous and deadly behavior.


And I challenged you to back up your bluster

Quote
OA:  Please do so.  Just don’t make the mistake of linking to studies showing unprotected anal sex to be a very dangerous and deadly behavior.  That is know to be dangerous for ALL couples, both hetero and homo.  I want to see your evidence that homosexuality (which means same-sex attraction) is by itself a very dangerous and deadly behavior.  

There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love.  Show us how they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior.  


You totally ignored the tough questions - looks like your bigoted big mouth wrote another check your data can't cash.

I'll ask again:

There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love.  Show us how they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior.  

You seem to be scurrying back and forth between the two "gay gene" threads in an effort to avoid answering any criticisms. Won't work though -  I'll keep asking these tough questions so all the lurkers can see that your bigoted little troll ass has no answers.

Date: 2006/04/14 04:34:56, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
All quotes by Thordaddy

Quote
They have indoctrinated you quite thoroughly.  The more you rant and rave the more you make my point about the radical teachings that are taking place within the public school system.


As opposed to your homophobic rants brought about by your religious indoctrinations?  Those narrow-minded and hateful views you fundies wish to force on everyone?

Quote
Why discriminate against the pedophile "priests" in the Catholic Church?  Their pedophilia is within the "normal observed range of human behavior" and "homosexuality" is perfectly normal.


All pedophiles, whether priests on not, are prosecuted as INDIVIDUALS based on their crime.  Would you agree to public schools teaching that ALL Catholic priests are harmful to society just by virtue of there being SOME pedophile Catholic priests?  Why or why not?

Quote
What of the AIDS lie we have been fed?


Which lie is that - that AIDS doesn't care about the sexuality of the infectee?  Maybe you should research the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa and tell us what the statistics are for hetero infections.

BTW, you still keep avoiding this question

There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love.  Show us how they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior.

And what about the young virginal teenagers who hit puberty and find in their sexual awakening that they are attracted to members of the same sex?  In attempts to understand  and discuss their feelings, many times they are kicked out by their parents, ostracized by their friends, told by their “loving” church that they’re evil sinners and God hates them.  Many are driven into suicidal despair by such rejection.  Tell me how those young people were guilty of very dangerous and deadly behavior.

Are you ready to retract your claim that homosexuality by itself equates to very dangerous and deadly behavior?

Quote
If you would like to engage like an adult, I would love to field your questions.


You've done nothing in your time here except post your trolling, hateful, anti-gay rants and avoid every single question that has been put forward.  Why do you think anyone will believe you now?

If you wish to show otherwise, start with the questions in this post.

Date: 2006/04/14 19:08:44, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy said:

Quote
If you would like to engage like an adult, I would love to field your questions.


I keep asking you these tough questions, but you keep refusing to answer.  Engaging you like an adult is as productive as teaching calculus to a pig.  Guess you're just another another "Liar for Jesus", eh?

Here are questions for you to field if you can stop humping your Bible for a minute.

There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love.  How are they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior?  Why should they be discriminated against?

Some young virginal teenagers hit puberty and find in their sexual awakening that they are attracted to members of the same sex.  In attempts to understand  and discuss their feelings, many times they are kicked out by their parents, ostracized by their friends, told by their “loving” church that they’re evil sinners and God hates them.  Many are driven into suicidal despair by such rejection.  How are these young people guilty of very dangerous and deadly behavior?  Why should they be discriminated against?

Pedophile Catholic priests are certainly guilty of guilty of very dangerous and deadly behavior.  Would you agree to public schools teaching that ALL Catholic priests are harmful to society just by virtue of there being SOME Catholic priests who are pedophiles?

Thordaddy said:

Quote
My side has been that there are JUSTIFIED reasons for discriminating against gayness in general and homosexuality (gay male sex) in particular especially in the areas of public and individual health and social and family cohesion.


And you haven't given one single rational reason to justify punishing ALL gays because of the actions of some INDIVIDUAL gays.  You just keep spewing the same statistics ("But...but...more gays get AIDS that straights!!") like it was some fundy mantra without discussing WHY the rates are higher. You seem to think that more discrimination against gays will somehow magically make the rates go lower, but you won't address the fact that existing discrimination is one of the main causes for the higher rates to begin with.

You also still have this creepy fixation about "homosexuality = anal sex" for some reason. Why is that?  Did you have a bad experience with a Catholic priest as a child?  

If two gay men form a monogamous couple and do nothing to pleasure each other except fellatio and mutual masturbation, does that mean they're NOT homosexual in your eyes?  And what about hetero couples - do hetero couples ever engage in anal sex?  Is hetero anal sex any more or less unhealthy that gay anal sex?

If two gay men agreed to sign a legally binding contract that guaranteed they would never engage in anal sex under penalty of law in exchange for the right to be legally married, would you then condone the marriage?

You are a strange, twisted fundy Thordaddy.  Your homophobia has turned you into a bigot, and a coward, and a liar.  I strongly suggest you go for counseling.

Date: 2006/04/15 13:31:47, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy, you still have a lot of tought questions about your homophobia waiting for you at the bottom of page 9 of this thread.

Why do refuse to answer them?  Is it because after all your mouthy bluster, you have no answers?  Gee, who'da thunk ;)

I thought your Bible gave you all the answers.

I'll repost them for the fourth time if you can't find them.

The board is waiting, your  Bigotness.

Date: 2006/04/18 13:26:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Oh good Thordaddy, you're back!

Now you can answer all those though questions about your homophobia.  You know, the questions you've avoided like the plague since you started spouting your bigoted rants

Quote
There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love.  How are they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior?  Why should they be discriminated against?

Some young virginal teenagers hit puberty and find in their sexual awakening that they are attracted to members of the same sex.  In attempts to understand  and discuss their feelings, many times they are kicked out by their parents, ostracized by their friends, told by their “loving” church that they’re evil sinners and God hates them.  Many are driven into suicidal despair by such rejection.  How are these young people guilty of very dangerous and deadly behavior?  Why should they be discriminated against?

Pedophile Catholic priests are certainly guilty of guilty of very dangerous and deadly behavior. Would you agree to public schools teaching that ALL Catholic priests are harmful to society just by virtue of there being SOME Catholic priests who are pedophiles?

You also still have this creepy fixation about "homosexuality = anal sex" for some reason. Why is that?  Did you have a bad experience with a Catholic priest as a child?  

If two gay men form a monogamous couple and do nothing to pleasure each other except fellatio and mutual masturbation, does that mean they're NOT homosexual in your eyes?  And what about hetero couples - do hetero couples ever engage in anal sex?  Is hetero anal sex any more or less unhealthy that gay anal sex?

If two gay men agreed to sign a legally binding contract that guaranteed they would never engage in anal sex under penalty of law in exchange for the right to be legally married, would you then condone the marriage?


BTW, looks like ericmurphy already anticipated your latest anti-gay "reasoning"

ericmurphy wrote:

Quote
This is my favorite stupid homophobic argument. "God, if we let gay people marry, soon people will be marrying their sisters, or their dogs, or maybe their vibrators! Heavens!"


You fundie bigots need to come up with some better, more original arguments.  You're getting boring.

Date: 2006/04/18 15:13:11, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Ghost of Paley says:
Quote
Hey T-Daddy, do you know how to tell if you're winning a debate with a liberal?

Answer: They bring up the Klan.


Do you know how to tell if you're winning a debate with a homophobe?

After you point out the self-serving hypocrisy and total lack of rational arguments for their prejudice and bigotry, they'll call you a liberal!  ;)

Date: 2006/04/18 16:11:13, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFD said:

Quote
To answer corkscrew ... I agree with (1) and (2) except that I have never heard of a random mutation that could be considered beneficial.


Here is a beneficial mutation to a protein that was documented in a population in Italy.  It helps reduce the risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke. The mutation is now becoming fixed in the local population.  There are many others if you cared to look for them - Google is your friend.

beneficial mutation

AFD said:

Quote
As for (3), I'm not aware of A SINGLE fossil that can be considered transitional ... my understanding of mesonychids and whales can be found here


There are literally hundreds of lineages in the fossil record that are considered "transitional" form. Here are but a few:

transitional fossils list

How could you miss the big excitement about the latest tetrapod transitional announced earlier this month, Tiktaalik?  It was in all the papers.

Tiktaalik discovery


For me, the most compelling evidence for the veracity of ToE is the twin nested hierarchies of life:  the tree of ancestry derived from the molecular evidence matches perfectly with the tree of ancestry from the fossil record.  Two completely independent lines of evidence that point unmistakably to the conclusion of common descent.

You can read more about it, and plenty of other evidence here

Evidence for common descent

Note that unlike your AnswersInGenesis source, virtually every article at TalkOrigins is backed up by references and citations to actual peer reviewed scientific research, so you can check the original data yourself.

Combat pilots are supposed to have good situational awareness.  Do you?  Let's see you assess the situation honestly after reading ALL the available evidence.

Date: 2006/04/18 16:38:30, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the homophobe said:

Quote
Yes, Ghost of Paley, the liberal arguments aren't what they seem.

What we have established is that,

Gays can marry in liberal churches and form convenants, but accruing federal benefits and mainstreaming gayness is the agenda.

The slippery-slope has already seen the absurd with a woman "marrying" a dolphin.

Gays are not unequal under the law as they may marry with state sanction someone of the opposite sex.

Gays want state sanction for their "marriage" and are using the courts to redefine traditional marriage.

The arguments put forth by gays to bolster their claims are the usual suspects, namely, equality and non-discrimination.

These arguments can be readily used by ANY adult seeking state sanction (benefit) for his/her consenting "union."

Hence, liberals have no legitimate argument against 6 brothers getting married, 2 adult daughters and their father getting married, 3 adult gay brothers and adult sister getting married, etc.

Traditional marriage wasn't define by "one man, one woman" to discriminate, but rather was defined as such to establish its fundamental uniqueness to a civilized society.

These "liberal" arguments consist of nothing more than, "I don't see anything wrong with it?"



I can just hear Thordaddy’s bigoted voice in the early 1860’s in the U.S.:

Quote
Yes, the liberal arguments aren't what they seem.

What we have established is that,

Black slaves can meet in their liberal cotton fields and form their own chain gangs, but accruing federal benefits and mainstreaming “freedom” is the agenda.

The slippery-slope has already seen the absurd with a nigg*r being "free" to be seen with a white woman.

Black slaves are not unequal under the law as they may marry with state sanction another slave the Master approves of.

Blacks want state sanction for their "freedom" and are using the courts to redefine traditional whites-only freedom

The arguments put forth by Black slaves to bolster their claims are the usual suspects, namely, equality and non-discrimination.

These arguments can be readily used by ANY adult seeking state sanction (benefit) for his/her "freedom."

Hence, liberals have no legitimate argument against barnyard animals being granted “freedom”, plow horses being granted “freedom” etc.

Traditional freedom wasn't define by "all men are created equal" to discriminate, but rather was defined as such to establish its fundamental uniqueness to a civilized white society.

These "liberal" arguments consist of nothing more than, "I don't see anything wrong with it?"


Better watch out Thordaddy – if those evil atheist communist gay-loving liberals get their way, you’ll be first up against the wall facing in and bent over

Date: 2006/04/18 19:17:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy

Can a gay couple get married in a legal, state recognized union that grants them the same legal rights (no more, no less) as hetero couples?

Yes or No?

No

Can a gay legally marry the person whom they love, cherish, honor, and respect enough to be willing to make a permanent monogamous lifetime legal commitment to?

Yes or No?

No

That is why your anti-gay argument is based on inequality and discrimination against individuals.

Quote
Thordaddy:  The question is how that makes you any more moral than those trying to preserve traditional marriage because we recognize its fundamental uniqueness to our civilization.


Denying civil rights to non-whites was a fundamental uniqueness to our civilization up until 140 years ago

Denying civil rights to women (i.e. the right to vote) was a fundamental uniqueness to our civilization up until 80 years ago

Denying civil rights to interracial couples (i.e. the right to marry) was a fundamental uniqueness to our civilization up until 40 years ago

In every case, the bigots made the identical arguments as you do now - "if we change the status quo, it will ruin society!!"

Now there is ample scientific evidence that a person's sexuality is defined by a whole lot more than just their physical external plumbing.  But that won't get in the way of your religiously inspired "all gays are evil sinners who want to harm children and wreck civilization!!" rants, now will it?

You've already established the fact that you're a bigot and a coward, with nothing to add except repetition of your same old prejudiced canards.  Just for curiosity's sake though, why in the world are you so hung up over what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?

Date: 2006/04/19 04:47:40, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Compare these Thordaddy arguments

Quote
Anything that seeks to redefine traditional marriage is necessarily trying to destroy the traditional understanding of marriage.

The burden of proof is on those trying to usurp traditional marriage by judicial fiat using weak and pathethic "civil rights" arguments that don't apply to groups of people or homosexual couples.

The way to do this is to destroy the traditional understanding of marriage by redefining it as ANY CONSENSUAL ADULT UNION.


with these

Quote
A U.S. representative from Georgia declares that allowing this type of marriage "necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration."

This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, says the Republican senator from Wisconsin, "simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

"The next step will be the demand for a law allowing them, without restraint, to have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters," warns a Kentucky congressman. "It is bound to come to that! There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization."

"When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny," writes an appeals judge in a Missouri case. "And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages."

These types of marriages are "abominable," according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would "pollute" America.

In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are "not only unnatural, but always productive of deplorable results," such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. "They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good in accordance with the God of nature."

Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argue that such unions should be illegal because they are "distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race." The state Supreme Court agrees, declaring these types of marriages would be "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

Lawyers for California insist that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent "traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior," and entered into by "the dregs of society."

"The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates," thunders a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state’s non-recognition of these types of unions. "And not," he continued, "to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage."


Do they sound similar?  Identical?

The second batch of quotes date from 1823 to 1964 and refer to interracial marriage. The quotes were culled from a Boston University Law Review article and a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Looks like those damm liberals have been trying to distroy traditional marriage for hundreds of years. ;) How could they do such a thing???

Man Thordaddy, you Bible humping bigots gotta get some new material!

Date: 2006/04/20 04:21:55, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy whines...

Quote
Do these pro-gay advocates really believe they are putting together coherent arguments?

I, Thordaddy, have established in my own little mind the following

blah blah blah...Gays are sinful and evil!

blah blah blah...the Gay agenda is to ruin civilization!

blah blah blah...Gayness cause AIDS!

blah blah blah...I don't like Gays, they make me feel ickky!!

blah blah blah...because I don't like them, that means all Gays are sub-human and deserve no rights!

blah blah blah...the world would be better if all Gays just went away!



Ya know Thordaddy, the only thing you've established is the fact that you're a pin-headed bigot.  No need to be an obsessive compulsive about demonstrating it every day.

The same lies and misrepresentations you repeat with every message have been dealt with ad nauseum.  If your prejudiced hateful pea-brain has nothing new to add, I respectfully suggest you go take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut.

Date: 2006/04/20 06:38:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Flint said

Quote
Yeah, yeah. Now I have a question for you: is Ghost basing his policy preferences on anything similar to thordaddy, but gussying it up with more sophisticated rationalizations? Or is Ghost's rejection based on anything more substantive?


Their styles are certainly different, but I can't tell any difference in the substance.  Thordaddy flings his dog turds through the porch window; GoP hand delivers his in a box with a bow ribbon.

Date: 2006/04/20 13:24:18, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
HEY THORDADDY

EVEN IF YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPS AS WELL AS BOLD AND LARGE FONT AT THE SAME TIME, IT STILL WON'T ADD CREDENCE TO THE VACUOUS BULLSH*T YOU'VE ALREADY POSTED HALF A DOZEN TIMES!


We KNOW you hate all gays

We KNOW you think they don't deserve to live

We KNOW you're a mouthy, bigoted, holier-than-thou prick.

There's no need to be a redundant mouthy bigoted holier-than-thou prick.

Date: 2006/04/20 13:43:50, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the bigot foams:

Quote
You are a parody of modern "progressives" and all the stale and laughable arguments they put forward in any cultural debate.


LMAO!  This coming from a rabid homophobic bigot who himself has a deep obsession with anal sex, claims that homosexuality causes AIDS, and that gays have a secret agenda to distroy civilized society as we know it  :D  :D  :D

T-daddy, aren't you afraid to walk outside where a gay might accidentally brush against you and give you gay cooties?

Date: 2006/04/20 14:24:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy rants:

Quote
Because most reasonable people recognize the inherent value of encouraging and promoting the basic foundation of a civilized society (one man, one woman)


For the lurkers:

What this debate really boils down to is the definition of man and woman.

For millennia the sexes have been defined only in those binary terms, based solely on a person's external plumbing.  As a general rule this works for most all cases, probably >95%.  The right to form legally recognized pairs has been based on this simple binary standard since the get go.

However, as human understanding has increased, it has become obvious that there exists a small but significant portion (<5%) of the population whose sexuality is NOT dependent solely on their genitalia.  Scientific evidence continues to mount that human sexuality is actually determined by a mixture of many factors - genetic, hormonal, and environmental - and that human sexuality can naturally fall anywhere along a spectrum, not just a binary genital-based either/or.

Gays and bi-sexuals are human beings who happen to fall on the edges of this spectrum.  They are not sinners, or evil, or decadent.  They're just everyday regular people, like every one else on this crowded planet.

The question now arises – given our new understanding, should society refuse to recognize the scientific realities and continue to unfairly discriminate against a portion of the naturally occurring population?

Gays and bisexuals don't want special rights or privileges.  They only want the exact same privileges granted to everyone else.  They want the right to form legally recognized pairs.  They want the right to not be fired from a job, or socially ostracized, or kicked and beaten just for being different.  And contrary to the bigoted bleating of sanctimonious assh*les like Thordaddy, society won’t crumble and fire & brimstone won’t rain down if gays are permitted the same legal rights as everyone is guaranteed under the Constitution.

Date: 2006/04/20 18:36:15, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the bigot continues with his infinite loop of stupidity:

Quote
Homosexuals that seek long-term commitments will go to a liberal church and exchange vows and make convenants.


And for the fifteenth time It will be pointed out to this dumba$$ that gays are denied the right to form a legally binding state recognized partnership of marriage with all its associated privileges, a right that is freely available to all other non-gay citizens through marriage.

Quote
Homosexuals that seek personal validation will redefine traditional marriage using judicial fiats.


Another lie from the dumba$$.  Actually it’s the same lie he has repeated over and over and over, as if he tells it enough times it will become true.

Gays do not seek to redefine the rights and privileges granted to a couple that is engaged in a traditional marriage.  They only wish to not be denied those same rights.

I do not answer Thordaddy’s rants to try and change his mind.  He was a self righteous homophobic bigot yesterday, he’s a self righteous homophobic bigot today, and tomorrow’s not looking any better.  My comments are for the lurkers, with the idea that prejudice and hatred like Thordaddy’s should be opposed every time it rears its ugly head.

Date: 2006/04/20 19:53:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the bigot rants:

Quote
Is this some kind of Pavlonian experiment?  As you repeat the same tired "progressive" cliche time after time, you then accuse me of repeating myself.


You have been repeating yourself dumba$$, over and over and over with the same tired lies.  And each time you were answered, and each time *you* were too chickensh*t to answer all the other questions you've left hanging on this thread. Why is that?

Quote
And for the 15th time we can unequivocally state that this isn't about marriage, but instead accruing benefits by changing the law through judicial fiat to assuage a very small, but powerful radical minority.


First you started out with "being gay is a lifestyle choice", then moved to "Gays cause AIDS", then "Gays are pedophiles", then "Gays want to destroy society", and now its "Gays just want marriage for financial gain".  Your bigoted little mind just doesn't know what lie to use next, now does it dumba$$?

Quote
Gay advocates aren't seeking to redefine traditional marriage?


Oh, like the definition of "traditional marriage" that said one couldn't marry outside of one's race until that law was changed?   Did giving interracial couples the right to marry destroy "traditional marriage"?  

Quote
Then let the "homosexual" marry according to the same law that applies to ALL of US who intend to get married.


Gee, that's the exact same argument the racial bigots used to oppose interracial marriage.  It was a worthless argument that failed miserably then, it's still a worthless argument that's failing miserably now.

Here's an idea -  we could change the law so that it no longer unfairly discriminates but applies equally to ALL couples who wish to marry.  Equality under the law - what a novel concept for a bigoted dumba$$ like you, eh?

The more you rant and lie, the more you remind me of another dishonest sh*t-for-brains moron named Larry Fafarman.  Are you guys related?

Date: 2006/04/21 17:41:43, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the obsessive compulsive bigoted dumba$$

Quote


Blah blah blah... I hate gays!

Bla blah blah...if gays can marry, then why can't I marry my blow-up sheep?

Blah blah blah....


Fred Phelps, er,  Thordaddy: if we wanted any more sh*t from you we'd squeeze your head.

Now go make yourself a nice warm cup of shut the #### up and let the adults continue the discussion.

Date: 2006/04/22 13:55:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy continues his idiot act

Quote
It seems to me that you have 3 choices (If you see other choices then please elaborate).

Blah blah blah...ALL gays are sinners, or

Blah blah blah...ALL gays are evil, or

Blah blah blah...ALL gays need to be locked up


Here's a fourth choice - bigoted assh*les like you need to raise your IQ above room temperature, and that's in degrees Celsius.

Since you won't put a sock in it - here's what you can do:

We live in a free country.  If you want to marry your five brothers, or marry your blow-up sheep, you are free to petition the government for a change in the laws.

If you feel that sheep f*ckers or brother marriers like you are being discriminated against, all you need to do is convince enough other people of the goodness of your cause.  If you can find enough other sheep f*ckers or brother marriers to get on the ballot - more power to you.  

Right now there are several million gay U.S. citizens who are being unfairly punished just for being who they are.  There is overwhelming scientific evidence that gay people did not choose their sexuality. Nevertheless, they are being denied the right to form a one-on-one legal union with a person they love, a right granted to non-gay citizens, because of it.

These folks and others who agree that the current wrong need righting are working within the legal system to change the laws. No one is changing the definition of marriage as a one-on-one legal union.  All that’s changing is the legal definition of who that one legal partner can be.  Changing and expanding the definition of what constitutes a legal partner has been done many times in the past, from allowing those of different religions to marry (it used to be illegal for a Catholic to marry a Protestant), to the most recent change of allowing interracial marriages.  This is no different – extending marriage rights to ALL citizens who wish one-on-one commitments.

If you can muster evidence that you deserve the right to change the definition of marriage from one-on-one to five-on-one, or to one-on-sheep, please present it.  Otherwise, go stick your head back under the sh*tpile.

Date: 2006/04/24 16:05:32, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Ghost of Paley says

Quote
No shell game. I'm working on my model - all I'm asking is that you establish one of the basic tenets of liberalism. You know, the justification for Affirmative Action, set asides, et al. You don't have to be creative - surely there's a boatload of research on this. Just cite, and summarise, a sample of this lucid reasoning. Or admit it's not there.


...and Ghost of Paley delivers another dog turd with a pretty bow ribbon.

It's obvious to all by now that Ghost of Paley is floundering badly.  His confused attempts to claim legalizing gay marriage must lead to massive affirmative action programs have crashed and burned.  His "free scale networks" nonsense deserves a nomination for math gobbledygook post of the month.  Finally, realizing that he has caught himself in his own zipper big time, he attempts a lame burden-of-proof shift maneuver coupled with screaming "damm liberals!!!" as often as he can.

Pretty pathetic, even for a ghost.

Date: 2006/04/24 16:15:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
stevestory says:
Quote
I'm actually going to email Mark Chu-Carroll a link to Ghosty's little scale-free shuck and jive. He might not touch it, but who knows, he might be a little thin on material right now.


LOL!  Actually, MCC's Good Math, Bad Math was the first thing I thought of a few days ago when I initially read GoP's goofy sidebar into math fantasyland.

Convergent evolution?

Date: 2006/04/25 07:24:51, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
There is nothing secret about lesbians being a turn-on for me. In fact it is the only reason I would consider a sex change.


I've had to consider the possibility that I'm really a lesbian trapped in a man's body.  ;)  After all, I always felt safer on a girl's bike.  Why should the one with the balls get the one with the bar?

(with apologies to Gallagher)

Date: 2006/04/25 16:25:09, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Ghost of Paley says
Quote
Too bad I'm a hard man to intimidate. Lucky you.


Maybe, but you're an easy man to make look foolish, severely biased, and addle-brained. Your wandering, rant-filled, off topic posts do most of the work for us.  You began trying to defend your anti-gay stance and ended up raving about the liberal media. WTF?

The only difference I can see between you and that mouth-breathing bigoted idiot Thordaddy is that you’re much more verbose.  Neither of you can back up a single “gay marriage will ruin society” claim you’ve made.

Do you enjoy this process of publicly humiliating yourself?

Date: 2006/04/25 19:57:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Well, it was too good to last.  Three whole days without Thordaddy’s rancid homophobic stench permeating the place…

All quotes by Thordaddy the bigot

Quote
Gay "marriage" is a means to an end, but represents a major point of cultural contention.  It is a goal in the works finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.


Yes, I agree.  The forces of goodness and decency are making progress against assh*le bigots like you.

Quote
Your claim is untenable as you basically claim that gay "marriage" will have no cultural side effects, but your youthful vulgar righteousness says otherwise.


That makes no sense whatsoever

Quote
The whole point of gay "marriage" is to fundamentally change our culture, but you're too bigoted towards "homosexuals" to see it.


The point is to give same sex couples the identical rights now afforded hetero couples.  It’s just icing on the cake if as a result culture moves towards more tolerance and away from hateful bigotry like you espouse.

Quote
We see that gay advocates will once again subvert the American process and instead use the power of the courts to procure themselves "special rights."


The “American process” IS to use the legal system and free elections to achieve equal rights you f*cking moron.  What planet ARE you from?

Quote
This new "special right" will be the power of about 1-2% of the population to dictate to the rest of the 98% what will now become the new definition of what we have know as traditional marriage for centuries.


You mean it will redefine what Thordaddy the bigot has proclaimed as “traditional marriage” - isn't that just tough sh*t for you. The rest of society will still define marriage as a one-on-one legally recognized partnership.  All that’s changing is expanding the definition of who can enter into such legal partnerships, just like the definition has been expanded in the past.

When the tiny minority of inter-religion couples were given their “special right” to marriage, did they dictate a new definition for “traditional marriage” to the rest of society?

When the tiny minority of interracial couples were given their “special right” to marriage, did they dictate a new definition for “traditional marriage” to the rest of society?

Thordaddy, you’re so full of sh*t your eyes are brown.

How’s that petition to marry your five brothers coming?  Any support? Got any more sheep-f*ckers like you to come out of the “cote”?  Are your children really your "kids" and do they call you Thorda-a-a-a-a-a-a-dy? :p

Date: 2006/04/26 06:45:43, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thorda-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-dy says

Quote
Anyone reading your rants would have a hard time comprehending how you could be on the side of "good and decency" unless we now define such things in terms of profanity and juvenile language.


As many others have noted, you get exactly the respect you have earned.  I make no apologies for having no patience with bigoted assh*les like you.  My wife and I live near SF, know many gays as coworkers and friends, and have seen up close and personal just how hurtful your hateful prejudice can be on real, live people.

Quote
So you readily agree that a radical, but powerful minority is redefining marriage to a "one-on-one legally recognized partnership."


Of course not you lying moron.  I said society already defines marriage as a one-on-one legally recognized partnership.  That definition is not being challenged or changed. The definition of who is eligible is being expanded, just as it has been expanded multiple times already in the recent past.

Quote
The problem of course comes when one asks the youngster why he has decided on that new definition to the exclusion and suppression of ALL OTHER ADULT UNIONS?


YOU are the only one who has mentioned changing the definition to one-on-five, or one-on sheep.  Not the gay community Thorbigot - YOU only.

Worthless f*cks like you have no clue as to how much real world pain you cause to innocent people.  That's why your type will be confronted every time you rear your ugly bigoted head.

Date: 2006/04/26 17:36:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thorda-a-a-a-a-a-a-dy says

Quote
Under what intolerant and discriminatory basis have you limited the definition of marriage to one person and one person?

All I want to hear is your justification for the bigotry shown towards those that are unfairly disqualified from getting state sanction for their "marriage?"


Wow t-wad, you've got to be one of the funniest homophobic imbeciles to ever troll the internet!

If you want to petition for the right to marry your sheep, or marry your brothers, go right ahead with my blessing.  It's a free country, and the American process makes allowances even for bigoted nutcase assh*les like you.

Let me know when you and your fellow sheep f*ckers establish a quorum.

Date: 2006/04/26 18:17:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thorda-a-a-a-a-ady says
Quote
If this is how "liberals" talk in SF, it's no wonder the blacks are leaving/being expelled in droves?  It not as though there aren't enough problems within the black community concerning family unity and Occam says they should be able to "marry" sheep, brothers, etc.


Of course Larry, er, Thordaddy can't post without lying.  I said I'd support your right to petition the government for you to be a married sheep f*cker.  And indeed I will.  You got that quorum of sheep f*ckers yet T-wad?

Quote
What would your marriage mean if ANY and ALL adult unions were to be sanctioned by the state?


Actually, if sheep f*ckers like you got your way and you could marry your wooly true love, it wouldn't affect my marriage the slightest bit.

Two questions Thordaddy, if you aren't too chickensh*t to answer:

How did legalizing inter-religion marriages affect your marriage?

How did legalizing interracial marriages affect your marriage?

Date: 2006/04/27 06:30:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thorda-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-dy says

Quote
By your own standard my "marriage" to a sheep is the equivalent to your marriage to a woman (I'm assuming you're married to a woman).

There is NO difference between these "marriages" and each should be equally sanctioned and given equal privileges.


Why do you keep lying about what was actually said?  Do you think everyone else is as stupid as you and can't go back and read the previous posts?

Quote
As for your last 2 questions...  I'm not married and have never been and so the point is moot.


Well how about that! Mr. "traditional marriage is the very foundation of our civilized society"  admits that he never bothered to get married himself.  He can raise bastard children in a "no commitment, free love" environment that spits in the face of traditional marriage, but here he's preaching to everyone else how those who respect the institution and desperately want to get married are ruining marriage somehow.

Larry or Thordaddy or whoever; you are the biggest lying hypocrite to ever put fingers to keyboard.  Don't ever, EVER presume to lecture others on the critical importance and sanctity of marriage when you yourself couldn't be bothered with it.

Date: 2006/04/27 11:50:20, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the flaming hypocrite says
Quote
How can someone that devalues marriage such as yourself turn around and accuse me of being hypocritical when I'm merely the "liberal" you would ususally associate with in this circumstance?

Because you are a hypocrite, you assh*le.  You scream that marriage is SO important, but you yourself refuse to make the commitment.  That makes you a hypocrite.
Quote
You see, I don't see marriage as a financial agreement or a matter of "equal rights" like many are arguing in the gay "marriage" debate.  

Then if you don’t care about marriage, why are you having such a hissy fit over those who are willing to make a lifetime one-on-one commitment to a person that they love?
Quote
And because I'm a recovering "liberal" in this regard, my refusing to marry does nothing to lessen the importance of traditional marriage.  Please explain the hypocrisy?

Already done, hypocrite.
Quote
Are those that use drugs and then opine about the negative effects of drugs, hypocrites?

Of course they are you moron.  Your stupidity never ceases to amaze.
Quote
Is traditional marriage important or not?  

Marriage as defined as a legal commitment to one loving, lifetime partner is certainly important.
Quote
Is your traditional marriage important or not?

The fact that I had the right to make a lifetime legal commitment to the person I love is very important to me.  Everyone willing to take that leap should have that right.
Quote
Does your wife think your marriage is no more valuable to society than a man marrying his sheep?

What you do with your personal life is of no concern to me or my wife.

Just because something is “traditional” doesn’t mean that it can’t be expanded and improved.

The “partners must be of the same religion” part of “traditional” marriage was changed, and the world didn’t end.

The “partners must be of the same race” part of “traditional” marriage was changed, and the world didn’t end.

Why do you think the “partners must have opposite external plumbing” part of “traditional” marriage is so important?  Why does defining “man” and “woman” in marriage have to be limited to just physical genitalia, and not include innate psychological and emotional make up too?

Give a rational reason, and folks may at least listen even if they do not agree.  Keep spouting the same homophobic bullsh*t like “the gay agenda is to ruin society!! or "gays cause AIDS!!!" or "gays have ickky butt sex!!!" or “but…but…but…it’s traditional!!!” and you’ll always be viewed correctly as nothing but a bigoted clown.
Quote
As for me, I think traditional marriage is important, but since I'm immersed in a very "liberal" society it hadn't really occured to me until much later in life and I still debate whether I should get married to the mother of my kids.  But rest assured, if I do marry I will definitely value it more than the "marriage" between Adam and Steve or man and his sheep.  

Well, since you’ve been too much of a hypocritical chickensh*t to make a marriage commitment, any claims as to how much you will value it are less than worthless.
Quote
You... your marriage is meaningless because it's equal to ANY and ALL Adult unions.  Marry a sheep, marry a man, marry your sister... It's all the same and all these unions require equal sanction by society.  This is your take?

Of course it’s not, but continually lying about it seems to be the only argument you can muster.  You’re making yourself look real good there sh*t-for-brains.

Date: 2006/04/27 14:49:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Just a reminder AFDave:

What happens to an Air Force pilot who flies into a zero-zero fog at night, and every last one of his instruments (altimeter, air speed, artificial horizon, etc.) indicates the aircraft is in a rapidly descending spiral, but the pilot decides to ignore all that empirical scientific data and trust his inner balance that tells him he's flying straight and level?

Think about it.

Date: 2006/04/27 15:01:13, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Well, maybe GoP is onto something. Since he just keeps posting the same suggestion of an argument over and over, why not just skip the charade of rephrasing it? Why not just paste exactly the same long screed, repeatedly? Accomplishes the same goal, AND saves a lot of time!


It's the mark of an idiot savant, but without the savant part.

Date: 2006/04/28 06:08:49, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hi AFDave

I appreciate your good attitude toward this whole topic.  No one that I know will attempt to change your belief in God, or claim that your belief is wrong.  Many here see no conflict whatsoever in believing in God and accepting the ToE (a topic for another thread at another time). However, we will take you to task if you screw up the technical stuff.  As an IP in a Talon, would you let your students slide if they got Airmanship 101 wrong? :)

That being said, you’ve got a big logic flaw in your very first batch of Testable Prediction arguments.  

Quote
TESTABLE PREDICTIONS FROM POINT 1
(a) A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.  So we would expect to find a vast number of wonderful innovations in the universe which at least appear to be designed.  Our expectation of this comes from our own experience ... i.e. "Airliners are complicated machines and we know they are designed.  Our own bodies are much more complicated, so they appear designed, etc." (Dawkins, "Blind Watchmaker", p.3).  Can we test this prediction?  Absolutely.  Even prior to the molecular biology revolution, we stood in awe of bird's wings, bat navigation, eyes, hands and other brilliant innovations.  But since the opening of "Darwin's Black Box," our awe of the wonders of nature has increased exponentially.  There are three absolute "must reads" on this topic--"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and "Nature's Destiny" both by Michael Denton.

(b) An Incredibly Powerful Being would be expected to build systems of mind-numbing size and power, such as a power generation system to supply power to all His innovative machines, maybe a lighting system so his creatures can see to navigate on the planet, perhaps a water supply and filtration system to provide clean water to His little creations, and so on.  Can we test this prediction?  Again, yes.  We find exactly what we predicted.  The sun is a massive power generation and lighting system which has every appearance of engineering brilliance.  Ditto for earth's hydrologic cycle which provides, filters and circulates water for all life on earth.  The sheer size and power of these systems stagger the human mind and are precisely what we would expect if there were such a thing as an Incredibly Powerful Being, such as God.
©  A Highly Moral or Ethical Being would be expected to "build in" some Laws of Right and Wrong into his universe.  Can we test this prediction?  Yes.  This is precisely what we find in our experience.  This is a truly fascinating study and my argument comes from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, the great Skeptic turned Christian Apologist, author of the books behind the current "Narnia" movie series.  Basically, the argument is that we find this curious "Law of Right and Wrong" or "Law of Human Nature" at work in our every day experience.  If you examine it, you find that it is quite real and applies to all humans regardless of religious upbringing or lack thereof.  Lewis then argues that there necessarily has to be "Something Behind the Law" which caused it to be.  I think he makes his point very well and I agree with him.  Come on, guys, I read Dawkins' stuff, so you can read Lewis' stuff ... let's be fair.

(d) We would expect that IF there were such a thing as a Supernatural Being like  my "God" persona, we would expect there to be many claims that people have received Written Messages from Him.  Can we test this prediction?  Again, yes.  There are many ... the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Koran to name a few.

(e) We would expect to hear many claims of "Supernatural Experiences" such as people hearing voices, seeing visions of shining beings, out-of-body experiences, etc.  Can we test this prediction?  Yes.  These reports are plentiful and have been reported since the dawn of history.  No documentation needed for that. Note that with (d) and (e), I am not saying that any of these written messages or claims of supernatural experiences are necessarily true (we will examine the truth claims of the Bible separately). At this point, I am only predicting that IF there were such a thing as a Supernatural Being, that there would be many claims of "seeing Him, hearing from Him, etc."



In all of these cases, your observations do not provide confirming evidence for your predictions, because there are other well supported explanations requiring no Supreme Being.  You are committing a simple logical error, i.e.

You hypothesize that it rained last night
You predict “If it rained,  my driveway will be wet”
You look out the door in the morning and observe a wet driveway
That doesn’t mean that it rained last night – maybe your wife just washed the car there, or your next door neighbor’s lawn sprinkler was mis-aimed.  
You cannot conclude rain just by seeing a wet driveway.
The wet driveway doesn’t preclude your hypothesis, but it does not qualify as something that confirms your hypothesis either.  
To confirm your hypothesis, you need other evidence that could be caused by rain only.

Think it through again and you’ll understand.

FYI, I’m a spacecraft systems designer (all DOD stuff), MSEE, with a strong amateurs’ interest in the natural sciences.  I’d also like to thank you for your military service to our country.  Guys like me can’t say enough to our military folks about just how much they are appreciated.

Date: 2006/04/28 11:13:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the bigoted a$$clown says

Quote
I think that if a society has within it an influencing minority that are of the opinion that marriage between one man/one woman is no better or no worse, but in fact EQUAL to a marriage between a man and a sheep then I see this as evidence of a crumbling society.  This is not the same as a "crumbled" society or a collapsed society.


And I'll again point out to the lurkers that Thordaddy the homophobe is the only person on this whole thread who has mentioned anything about "marriage between one man/one woman is no better or no worse, but in fact EQUAL to a marriage between a man and a sheep"

Lying for Jesus makes Thordaddy feel better about his pathetic bigoted little world, which is why he does it virtually every post.

Date: 2006/04/28 20:51:47, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey AFDave,

I'm late getting to the party today.  The observation I will make has already been made, but since you didn't address it I will say it again.  Every single event you listed in your Part 1 was a  POSTdiction, not a PREdiction.

Stars with huge energy outputs were observed before you hypothesized "God would make big, powerful stars."

Altruistic behavior was observed before you hypothesized "God would create right and wrong behavior"

People heard voices in their head before you hypothesized "God will send messages to some people"

All you are doing is making some ad hoc rationalizations after the fact.  You are providing absolutely nada in the way of a testable hypothesis or supporting data.

I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too.  I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results.  Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis.

Can you see any flaw in that reasoning?

You're already flying into that fog bank and disregarding your instruments.  Still not too late to pull up and avoid the CFIT.

Date: 2006/04/29 07:01:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hi AFDave,

Quote
... first, you dodged my response to your first objection and now you are bringing up a second.  That's fine, but I would like to hear your answer to my first response.  To respond to your second ... the fact that we observed all these things you mention BEFORE I proposed my hypothesis means nothing.  


My objection WAS my answer to your first response.  You can name 10,000 observations after the fact, but none of those observations are predictions that logically follow from your hypothesis.

"A God with a sense of esthetics would make a beautiful blue sky.  WOW!  Look at that, the sky is blue!"

Why not green, or purple?  If the sky was green, you'd claim it as evidence for God too, wouldn't you?

"A God with a sense of humor would create a group of goofballs that choose to be willfully ignorant of 150+ years of verified and cross-correlating scientific evidence!"

OK, you got me on that one :D

Then there's always the flip side that you avoid

"A kind, loving God would protect and nurture his children." Gee, there's ebola, and cancer, and tsunamis in the Pacific that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Oops.

And speaking of dodging responses, I asked you

Quote
I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too.  I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results.  Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis.

Can you see any flaw in that reasoning?


Well?

A couple of final point (for today)

First:  You were fairly warned that if you try to BS your way through the technical details of the sciences involved in discussing the ToE, or a 6000 year old Earth, etc. you are going to get your ass handed to you on a plate, and you most deservedly will.  Getting your scientific understanding from a Christian Apologetic site like AIG is like trying to understand a hundred years of aircraft history and design by reading Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.  If you are serious about understanding, you must go to the primary scientific literature (many scientific papers are available at PubMed), or at a minimum sites that reference the primary scientific literature.  There are many good "neutral" sites on the web, like the U.C. Berkeley Museum of Paleontology, for example.

Second:  With all due respects, trying to "prove" the existence of God by examining the physical world is a fool's errand.  Religion is a matter of individual faith, and trying to "prove" that your particular flavor of religion is the only *correct* is not only foolhardy, it's an insult to the intelligence of people who have already formed their own individual ideas based on knowledge that you lack.

Have a good weekend, chat more soon.

Date: 2006/04/29 15:07:11, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I've come to the conclusion that Thordaddy has problems - real psychological and emotional problems that he is struggling to deal with.  His irrational fear and hatred of gays makes me think that he himself has at one time been attracted to men, possibly to the point of experimenting, and is now filled with self-loathing.  Alternately, maybe he was molested by his parish priest and is now upset because he secretly liked it.  It would explain his aversion to marrying a woman, and his fixation on anal sex and sheep.

I think it's best we all give this nutbar a wide berth.

Date: 2006/05/01 06:25:39, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says
Quote
I may not get very far with closed minded professional scientisits, which I hope you are not, but I hope to put some truth out there in an area where I currently see a lot of error.


Dave, you're really starting to disappoint me.  You continue to criticize technical areas in which you admittedly have no expertise, yet accuse those who do have detailed knowledge in those areas of being "closed minded".

What you are doing is the equivalent of going to a convention of aerospace engineers and pilots, held at an airport with hundreds of aircraft on the tarmac and flying overhead, and lecturing that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.  Then, after you have embarrassed yourself with that, dozens of those technical people offer to help you and teach you the basics you obviously lack, but you refuse to listen and instead tell them they're closed minded.

Is it any surprise you are turning off most everyone here?

Being smug and self-assured may be a good thing for a combat pilot, but if not backed up with technical knowledge and understanding those traits will just make you a smoking hole in the ground.

Many people have already pointed out the unwarranted assumptions and battleship-sized flaws in your logic. If you want to impress us, start listening and addressing the criticisms.  Show more critical thinking skills and less single-minded bluster.

Date: 2006/05/01 08:05:47, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says

Quote
Where have you been?  I have been doing just that. How about you?  Do you ever do that? What more do you want me to do?  (Agree that you are right ... I know, I know ... but you'll have to earn that if that's what you want.)


Actually Dave, you haven’t.  All you’ve been doing is continuing to present your uninformed opinions on technical topic that you don’t understand.  I, personally, don’t care what you choose to believe, as long as it makes you happy.  However, when you present your ignorance as an alternative to actual scientific results, I will continue to point out your errors.

Quote
What we have here, Aftershave, is a big problem in science today and many scientists are either too proud, or too blind, or too afraid to lose their jobs or their friends, or whatever to do anything about it themselves.


That’s total bullshit Dave.  You’re off on an exercise of self-justification for your religious beliefs, nothing more.  Do you think you’re the first to come here and do this?

Quote
Denton and Behe are quite clear on this issue and I think this explains why they have taken the unusual step of presenting their information to the non-professionals like me.


Denton and Behe and the other Creationist pseudo-scientists specifically target untrained laymen like you because you don’t have the skill set to know you’re being lied to.  You’re a “soft target” Dave, whether you care to admit it or not.

Quote
You know, in families sometimes the dad shirks his responsibilities as a dad and so the mom takes over.  She's not as good at being a dad as he is (just like I'm not as well trained in logic, geology, etc., etc.).  But she has to jump in there and take over or the family would be in trouble.


And sometimes there is no problem, but the Mom becomes a controlling, domineering battle-ax over her children anyway just because she needs to feel important.

Quote
This is exactly what I see in this one critical area of science today, i.e. the area of Origins and the Nature of Mankind and the issue of God.  Science should not be claiming that they have disproved the existence of God because they have not.


Science HAS NOT EVER claimed to have disproved the existence of God.  Whoever told you that if full of shit too. There are certainly a few atheistic scientists (i.e. Dawkins) who hold that personal opinion, but the science itself says NOTHING one way or the other on the existence of God.  You want to claim different?  Then find me a textbook or a scientific research paper ANYWHERE that says “here is scientific evidence there is no God”.  

Quote
Science should not be implying to our children that they are glorified animals, because there is no proof.


Er Dave, there is ample evidence humans ARE just another species of animal.  Your total ignorance of, or personal dislike for of the evidence does not mean the evidence doesn’t exist.

Quote
Science should not be telling the theologians that God is dead or irrelevant, because they have no basis for claiming that and they arrogantly claim that they do.  And so on ... you get the idea.  So if science is going to behave irresponsibly, then who else but non-scientists are going to have to jump in and "blow the whistle" ??


Again, science DOES NOT DO what you claim.  Just what do you think “science” is, anyway?  Science is just the collected technical knowledge of the natural world. It has been compiled by millions of people of all religions over hundreds of years and is available to be examined or questioned by anybody. It is not some unified organization like the Catholic church with a “head scientist” as Pope handing out scientific “proclamations” that must be followed by the lesser scientists.

Quote
This is exactly what you see going on right now on multiple fronts and it is exactly the reason we hear so much about "concerned scientists." Now we laymen are reasonable people and we will forgive scientists if they admit their errors and fix them, but if all we ever get is stonewalling and "you're not even fit to make an argument" and "you're just a religious nut", you can be sure that the people will do everything in their power to rise up and fix it themselves.


Again, nothing personal Dave, but you’re way too ignorant on the topic to be telling professionals that they are in error.  If you wish, you can study the sciences, do your own research, and present peer reviewed results to overturn current scientific thinking.  However, just repeating your uninformed bogus claims will only get you laughed at.

Quote
And believe me, we laymen can do a lot.  I may not get professional scientists to listen to me, but as you and I both know, all we need is a political majority and we win.  Not to say that I'm just about politics.  I am about Truth and Fairness, but I am also about winning and using every political tool in my toolbox to make sure we have Truth and Fairness in the science establishment in this country.


I agree 100% that this is a political battle, because the scientific battle was decided over 150 years ago.  The YECs lost.  Like so many other Fundamentalists, all you want is your particular religion’s brand of “Truth and Fairness”, regardless that all the scientific evidence available directly contradicts you.

Quote
A lot hinges on this, too.  What people think about origins and the nature of mankind is VITALLY important to law and society.  This is why you see me being so passionate about this issue.


I respect your passion, but your critical thinking skills still haven’t gotten off the ground.

Take care.

Date: 2006/05/01 09:53:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Atrociously bad writing style that would embarrass a Jr. High school author.  The only reason the book sold was its "religious controversy", and even that was contrived.

Find a copy for $0.50 at a yard sale if you must.

Date: 2006/05/01 10:20:05, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I just have to laugh ... "only a few  ... mmm ... like Dawkins, for example ... he's not very influential... not many others ..." OK.  Whatever.

I'll tell you what ... I won't sell you any bridges and you don't sell me any and we'll be friends, OK!

As for me, I'm going to get back on topic ...


Well Dave, if you didn't want to discuss your claim of "science says it disproves the existence of God", then why in the world did you bring it up in the first place?

Speaking of on topic, you are still avoiding answering this objection to your hypothesis

Quote
I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too.  I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results.  Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis.


Why is that reasoning any less valid than yours?

or

Abductive Reasoning
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The Indian tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the hypothesis that AFDave caused the tsunami :(  )
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true.

Tell us AFDave, should we suspect you of killing all those innocent people?

Don't feel alone.  Most of the YECs who come through here experience similar bouts of cognitive dissonance when presented with factual evidence that blows away their arguments.  That makes them get angry and confused, just like you.

Date: 2006/05/01 12:37:13, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave, you keep ignoring this important discussion point.  You've ignored it three times now, so I'll ask it a fourth time

OA: "I can spin that kind of argument any way I want too.  I can hypothesize "A Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being could create all necessary physical laws in the first femtosecond of existence, then just sit back and observe the results.  Therefore when I observe scientific data that says the universe is 14 Billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and that life has existed on Earth for over 3 billion years, and that life has evolved over that time by observed processes such as random mutations plus natural selection, I have just verified my hypothesis."

Why is that reasoning any less valid than yours?

AFDave says
Quote
And tomorrow morning you will be getting more or it than you care to hear.  But not for your benefit, unless you open your mind.  If you haven't noticed, I'm really writing for the benefit of people with open minds.  I know I won't convince hardened skeptics.


Sure, if you realize as we do that your definition of "open minded person" is someone as totally ignorant of the sciences involved as yourself who can be gulled by pseudoscientific charlatans.  You probably won't find many here who fit your definition, though.


Quote
So bring it on and let's see how yours stands up.  (Either one you like--Tsunami or Evolution).  You tell me you guys are the professionals.  Let's see how professional your arguments are.  


Sigh...Sorry Dave, you started this thread to provide the evidence for your YEC position, remember? So post your evidence based on the pseudoscientific garbage that you picked up from AIG.  We've seen it all before.  (In fact, we 've heard it so many times it has a special name. PRATT, or "Points Refuted A Thousand Times".)  Post your technical "evidence", and we'll hand you your ass on a platter, just like every other cock-sure but clueless YEC we meet.  And you'll sputter and fume, and tell us we'll all burn in he11...oh well.

Quote
Or are you just going say I'm incompetent and I have no idea what I'm in for and Meyer is a liar, blah, blah, blah?


No need for me to belabor the obvious.  I'll let the scientific quality of your YEC arguments speak for themselves.

Date: 2006/05/01 18:11:37, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the mentally ill bigot spews again
Quote
Blah blah blah...

No rights for homos!  I hate homos!  They're so..so...gay!

Blah blah blah...


Tell us Thorbigot:  how are you gonna explain to your kids that you decided to stick them with the social stigma of being illegitimate bastards because their biological father disrespected traditional marriage so much he ran from it like a cockroach from the kitchen light?

Date: 2006/05/01 18:34:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordaddy the lying bigot
Quote
I only want traditional marriage to persist


No you don't you liar.  You disrespect traditional marriage at every turn.  You disrespected traditional marriage by fornicated outside of wedlock.  You disrespect traditional marriage by refusing to marry, making illegitimate bastards out of your two innocent children.  You disrespected traditional marriage by wanting to marry your three gay brothers.

When will a slimy LIBERAL like you quit trying to destroy America and the traditional marriage and family values she stands for ??!??

Date: 2006/05/02 04:15:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDavesays
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  


For the last two months there has been a wingnut posting over on the TheologyWeb Natural Science page, arguing for Geocentricity (i.e. the sun, planets, and stars all rotate around a stationary Earth).

This Bible Inerrancy proponent bases his belief on passages such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

Quote
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


and Joshua 10:13:

Quote
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Many people have patiently explained the copious scientific evidence that shows this is wrong, from satellite launches that must take into account the Earth's rotational velocity, to observed stellar parallax, to the measurable wobble in the Earth's rotational axis caused by the mass displacement of the tides.  The Bible Inerrancy guy refuses to listen to any evidence - according to him it's everyone else who has a "closed mind".

How do you feel about that bit of Bible inerrancy? Do you think the whole universe revolves around a stationary Earth?  Why or why not?

I don't mean to distract you from your task of publishing your scientific evidence for YEC, but think about this on the side and answer when you can.

Date: 2006/05/02 04:15:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDavesays
Quote
Well, here is an alternative position for you to consider which I think works better.  Make the PROPOSITION (or Hypothesis, if you will) that the Bible is inerrant.  


For the last two months there has been a wingnut posting over on the TheologyWeb Natural Science page, arguing for Geocentricity (i.e. the sun, planets, and stars all rotate around a stationary Earth).

This Bible Inerrancy proponent bases his belief on passages such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5:

Quote
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


and Joshua 10:13:

Quote
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.


Many people have patiently explained the copious scientific evidence that shows this is wrong, from satellite launches that must take into account the Earth's rotational velocity, to observed stellar parallax, to the measurable wobble in the Earth's rotational axis caused by the mass displacement of the tides.  The Bible Inerrancy guy refuses to listen to any evidence - according to him it's everyone else who has a "closed mind".

How do you feel about that bit of Bible inerrancy? Do you think the whole universe revolves around a stationary Earth?  Why or why not?

I don't mean to distract you from your task of publishing your scientific evidence for YEC, but think about this on the side and answer when you can.

Date: 2006/05/02 17:25:43, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thorbigot rants again
Quote
blah blah blah… I hate fags!  Fags can’t marry!...blah blah blah


Thordaddy has already proven himself to be a homophobic shithead, and there’s no value whatsoever in attempting to get him to defend his irrational hatred.

Still, it serves a useful purpose to show just how f*cked up Thordaddy’s “logic” can be

Consider the following hypothetical situation:

Pat and Leslie, an unmarried couple, move into Thordaddy’s neighborhood.  They’re a quiet pair, both 40-something, both white collar professionals.  Both thin and plain looking with page boy haircuts, it’s impossible to tell their gender by just looking.  All the neighbors have to judge them by is their actions.  The two of them turn out to be great neighbors: going out of their way to help others, volunteering at the homeless shelter, giving generously to their local church charities.  Those who watch them see a loyal and devoted couple – always holding hands when they take their evening walks.  Once, when Leslie was seriously injured in a car accident, Pat agreed to work third shift so Leslie would have full time care during the day.  And when Pat got laid off, Leslie took a second job while Pat interviewed so they could keep their home together.  Finally, Pat and Leslie decide they are soulmates for life, and wish to formalize their union with both the church and the state.  They send wedding invitations to all the neighbors, including Thordaddy.  What does he do?

Now Thordaddy is really in a bind.  He wants to call in the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover, and have the FBI line up Pat and Leslie and make them drop their drawers in the town square so Thordaddy can closely inspect their genitalia.  That’s not a realistic plan though, so Thordaddy finds out who Pat and Leslie’s private physician is, and bribes the receptionist for information.

Scenario 1)  Thordaddy discovers that Pat and Leslie are both biologically male.  Thordaddy flies into a screaming rage and demands that those “traditional marriage" wrecking faggots get out of his neighborhood.  He offers his lighter to some fellow bigots who go to burn down Pat and Leslie’s house.

Scenario 2)  Thordaddy discovers that Pat and Leslie are both biologically female.  He still objects to the wedding, but now doesn’t mind watching Pat and Leslie do their PDAs.  In fact, at night he gets his Kleenex and sits looking out the window waiting for it.

Scenario 3)  Thordaddy discovers that Pat and Leslie are a heterosexual couple.  Thordaddy is overjoyed, and gives his blessing to the “traditional" wedding even though he still has no idea which of the two is male and which is female.

In each case, there was nothing at all that would lead one to believe Pat and Leslie would make a bad married couple, or speed up the downfall of society except Thordaddy’s bigoted perception.

That’s why Thordaddy is considered such a bigoted homophobic flaming assho1e.

Date: 2006/05/02 18:14:47, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave,

So far you haven’t provided any evidence at all to support YEC or God, just your own (and a few other Creationists’) personal incredulity. “WOW! It’s just SOOOOO complex, I’m too stupid or too lazy to investigate how it could have evolved!!”  You sound just like the natives looking at the “flying canoe”.   Do you realize that Behe accepts the Theory of Evolution, an old earth, and common descent?  He just thinks God, er, the Intelligent designer “front loaded” things billions of years ago.

Speaking of Behe and his “molecular machines”, did you happen to follow any of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover PA. school board "ID" trial last year?  Behe was called as a star witness for the defense, and was made to look like an absolute bumbling fool by the questioning attorney.  First, under oath, Behe testified that Astrology would qualify as a legitimate science under Behe’s definition.  If that didn’t make the clown look bad enough, Behe then made his famous “irreducible complexity” argument using the human immune system,  Behe claimed there was no evidence whatsoever that the immune system could have evolved.  The prosecuting attorney then dropped a two foot high stack of over 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers and articles with research detailing the evolution of the human immune system and asked Behe if he was familiar with the work..  Behe replied that he didn’t need to read them as he already knew his claim was correct.  With that foot shoved deep into his mouth, Behe effectively scuttled the rest of his already pitifully weak scientific credibility and his career.

I’ll give you another day to start presenting your evidence, so far you’re 0 for the week.

Date: 2006/05/02 18:40:28, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thorbigot the shithead fumes

Quote
In fact, I've been on the receiving end of much homosexual adoration.  


I'm sure you have, and on the giving end too.  Being jilted by your gay lover explains a lot of your irrational anger and your disrespect for traditional marriage.

Tell us Thorbigot, what would you do in the Pat and Leslie case?  Rationalize away.

Quote
Everyone of your rants shows you to be nothing but the product of homosexual propaganda.

And we've already have seen how threadbare your argument is for gay "marriage" using the "equal rights" and tolerance argument.


Yeah, we're all suckers for that "homosexual propaganda" that merely asks for the same constitutional guarantees as provide to every other citizen.  And everyone knows "equal rights" and tolerance and liberal ideas that are expressly forbidden by the Constitution, right Thorbigot?

Are you this hateful and prejudiced towards other minorities as you are to gays?  Wouldn't it be great if we could just take away the "equal right" and tolerance them damm niggers and wops and chinks got by corrupting out traditional society, right tighty-whitey Thorbigot?

Don't you need to be out firebombing a Planned Parenthood Clinic or something?

Date: 2006/05/03 05:03:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA:  Tell us Thorbigot, what would you do in the Pat and Leslie case?  Rationalize away.


Quote
Thorbigot:  I wouldn't do anything because you've given three different scenarios and in all three cases there seems to be no reason to think I would receive an invitation to the wedding in the first place.


Pat and Leslie are kind, thoughtful people. They sent invitations to all their neighbors, even the bigoted jerks like you.

The question still stands Thorbigot.  What criteria would you use to judge a couple's fitness for marriage if you couldn't examine their genitalia?

Date: 2006/05/03 06:57:51, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says

Quote
Ditto above ... funny ... every non-YEC history book I can find anywhere says things like "4000 (or so) BC: History Begins" (I never find over 10,000).   Hmmm... what did all those 'Homos' do for 1,996,000 years?  You're telling me they all of a sudden started writing and making artifacts only in the last .000000001% (or whatever) of their existence on the planet ... yeah, pretty plausible


Dave, as a fellow EE it’s embarrassing to see you continue to flaunt your ignorance on such topics.  Art and artifacts have been around for way before 4000 B.C.  Have you never heard of the Lascaux cave paintings in France?  Google is your friend Dave – you could easily find hundreds of examples that contradict your silly words if you were motivated to look.

Your personal incredulity and ignorance will never be acceptable as evidence, Dave.

Quote
Uh, oh.  I'm getting 'Aftershaved" again.  Hey try some intelligent sounding arguments instead of insults ... they work better. See Corkscrew, Norm and Chris Hyland and others for some good examples of intelligent sounding stuff.


Sorry Dave, my intention is not to insult you.  However, when you continue to say really stupid things, and I point out to you that they’re really stupid things, I can understand how you’d feel slighted.

Quote
Let's get the (Behe) quote right at least if you're going to quote him.  Here's what I found ...


I didn’t quote him Dave, I accurately described his testimony.

Quote
OK. So astrology wants to call itself a science?  Let 'em.  They have to prove their ideas just like the YECers and everyone else.  Don't you believe in the free market of ideas?  I think the majority would weed them out just like it does in other arenas.
 

The scientific community HAS weeded them out Dave, over 150 years ago.  That’s why the Creationists and IDers are trying to use the legal system to get their religion forced into science classrooms.

Quote
Do you see an Astrology Chapel at the USAF Academy? (I was just there).  Do you see a Scientology chapel?  Or a Buddhist temple?  No.  You see a BIG Protestant chapel, a smaller Catholic chapel and a smaller still Jewish chapel.  Why?  Democracy.  Freedom.  Reflection of the majority within practical limits.  Should the USAF Academy shut down all religion on campus b/c it's a government entity?  Of course not.  Remember.. here in the USA ... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [no state church lke the Church of England] or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof.  Same for science classes.  


Wrong Dave.  Science is not a democracy, and scientific facts aren’t decided by majority vote.  Do you think we can pass a law that will reduce the force of gravity by 50%?  Or change the properties of chemical bonds?

Quote
We shouldn't be telling kids 'God created the world' in science class and we shouldn't be telling the world that 'Evolution created the world' in science class.  We should be telling them 'Most scientists believe some form of Darwin's Theory of Evolution to explain the appearance of life.  Many non-scientists and a minority of scientists believe in some form of supernatural cause for the appearance of life.  Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory are two of these views.'


That’s great for a philosophy class, but dead wrong for a science class.  Should we teach the Geocentric view of the universe in science class because some non-scientists and a teeny minority of scientists hold that view?

Quote
And if Astrology or Scientism or Christian Science or whatever gets a big enough following, then throw them in there too and let the kids decide for themselves with the help of their parents.


Wrong again Dave.  Kids, even with the help of their lay parents, do not have the technical knowledge to decide for themselves what is scientifically accurate.

Quote
"The prosecuting attorney then dropped a two foot high stack of over 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers and articles with research detailing the evolution of the human blood clotting system and asked Behe if he was familiar with the work..  Behe replied that he didn’t need to read them as he already knew his claim was correct."  

I didn't check this quote for accuracy, but I imagine he feels as I feel that scientists just keep on writing mountains and mountains of nonsense to support these notions they really, really want to be true ... like the immune system evolved, etc.  I've read a lot myself and it all starts to sound the same ... I'm sure you can relate.  


He’s supposed to be a profession scientist and an expert on the subject.  Since he never bothered to read all the scientific evidence, how did he know it was nonsense?  The scientific evidence being presented “all sounds the same” to you only because it all directly contradicts your ignorance based view of scientific reality.

Being ignorant doesn’t mean unintelligent Dave, it just means untrained.  I’m quite ignorant of the flight controls of a Huey, but I’m sure you could teach me.  You don’t see me going on web sites and claiming that I already know better that those “closed minded” Huey drivers about how to pilot their aircraft.

Quote
Many people here have said the same about the stuff I write.  I will agree with you that it seems hair-brained to adopt the strategy to go try to defend a local school board's decision to put 'Evolution Warning Labels' on the books.  I mean ... who knows what kind of rednecks you might be defending?  Why fight this in the courts anyway?  I can think of better places to get the word out. So is that 2 things we agree on now?  Oh yeah ... we're both EE's.  OK 3 then.


Then you need to tell that to the Creationists who avoid the scientific peer review process like the plague, and opt for “end runs” through the legal system instead.

Sorry again if you feel insulted – I’ll buy you a beer or three if we ever meet :)  As you are passionate about your cause, I am just as passionate about scientific literacy.  I see a real threat to the economic future of my country if the pseudoscientific pushers like the Creationists continue to try and lower the U.S. science standards.

Date: 2006/05/03 18:19:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
As usual Thorbigot can't type two sentences without resorting to lying

Let’s see:

Quote
You believe that gay marriage is harmful to society, correct?

Yes, because it NECESSARILY defines marriage out of existence in the realm of the larger society.


BZZZZT!  There’s LIE No.1!  All that is being changed is the legal definition of who can get married.  This proposed change is EXACTLY what was done to allow interreligion marriages, and interracial marriages.  There are NO CHANGES AT ALL proposed to the rights and legal status of married couples themselves.

Quote
You believe that it devalues cultural traditions, correct?

Yes, look at the responses of the gay "marriage" advocates in this debate.  Time after time they can't conceive of why traditional marriage is inherently valuable to society EVEN though it is a tradition.


BZZZZT!  There’s LIE No.2!  NO ONE in this thread has argued that marriage as an institution is not inherently valuable.  All that is being argued is that this valuable privilege be extended to ALL citizens who wish it.

Quote
You believe gay marriage unfairly redefines the definition/purpose of marriage without the consent of the general population(collective redefinition), correct?

Yes, but it's actually defining marriage out of existence in the context of societal recognition and it's doing so through the courts and not the ballot box.


BZZZZT!  There’s LIE No.3!  NOWHERE in the world has there been any attempt to defined marriage out of existence!  All attempts to change the laws regarding who can get married have been done through proper existing legislative procedure.

For those students of history, it's interesting to look back on this thread and see all of Thorbigot's changing tactics in his gay-bashing rants

First, it was that gays alone are responsible for the AIDS epidemic.
Then it was that teaching that homosexuality is normal will corrupt innocent school children.
Then it was that all gays really want is promiscuous anal sex
Then it was that most gays are pedophiles
Then it was that gays have a master plan to destroy civilization
Then it was that gay marriage was equivalent to marrying your five brothers, or marrying a sheep

When all those got shot down, thorbigot switched to his latest fixation, that the "radical gay agenda" is to define marriage out of existence.

After all that, Thorbigot still wonders why everyone here considers him a hateful homophobic moron.

Folks, this assho1e is one sick puppy.

Date: 2006/05/03 18:26:14, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Oh, before I forget:

Thordaddy, you STILL keep avoiding this question

What criteria would you use to judge a couple's fitness for producing a viable, society-enhancing marriage if you couldn't examine their genitalia?

Date: 2006/05/04 04:26:47, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Jeezuz AFDave, what's with you?

You've been given the benefit of the doubt several times now, and each time you've reacted not like someone who's interested in learning, but like a preachy YEC dolt who's only interested in flaunting his ignorance.

You've left dozens of questions unanswered on the other threads you started.

You refuse to do the most basic research before you post another piece of "evidence"

You snap at people who keep pointing out that your actions do not jibe at all with the "honest skeptic" you claim to be.

As far as this latests "evidence", you cite a study that is over 30 years old, and even then you don't understand the contents of what it says.

Here is a good overview of the chromosomal fusion evidence.  Notice all the references to the primary scientific literature, including this one

Quote
10. Chromosome Res 2002;10(1):55-61

Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade.

Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W.

Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany.

For a long time, the evolutionary relationship between human and African apes, the 'trichotomy problem', has been debated with strong differences in opinion and interpretation. Statistical analyses of different molecular DNA data sets have been carried out and have primarily supported a Homo-Pan clade. An alternative way to address this question is by the comparison of evolutionarily relevant chromosomal breakpoints. Here, we made use of a P1-derived artificial chromosome (PAC)/bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) contig spanning approximately 2.8 Mb on the long arm of the human Y chromosome, to comparatively map individual PAC clones to chromosomes from great apes, gibbons, and two species of Old World monkeys by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. During our search for evolutionary breakpoints on the Y chromosome, it transpired that a transposition of an approximately 100-kb DNA fragment from chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred in a common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y chromosomes of these three species contain the chromosome-1-derived fragment; it could not be detected on the Y chromosomes of gorillas or the other primates examined. Thus, this shared derived (synapomorphic) trait provides clear evidence for a Homo-Pan clade independent of DNA sequence analysis.

                      PMID: 11863072 [PubMed - in process]




All this information is easily available for those who are intellectually honest enough to seek it.

Strike two Dave.

Date: 2006/05/04 05:15:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Gotta go with Geocentrism.

This should be a hoot - not that I expect GoP to actually DO anything that his mouth promises.

Date: 2006/05/04 14:32:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Does anyone really see any value in engaging with a raving bigoted homophobic hypocrite like Thordaddy, or a quiet conniving one like GoP?

Date: 2006/05/04 18:21:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Thordaddy kinda reminds me of a child....


A severely retarded anal-retentive one at that.

Date: 2006/05/04 18:36:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Thordaddy kinda reminds me of a child....

A severely retarded anal-retentive one at that.


Better make that a severely retarded anal-retentive obsessive-compulsive one.

Date: 2006/05/05 19:01:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Wow guys, this is just too funny.

Thordaddy has become our own little pet troll! :D

We can use him, and confuse him, and abuse him, and he keeps coming back for more!

I think we should start a contest:  let's see who can get Thorbigot to spew "but gays can get married in a liberal church!!!' the most time in a row.

I've seen T-idiot do it in three consecutive posts several times now.  Anyone think they can get the moron to stutter it out in four consecutive posts?

Step right up and try your luck at Troll-O-Rama!

Date: 2006/05/06 05:32:42, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says

Quote
I welcome your intelligent comments.  I qualify comments with the modifier 'intelligent' because I have now pretty much heard everything un-intelligent that there is to hear including but not limited to Glen Davidson's detailed and authoritative "Psychoanalysis of AF Dave" (thankyou, Glen ... I have to pay $300/hr for those here in Kansas City),


What you really mean is "I welcome all those comments that I can spin and/or tap dance around.  The other 95% are tough questions that show me to be mind-numbingly naive and ignorant.  Those I'll just ignore".

Quote
Aftershave's continual attempts to supposedly "Look out for a poor-deluded fellow EE and help him avoid 'getting his ass handed to him'".  


Hasn't worked though, has it.  Every day we see another steaming plate of deef fried AFDave cheeks being delivered. :)

Oh well, don't take it personally Dave.  You're not the first arrogant but hopelessly ignorant YEC to come through here, and you won't be the last.  Isn't this a great country where even an ex AF pilot can make himself look like a total idiot on a public forum!

Strike three Dave, you're out.

Date: 2006/05/06 17:50:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ericmurphy observes

Quote
Also, I pointed out many posts ago that you claimed you had evidence to support these three assertions, and you did not object. Have you since changed your mind?


Of course AFDave has evidence.  He just has to do a Google search, then throw out all the hits that don't come from AIG or any of the other loony tunes Creationist sites.  Just like Behe, AFDave doesn't need to read the primary scientific literature because he already knows what lies those evil atheist scientists concoct.

Science understanding the AFDave way - it's quick, it's easy, and even an arrogant, deceitful, scientifically illiterate evangelist can do it.

Date: 2006/05/08 08:32:14, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
All quotes from AFDave:

Quote
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory?  I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been?  Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true?  How about slavery?  Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves?  And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions?  After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats.  Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?


Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Quote
MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities.  For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc.  Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens.  This is what I'M talking about.


Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?

Quote
Out of answers and energy, perhaps?  I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated?  Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you?  But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?


Dealing with willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty is frustrating.  And yet Dave wonders why so many people have come to view him as a clueless but arrogant jerk.

BIG FAT HINT:  Personal incredulity based on woeful ignorance will never be considered evidence.

Date: 2006/05/08 09:00:10, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says:
Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  


Because the idea is so overwhelmingly supported by all the available scientific evidence that it has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.  Your ignorance based tirades do not constitute "reasonable doubt".

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.


Theories are taught based on the quantity and quality of positive evidence.  All theories are NOT equal in this respect.  Do you think we should teach the Geocentric Theory of the universe to kids as well as the Heliocentric one?  They’re both UNPROVEN THEORIES, so should we teach BOTH and let PARENTS and CHILDREN decide?

Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.


For the umpteenth time – science is NOT a democracy, and scientific truth is NOT decided by popular vote.  Your opinion based on ignorance  doesn’t mean jack sh*t to the scientific realities of the evidence.

Dave, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you’re sure doing a good impersonation of a cement-headed dumbf*ck.

Date: 2006/05/08 10:06:36, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says
Quote
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...

(snip my observations on Dave's claim that Hitler was an Evolutionist)

is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...


Actually Dave, satire and parody work quite well in pointing out the gross inanity of your anti-evolution "argument".  Your peeved response shows that I did indeed hit the mark.

Quote
Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)


Gee, looks like that "I can take it, I'm an AF pilot with a thick skin" was just an act of bravado.  I'll try harder not to hurt your sensitive feeling next time.

You can help too - if you don't like being embarrassed in public, then stop repeating such bloody stupid Creationist lies like "ToE = support for Nazis".

Date: 2006/05/08 16:22:28, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Well AFDave, while you’re busy patting yourself on the back for anticipating the answers you’d get from those evil atheists evos, maybe you can answer a few questions about the Air Force.

Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets?  Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?

And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all?  Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics?  Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?

I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.

Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified.  My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.

You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave?  Shouldn’t it be applied here too?  I’m really curious to hear your answers.

Date: 2006/05/08 19:18:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
 
<I’m really curious to hear your answers.>  

you are?  really?


Sure.  To paraphrase our newest ATBC evangelist:

"Now we scientific literati are reasonable people and we will forgive blustering ex-AF pilots if they admit their errors and fix them." ;)

Date: 2006/05/09 08:36:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA says: Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets?  Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?

And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all?  Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics?  Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?

I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.
Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified.  My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS. You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave?  Shouldn’t it be applied here too?  I’m really curious to hear your answers.


AFDave says:
Quote
Good question.  I knew you could say something substantive.


When will be able to say the same for you? ???

Quote
Answer:  The generals who set the rules EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS.  What is this EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTH?  It's very easy to distinguish the good pilot candidates from the bad ones.  In science today, we are talking about a different matter.  


Wrong Dave, we’re talking about the exact same thing.  Scientific ideas are put through a rigorous peer-review process very similar to pilot selection.   The scientific peer-reviewers are the “generals” who have EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS.  It is very easy for scientists to winnow out the sound scientific theories like ToE from the crappy pseudoscientific junk like Young Earth Creationism by the quality and quantity of the evidence.  In fact, the YECs have submitted almost NOTHING in the way of positive evidence TO BE reviewed.  They consistently and willfully AVOID THE SELECTION PROCESS because they know they can’t cut the muster.  That which they have submitted for scrutiny has been found woefully lacking, just like the noob pilots who wash out on their first day.

Would you fly on a plane with a pilot who washed out of flight school, then went crying to his local Congressman and got given his pilot’s license anyway over the severe objections of the flight school professionals?  That’s exactly what you’re doing when you accept AIG’s YEC claims over the objections of the qualified scientific community.

Once more, with feeling:  You, Dave, ARE NOT QUALIFIED to judge the quality of scientific evidence being presented, just as I an NOT QUALIFIED to dispute the generals’ judgments about a pilot’s aptitude.  The charlatans at AIG, your primary information source, are also NOT QUALIFIED to judge.  They, like you, are motivated by their religious beliefs, NOT by any desire for scientific veracity.  AIG is rife with lies and disinformation.  You saw how badly they misrepresented the human-chimp chromosomal fusion info – just wait till you see how badly they lie about the Young Earth data.

Quote
We are talking about many qualified students who can do much in the way of good, useful scientific work regardless of their worldview.  To exclude people because of their worldview is like excluding people based on sex or religious preference, ESPECIALLY when there are thousands of "Darwin dissenters" among scientists in all major universities AND half the US and British population rejects Darwinism.


Your worldview is not an issue as long as the quality of your work doesn’t suffer because of it.  You can be an atheist and be a damm fine pilot, you can also be a YEC and be a damm fine doctor or scientist.  However, if you reject any of your scientific findings based solely on your YEC preconceptions then you deserve to be tossed out on your ass.   Imagine your daughter is desperately ill.  You take her to Doctor A who prescribes a new antibiotic, because he understands the strain of flu your daughter has contracted has evolved and no longer responds to the old antibiotic.  Doctor B is a YEC, and he tells you your daughter is possessed by Satan’s minions and that you should just go home and pray.  Whose advice would you follow, and why?

Quote
This is a significant difference.  Contrast this with putting the following question on the next national ballot, "Do you think there should be a selection process in choosing fighter pilots?"  I think you'd be very close to 100% YES.


Agreed.  Do you think there should be a selection process based on positive evidence in deciding the veracity of scientific ideas?  Or should every last idea, even the crackpot ones, be given equal time in school?

Date: 2006/05/09 18:00:49, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Thordickhead,

If you like being an obsessive compulsive bigoted homophobic assho1e, fine.  it's a free country.  Just keep your stupid bigoted anti-gay off topic rants on your own fukkin' thread, you moron.

Date: 2006/05/11 09:04:58, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says
Quote
It appears that no one accepts the evidence for a Creator I have given so far, so we will explore that some and find out why ...


Easy.  It's because you haven't provided one shred of evidence, just lots of claims based on your own personal incredulity and ignorance.

Personal incredulity and ignorance will never be considered evidence Dave.  Haven't you had this explained to you at least half a dozen times on this board so far?

Quote
I will be posting some questions there directly out of a children's book about evolution ...


Given your demonstrated level of scientific understanding, I'd say that's just about right for you. :p

Date: 2006/05/11 09:55:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
It is obvious to me that many of you do not accept "Cosmic Fine Tuning" and "Biological Machines" as evidence that supports the idea of an Intelligent Creator (or at least Designer), in spite of the fact that Talk Origins does not refute Cosmic Fine Tuning when we all know they would if they could, and many scientists (non-YEC/ID) have written about the wonders of biological "machines" and "factories".


"Cosmic Fine Tuning" :The fact of the matter is, we have a sample set of *ONE* universe that happens to contain life.  We have NO IDEA how many other possible universes there are, or whether a different sort of life is possible in those universes.  It has also been demonstrated repeatedly that life in our universe tends to evolve to fit the environment available.  It has never been demonstrated that the parameters for the environment were put in place first with the preconceived idea that life would exist there later.  Do you really think that liquid water was "designed" just so that fish can live in it?  Ever heard of Dr. Pangloss?

"Biological Machines":  The fact that certain biological structures superficially resemble human built machines in no way implies that the biological structures were purposely built also.   Some people see the face of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich – does that mean there’s an Intelligent Grilled Cheese Sandwich Designer who oversees the cooking of each?  

A real flagellum looks nothing like the pretty IDiot Powerpoint drawing with its cute little gears and motors.  Real flagellum parts under high magnification are squishy globs of interconnected organic molecules that react and move in response to well understood chemical reactions.  The gears and motors description is an analogy only to help visualize the motions taking place.

Dave, do you think you’ll ever come up with some positive evidence for YEC that’s not based on your own personal incredulity and ignorance?  I sure don’t, but please feel free to try.

Date: 2006/05/11 11:26:31, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
How does anyone know what the virgin Mary looked like?


Absolutely right.  It could be Susie Q. Pimplekowski from Hoboken, N.J. for all we know.

Still, that didn't stop some goober from paying $28,000 for the stupid thing!

Virgin Mary grilled cheese sold!

Wonder how much I could get for the dump I took last night that looked exactly like Dembski? ;)

Date: 2006/05/11 13:52:58, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave started out with promise, but has recently shown all the telltale signs of being just another scientifically illiterate fundy-bot.  He's begun doing the Gish gallop, continues to use AIG as his primary info source even though he was shown how dishonest they are, and totally ignores all other evidence that refutes his hackneyed YEC baloney.

Different clown, same circus.

Date: 2006/05/11 13:58:58, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Here ya go Dave:

A map, in case you ever lose your way when presenting your "evidence" for YEC.

AFDave's Argument Map

You seem to be at the second green diamond

Date: 2006/05/12 21:06:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Here AFDave, I corrected some minor mistakes you made in your list:

THINGS THAT ARE NOT AF DAVE'S GOALS
(1)  Understand the most basic things about biology
(2)  Understand the most basic things about genetic engineer
(3)  Learn from those with advanced science degrees
(4)  Understand the most basic things about biochemical research
(5)  Care one little bit about actual biological facts
(6)  Understand the most basic things about geologist
(7)  Understand the most basic things about astrophysicist

THINGS THAT ARE AF DAVE'S GOALS HERE AT PANDA'S THUMB
(1)  Pretend to be seeking information when all I really want is an audience to evangelize to.
(2)  Lie about my motives so I can keep you guys responding as long as I can
(3)  Preach my literal Bible views to all you atheist evilutionists out there with no intention of ever backing up any of my BS.
(4)  Do my “witnessing” to amass my Get-Into-Heaven points.

Face it Dave, you see yourself as some noble missionary savior going into the land of the heathen savages to bring Jeebus into their black hearts.  Problem is, 95% of those "heathen savages" are way better educated on the topic than you, and 100% of them are more honest than you.

Quote
Your problem is NOT your comprehension of the data or in understanding the mechanics of how things work.  You are even quite good at explaining this stuff -- Incorygible did a great job explaining the transcription thing.  Spent a lot of time on it too, I understand.

Your problem is simply your interpretation of data and your sometimes faulty logic.  I don't fault you for this ... it's understandable because of the overwhelming power of your Darwinian worldview.  You have been fed a steady diet of Darwinism since you were very young and it wields much power over your minds (much like a religion) and while this is not a problem for most of the things you do, it makes you fall into saying some illogical things when you start trying to explain your view of origins.


Actually Dave, it’s not our problem at all that you choose to remain such a willfully ignorant dumbass.  You’ve had dozens of kind folks explain to you in great detail the basic mistakes and idiotic claims you get from AIG, but you keep right on making them without missing a beat.  You’ve also proven to be quite the intellectual coward.  I’ve yet to see you answer any of the tough questions you get asked every day, like

“Should ALL scientific results have to undergo rigorous, critical peer-review before being taught in schools, and WHO is qualified to do the peer-review?”

or

"Why should the opinion of an uneducated layman mean more than that of a dedicated professional science researcher?"

You just don your ballet slippers and tutu, and pirouette daintily away.  Most military pilots I know seem to walk on water when under pressure – you just pass water.

You’re busted Dave. Your “Lying for Jesus” is readily apparent to folks because, unfortunately, we’ve seen far too much of it from arrogant know-nothings like you.

Date: 2006/05/13 05:07:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Looks like Arrogant Fundy Dave has given up all pretense of wanting to cure his ignorance and has decided to kick his “lying for Jesus” machine into high gear.  AFDave starts our Saturday with his latest bunch of "Gish gallop" whoppers:

     
Quote
BIG, BIG difference.  Think about it.  We need to be very careful in our quotes and our logic.  I believe these types of assumptions, rushes to judgment, and lack of sound logic are precisely why Darwinists are painting themselves into a corner which will ultimately be an embarrassment to them.  

We have already seen the embarrasment to Darwinists of their failed predictions in the fossil record.  Darwinists predicted continuous transitional forms in the fossil record.  Creationists predicted ubiquitous gaps.  Creationists were correct.


Lie #1.  Scientific predictions about fossil finds have been supporting ToE for over 150 years, the latest example being Tiktaalik.  YEC makes NO predictions about the fossil record whatsoever; it just tries to hand wave away the positive evidence for ToE that IS found.  This was explained in detail with examples to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying.

Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

     
Quote
Darwinists predicted true "vertical evolution" (or macro-evolution), but leading evolutionary scientists have now admitted that no true vertical evolution from one kind of organism to a more complex kind has ever been observed in all human history.


Lie#2.  The old “there is only micro-evolution, not macro-evolution” creato standard canard..  No “leading evolutionary scientists” ANYWHERE have said that macro-evolution hasn’t happened.  This was explained in detail with real world examples of speciation to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying.

Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

     
Quote
Creationists predicted that any "evolution" would be lateral or downward and this has been confirmed.  Creationists also predicted the limited variation that we see in natural and artificial selection, but Darwinists try to use this as evidence for their failed predictions of true vertical evolution, when in fact it is better evidence for "designed adaptability" put in the originl created "kinds" by the Creator.  


Lie #3.  In biology there is no such thing as “upward” or “downward” evolution.  There is evolution, period.  There is also no recognized scientific definition of "kind'.  These are terms invented of the Cretos to confuse ignorant laymen like Dave.  This was explained in detail to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying.

Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

     
Quote
Since all this and many other things outlined by Denton and others have been embarrassing and unanswerable by Darwininsts, they are now repeating the same logical mistakes at the molecular level.  I predict the results will be the same.  And if that were not enough, they are calling Creationists and ID people stupid for questioning their theories!!


Lie #4.  Everyone has the right to question existing scientific theories, and critical peer-review is an ongoing part of the scientific method.  We call Creationists and IDiots stupid because they don’t understand the sciences involved enough to ask logical pertinent questions. Changes to scientific theories happen all the time as new evidence becomes available.  However, refinements and updates to ToE DO NOT mean that the whole theory is wrong, and DO NOT provide any positive evidence for YEC. This has been explained ad nauseum to AFDave in earlier threads, so we can be sure at this point he is willfully lying.

Dave, what does the Bible say about bearing false witness?

My prediction:  Missionary Dave will continue to ignore all attempts to correct his blatant scientific ignorance, and will continue to arrogantly preach to those who know the subject way better that him.  Anyone wanna bet?

Date: 2006/05/13 15:31:51, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
All that's really necesary to make a useful contribution to the discussion is a desire to learn and an ego sized small enough to understand and admit that your current 'knowledge' may be wrong.

Unfortunately, finding those traits amongst the YECs I've met has proven just about impossible.  AFDave is merely the latest egotistical dimbulb in a long line.

Date: 2006/05/13 17:18:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I've never seen anyone take such absolute delight in being such a willfully ignorant dumbass.

Missionary AFDave, are you ever going to bother reading the links given at the very web resources you cite?

From the SETI Institute itself, as linked to by T.O.

   
Quote
Simple Signals

In fact, the signals actually sought by today’s SETI searches are not complex, as the ID advocates assume. We’re not looking for intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens’ version of "I Love Lucy." Our instruments are largely insensitive to the modulation—or message—that might be conveyed by an extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.

And yet we still advertise that, were we to find such a signal, we could reasonably conclude that there was intelligence behind it. It sounds as if this strengthens the argument made by the ID proponents. Our sought-after signal is hardly complex, and yet we’re still going to say that we’ve found extraterrestrials. If we can get away with that, why can’t they?

Well, it’s because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal – a dead simple tone – is not complex; it’s artificial. Such a tone just doesn’t seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add – for example, DNA’s junk and redundancy.

Consider pulsars – stellar objects that flash light and radio waves into space with impressive regularity. Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967. Of course, these little men didn’t have much to say. Regular pulses don’t convey any information—no more than the ticking of a clock. But the real kicker is something else: inefficiency. Pulsars flash over the entire spectrum. No matter where you tune your radio telescope, the pulsar can be heard. That’s bad design, because if the pulses were intended to convey some sort of message, it would be enormously more efficient (in terms of energy costs) to confine the signal to a very narrow band. Even the most efficient natural radio emitters, interstellar clouds of gas known as masers, are profligate. Their steady signals splash over hundreds of times more radio band than the type of transmissions sought by SETI.

Imagine bright reflections of the Sun flashing off Lake Victoria, and seen from great distance. These would be similar to pulsar signals: highly regular (once ever 24 hours), and visible in preferred directions, but occupying a wide chunk of the optical spectrum. It’s not a very good hailing-signal or communications device. Lightning bolts are another example. They produce pulses of both light and radio, but the broadcast extends over just about the whole electromagnetic spectrum. That sort of bad engineering is easily recognized and laid at nature’s door. Nature, for its part, seems unoffended.

Junk, redundancy, and inefficiency characterize astrophysical signals. It seems they characterize cells and sea lions, too. These biological constructions have lots of superfluous and redundant parts, and are a long way from being optimally built or operated. They also resemble lots of other things that may be either contemporaries or historical precedents.

So that’s one point: the signals SETI seeks are really not like other examples drawn from the bestiary of complex astrophysical phenomena. That speaks to their artificiality.

The Importance of Setting

There’s another hallmark of artificiality we consider in SETI, and it’s context. Where is the signal found? Our searches often concentrate on nearby Sun-like star systems – the very type of astronomical locale we believe most likely to harbor Earth-size planets awash in liquid water. That’s where we hope to find a signal. The physics of solar systems is that of hot plasmas (stars), cool hydrocarbon gasses (big planets), and cold rock (small planets). These do not produce, so far as we can either theorize or observe, monochromatic radio signals belched into space with powers of ten billion watts or more—the type of signal we look for in SETI experiments. It’s hard to imagine how they would do this, and observations confirm that it just doesn’t seem to be their thing.

Context is important, crucially important. Imagine that we should espy a giant, green square in one of these neighboring solar systems. That would surely meet our criteria for artificiality. But a square is not overly complex. Only in the context of finding it in someone’s solar system does its minimum complexity become indicative of intelligence.

In archaeology, context is the basis of many discoveries that are imputed to the deliberate workings of intelligence. If I find a rock chipped in such a way as to give it a sharp edge, and the discovery is made in a cave, I am seduced into ascribing this to tool use by distant, fetid and furry ancestors. It is the context of the cave that makes this assumption far more likely then an alternative scenario in which I assume that the random grinding and splitting of rock has resulted in this useful geometry.

In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we’re on the lookout for very simple signals. That’s mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA’s chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist.


So the SETI people aren't just looking for "things that look like what people build.".  They're looking for artificiality and context.

RTFL for once in your dishonest life, you anti-science ignorant twit.

Edited to add:  looks like ericmurphy beat me to it.

Date: 2006/05/14 13:49:02, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
How many times do we need to tell Dave that it's not possible to prove there is no god? And as far as I know, no one on this site is of the opinion that they have "proved" god doesn't exist (I happen to believe that god doesn't exist, but I don't think for a minute that I can prove it).

We've told Dave this several times already, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. We've also informed Dave several times that we've been waiting for some sort of solid evidence in support of any of the 15 assertions he made at the beginning of this thread. So far, it appears that the only person who thinks he's provided any evidence whatsoever in support of any of those assertions is Dave himself.


Haven't you guys caught on yet that AFDave is not here to learn, or to discuss, but to PREACH.

He sees himself as an evangelical missionary, just like his father, out to save the ignorant savages.

Personally, I find his dishonest attempts at feigning interest in order to proselytize and push his anti-science agenda to be quite insulting.

I'll support anyone's right to believe their own religion, but I really don't appreciate getting lied to about it.

Date: 2006/05/15 17:06:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Missionary AFDave says:
   
Quote
(5) Risk analysis.  Having walked through this entire process, I now am faced squarely with the claim from the Bible:  "Believe me and spend eternity with me when you die." (God supposedly speaking) or "Don't believe me and spend eternity separated from me.  It's your choice, Dave.  I won't force you.  I have given you abundant evidence for My existence.  If this evidence is not enough, what evidence WOULD be enough?"  I have to choose, and it basically boils down to risk analysis.  Which of the two possible choices seems less risky?




Ahhhh...it just wouldn't be the same, having a scientifically illiterate fundy proselytizer prattle on without bringing up Pascal's wager.

Gee Dave, shouldn't you subscribe to the practices of Buddhism, and Hinduism, and Islam at the same time too just to further reduce your risk?  Think of it as buying extra insurance to hedge your bets. One can't be too careful about the afterlife, you know.

Date: 2006/05/16 10:03:56, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
OK, let's review all Missionary AFDave's "evidence" to date:

1. Personal incredulity based on ignorance.
2. More personal incredulity based on ignorance.
3. Lie-filled article from AIG that got totally trashed.
4. Personal incredulity based on anecdotal occurrence.
5. Pascal's wager.
6. Repeated personal incredulity based on ignorance.
7. Second lie-filled article from AIG that got trashed worse than the first.
8. More repeated personal incredulity based on ignorance.

Anyone see a trend here?

I wonder what part of "personal incredulity based on ignorance DOES NOT QUALIFY as evidence" Missionary Dave just can't get through his head?

     
Quote
AFDave: I am about ready to move on to my next piece of evidence for a Creator God.  Does anyone have any more questions?


Yes Dave, the same questions you have consistently avoided.

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

Surprise us all and provide some honest answers for once.

Date: 2006/05/16 16:34:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Sir_toejam on AFDave's progeny:...maybe his kids still have a chance though.


     
Quote
AFDave:My 1st grader can easily grasp the truth that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans and that they probably HAVE ALWAYS BEEN just that, and probably WILL ALWAYS BE just that.
 

Seems highly unlikely, given the mind numbing ignorance and arrogance of their old man. Depends on how far the apple falls from the tree I guess.  Still, having Missionary Dave home school his kids on science is not all a bad thing though. It will statistically increase the likelihood of my children winning a competitive job that requires critical thinking.  As far as Dave's kids' employment outlook - the country will always need janitors and fry cooks.

Date: 2006/05/16 17:24:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Keep trying to insult me, Aftershave.  It might work yet if you just keep it up long enough!  I like the new angle of insult ... very innovative.  Maybe you could insult my wife next.


No insult at all Dave, just stating the facts. You are one of the most ignorant and arrogant Bible pushers to come by in some time.  You lied about your reasons for coming here, you lied about all the data that was presented to you, you continue to lie about your desire for honest discussion.  I will support to the last your right to hold whatever religious beliefs you choose, but I can't stand liars.

I've got nothing against your kids - I sincerely hope they are all happy and successful in whatever they choose to do.  They're just going to have to learn intellectual honesty from somewhere else, because they sure won't learn by example from you.

Want to prove me wrong?  Then answer the tough questions that you keep cowardly avoiding:

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

Your T-38 just took an SA-20 SAM up the tailpipe Dave – what are you gonna do now?

Date: 2006/05/17 04:08:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
OA asks AFDave for the fourth time
 
Quote
Want to prove me wrong?  Then answer the tough questions that you keep cowardly avoiding:

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?


AFDave's reply
 
Quote
....(cricket chirping)......(wind blowing through the grass)......


(cue the theme from Top Gun)

"Maverick!  Goose!  This is Viper.  What's going on up there?!"

"It's AFDave sir, he won't engage.  AFDave won't engage!"

Date: 2006/05/17 04:24:39, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Missionary AFDave says
 
Quote
Someone has pointed out that I just want everyone else to run around chasing data and I myself don't want to do any "real scientific work."  Well, in this case, YES.  The burden is upon you to try to convince me.


ROFLMAO!!  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Dave, you crack me up!  So now the onus is on us to cure you of your desire to be a willfully ignorant dumbass.  That's priceless.

Tell us Dave, what incentive would anyone have in doing hours and hours of research and writing just so a disingenuous knucklehead like you can reject the data with a few flip sentences?

Give us a bigger laugh Dave.  Tell us what possible evidence you would accept that shows Human-Chimp common ancestry?

Date: 2006/05/17 15:28:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Looks like AFDave the missionary is having quite a bad day. :D

Well Dave, we all know what happens to arrogant pushy missionaries, now don't we?

Date: 2006/05/17 17:46:33, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Missionary AFDave says
     
Quote
A good guess for the Flood of Noah is probably somewhere between 2000 and 3000 BC.


Of course you're working hard to provide the actual scientific evidence of this, right Dave?  Your mouth has been writing this check for almost a month now, but your pea brain hasn't been able to back the cash.  You, me, the whole board knows you're lying about your non-existant "evidence" again, but that's just part of the con, isn't it?

Gotta hand it to ya Dave- when it comes to making a fool out of yourself in public, you're no. 1 with a bullet.  Seems like you're use to being laughed at though - wonder why that is?   Looks like your continued "lying for Jesus" has ticked off alot of people too.  Can't say as I blame them.  Having an arrogant little prick like you lie about your motives and spit on the kind offers to educate you does rub one the wrong way.

Do you really think you're doing the Lord's Work ™ with your attitude and your dishonesty?

Pathetic Dave, you're just pathetic.

Date: 2006/05/18 09:15:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
As for BWE, I congratulate you.  I have been insulted a lot of different ways, some creative, some boring.  I have to say that this one takes the cake as the most innovative I have ever heard.  If you tell me your mailing address, I would like to send you a certificate for "Most Creative Insult of All Time."  I will be interested to see if you or anyone else can top this one in the future :-)


I'll just note that the sum total of AFDave's scientific knowledge and integrity would comfortably fit inside a thimble, with plenty of room left for his genitalia.

Date: 2006/05/19 03:18:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Nah. Frankly, I just didn't care whether he was a pilot or not. Being a pilot doesn't make him understand anything about the scientific method.


The way Missionary AFDave keeps shoveling the shit, I think of him as a pile-it.  :p

Date: 2006/05/19 03:29:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Vicious Fish:    a local SF based band, I know the lead singer.

Bad Tuna:  Amateur ice hockey club in my local beer league.  Their team logo is a Dr Seuss fish holding a hockey stick.

Date: 2006/05/19 04:41:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Missionary AFDave says
   
Quote
I can only do what I do and I for one do not say that you are 'evil' or that you should even quit teaching your views on evolution.  Go ahead and teach them.  Just don't shut out other views.  


Well Dave, since you keep bringing up the topic of teaching other views, I'll ask these for the fifth time.  

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

And no, I won't waste board space on a separate thread for these questions.  You brought the topic up in this thread, answer the questions in this thread.  Why do you continue to be a coward and avoid them?

Date: 2006/05/22 16:30:10, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Well, I go away for a long weekend and what do I find?

Missionary AFDave still typing lies as fast as his little fingers can pick-and-peck.

The rest of you guys still kicking the living crap out of AFDavey's posterior.

Arrogant Fundy Dave still being too stupid to realize he's getting the living sh*t kicked out of him.

Hey AFDave, I noticed that you avoided my questions about scientific peer-review for the fifth time.  That means you lost big time on that one.  How does it feel to be such a loser?  When you "flew" the T-38, were you sitting in the back seat or the front?

My $0.02 on Dave's mental state:  AFDave is not an idiot in the classical sense, but he does suffer from "military pilot's disease" - terminal arrogance and the most unwarranted belief that if he is competent in one area, then that makes him an expert in all areas.  I've spent my whole career in military aerospace and unfortunately have seen too many "AFDaves".  Usually they're the ones who end up crashing multimillion-dollar aircraft because they are too f*cking arrogant to ever admit they can be wrong, ever.

Date: 2006/05/22 17:44:16, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Given his other claims and his somewhat tenuous grasp of reality, I don't think we're dealing with an actual ex-pilot.  Second Lieutenant, perhaps, but that's about as high as his intelligence would seem to go.   :p


My guess is he made it through UPT (undergraduate pilot training), then as far as flying T-38s (an advanced supersonic jet trainer for potential fighter/bomber pilots) as a student pilot.  I also guess he washed out at that stage; probably his arrogance caused him to make too many unacceptable errors.  That's why he ended up flying helos (according to his blog at least).

My limited knowledge of such things comes from having an ex-GF (many years ago) whose brother was a military pilot.  He followed the same career track but passed T-38 training, and was invited back to become a T-38 IP (Instructor Pilot) because at the time there were too few fighter slots available.  Tom (the brother) told many comical stories about the screw-ups of his students, and how they'd always end up whining "...but sirrrr...." :)  Eventually he ended up flying KC-10 tankers, the Mil version of the DC-10.

Edited to add: This is not meant to belittle what AFDave did achieve.  Just making it through UPT to get a ride in a T-38 is a major accomplishment, so props to him for that.  It's a pity that his arrogant and condescending attitude will keep him such a total dumbsh*t on some fascinating and amazing avenues of scientific knowledge.

Date: 2006/05/22 18:05:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
(shakes head and laughs)  Damm...Thorbigot is still at it after 39 f'ing pages   :p   :p   :p

Hey Thordaddy,  what if a gay man builds a time machine and goes back in time to have sex with himself?  Is that still homosexual behavior, or is it just masturbation?  What if a woman travels back in time to have sex with herself.  That's not homosexual then, right?  What if she agrees to let you watch.  Is what she does OK by you then?

You better start lining up your legal arguments now.  Who knows what those sneaky queers will dream up next?  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/05/22 19:07:22, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I bet Dave isn't showing this site to his wife and kids anymore.


I find this curious - I just looked at AFDave's blog airdave.blogspot.com and he has removed his AFDave's Creator God Hypothesis entry along with all the associated critical comments.  That's one way to hide the embarrassment I guess.  Do we have another Dave Springer-Spaniel the mad deleter on our hands?

Date: 2006/05/22 20:04:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I wonder what his AF buddies thought of the obvious cult he had been indoctrinated into as a kid???


From my first hand experiences with military pilots (who all tend to be intelligent self-assured free-thinkers)

A few probably politely listened to him.
A few more probably just ignored him.
Most probably told him in no uncertain terms to take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut.

How about it AFDave - is that breakdown basically accurate?

When you started preaching to them about their sins, how many of your fellow aviators told you to f*ck off?

Date: 2006/05/23 09:19:16, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Missionary AFDave sobs

 
Quote
I will now be abandoning this thread since I have established my point.  Please bring any further discussion of this issue over to the "Creator God Hypothesis" thread.


Once again we see AFDave the coward turn tail and run after getting his lies and pathetic attempts at "evidence" shredded into so much confetti.

Never fear dear readers.  Dave has "declared victory" in order to save a teeny bit of his dignity (didn't work though Dave, now did it?) and will soon deliver his next sermon, er, bit of YEC "evidence"

All together now - let's serenade Dave as he goes to his next battle with the evil atheist scientists:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.

BTW Dave, I was right about you washing out of T-38 training, wasn't I?   ;)

Date: 2006/05/23 09:25:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Small Davey admitted his error,
With weasel words showing his terror
Of knowing that we
Are much smarter than he,
And can trim all his crap with a parer.


:p  :p  :p  :p  :p

What's the difference between AFDave and a non-cowardly pilot?

A non-cowardly pilot breaks ground and flies into the wind... ;)

Date: 2006/05/23 18:17:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.


Conveniently overlooking the fact that scientists developing the ToE have been performing experiments, collecting data, and making correct predictions for the last 150 years.

 
Quote
Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?


There are too many to count.  The whole modern field of genetics is based on them.  Any decent college biology text will cover the basics.

 
Quote
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.


Random mutation is not the sole mechanism for diversity.  There are other well know ones, such as horizontal gene transfer.

 
Quote
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.


Populations evolve, not individual organisms.  If you don’t understand that, there’s not much anyone can do for you.

 
Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.


Populations evolve, not individual organisms.  Populations that can’t evolve quickly enough to adapt to changing environmental conditions go extinct.  That is high school biology 101.

 
Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?


Proteins follow the basic laws of chemistry, as does all life.  What do you mean by ‘sub-atomic level’?

Take the friendly advice that’s been offered – learn some of the ToE basics so you won’t keep asking inane questions.

Date: 2006/05/23 18:50:20, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Occam, is this guy fooling you?


As a rule I always give new posters the benefit of the doubt until they say stuff like

 
Quote
I actually stumbled onto the site looking for some current info on complexity theory


followed by starting a thread full of typical Creto ignorant nonsense called "Reinventing Evolutionary Theory" and goofy things like

 
Quote
Evolution does not occur at the population level,

and
 
Quote
Actually the Santa Fe site must have had a link to antievolution 'cause thats how I got here.
 

I just checked, there is no link to or mention of antievolution.org at the Santa Fe site.

No, our new friend is not fooling anyone.

Date: 2006/05/23 19:07:42, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Its a shame but very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory.  Right now it is much more important to defend at all costs then to actually engage in science.  


And what would you know about it, Mr. "I accidentally came here looking for info on complexity"?  :p

Date: 2006/05/23 19:23:36, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Its amazing, the level of arrogance is monumental.  


Given that you were the one who lied about how you got here, lied about your motives, and posted a thread full of antiscientific Creto crap, I'd say your level of arrogance is monumental!

 
Quote
The defensiveness is extreme and none of you has spoken a bit about science.


Except for the parts where we corrected your blatant ignorance.

 
Quote
In my estimation, you have no real understanding of this topic, you just like to play on message boards.


May I kindly have some projection with that projection? :)

 
Quote
As to being a scientist, please!


Don't worry skeptic, no one here will ever mistake you for a scientist.  ;)

Date: 2006/05/24 04:09:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic says
   
Quote
Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.  I just don't accept the current theory.


So far you haven't shown that you know or understand the actual theory even the slightest bit.  Why should anyone care that you reject a cartoon version of ToE based on your own ignorance?

Date: 2006/05/24 04:29:12, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Since AFDave continues to shine us on with his promise to provide his positive evidence for Young Earth Creationism, I thought I'd give him a special thread just for that purpose.

Go on Dave, quit being a tease!  Start presenting that positive evidence for YEC and a literal Bible!  Suggested topics include

A literal Noah's flood
Evidence that the earth is only 6000+ years old
Definition and evidence for 'kinds'
Geocentric earth
Cattle genetics affected by striped and spotted rods

C'mon Dave, you've been quite entertaining so far, in a bumbling clown kinda way.  So put that big red nose back on you flight school washout, and edjamacate we evilutionists!

P.S. If you get stumped, you can always answer those questions about scientific peer review  ;)

Date: 2006/05/24 07:42:31, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Missionary AFDave sobs
   
Quote
Uh ... where did you come up with that?  Why don't you start a new thread to investigate me?


Sorry Dave for hurting your sensitive feelings yet again.  I keep forgetting about your delicate little feminine side.  Does your nose bleed every 28 days too?

Here's an idea for you Dave while you dry your tears.  If you want to show that you're not an intellectually dishonest coward, then answer these questions that I've now put to you six times:

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

I'll keep asking and embarrassing you until you explain your YEC position on this issue, might as well deal with it.

Date: 2006/05/24 10:05:55, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Missionary AFDave bawls
 
Quote
AFTERSHAVE ... THIS IS GOD SPEAKING ... GET A LIFE ... GO START YOUR OWN THREAD SO YOU CAN CONTEMPLATE YOUR NAVEL IN PEACE AND I WON'T HAVE TO WATCH.


Sorry sweetie - this is a public BB, so if you don't like public criticism, too bad.  Or as the Russians say, tough shitski.

Now you could get me to quit hounding you if actually grew some testicles and tried to answer the tough questions on issues that you yourself raised.

But we both know that's not your style, right washout? It's way easier for you to keep lying and avoiding, which is all we've seen you do so far.

BTW, the new thread I started is specifically for your YEC evidence.  All that has to happen now is for you to quit spewing hot air and actually provide some.

Ta for now Dearie

Date: 2006/05/24 13:18:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Holy sh*t!

I just look at AFDave's profile on his blog

He identifies himself as a '43 year old male Pisces'  :O  :O  :O

Oh Dave, do tell us you believe in astrology, pretty pretty please!

I guess when Behe said that astrology qualified as science under the Creto/IDiot definition, he had Missionary AFDave in mind!  ;)

(shakes head sadly and chuckles) Damm Dave, you get funnier every day  :D

Date: 2006/05/24 17:15:42, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic says
   
Quote
Thats not quite original thinking.  If Darwin releases his theory today, we don't know whether its true or not, it must be investigated and we want to make a name for ourselves, be bigger than Darwin.


This is why your ignorance flashes at us like a big red beacon Skeptic.  The ToE is not based on the result of a single experiment, or even a few dozen, but on the collective results of over 150 years of discovery in literally hundreds of different scientific fields - biology, chemistry, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc.  ALL of the evidence taken COLLECTIVELY is what supports the ToE.  It is a grand tapestry woven by millions of dedicated researchers of all races, ages, religions, nationalities, gender.  It is millions of pieces of independent, cross-corroborating evidence that makes ToE the bedrock of science that it rightfully is today.

A favorite tactic of the Creato/IDiots is to demand a single piece of evidence that conclusively 'proves' evolution.  You are making the same asinine request.

If you are so ignorant of the topic as to ask such a butt-stupid question, why should we give you the time of day?

Date: 2006/05/24 17:49:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic says
       
Quote
Ok, here's the problem with that statement, minus the purposeless attacks,  the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.


That's pure unadulterated bullsh*t Skeptic.  The evidence was collected and assessed independently as to whether or not it supported the theory.  When the evidence did NOT support the theory (as was often the case), the theory was MODIFIED and REFINED to accommodate ALL the evidence, both the old and the new.   That is the way ALL scientific theories are developed and corrected over time WITHOUT EXCEPTION.  

Do you have the slightest clue as to how the scientific method actually works?  If you have any examples of your allegations that the scientific community did a 'forced fit' on evidence that would totally overturn the ToE, either present them or STFU.

The ToE has been modified and refined countless times since its inception.  Many details have been added, and many remain to still be added.  However, in all those years and all those millions of pieces of evidence it has NEVER proven necessary to overturn the central idea of ToE - common descent with modification over time.

I’ll ask again: If you are so ignorant of the topic as to ask such a butt-stupid question, why should we give you the time of day?

Date: 2006/05/24 18:13:37, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave Evasion Watch

27 days since AFDave made this promise of evidence to support his original GOD hypothesis YEC claims

     
Quote
Posted  by AFDave:  April 27 2006,19:10
No, Arlen, there are mountains of evidence ... maybe not evidence to your liking ... but there is evidence alright, and my guess is you've probably seen alot of it already ...

But that's OK, I'll be giving it again ...


23 days since AFDave's Updated GOD hypothesis with the same YEC claims

     
Quote
Postedby AFDave: May 01 2006,08:19
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.



Still no positive evidence of YEC from AFDave

Presented as a public service for those who can't stand a liar of any belief, from atheist to religious fundy.

Date: 2006/05/24 18:22:10, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic says
     
Quote
the central tenet of common descent with modification over time it very vague, and I know you're summarizing for my lowly intellect, but think about how many different direction you can go with that, all you've eliminated is parallel speciation.


I'll think about it when you provide examples for this assertion by you that the scientific community did a 'forced fit' on evidence that would totally overturn the ToE.

   
Quote
Skeptic...the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.


Present the evidence for your assertion, retract, or continue to be thought of as an ignorant preachy boob.

ETA:  BTW Skeptic, I understood k.e. perfectly.  He politely told you you're full of shit, which is what all of us have been noting.

Date: 2006/05/24 18:38:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Skeptic:  I don't know that there has been a 'forced fit', something of that magnitude would be difficult to maintain for 150 years.  One good example is the fossil record, attitudes have gone back and forth concerning what we should see, what Darwin predicted and what this says about evolution at a slow pace.

It seemed for awhile that punctuated equilibrium would gain some traction, but not so much.  Thats not a case of 'forced fit' exactly, but it did deviate from the accepted theory and faded.  This could be a case in which we know what we're looking for, this isn't it, so it can not be true.  

Ultimately, someone is going to have to break from the pack and look in a different direction and to a certain extent that should be encouraged.


Are you then retracting this assertion you made

 
Quote
Skeptic...the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.


...or not?

It's a simple question.

Date: 2006/05/24 19:04:15, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic says:
   
Quote
In the case of an entire gene mutation, now we're talking long odds


Please define “long odds”.  Please show us the detailed calculations of how you computed the ‘long odds”.  Be sure to provide scientific evidence for all assumptions you make including sample size, number of all possible outcomes, number of possible successful outcomes, and length of time the event has to run.

Or is this just personal incredulity based on ignorance?

 
Quote
you still only have a single protein that may or may not have an effect and when it does it is almost assuredly detrimental to the organism.


Every study I’ve seen says that most mutations are neutral with respect to fitness.  Please provide evidence that most mutations are almost assuredly detrimental.

 
Quote
What we really need is for the random emergence of traits and this may require mutiple proteins, very very long odds.


Please define “very very long odds”.  Please show us the detailed calculations of how you computed the ‘very very long odds”.  Be sure to provide scientific evidence for all assumptions you make including sample size, number of all possible outcomes, number of possible successful outcomes, and length of time the event has to run.

Or is this just more personal incredulity based on ignorance?

Clue no. 1:  Personal incredulity based on ignorance is not viewed as a problem by the scientific community.

Date: 2006/05/24 19:18:54, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic says:
 
Quote
I don't believe it a concious decision.  I think biologists have just operated under the assumption that evolution is true and they're results reflect that.


I didn't ask you if you thought it was a concious decision.  I asked you to provide concrete example of evidence that should have overturned (not just modified or refined) the ToE but didn't because of the scientific community's assumptions, or retract.

By the amount of wriggling you're doing it looks like this assertion you made

   
Quote
Skeptic...the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.


was nothing but more of your personal incredulity based on ignorance. Why should anyone think differently?

Clue no. 2:  Personal incredulity based on ignorance will never count as evidence

Date: 2006/05/24 19:38:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
***BREEP!   BREEP!  BREEP!***

IGNORANT CREATIONIST ALERT!  IGNORANT CREATIONIST ALERT!  


 
Quote
The easiet example is, again, the fossil record.

We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist my the multitude

The fact that they don't exist is not really a glowing endorsement an yet now the fossil record is used as evidence to some degree and the lack of transitional forms has been addressed, but how adequately?


Well, it was fun while it lasted.  Skeptic lasted almost 24 hours before he couldn't contain his Creto ignorance any longer.

Just for fun Skeptic - Define what you think a transitional fossil would look like, and why.  Then go Google Tiktaalik, read up on it, and tell us why it's not a transitional fossil.  Do that and we’ll treat you kindly, like Fuji on McHale’s Navy.  ;)

Date: 2006/05/25 04:08:22, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
LOL, of course the first thing i ran into in a search for celtic fish symbols was this:

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsvesica.htm

"Vesica pisces"

oooh.  I think that just moved to the top of the list.

so much symbology, so much history.  


So that's why AFDave identified himself as a Pisces.   :p   It all makes sense now.

Date: 2006/05/25 09:56:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave Evasion Watch

28    days since AFDave made his promise of evidence to support his original GOD hypothesis YEC claims.

24    days since AFDave's Updated GOD hypothesis with the same YEC claims

Still no positive evidence of YEC from AFDave

Presented as a public service for those who can't stand a liar of any belief, from atheist to religious fundy.

Date: 2006/05/25 17:13:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Rilke's Granddaughter says
 
Quote
It's child abuse, Dave.  That's what you're doing to them.  To teach that one must choose between evolution and Christianity is the stupidest, most illogical, most unreasonable position you can hold.


There's one silver lining to AFDave's dark cloud of lies and child abuse.  Many of Dave's child victims will realize when they get older that they were lied to and used.  Hopefully they will develop a great resentment not just for AFDave, but for all the other evangelistic liars and charlatans like Dave who abuse children for their own selfish egotistical reasons.  They will make great champions for science because they will understand first-hand the damage that the pseudoscientific liars-for-Jesus like Washout Dave can cause.

Date: 2006/05/26 09:15:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Washout AFDave says
   
Quote
* Aftershave is hanging out on a dead end thread hoping I'll come visit him.  Arden has correctly guessed that I won't show.  I would guess that Arden has been around the block a time or two more than Aftershave.


Of course Dave, we have all know from the start that you wouldn't post anything on the "AFDave's YEC evidence" thread because you have NO YEC evidence TO post.  Zip. Nada.  Zilch.  None.

The thread was only started to highlight the fact of what an arrogant but ignorant liar you are.  Face it Washout, your only value here now is for comic relief.  It's a hoot seeing fundy clowns like you strut and crow, and manage to get almost every last bit of scientific information dead wrong.  Does being that stupid cause you actual physical pain, or have you gotten use to it by now?

It's a shame you're such a chickenshit and run from all the serious challenges to your "hypothesis".  You seem to be used to being thought a coward - I bet you've been hearing it your whole life, right?

If you every decide to stand and fight instead of running away, here are the questions on peer review for the seventh time:

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

Call us when you decide to slink out of your chicken coop.

Date: 2006/05/26 09:35:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Washout Dave says
       
Quote
Aftershave-- Lighten up man ... or you're going to have to go see a shrink ... have some fun!


Actually Dave, I'm having great fun! :) :) :)  It's been a while since we've seen any Fundy fanatic with his head stuck up his ass as far as you have managed.  You have your pinhead shoved in so deep you need a glass belly button as a porthole to see out. :p

Oh, and besides cowardly ignoring my questions again, you also forgot to answer Joe the Ordinary Guy's question:
       
Quote
AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

Date: 2006/05/26 18:14:37, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA: (AirFarceDave), You have your pinhead shoved in so deep you need a glass belly button as a porthole to see out.



   
Quote
sir_toejam:Daaammmmnn!  That's a gud un!

Original or plucked?

If original, I think you should trademark that immediately.


Plucked.  I've been using that for over 35 years now, but can't take credit.  As a kid I swiped it from my older brother, who picked it up on his tour of duty in VietNam.  When he got back he would talk about "getting a case of the ass at those G*ddamm glass belly button REMFs"

--------------------------------
AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

Date: 2006/05/26 18:41:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Yep, the need for more and better science education is one of the most pressing issues in the U.S. today.  It's scary to keep reading reports like this one, where U.S. high school science scores keep dropping.  

U.S. Science scores declining

Our students' overall science ratings compared to the rest of the industrialized world are just abysmal too.  Almost every indicator shows the U.S. lead in science and technology keeps slipping every year.  Unless the trend is reversed, and soon, countries like India and China will blow right by us and leave us in their dust.

This is a very real and very dangerous problem for the U.S. IMHO, which is why ignorant fundy pseudo-patriots like AirFarceDave really piss me off.  Here's a guy who wraps himself in the flag to preach his cause, and yet he's doing everything in his power to weaken the country by undermining the science education of our children.  Assholes like that just make my blood boil.

Date: 2006/05/26 18:48:54, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
or george bush.

who you should be even more pissed off at than AFDave.


What makes you think I'm not?

Shrub is the worst thing that ever happen to science in this country, ever.  Why couldn't Cheney have gone quail hunting with him?

Date: 2006/05/27 03:28:11, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave Evasion Watch

30    days since AFDave made his promise of evidence to support his original GOD hypothesis YEC claims.

26    days since AFDave's Updated GOD hypothesis with the same YEC claims

Still no positive evidence of YEC from AFDave

Quote
AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

Date: 2006/05/27 16:42:16, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDaveTard2 the ball-less wonder says  
           
Quote
(3) Why world history begins 5500 years ago, not earlier
   


Hey DT2, when you trot out your 'evidence' that world history begins "5500 years ago, not earlier" don't forget to explain prehistoric art like the cave paintings at Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc  and Lascaux, which have been reliably dated to 17,000 years B.P. (before present).

Info on other prehistoric art here.

Info on the radiocarbon dating method used here.

To lying cowards like AFDT2, this is what is known as a 'pre-emptive strike'. ;)

Date: 2006/05/27 19:25:11, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic says
 
Quote
I'm going to address a specific case that has been bothering me for awhile.  Lets look at the case of animals that appear to

resist change.  Looking at crocodiles and great whites, these two have million years of stasis between them.  I do not think

it is coincidense that these two are apex predators. So my premise is that they do not evolve because they don't need to.  So

how is this possible?


Wow, maybe you're on to something!  I mean, just look at these fossils of the vicious blood-thirsty killer pond turtle.  Real apex predators, eh? Some turtle lineages have been around unchanged for over 150 million years.

On the other hand, maybe it's as simple as: creatures that are well adapted to an environment that doesn't change much undergo very little selection pressure.

Maybe you should think things through a bit better next time. ;)

Date: 2006/05/27 19:59:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic:
 
Quote
'Ol mister turtle's got it good, he doesn't need to evolve, something has turned off his "random mutation" generator...


No, the population of "Mr (and Mrs.)Turtles" keeps experiencing random mutations just as they always have.  What happens is, in any population the average measurement for any morphological feature (say, size and shape of a turtle's carapace) will vary in a bell shaped curve around a central point. Genetic mutations that cause outliers in this data (i.e larger size, or flatter shape) will only be selected for (and spread to the population, causing the central point to move) IF they confer a reproductive advantage. If the central point moves far enough, we declare that case a new species. If the environment DOESN’T change (as in the case of the turtle), then the outliers WILL NOT confer an advantage, NOT be selected for, and the morphological “average size and shape” will not change.

That's not to say that mutation rates never change.  They certainly have been seen to increase under the effects of, say, chemicals or radiation.  However, I've never seen any study or evidence anywhere that says mutation rates decrease to near zero when a creature is well adapted to its environment.

Date: 2006/05/28 03:38:57, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDaveTard2 says
 
Quote
Tell me your address and I will have a seeing eye dog delivered to you so he can lead you to the "Prove Evolution" thread, which is where I posted Anderson's article.


OK Washout, tell us your address and we will have a seeing eye dog delivered to you so he can lead you to the " Reserved for AFDave's YEC evidence  " thread, where you can post your often promised but never delivered 'evidence' for a 6000 year old Earth.

Fair is fair, right?

Date: 2006/05/28 11:05:02, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AirFarceDaveTard2 has now been reduced to scurrying to and fro like a cockroach with the kitchen light turned on.

Over on his blog, AFDT2 writes
   
Quote
I have gleaned some valuable information over at Panda's Thumb, particularly about the mindset of evolutionary biologists.


Oh, you mean the mindset that requires actual peer-reviewed results, and doesn't accept ignorance-based personal incredulity as evidence?  That's a brand new concept for you I'm sure.

Also, thanks to you AFDT2, we now have had a look at the mindset of an arrogant, dumbass, lying, shit-for-brains creationist stooge.  It ain't pretty, that's for sure.  It would be funny, except for your stated desire to abuse children by teaching them the same lies you swallowed up to the hilt.

Date: 2006/05/28 15:46:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave's like a car wreck. It's hard not to watch. But the board would be better if everyone followed your refusal.


After his World Book encyclopedia 'evidence', I'm only going along because I want to see him cite from another peer-reviewed scientific literature source like Reader's Digest   :O

Ya gotta admit though, stupidity and hubris of his magnitude is rare, even for a brain damaged Creationist.

Date: 2006/05/29 05:06:42, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AirFarceDaveTard2 says
 
Quote
Creationists have a very plausible theory for that.  It is quite reasonable to guess that there was a small group of very conscientious scribes following Adam who maintained and passed down the true, written record throughout the generations.  


Once again AFDT2 resorts to by far the strongest technique available to a Creationist - the ability to make sh*t up as he goes along.

 
Quote
Creationists write in peer-reviewed journals


That's correct, sometimes they do, but NOT on topics relevant to the YEC position.   They DON'T write papers that present positive evidence for a literal Bible.

And since you now want to discuss peer-review, please tell what you know about the scientific peer-review process:

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

Eighth time I've asked you these, you cowardly Liar-for-Jesus.

Date: 2006/05/29 19:15:39, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AirFarceDaveTard2 says
     
Quote
By the way, I think Aftershave was poking fun at the author of my World Book article.


No DaveTard2, I was poking fun at you for being such a mental midget as to think one line from a high school level overview somehow negates 10 million other pieces of evidence about the history of early humans.

     
Quote
You can poke fun if you like, but his name is John Morris Roberts.  He is (or was in 1993) the warden of Merton College of Oxford University and the author of numerous historical works.

So Aftershave ... Are you saying that Oxford is not a credible source of history?

Is that your postion?


Of course not you f*cking moron.  My position is that you took this simple one line generalization about human history from a high school level reference

"But the story of world history begins only about 5,500 years ago with the invention of writing."

and somehow, with a leap of intellectually dishonest tarditude unseen in these parts, extrapolated that into

"this is evidence that the whole world and all life on it was created only 6000 years ago"

I used to think your were just a confused but otherwise normal guy.  Seems like you won't be satisfied, however, until you convince everyone that you're the biggest f*cking idiot on the planet.  Well DaveTard2, all I can say is: mission accomplished.

Washout, your desperation is becoming more apparent with each passing day.  Your arguments are getting smoked before they even leave the hangar, and you look more and more like a complete lying dork with each post.

Did your father teach you to it was OK to lie to the 'ignorant savages' because it was for their own good?  Or are you just a naturally born cowardly lying piece of dung?

Date: 2006/05/29 19:45:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Skeptic says
Quote
But on the general premise, I disagree entirely, the mechanisms of mutation are not well understood.  In fact, currently we call them random and in chemistry there aren't really any random acts.  

I think you are confused by the terminology.  ‘Random’ mutation means random with respect to fitness.  The physical mutations themselves are not purely random at to where they occur in a DNA strand – some areas of the genome are more susceptible to error than others.  The atoms and molecules still follow the fundamental laws of chemistry, some chemical bonds are easier to break than others, etc.

Date: 2006/05/30 03:41:50, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Can we call you Sir Ickky?  :)

Date: 2006/05/30 17:44:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Paul Flocken says
   
Quote
This is not all to suggest anything malign on the part of AFDave.  There could be several reasons why he lacks operational experience.  He may simply not have been able to develop the abilities to pilot the fast jets.  Helo skills are somewhat different.  Perhaps his eyesight may have deteriorated rapidly.  IIRC the Army allows its helo pilots to use corrective eyewear.  I know the AirForce does not do this for fixed wing aircraft but perhaps they do for helo's, though I don't know for certain.  In any event the AirForce offered Dave an alternative and he chose helo's.  Suggesting that there was some negative reason for the change is too over the top.  I'm certain Dave had a wonderfully honorable career.  The point Crabby and I noticed was that there is probably more to the story than simply "Hi, I'm Dave.  I was an AirForce jetfighter pilot."  Especially since it was important enough to him that he made sure we all knew it even without having to visit his blog.


I tried questioning AFDave about his flying career a week and a half ago on the "Apes" thread

Posted by OA :May 22 2006,21:30
   
Quote
When you "flew" the T-38, were you sitting in the back seat or the front?

and
Posted by OA :May 22 2006,22:44
   
Quote
My guess is he made it through UPT (undergraduate pilot training), then as far as flying T-38s (an advanced supersonic jet trainer for potential fighter/bomber pilots) as a student pilot.  I also guess he washed out at that stage; probably his arrogance caused him to make too many unacceptable errors.  That's why he ended up flying helos (according to his blog at least).

My limited knowledge of such things comes from having an ex-GF (many years ago) whose brother was a military pilot.  He followed the same career track but passed T-38 training, and was invited back to become a T-38 IP (Instructor Pilot) because at the time there were too few fighter slots available.  Tom (the brother) told many comical stories about the screw-ups of his students, and how they'd always end up whining "...but sirrrr...."   Eventually he ended up flying KC-10 tankers, the Mil version of the DC-10.

Edited to add: This is not meant to belittle what AFDave did achieve.  Just making it through UPT to get a ride in a T-38 is a major accomplishment, so props to him for that.  It's a pity that his arrogant and condescending attitude will keep him such a total dumbsh*t on some fascinating and amazing avenues of scientific knowledge.


AFDave got all miffed that I questioned his experience, but provided no relevant details save a boast about some award he claimed to have won.

Personally, I couldn't care less about his AF achievements (or lack of them) except to note his hypocrisy.  To wit:

AFDave continually claims that professional scientists working in the fields covered by evolutionary biology are all incompetent dupes who don't know real science.  He makes these claims despite the fact that he himself has proven to be the most scientifically illiterate dumbass around.

Now, when anyone else questions AFDave's bluster about his own experiences as a flying professional, he cries like a little girl.

It seems AirFarceDaveTard2 was so busy memorizing the Bible that he never learned the Golden Rule.

Date: 2006/05/31 13:36:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Tango Juliett says
   
Quote
Dear Air Force Dave
Our very fundie fave
From 30,000 feet
A brain of concrete....


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Best belly laugh I've had in a while!

One of the major draws for me here is not battling the fundy boobs; it's the intelligence, humor, and clever wit of the regulars.  Good job to all!

P.S.  Looks like old AirFarceDaveTard2 has gone Tango Uniform!   ;)

Date: 2006/05/31 18:47:14, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Nah, just ask him why there is an International Agency devoted strictly to measuring the irregularities and wobble in the Earth’s rotational axis (necessary to precisely track LEO and GEO satellites).

International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS)

Then ask him his explanation of why spacecraft are almost always launched in an Easterly direction to take advantage of the extra velocity boost provided by the Earth’s rotation.

Spacecraft launch phase

Then ask him why geostationary satellites (those with a very low eccentricity geosynchronous orbit), which are launched into orbit over the Earth’s equator at an altitude of 22,235 miles and a velocity of 6878 MPH (which matches the Earth’s rotational velocity) appear stationary to an observer on the ground.

Geostationary orbits

That should keep him busy refining his model.

Date: 2006/06/01 09:19:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Cool AFDaveTard2, you're still here!  I would have bet the farm that you finally wised up to what a fool you have made of yourself and vanished but NO, you're too dense for even that.  You're still here to entertain us with your babbling idiocy and feeble attempts to "save our souls"  :D  Bet no one ever lost money overestimating your stupidity level, have they Washout?

I won't bother rebutting your latest batch of Creto PRATT bullsh*t about radiometric dating or Da Flud - any 6th grader with a search engine could do it in 5 minutes.  Also, we both know that you’re an intellectually dishonest coward and will ignore the contradicting data that will be presented anyway. I just want to ask you:

The IDiot crowd bends over backwards and screams bloody murder telling us that ID has nothing to do with religion.  Yet here you are, citing articles by the head IDiots Dumbski and Behe about how ID supports a literal Biblical creation.

One of those statements must be a lie.  Which one is it?

Date: 2006/06/01 13:40:39, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I toured the new MBARI facility a few years ago and they showed a film of a life-sized plastic mannequin head that was attached to the outside of a deep submersible vehicle on a dive to the bottom of the Monterey Canyon (almost 2000 meters down).  The water pressure squished the head to the size of a tennis ball.  I can only imagine what would happen to a real human noggin.  Hey!  Maybe that’s what happen to AFDaveTard2!

Date: 2006/06/01 17:46:05, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Breaking news story!

AFDave claims victory, says he crushes the atheist inspired Theory of Evolution and provides irrefutable evidence for YEC and a literal Bible by posting a peach cobbler recipe he found while perusing The Ladies Home Journal.

Film at 11.  ;)

Date: 2006/06/02 10:46:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
When William J. Bennetta wrote

 
Quote
In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must. The idea that the Bible could serve to explain nature collapsed in the 1800s, under an overwhelming mass of scientific information that discredited any naive, literal reading of Genesis, but the creationists have to deny that this ever happened. They also must deny all that science has learned since then about the history of Earth and Earth's organisms -- and the only way to do this is to tell lies. They tell lies about nature, lies about science and lies about their own doctrines and aims, and they change the lies, from time to time, to fit prevailing circumstances.


he must have had AirFarceDaveTard2 in mind.

I wonder if we can really blame AFDT2 for his f*cked up mental state.  It seems he was taught as a child by his Missionary father that it is OK to lie in order to push your religious agenda.  AFDT2 was also never allowed to develop critical thinking skills, but instead was taught that rote regurgitation of memorized Bible verses was all the data he would ever need to consider.

I feel almost guilty watching Washout Dave get the snot knocked out of him and his "YEC evidence" day after day after day - almost.  There still has to be some level of personal accountability, and if AirFarceDave keeps being a liar and a coward then should still be held responsible for his own actions.  It's just a pity, the bad light he shines on other Christians with his continued dishonest and craven behavior.

Date: 2006/06/03 12:02:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDaveTard2, why do you keep cowardly avoiding the questions about your claims?

Who peer reviewed the RATE results Dave?  No one?  Who do you think is qualified to peer review their results, and why?

Dembski says ID has nothing to do with religion, yet you keep quoting him as evidence for your literal Christian God.  Both of you can't be telling the truth, but you both can sure be lying.  Which is it Davey?

Did your father teach you to lie for your religion like you so often do Dave, or is that a skill you developed on your own?  Is it genetic - do you come from a long line of liars?

Did you f*ck up in the air to get yourself demoted from flying supersonic jets to flying Vietnam era Huey choppers, or did your arrogant big mouth get you busted?

Date: 2006/06/03 18:19:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Washout Dave says

       
Quote
Hey OA ... I asked for helicopters ... got tired of flying T-38's believe it or not.  I've never washed out of anything ... I have always been near the top of my classes--in EE and in UPT... go do some FBI work and you'll find that out.
 

Sure thing Washout – whatever you say.  Of course, you’ve lied about just about everything else you’ve posted here, so why should anyone believe you now?

Do you get it yet?   You whine like a schoolgirl when someone questions your credentials and qualifications in an area you spent years training in.  However, you feel that it is perfectly acceptable for you to say that thousands of professional scientists with PhDs and decades of experience who are recognized as leaders in their scientific fields are incompetent, and that their work is shoddy and all wrong.  The only reason I give you so much grief about your professional skills is to make you aware of your hypocrisy.  Tell me about the Golden Rule Dave – have you ever heard of it?  What does it say?

       
Quote
As for those who think I'm 'profiting off of lying to kids,' I have never made a dime of my Kids4Truth work and I never will.  I am a donor to them.


No one said you are profiting from your lies.  Many here, including me, think you are practicing a form of child abuse by willingly teaching children the same anti-science lies you were taught when you know they are lies.   The U.S. is already losing its technological and scientific edge to countries that emphasize science education, namely China and India.  Why do you want to hurt the U.S. by giving our students the extra burden of having to overcome the unscientific horseshit you are feeding them?

       
Quote
Now ... do you want to keep practicing your 4 letter words on me?  There's only so many of them.  Or do you want to show me that you know something about science?  You are one of the few here that has said almost nothing scientific yet.


Idiot is a five letter word, Washout.  AirFarceDaveTard has sixteen letters.  Take off your shoes and socks if you need to count that high.

And BTW Washout Dave, I’ve been trying to get you to discuss your asinine anti-science claims ever since you came here.  Problem is, you’ve been way too much of a chickenshit to answer.  I have asked you these questions seven times already...

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?


...and am still waiting for your first answer.

I also asked you how do explain the human cultural artifacts that date back over 30,000 years, like the Lascaux cave paintings?

And since you champion a literal Bible, I asked if you believed in the Geocentric theory.

Then, I asked you who peer reviewed the RATE results?  And who do you think is qualified to peer review the RATE results, and why?

He11, I even started a whole separate thread just for you to post your YEC scientific evidence on.  I listed four separate "literal Bible" topics I wished for you to discuss, but you were too much of a dickless wonder to even post anything there.

You haven't answered a single one of these - not one dammed answer from Washout Dave.

Now tell me again who is unwilling to discuss scientific issues?

Date: 2006/06/04 03:34:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Washout Dave whines
   
Quote
You are because all you want to do is start rabbit trails.  I will get to all the issues you covered in the proper order.  Now ... do you have anything substantive to say about the RATE Group?


Well Dave the Cowardly Lyin', I see you kept true to your chickenshit form and avoided all attempts at scientific discussion again.  Not that anyone is surprised.

I'm starting rabbit trails?  I asked each of those questions in response to statements and topics you raised, bonehead.  I ask tough questions to stimulate discussion and to judge your understanding of the subject.  In each case Washout, you failed miserably.  The threads are still here for anyone to see - why do you think lying about it will help your cause?

You want something substantive about the RATE group?  I'll ask you again, for the third time:

Who peer reviewed the RATE results?  
Who do you think is qualified to peer review the RATE results, and why?

Your turn to answer Washout - but I bet you'll just cowardly run and avoid the questions again.

   
Quote
Everyone knows that the U.S. is losing its technological and scientific edge because of the failure of public schools, not because of Christian schools or anything they are teaching.  


Who would you rather have working on an Avian Flu virus:  A PhD in Immunology who understands and can track the evolutionary history of the disease, and can use that knowledge to make predictions and help isolate a cure,

or

A graduate of Bob Jones University who thinks all diseases are God's will and were brought on by mankind's "fall from grace"?

I keep telling you Washout, idiot is a five letter word.

Date: 2006/06/04 14:27:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
deadman_932 says
   
Quote
My prediction is you will avoid addressing these questions fully and honestly. You will avoid, though. You already have four times now. This will be five.


Ha!  Five times is for losers!  AirFarceDaveTard2 has ignored my questions on scientific peer review eight times now.  That makes me the "winner"....I think  ???

Date: 2006/06/04 16:02:37, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Washout Dave backpedals with
         
Quote
I see that Aftershave finally asked an 'on topic' question and he has graduated from 4 letter words to 5 letter words, so I will be answering his questions this week.


I see that Washout Dave still can’t bring himself to type without lying.  The ‘on topic’ questions I ‘finally asked’ were the exact same ones on RATE peer-review I previously asked three times, and very similar to the general peer-review questions I have asked eight times.

I will now demonstrate a feat of magic.  I will channel the Great Karnak, and he will predict here and now what Washout Dave’s weasel word answers will be (if WD gets the balls to answer at all that is).

OA asked: “Who peer reviewed the RATE results?”

Great Karnak predicts:  Washout Dave will reply “The RATE committee presented several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism)”

What he won’t mention is that the ICC’s “peer reviewers” are a hand picked cadre of other YEC ‘scientists’, and that the papers only got published in anti-scientific comic books like Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) website.  No non-YECs were allowed as reviewers, and nothing was submitted to any relevant leading journals such as the Geological Society of America.  Of course this Creto “peer review” is nowhere near a true scientific peer review, since the whole purpose of peer review is to have external reviewers with no conflicting interests take a hard, critical look at the results.  Having them review their own work is like having a cheating student grade his own final exam.  
 
OA asked:  “Who do you think is qualified to peer review the RATE results, and why?”

Great Karnak predicts:  Washout Dave will reply “The RATE committee itself is qualified to review its own results since they have many unbiased scientists on their panel”.

Which will also be total bull****(edited to not hurt AFDaveTard's girish feelings) for the same reasons given above.  Washout Dave will then launch into a big tirade about the evil atheist science conspiracy against Creationists, and how Creationists like the third-RATErs can’t get published in peer-reviewed journals because of the scientific community is trying to keep the ‘Darwin status quo’ and that conflicting Creationist ideas are automatically blackballed…yadda yadda yadda.  It will be the same old pitiful whining we hear from Creationists every day.  Washout Dave won’t even consider that the Cretos like the RATE goobers won’t submit their work for serious peer review because the work is worthless crap.  What’s more, the RATE Cretos know it is worthless crap and they know it will get torn a new one if it had to undergo a real critical review.  The only reason the RATE group exists at all is to fleece money from other gullible Creationist pigeons like Washout Dave.

Sorry to steal your thunder Dave, but everyone here has heard the same Creationist lies so many times we can repeat them in our sleep.  Please don’t let that stop you from coming up with some new lies – it would be entertaining, and shows off your skill at what you do best.

Date: 2006/06/04 20:15:50, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Washout Dave sobs
   
Quote
OA ... good.  You knew the answer alread.

Awww Dave, you disappoint me.  I was all set for your next batch of creative lies, and all you can do is vomit back the same old stale ones.  I expect better from you.
   
Quote
Evos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Creos in.  Creos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Evos in

Of course you can provide evidence to back up this conspiracy claim, like a list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs.

What’s that?  You can’t provide any evidence?  I see - you were just lying again.  What does the Bible say about bearing false witness Dave?

Or is it that in Washout Dave Fantasyland, all peer reviews are created equal, just like the validity of scientific theories can be decided by majority vote.  That means your AF wings are equal in meaning and value to my ones that I found in a Crackerjack box this morning.  Got it.
   
Quote
Evos are currently in the majority and they are hopping mad that there is a threat to their dominance.  Why do you waste time asking if you already know this?  

It’s amusing to see you wriggle and squirm as you slip from one lie to the next, making it up as you go.  But you really need a new writer – the quality of your lies has slipped lately.

But hey, since you’re here and want to talk about scientific peer review, maybe you’ll finally answer these questions:

1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools?

2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews?

3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study?

That’s the ninth time you’ve been asked.  Go on Dave - make Jesus proud by lying in his name some more!

OT:  sorry deadman_932, you were getting too close in the “who can make AirFarceDaveTard2 look like the biggest coward” contest.

Date: 2006/06/04 20:32:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please:

Regarding the current influx of idiotic Creationist RATE claims, we will now open the floor for bidding on who gets to bitchslap AirFarceDaveTard2 with the Lake Suigetsu varves and C14 calibration data.

I'll start by offering to donate $10 U.S. to the NCSE for the privilege.  Who'll raise me?

- OA

Date: 2006/06/05 04:29:44, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 05 2006,01:32)
 
Quote
Ladies and gentlemen, your attention please:

Regarding the current influx of idiotic Creationist RATE claims, we will now open the floor for bidding on who gets to bitchslap AirFarceDaveTard2 with the Lake Suigetsu varves and C14 calibration data.


Ericmurphy says
 
Quote
You know, it would be fun to see Dave floundering around a bit longer on the Radiometric Dating Show (hosted by Richard Dawson, or was it Dawkins?), but frankly it's getting wearisome. The poor guy's getting punch-drunk, and it ain't from love. And despite what the ads might say, zircons are not a creationist's best friend.


OK, I'll hold off.  (Puts big stick away for now)
You guys never let me have any fun   :angry:

Date: 2006/06/05 09:34:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Washout Dave evades with
 
Quote
Aftershave ... I'm still waiting on you to show your knowledge about the RATE group and He and zircons ...


Half a dozen people have already pointed out the fatal flaws in the RATE Helium/zircon assumptions, and you ignored every last bit of evidence.  Nothing I can say would add to the information you're already received but decided to ignore.  Frankly Washout, you're not worth the effort.

You, however, have provided no evidence at all for any of your goofy YEC claims

I'm still waiting for you to explain the thousands of human artifacts that have been radiocarbon dated back to over 40,000 years.  Your RATE buddies can't bail you out this time - their C14 gripe was that "coal and diamonds have high levels of C14 so can't be over 58,000 years old".  Even if that were true (which it isn't BTW), that doesn't explain the objects that date less than 58,000 but older than 6000 years old.  Kinda torpedoes your “Earth is only 6000 years old” nonsense, eh?  And if you REALLY want to look like a complete moron, start arguing that all C14 dating is wrong – I dare ya. (OA readies his big stick again).

Also, I’d like to see your evidence for this latest claim you made

 
Quote
Evos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Creos in.  Creos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Evos in


Please provide a list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs.

You won’t do it because we all know you’re a lying coward who can’t do it.  You continue to be the Creationist idiot flunky who can repeatedly put his head through his assh*le quicker than a bug hit by the windshield of an F1 racecar.

Date: 2006/06/05 15:30:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
The proper answer is,

they're all dumb in their own special way. :D

How can you make us choose between our dear little board retards?

Date: 2006/06/05 16:32:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Washout Dave’s desperate need for attention surfaces with
   
Quote
Keep 'em on the run, skeptic.  They've got nothing!

Washout Dave, maybe you should take a long hard look at your own skewed personal perceptions, since the “Christian seeker of Truth" has managed to insult and alienate not one, not two, but almost EVERYONE who regularly posts on this board. You claim to act with complete objectivity towards scientific data, but most everyone else has you pegged as a lying, arrogant, ignorant coward who has yet to post anything of substance. That’s an AWFUL LOT of contradictory data points that you seem to be ignoring, Washout.

I'll give you a real world example. In Japan, many companies have installed exercise rooms for their employees to work out during breaks. One of the more popular pieces of gear are punching dummies. The dummies are all made up with likenesses of the middle-level managers, so that employees who feel abused make take out their hostilities. The kicker is, every few months the CEO swings by to inspect the dummies. If any of them show undue wear, then that manager is called on the carpet and asked to explain why his people are so unhappy with him.

So Washout, go check out the results of stevestory’s poll.  Why does AFDave the Dummy get pummeled so continually? How do you explain all the negative feelings you’ve generated here? Everyone else’s fault, or yours?

Date: 2006/06/06 04:07:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Had to go with T-Daddy.  He's so screamingly over the top and clueless that it's hilarious.  Every time I read one of his rants I picture him looking like David Spade in Joe Dirt.  Hard to take someone that goofy seriously.  ;)

Date: 2006/06/06 20:35:16, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dumbest AFDave mumbles

       
Quote
The reason Aftershave thinks I am a liar is because he thinks I came to ATBC asking to be taught about Evolution in the sense that I somehow wanted to believe it, but just needed somebody to explain it better to me.  He didn't listen very well, though.  What I said was that I am happy to become an evolutionist if someone can show me excellent evidence why I should become one.  I also said that up until now, no one has.


No Dave, I think you’re a liar because you have been caught lying by at least half a dozen people here.  You lied about your motives for coming here.  You lied about your desire for honest scientific discussion.  Many folks have invested quite a bit of time in debunking your AIG PRATT claims, only to have you totally ignore their inputs and say “Well, no one could answer me”.  The few times you do decide to not ignore the critiques that smoke your arguments, more often than not you misrepresent what was said, and often twist peoples’ words into things they didn’t say.  Those aren’t just “winning debate techniques” when you do that Dave; those are lies.  When you tell them, that makes you a liar.

People are upset with you not for your YEC views, but for the dishonest and patronizing way you have gone about trying to proselytize.  I have to believe you understand that, but like a good little Fundybot missionary you don’t care what the “savages who need saving” think of your actions.


       
Quote
My point on that whole discussion, though, did not depend on language loss.  My point was that civilization appeared abruptly, simultaneously, and recently.  This to me is powerful evidence for recent creation of mankind according to the Biblical model.


There you go lying again.  You were given example after example of human artifacts dating back over 40,000 years, and you ignored every last one. The RATE findings on radiocarbon dating don’t help you, so how does your model accommodate all that >6000 year old data?   Humans and their culture did not appear “abruptly, simultaneously, and recently” only 6000 years ago as you claim.  Your latest whine is accusing other posters of “not discussing science” when in fact you are the coward who has run from discussing all the contrary scientific evidence.

       
Quote
So I'm a mid level manager now and you are all my employees?  Great.  Can I start giving orders now?


No, you’re an arrogant yet ignorant YEC drone who recently got voted dumbest board user by a wide margin, and who has lost the respect of virtually everyone here.  Why is that Dave?  Is everyone else to blame, or did your actions bring it about yourself?  I guess cowards like you aren’t big on accepting personal responsibility, either.

       
Quote
Did I miss anything?


Yes, when you read the Bible you missed the parts about honesty (not bearing false witness), integrity, and the Golden Rule.  Would you like someone here to explain those concepts to you?

Date: 2006/06/07 04:37:22, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave the Cowardly Lyin’ sobs
   
Quote
They don't?  This was one of the points I was going to discuss regarding the RATE project.  Apparently, the RATE team thinks they support 6000 years.  But again, we shall see when we get there.  I won't make any firm statements until I examine the evidence myself.

No, they don’t.  The RATE findings on C14 only say that coal and diamond can’t be more than 58,000 years old.  They say nothing about the span from 58,000 YBP to 6000 YBP.  And you have made many firm statements that there is no evidence for humans older than 6000 YBP, even though evidence was held up right in front of your face.  Another day, another batch of lies from AFDave.  
   
Quote
Hey now ... surely people here can take a few jokes, no?  Like I twisted Steve Story's statement about his friend and the meteor analysis a little while ago, but it was an obvious distortion meant to simply poke fun.  You can dish it out, but you can't take it?

Oh, like Dembski’s street theater bit.  You can lie and twist people’s words, but when you get caught it was all just a silly joke.  
   
Quote
Now why don't you back up your claim of me lying and give me an example.

OK Washout. On June 04 2006,23:24 AFDave  wrote
   
Quote
Evos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Creos in.  Creos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Evos in

That’s a lie Dave, pure and simple.  It’s not you joking around, it’s not an honest misunderstanding, it’s a lie.  It’s a lie on your part to avoid responsibility for admitting the fact that the RATE results you champion were not properly peer reviewed by qualified, unbiased geologists.   Want to prove it’s not a willful lie on your part?  Then provide a list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs.
   
Quote
This probably ranks up there as the supreme example of the 'pot calling the kettle black.'  As for proselytizing, I'm not.  This applies to religion and I'm not religious.  We've been over that.  Religious people are about rituals and candles and robes and homina-hominas.  I'm about the truth about Origins.  I'm simply here to show you why the ToE and billions of years is incorrect and unsupported by the evidence, and why the Biblical model of Creation and the Flood is much better supported.

“I’m not religious, but….
   
Quote
Posted by AFDave: April 18 2006,08:32
I put this (and some other factors ... admittedly, this is abbreviated) all together and in my mind and it all adds up to me to make a pretty good case that the Bible is literally true--complete with a real God, the Creation, the Flood, Moses, Jesus ... the whole deal.

Posted by AFDave: May 01 2006,12:06
This is exactly what I see in this one critical area of science today, i.e. the area of Origins and the Nature of Mankind and the issue of God.  

…I just want you to believe as I do in a literal Bible, especially the Biblical model of Creation and the Flood”

(OA shakes head and chuckles) THAT piece of AFDave “logic”  needs no comment.  You’re really gonna make Baby Jesus cry now.

Time to be a man and ‘fess up Dave – You got caught lying, and you keep trying to wriggle out by telling more lies about the data that’s been presented, and your motives, and your desire to learn.  

Did you look up “thou shalt not bear false witness” and the Golden Rule in you Bible yet?

Date: 2006/06/07 09:45:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave the cowardly lyin' says:  Evos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Creos in.  Creos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Evos in

 
Quote
OA says: That’s a lie Dave, pure and simple.  It’s not you joking around, it’s not an honest misunderstanding, it’s a lie.
 
 
Quote
AFDave the cowardly lyin' says: Again, you don't understand the definition of a lie.  A lie is an outright, willful untruth.  I believe my statement above to be true.  I may be wrong.  It is probably an oversimplification.  But I think it is true as a generalization.  In any case, it's not a lie.

Bullshit Dave.  Show us the evidence that caused you to believe this.  Show us your list of credible articles that were submitted by Creationists to mainstream scientific journals, but were rejected solely due to the author’s YEC beliefs.

Your claim is wrong, and you know it is wrong, but you repeat it anyway.  That makes you a liar.

Date: 2006/06/08 04:35:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey AFDaveTard2,

You ever gonna get around to addressing all that evidence you were shown that human culture and artifacts exist that date back over 40,000 years?

What's your explanation for anything that dates over 6000 YBP?

Today's Hints for AFDaveTard2:  The RATE helium/zircon battle is over.  YOU LOST.  Get over it.  The origin of Portugese battle is over.  YOU LOST THAT ONE TOO.  Get over it.

Date: 2006/06/08 07:54:40, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDaveTard2 says

   
Quote
We will now be moving on to ...

CARBON 14 IN COAL AND DIAMONDS


Forget the C14 in coal and diamonds for now.   You said

   
Quote
You are correct that the RATE findings only say coal and diamond can’t be more than 58,000 years old with conventional asumptions on C-14 dating, which of course, the RATE Group does not accept.  We will get into this in further detail, but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.  This would significantly affect conventional interpretations of c-14 amounts found in coal, diamonds, fossils and what have you.


Tell us how the RATE group explains C14 dating results that fall in the range 58,000 YBP to the present.

Show us the data that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere. Or were you lying once again?

Deal with your failure to address all that evidence you were given that human culture and artifacts exist that date back over 40,000 years.

Dave, what's your explanation for anything that dates over 6000 YBP?

Date: 2006/06/08 09:34:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey AFDaveTard2,

Since you have time to whine about the negative image you cultivated, you surely must have time to discuss the scientific topics you raised.  You said:
 
Quote
You are correct that the RATE findings only say coal and diamond can’t be more than 58,000 years old with conventional asumptions on C-14 dating, which of course, the RATE Group does not accept.  We will get into this in further detail, but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.  This would significantly affect conventional interpretations of c-14 amounts found in coal, diamonds, fossils and what have you.

Tell us how the RATE group explains C14 dating results that fall in the range 58,000 YBP to the present.

Show us the data that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.

Deal with your failure to address all that evidence you were given that human culture and artifacts exist that date back over 40,000 years.

Dave, what's your explanation for anything that dates over 6000 YBP?

C'mon Dave, are you incapable of discussing the scientific details???

Date: 2006/06/08 11:54:36, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Waaaaay back in April, when AFDave first began posting his "Proof of God / ToE is wrong" stuff here, I said this to him:
 
Quote
OA to AFDave: No one that I know will attempt to change your belief in God, or claim that your belief is wrong.  Many here see no conflict whatsoever in believing in God and accepting the ToE (a topic for another thread at another time). However, we will take you to task if you screw up the technical stuff.

AirFarceDaveTard2 sure can't complain that he wasn't warned.

Date: 2006/06/08 12:00:43, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
English
American
Australian
Canadian, eh?
a smattering of Cat (mostly I speak, they ignore) :angry:

Date: 2006/06/08 14:14:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Great, just what we need.  Another f*ckin' forty pages of ThorIdiot spouting off his homophobic bigotry.

Good stinkin' guys!  :angry:

Date: 2006/06/09 19:07:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dave the Cowardly Lyin’ wriggles with
     
Quote
Short answer- the fossil record has massive quantitites of fossilized organic material: coal, oil and chalk beds to name just 3.  This is evidence that there was far more organic matter prior to the Flood of Noah--ICR estimates 100X the present amount of organic matter.  If this was the case, the C-14/C-12 ratio would be much lower, resulting in much younger actual dates when using the C-14 dating method today.

But Dave, you didn't say that there was 100X more organic matter present.  You claimed there was 100X more C12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere

Here are your exact words
     
Quote
You are correct that the RATE findings only say coal and diamond can’t be more than 58,000 years old with conventional asumptions on C-14 dating, which of course, the RATE Group does not accept.  We will get into this in further detail, but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.  This would significantly affect conventional interpretations of c-14 amounts found in coal, diamonds, fossils and what have you.

Please provide the evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 (but not a corresponding higher level of C14) in the atmosphere.

I have to thank you in advance Washout - by attacking radiocarbon dating you are going to make yourself look like the biggest chump going, even worse than your helium/zircon debacle.  Want to know why?

Radiocarbon dating is an extremely well known and well researched branch of science.  It is one of the backbones of archaeology, especially paleoarchaeology.  The scientist who pioneered it, Willard Frank Libby, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960 for his work.  Today there are over 130 labs worldwide providing radiocarbon dating services, doing millions of dollars in business.  The science even has its own peer-reviewed journal, Radiocarbon, to keep up on the latest developments.

C14 dating does have limitations, but these are understood and accounted for. It is well known that the level of C14 in the atmosphere can vary due to external factors – cosmic ray level due to solar activity, climate change that disrupts the carbon flow between the ocean / organic matter into the atmosphere.  It is also know that the C14 level in individual samples can vary due to external factor such as sample contamination.  That is why radiocarbon dating has been subjected to rigorous multiple independent calibration methods.  These methods include denrochronology (tree-ring dating), ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, and speleothems (cave deposits).  All these methods combined have provided calibration curves accurate to +/- a few percent for dates up to 60,000 years old. Go do your homework now Davie Girl, because we will be addressing all of these methods in detail.

See, you’re got a really tough job ahead Washout

You can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 ratios being 100x different
You can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 decay rate being not constant
You can lie about trees growing 10-20 rings a year instead of 1
You can lie about all the ice core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
You can lie about all the ocean core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
You can lie about all the lake varve samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
You can lie about all the cave deposits being off by greater than a factor of 10.

But what is really going to tax your lying circuits is explaining how all the above methods are wrong due to completely different causes but still all give dating results that agree precisely with each other.

It’s gonna be great fun watching you fall on your lying face again Washout.

Date: 2006/06/10 11:28:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Um, sorry guys... I know this dead Portuguese horse has been reduced to a morphless pulp already, but I just had to bring it up... You see, thanks to Britannica Concise, I found the passage from EB dave snips this little bit from-
     
Quote
Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon

So here it is, for your viewing pleasure:
     
     
Quote
Portuguese language

Romance language spoken by about 170 million people in Portugal, Brazil, and other former Portuguese colonies.

The first literary works in Portuguese date from the 13th–14th century. Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation in Portugal is limited, but the differences between Brazilian and European Portuguese are more extensive, including changes in phonology, verb conjugation, and syntax. The four major dialect groups are Northern (Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain), Central, Southern (including the Lisbon dialect), and Insular (including Brazilian and Madeiran) Portuguese.


http://concise.britannica.com/ebc....=lisbon

Soooo... As it's plain for all to see, the "dialect of Lisbon" mentioned here is a dialect of Portuguese. The whole paragraph has nothing to do with any supposed medieval local dialects of Spanish, with an imaginary French influence, that led to Portuguese: It has practically nothing to do with the history of the language itself. It's about Portuguese dialects.

Under the light of this data, one can't help but find dave's selective quoting of that snippet... interesting.

Got anything to say for yourself, HonestDave?


Good catch Faid.

Who'da ever thunk it - a fine Christian Creationist role model like AFDave guilty of dishonest quote mining.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Well AFDave, what have you got to say for yourself about this latest time you were caught lying?

Date: 2006/06/10 11:45:17, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
JonF -

Thanks for the radiocarbon calibration curves, although I was going to wait and let AirFarceDave stick both feet in his mouth before presenting similar data.  I was really looking forward to hammering his sorry ass with the Lake Suigetsu studies.

Oh well, guess I'll have to use the Green River varves instead to dope-slap him and his '6000 year old Earth' nonsense.

Date: 2006/06/10 14:10:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
The only "scientific movement" Dumbski ever experienced came as a result of his college experimentation with mixing Ethyl alcohol and prune juice.  :p

ETA:  I forgot the one he had when he read the Kitzmiller decision.  That sure left skid marks in his tighty whiteys.

Date: 2006/06/10 17:10:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave the Cowardly Lyin' brags
 
Quote
I have an Air Force fighter pilot barroom background


But Dave, you never made it to being a fighter pilot.

You weren't good enough to be a fighter pilot.

You were only deemed competent enough to fly in an unarmed trainer.

Trying to pass yourself off as a fighter pilot just to stroke your own ego is an insult to the real men who were good enough to earn a seat in a fighter aircraft.

As we have all seen, you live in your own little fantasy world anyway - what's one more lie among the thousands, eh?

Date: 2006/06/10 17:56:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave the cowardly Lyin'
   
Quote
(OA ... I'm not a fighter pilot -- wanted to be -- but oh, well ... didn't we go over that already? ... I just spent 4 years WITH (do you see that word?  WITH) fighter pilots going to the bar.  What is it with you and Rilke's obsession with my career?  Is it supposed to somehow affect what I am doing here?  Just curious.)


YOU are the one who continually brings it up Numbnuts, about every third post it seems, not us.  Is it suppose to somehow affect the scientific evidence you have promised but failed to deliver here?  Does your ego think we'll be impressed like the rest of your sheepish congregation and go "Oooohh!  Dave flew JETS!!!, He must be really SMART and IMPORTANT!!"?

I don't know any mature person in any of my daily dealings who creates a web page that stresses what they did some 20 years ago.  All your blog needs is a soundtrack of Bruce Springsteen singing "Glory Days".

You want to get back in everyone's good graces?  Then stop being a lying chickenshit.

Stop misrepresenting what people say to you
Stop ignoring all the tons of verified scientific evidence that contradicts your bullshit AIG and ICR claims.  Acknowledge that it exists even if it you have no clue how to deal with it.
Actually read the information and web links people provide you to try and decrease your profound ignorance.
Explain why you dishonestly quote-mined the World Book Portuguese article
Explain why you think it is OK to call professional scientists incompetent, but your career is off limits.
Explain why you think an ignorant layman like you is a better judge of technical evidence than profession scientists in the relevant fields.

Did I mention – stop lying.  Folks around here can deal with ignorance.  As Will Rogers said: “we’re all ignorant, just on different subjects”.  What we cannot tolerate is lying.

Date: 2006/06/10 18:10:44, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Occam, it seems like you think he's capable of stopping the idiotic behavior. In his 334 posts, do you see any indication that he's capable of that?


Cue music tape from South Pacific

"Call me a cockeyed optimist...."  :D

Date: 2006/06/10 18:41:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OT, but I actually hiked to the top of the mountain featured in the film version.

It's on the island of Moorea.


Cool! I'm jealous :(  But I assume you mean the 2001 made-for-TV version with Glenn Close and Harry Connick Jr.  The original 1958 classic film was shot on the northern coast of Kauai, near Princeville.  I was lucky enough to spend a week there once - indescribably beautiful place.

Date: 2006/06/10 19:13:11, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
From Wikipedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_(musical)

1958 musical film
The musical was made into a successful film of 1958, starring Rossano Brazzi and Mitzi Gaynor in the leading roles, with Juanita Hall in the part of Bloody Mary that she had played in the original stage production. Metropolitan Opera star Giorgio Tozzi provided the voice for the role of Emile de Becque. Kauai, one of the Hawaiian Islands, served as the filming location for the movie. The film is notorious for the use of colored filters during many of the song sequences, which has been a source of criticism for the film. Director Joshua Logan wanted it to be a subtle change, but 20th Century Fox, the company that would distribute the 35mm version, made it an extreme change, and since tickets to the film were pre-sold (it was a roadshow attraction), they had no time to correct it. Criticism of the filtering did not prevent the film from topping the box office that year, and the 65mm Todd-AO cinematography (by Leon Shamroy) was nominated for an Academy Award, as was the music adaptation and the sound, winning the latter. All the songs have been retained, and a song entitled "My Girl Back Home," sung by Lt. Cable and Nellie, which was cut from the Broadway show, was added.

The soundtrack album has spent more weeks at Number 1 in the UK album chart than any other album, clocking up an astonishing 115 weeks at the top in the late 50s and early 60s. It spent 70 consecutive weeks at the top of the chart and was Number 1 for the whole of 1959.

Originally shown in a nearly 3-hour roadshow version and later cut to two-and-a-half hours for general release, the film is currently under restoration by rights holders MGM and Fox. Fox (which currently holds both the video rights and the film's copyright) is scheduled to release a "special edition" DVD in 2006. This would include the restored roadshow version with scenes not shown since its original Todd-AO theatrical release.

Television production

South Pacific DVDAn elaborate television production, Rodgers & Hammerstein's South Pacific, was directed by Richard Pearce in 2001. A production with Glenn Close, Harry Connick Jr., Rade Serbedzija, Robert Pastorelli, Lori Tan Chinn, Natalie Mendoza, and Jack Thompson, it was filmed primarily in Australia, with some scenes shot in Moorea, an island close to Tahiti). Sixteen songs are featured in the movie. This version omitted the well-known song "Happy Talk", although not for "politically correct" reasons as has been rumored, and cut the even more popular song "Bali Hai" in half. Several new scenes, such as Nellie and Emile's very first meeting at the officer's club, were added, and a new character was created to serve as Nellie's best friend and confidante. The sex scenes between Liat and Lt. Cable were also dealt with more frankly than in the original. The film was harshly criticized by some because the order of the songs was somewhat changed, and because Rade Serbedsija, who played Emile, does not have an operatic singing voice, as have all other "Emile"s before him. Unlike the movie version of "The Sound of Music", the structure of this "South Pacific" was said by some to be damaged because of the change in the order of the songs. In the stage original and in the 1958 film, for instance, the song "Twin Soliloquies" expresses musically what Emile and Nellie do not actually say to each other and leads to Emile's "Some Enchanted Evening", sung only a minute later. In the television version, however, the two songs are sung in two entirely different scenes. A soundtrack from the movie was also released.

Date: 2006/06/10 19:28:22, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
... and yet i was there in 1989, and was told that the shots for the mountain in the 1958 film came from the mountain in Moorea, so it couldn't have been the 2001 version.


Wasn't trying to claim Wiki is correct, just tossing it out for thought.

You were there, I wasn't, so I will take you at your word.

Really doesn't matter, it's an awesomely beautiful place where ever it is.   :)

Date: 2006/06/10 19:35:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I would complain about the off-topicness, but you know, arguing over South Pacific is more constructive and informative than talking to AFDave.


Actually we're not arguing, we're discussing like two adults - politely exchanging ideas and checking each other's sources.

Maybe if we're incredibly lucky AirFarceDavceTard2 will learn by watching.  ;)

Date: 2006/06/10 19:51:50, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Though I'm a little baffled that you guys have some small amount of hope that AFDave can learn.

It sounds trite, but I really am doing it for the lurkers.  I want them all to say "look at that, they gave that arrogant Fundy dumbass every possible chance to back up his empty talk but he couldn't.  I may have to rethink who really has the correct scientific point of view".

For Ichthyic:

I found this that supports your memories

http://www.summitpacificinc.com/2004/11/seacoastonline.html

 
Quote
Sunday, November 21, 2004
seacoastonline.com
Where’s Bali Hai? In your mind

By Toni Stroud
Chicago Tribune

One of the most haunting love songs of American musical theater is not about a man or a woman. It’s about an island, your special island, Bali Hai, calling you to come, come away.
Author James A. Michener described Bali Hai in "Tales of the South Pacific" (1946-47), a World War II epic that would later be immortalized on stage (opening in 1949) and screen (in 1958) in the Rodgers and Hammerstein musica* South Pacific."

Every island wishes it were Bali Hai. Visit Kauai, Moorea or Bora Bora, and tour guides will tell you that each is Bali Hai. True, Kauai and Moorea were film locations for the movie. And Bora Bora has a restaurant named after one of the script’s more colorful characters, Bloody Mary, who sings that oh-so-alluring song "Bali Hai." But Kauai is a Hawaiian island in the North Pacific. And both Moorea and Bora Bora, though in the South Pacific, are in the Tahitian archipelago of French Polynesia. The native population of Bali Hai was Tonkinese.

So where in the world is the real Bali Hai?

Michener set the record straight by placing the inspiration for Bali Hai much closer to New Guinea than Tahiti. In an article he wrote for the Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin in 1970, provided by the James A. Michener Library at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, Bali Hai was the combination of a "miserable" village on Mono Island, about 400 miles northwest of Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, and a "steaming, savage island called Aoba," in what is now Vanuatu.

Michener confessed that those islands were so off-putting that no sane person would willingly visit them. But as a writer, Michener took "the privilege of dressing them up a little ... creating an island of loveliness and imagination named Bali Hai."

It wasn’t until after he’d submitted "Tales of the South Pacific" to the publisher that he visited Moorea. When he entered Moorea’s Cook’s Bay, surrounded as it is by dramatic peaks, Michener said the scene was exactly what he had in mind when he "invented" Bali Hai - until he saw Bora Bora, which he named the "Bali Hai of the spirit."

By his own admission, Michener refused to argue with those who claimed Moorea was the real Bali Hai, and placated those who chose Bora Bora by saying that in creating Bali Hai he was describing a perfect island and that "there can be no other more perfect than this."

Perhaps the lure of Bali Hai is that it can be any island you want. That’s the power of fiction. Michener concluded this much about it: "I no longer know what the relationship between fact and fiction is, or ought to be. All I know is that I created an idea long before I saw its reality, and I believe that often happens in art."

Date: 2006/06/10 20:07:33, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
A "South Pacific" film party!  break out the mai tais!


Deal!  :D   :D   :D

Date: 2006/06/11 04:09:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
(Snip another steaming pile of AFDaveTard's off topic self-aggrandizing)

...So there is no need to lecture me on 'earning respect.'  I understand it at least as well as you do.  But I can only do my part.  I cannot make anyone here respect me if they refuse to do so even when I give respectable arguments.


Sorry DreamerDave, all you have earned here is derisive laughter with your "respectable" regurgitation of crap by AIG and ICR.  You continue to ignore contradicting data and to lie about virtually everything involved.  You most certainly did dishonestly quote mine that EB (not WB, my bad) article.  It was presented right here in black and white for all to see, yet you still choose to lie about it.

       
Quote
Now, if you go look at the latest 'fighter pilot barroom' quote, you will see that my point was that I am used to tough talk where insults are hurled a mile a minute, but nobody gets mad.
 

Boo hoo hoo Davie-poo!  And yet you still cry like a little girl about how it hurts your delicate ears when some people use harsh language Mr. "I'm a macho fighter stud".  You can't have it both ways, you lying hypocrite.

You were given a quota of respect based on the benefit of the doubt when you first showed up but you pissed that all away with your arrogant condescending attitude and dishonesty.  Don't think for a minute that whining about how you hold some nebulous "moral high ground" will erase your past behavior.

Now if you want to talk science, let's talk science.

Please present your evidence that there was up to 100x the concentration of C12 in the atmosphere as little as 6000 years ago.

Please give your explanation for all the data you were presented that shows the Earth and human culture to be way older than 6000 years.  

Please give your explanation for why so many independent lines of evidence all agree with each other on dates that show you are wrong.  You can start with the C14 calibration curves presented by JonF.

Date: 2006/06/11 05:17:45, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave: There are 20 or so of you and only one of me, so you'll have to forgive me if I miss a thing or two.


     
Quote
Faid: Only, for some reason, you always seem to miss those things it would be... inconvenient for you to answer.
And that's no surprise, since you avoid answering until a lot of comments have piled up, and answer to those that you like.


Hey AFDave - there's a term commonly used in the military for the lazy goldbrick soldiers who routinely use dishonest excuses to avoid the difficult assignments and try to slide by with just doing the minimal amount of easy work.

I bet your "fighter pilot barroom buddies" know what it is, and who it applies to.

Do you know what it is?  I can tell you if you like, but it might hurt your sensitive girlish ears...

Date: 2006/06/12 05:07:36, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
LOL!!  So I'm a 'troll' now, eh?  I guess so, if we accept your new definition of 'troll' as 'anyone who asks tough scientific questions that AFDave is too ignorant or cowardly to address.'  Last time I looked, my actions didn't convince 35 complete strangers that I was the dumbest poster on ATBC.  You must be pretty proud of that one, right Dave? :p

Davie-poo, I noticed that you're back to talking about your favorite topic - yourself.  If you spent a tenth as much time on learning some actual biological and geological science as you do patting yourself on the back, you wouldn't be such an ignorant dumbass, ya know?

Now, when are you going to present the data that refutes all radiocarbon dating you promised us?

Please present your evidence that there was up to 100x the concentration of C12 in the atmosphere as little as 6000 years ago.

Please give your explanation for all the data you were presented that shows the Earth and human culture to be way older than 6000 years.  

Please give your explanation for why so many independent lines of evidence all agree with each other on dates that show you are wrong.  You can start with the C14 calibration curves presented by JonF.

You keep singing and tap-dancing, but still no data to back up your claims.  Why is that Dave?  Do scientific details frighten you, is that it?  Did you ask your fighter pilot buddies yet about that term for what a dishonest shirker is called?  It starts with Shi… ;)

Date: 2006/06/12 05:39:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
QFDave drones on
 
Quote
Yes.  So bug off, troll ... if you want your questions answered, go ask some other Creo or else start being polite.  I've got questions from real scientists to answer.


Sorry Davie-poo, I'm gonna stay right here in your face, asking those tough scientific questions you refuse to answer.  I don't expect or need an answer from you actually.  The whole point is to show the lurkers what an ignorant chickenshit you really are, and how empty your anti-science nonsense claims can be.  Every non-answer by you is a victory for me, capisce?

BTW, I've decided a good nik for you is ‘QFDave’.  For the lurkers, 'QF' is the Air Force designation for a target drone. It's an unmanned aircraft used as a training target so real pilots can practice firing live weapons at it.  It flies slow and straight, and has a bright red tail so it’s easily identified.

That's you to a T Davie.  You're nothing but a target drone to the scientifically knowledgeable folks here.  You fly your stupidity-based YEC arguments slow and straight, and everyone else gets to practice blowing the sh*t out of them in front of the lurkers.  When you get mad, you’ve even got the bright red tail thing going just like a big assed baboon. :D

We couldn’t ask for a better training aid.  :p

Date: 2006/06/12 06:30:40, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says:
 
Quote
Dunno.  My job is to give out the truth, then leave the results to God.


A polite question for AFDave:

Please explain and justify your qualifications for determining what the 'truth' actually is when dealing with scientific data.

Thanks in advance.

Date: 2006/06/12 07:47:54, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
 OA: A polite question for AFDave:  Please explain and justify your qualifications for determining what the 'truth' actually is when dealing with scientific data.  Thanks in advance.

Quote
AFDave: I am an engineer just like you are.  And I can read and interpret books and scientific papers by YEC PhD's, just as you can read them from non-YEC PhD's.

I have done so and arrived at the YEC Worldview.  And in doing so, I have realized that this information is too good to hold back to one's self.  God has blessed me with time and the ability to research and write.  So that's what I do.  I have pondered the idea of getting some advanced degree in some relevant field, but I don't know if I ever will.  There are so many fields and how would I select which one?  Many of them sound interesting.  For now, I like leaving the expert stuff to the experts in the relevant fields and just reading their papers.

Thanks for replying, but I'm afraid you did not answer the question.  I will clarify:

PhDs with YEC beliefs constitute an extremely small minority of the biological and geological scientific communities, approximately 0.15% (Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation.).  Data interpretations presented by YEC PhDs in support of their young earth hypothesis have been critically examined and rejected by the other 99.85% of all non YEC PhD scientists working in the relevant fields.

Please provide your qualifications and justifications that let you determine that the extreme minority YEC PhD interpretations are the 'truth', while the opinion of the other 99.85 % of the professional scientific community is wrong.

Please try again to answer the question, thanks.

Date: 2006/06/12 10:31:52, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Tsk tsk people, such negativity!

AFDave has shamed me into seeing the error of my ways.  No more trolling for OA, no siree!  From now on, I will listen and learn from someone better than me.  I mean after all, he flew jets!  JETS!  He even had two other AF pilots at his wedding!  How much more convincing of his sincerity do you lunkheads need?!?!

I’m learning a lot of good sciency stuff from AFDave.  One big lesson he taught me is that all peer reviews are equal in value.  I discovered this when I asked AFDave who peer reviewed the RATE results.  Turns out the RATE papers were only peer reviewed by other YECs from the same place (ICR, Institute for Creation Research) that sponsored the study.  When I pointed out the possible conflict-of-interest issues, he said the peer review was still valid because:

       
Quote
AFDave: Evos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Creos in.  Creos have their peers and techy journals and they don't let Evos in


There you have it!  It was peer reviewed, so it must be correct!

I guess it wouldn’t bother me so much except I recently read a paper published by ISR (Institute for Satanic Research) that claimed 99% of all Christian missionaries are motivated by the desire to steal from the impoverished native peoples and sexually abuse their farm animals.  I didn’t believe it, until I found out the paper was peer reviewed by other Satanists from ISR!

Since AFDave has demonstrated conclusively that if a study passes peer review by the very group that sponsored it, it must be accurate and I have to accept it. Darn shame about those Christian missionaries though, I'm really disillusioned... :(

Now quit picking on AFDave just because he can’t match your pathetic level of detail with his YEC views.  Look at the BIG picture, like saving your own soul!

Date: 2006/06/12 19:07:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
So, Davey dickhead, if you refuse this challenge, you will be admitting your ignorance. Take it or leave.

Hey you potty mouth!  Don't pick on my friend AFDave, he's a hero.  While all those other cowards in the military took the easy way out by drawing fire in hostile countries and active war zones like Desert Storm, AFDave volunteered for an important job;  providing a taxi service for rear echelon VIPs in his helicopter and defending the center of the country from a sneak attack.   You should be grateful.

So what if AFDave doesn't have any evidence to back up his arguments?  All you scientific types with your fancy facts and peer review and high falutin' empirical evidence – BIG DEAL.  AFDave is a teammate of Jesus, the Big J himself!  As long as TeamJC can oppose those ignorant atheist scientists, then AFDave doesn’t need no stinkin’ evidence.  After all, how could a Bible written, altered, and translated countless times in the last 2000 years by fallible men possibly not be literally true ?? ?? ??  That highly modified Bible says it, AFDave believes it, that settles it.

Why don’t you just accept what he has to say is the TRUTH, so he will stop being so hard on you?

(Don’t worry Dave, I’ve got your back against these atheist trolls)

Date: 2006/06/12 19:32:42, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
nice try, OA, but we know YOU'RE just a troll.


I admit I used to be, always stumping AFDave with those tough scientific questions, but AFDave made me see the error of my ways.  I'm a born again supporter of my fellow EE AFDave.  I'll now do everything I can to support his cause, just watch.  I wouldn't want to burn in he11 for all eternity just because all those professional scientists can't accept the TRUTH of a literal Bible, now would I?

Date: 2006/06/13 07:56:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave says
         
Quote
(B) YEC predicts a Young Earth (<10,000 years old)
 (1) Why world history begins 5500 years ago, not earlier
    (a) Evolutionists claim H. Sapiens has been on earth for 200,000 years
    (b) Historians note that written history begins about 6000 ya
    (c ) It is implausible that humans waited 194,000 years to invent writing


Hey Dave, you inadvertently skipped a step.  Please go over the reasons why you think all human history or all world history must be tied to the start of written human history.

Explain why the large amount of evidence showing non-written human culture (cave art, archaeological sites that show group habitation and planned agriculture, musical instruments, etc) that predates written history by tens of thousands of years doesn't count as human history.

I'm trying hard to put on my 'literal Bible' hat, but it just won't fit over all that contradictory data.  Just because you, personally, think something is implausible is not valid evidence in anyone's book.  Give us evidence why we should think it is implausible too.

Thanks in advance

Date: 2006/06/13 13:39:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA: Hey Dave, you inadvertently skipped a step.  Please go over the reasons why you think all human history or all world history must be tied to the start of written human history.

       
Quote
AFDave: I cannot prove conclusively that it was.  But I can be fairly certain that it is quite unbelievable to say "Poof !! Humans began writing 194,000 years after they evolved to modern form."  There are many other lines of evidence that support an earth less than 10,000 years old.  Combine all this and you have a strong case for 6000 years.

Dave, please make an attempt to read what was written.  I didn’t ask you to prove anything.  I merely ask you to list the scientific reasons (i.e. please omit any personal incredulity) that make you think your dates are accurate.
       
Quote
OA: .Explain why the large amount of evidence showing non-written human culture (cave art, archaeological sites that show group habitation and planned agriculture, musical instruments, etc) that predates written history by tens of thousands of years doesn't count as human history.

       
Quote
AFDave: Bad assumptions on carbon dating.  Details coming very soon.

But Dave, Radiocarbon is only one of a dozen different, independent methods used for archaeological dating.  I already pointed out many such methods just a few days ago, but you seemed to have forgotten them already.  Let’s look at just one – dendrochronology.  This is the science of dating by matching individual yearly tree-ring growth.  It is a science that developed slowly in the last 100 years but is now widely used in archaeology.  For example, Cornell University has had a 10+ year research project going using dendrochronology to accurately map dates in the Aegean and Near East areas.  

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/

Using just dendrochronology from wooden house beams, a prehistoric farming village in Catal Hoyuk, Turkey has been dated back to almost 7000 B.C, or 9000 years ago.  That’s considerably older than the 5500 years ago you claim.  (The dates were also cross verified by radiocarbon dating, BTW)

http://www.catalhoyuk.com/

Now I’m sure you have a good scientific explanation for this large discrepancy between your claims and the dendro data too – I’ll be interested to hear it.  When you present that info, please be sure to explain why the independent dating methods using C14 and dendro agree with each other.

One more small request.  You say you will present the bad assumptions on carbon dating that give bad dates.  Fine, I’ll wait for that data.  But could you please list the assumption you use when calculation your <10,000 year old Earth and 5500 year old date for human history?  I’m sure they’re probably fine, but I’d like to check your assumptions for myself.  Fair is fair, right?  

Thanks again

Date: 2006/06/14 18:40:44, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hi AFDave,

I know you’re a busy man, what with you being retired and spending all that time reading up on literal Bible scientific evidence, but you seem to be having problems with your memory.  You keep forgetting to provide evidence to back up the claims you make.  For example, you said this
     
Quote
but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.

It’s been four days now and you’ve been politely asked multiple times, but we still haven’t seen your evidence for this claim.  We don’t need a detailed explanation, just a reference to the scientific paper or peer-reviewed journal you got this from will be sufficient.  I know you're here every day writing many one-liners; just tack the data on to one of those many posts.

Also, when asked what you would consider a successful refutation of one of your claims, you replied
     
Quote
Something that makes me go 'Hmmm ... really?  I never noticed that glaring error before.  OK, you're right'

Well, you claimed that radiocarbon dating was faulty based on incorrect assumptions about decay rates and C12 concentrations. You were then show how dates from C14/C12 decay rates are precisely calibrated by at least six different, completely independent methods (denrochronology, ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, speleothems, coral samples) and are accurate to within a few percent for dates back to 60,000 YBP.  You were provided the actual data, including the calibration curves themselves that all overlap almost exactly.

Now I’m sure you can C&P some ICR or AIG argument as to why each individual calibration curve method is wrong, but you were asked your explanation as to why the independent curves all agree with one another.  If you see six independent sets of data that you say are all screwed up, then how do you explain that all six are screwed up but screwed up in precisely the same way as to give precisely matching results over the whole date range?

If you can’t explain it, shouldn’t that make you reconsider your original claim?  Why shouldn’t you be going “Hmmm ... really?  I never noticed that glaring error before.  OK, you're right” ?

Here’s a great chance to show all the Christian lurkers that you don’t back down from a challenge, or be big enough to admit that you are wrong.  

Thanks in advance for not forgetting again to answer these questions.

Date: 2006/06/14 18:54:43, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
This just in: Vegas giving 3 to 2 odds that he's ex-Air Force, or at least a pilot.   ;)

Date: 2006/06/14 19:21:54, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Bye Randy, it was 'real'.  Don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on the way out.

Date: 2006/06/15 06:22:17, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
What is the best book you've ever read that CHALLENGES  the validity of evolution?  

There is no 'best book', only a pile of pseudo-science dribble filled ones with some that suck less than others.
     
Quote
It's pretty easy to say "Oh that Behe, he's just a pseudoscientist (does that mean he got a 'pseudo-degree' in biochemistry? <G>)', etc etc.

No, it means he totally abandoned the scientific method, including peer review of his work, to push his religion-based anti-science claims.
     
Quote
So, have you ever read a book that you feel did a good job in challenging the theory of evolution?

Nope.  No such book exists. And I have read most all of the popular creationist and ID diatribes.
     
Quote
Or are you convinced that there is no such scientist, no such book, and that it's just a bunch religious zealots trying to push creation into the classroom?

That sums it up nicely
     
Quote
I'd be interested in seeing where YOU think the theory has been most capably challenged, and by whom?

The overarching ToE hasn't been seriously challenged for over a hundred years.  The fine details of certain areas have certainly been challenged and modified as new data comes in - that's the way good science works - but no capable challenges to the overall theory have been raised.

Date: 2006/06/15 07:48:22, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I guess it has somehow escaped you that I am still on the Helium zircon thing?  I will move on when I get done with that.


Actually Dave, I only questioned the 100X more C-12 in the atmosphere claim because you brought it up.  How tough would it be for you to provide your reference source to us (assuming that a reference actually exists that is)?  All I'm asking for is a C&P link - 5 seconds' work at best.  Why can't you do even that simple thing?

And it was in the context of your claim that there is no evidence for human existence older than 6000 years ago.  That is a topic that you seem to have abandoned altogether when folks began asking you for your evidence there too.  When will you be addressing that 11,000 year old human village in Turkey that I pointed out to you?

   
Quote
I made good on my promise to move on to "Age of the Earth" did I not?


If by "moved on" you mean you bailed out on many of your other claims before addressing any of the contrary evidence, I'd have to agree.

   
Quote
We've already covered two points there already and I have given you excellent reasons to reconsider your position of 'millions and billions of years'.


Er...no, you haven't.  Not even close.  But you can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

   
Quote
Why would you think I would not make good on my other promises?


Mainly because your batting average on keeping promises to provide evidence is .000. You’re ‘Oh-for-2006’ in other words.

You're not setting a very good example for the undecided Christian lurkers here Dave.  I keep giving you every chance to back up your claims, but you keep letting me down.  How can I possible agree with your claims you when you give me nothing to work with?

Date: 2006/06/15 11:30:45, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA...it won't work.  I'll discuss your topic when I get ready to.


When's that gonna be AFDave, the second tuesday of next week?

Or in the decade from now when you finally quit reposting your RATE views on Helium that have been beaten into a fine pink spray?

BTW it's your topic Dave, the one you brought up in claiming that there's no evidence for humans older than 6000 YBP.  The one you seem unwilling and/or unable to deal with once your claims were scrutinized.

If you can't back up those dating claims you made, that's OK. After this long no one really expects anything like factual data or supporting evidence out of you.  It's just a pity for you that all those potential YEC converts are gonna have to accept the ToE and old Earth by default since that's all they've seen.  AFDave couldn't present any evidence he promised while the evolution supporters produced evidence for their position in droves.

Date: 2006/06/15 11:34:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Congratulations on a job well done! :)

- O.A.

Date: 2006/06/16 19:41:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave finally gets around to discussing radiocarbon dating.
         
Quote
AFDave: I know that.  I'm not using it do date anything >50,000 years.  I'm using it to date something which I suspect is less than 10,000 years old.


Great!  Then you'll have no more lame excuses for ignoring the C14/C12 calibration data.

First, please provide a reference for this claim you made or admit it was wrong
         
Quote
AFDave: but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.
 
Even a bogus claim of 100x the biomass does not equate to 100x more C12 in the atmosphere.  Provide your evidence for this or retract.

Second, please stop ignoring this critical question:

You claim that radiocarbon dating is faulty based on incorrect assumptions about decay rates and C12 concentrations. You have been shown several times now how dates from C14/C12 decay rates are precisely calibrated by at least six different, completely independent methods (denrochronology, ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, speleothems, coral samples) and are accurate to within a few percent for dates back to 60,000 YBP.  You were provided the actual data, including the calibration curves themselves that all overlap almost exactly.  

Those data sets and many others  - over 40 total - are available from CalPal, the University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package: CALIBRATION DATA SETS

http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalCurveBuildFiles.htm

Please don't waste our time by C&Ping some ICR or AIG argument as to why each individual calibration curve method is wrong.  I'm asking again for your explanation as to why the independent curves all agree with one another.  If you see six independent sets of data that you say are all screwed up, then how do you explain that all six are screwed up but screwed up in precisely the same way as to give precisely matching results over the whole date range?

To the board and the lurkers:  Sorry for the repeat postings but AFDave has a bad habit of ignoring all tough questions that his C&P sources don't address.  I just want all the readers, especially the Christian lurkers, to see how a YEC like AFDave responds (or fails to respond actually) when he is forced to think for himself.

Remember Dave, every non-answer by you is a win for evolution and a loss for AFDave.

Date: 2006/06/17 05:07:53, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
This thread is an excellent case study so I'll give you an example.

Skeptic says:

The sky is blue!

Ok, now have at it.


No, here is a much more realistic example:

YECharlie says "Hi, I'm new here at ATBC and I just wanted to tell you that anyone who believes the sky is blue is a brainless sheep who has been led astray by those evil atheist scientists trying to keep God from his rightful place in the schools.  The sky is really paisley.  I know this because my Bible tells me so, and the Bible is the inerrant Word of the Lord!!  Sure I've seen your 'evidence' about light wavelengths and Rayleigh scattering, but those are only 'just so' stories to prop up your science religion.  Besides, we all have the same data, we just interpret if differently, and my interpretation is the only correct one.  Change your beliefs to match mine OR YOU WILL SURELY BURN IN HE11."

That's what we normally get around here.

Date: 2006/06/17 05:37:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Well, since as predicted AFDave is doing his best tap dance to avoid his embarrassment over facing the C14/C12 calibration evidence, I'll ask another question
     
Quote
AFDave: Do you guys really not understand this?  That is astounding.  Is no one familiar with dog breeders?  Or horse breeeders?  Do you not understand what a short time it takes to get radically different looking dogs and horses?  


Which of these two are more close to each other, and why?

1. Red Mazda Miata convertible
2. Red BMW Z3 3.0i convertible
3. Blue BMW 330i sedan?

By AFDave's logic, if must be 1 and 2 because hey, they superficially look alike, right?

Never mind that 2 and 3 share the same engine, drive train components, suspension design, electronics, cabin styling, etc.  Those are all internal similarities, but that evidence doesn't count.

Did I get your reasoning correct on that one Dave?

Date: 2006/06/17 05:49:31, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
After seeing ericmurphy's astute comment to AFDave
 
Quote
Dave, your ignorance and inability to reason evidently knows no bounds. "No reason why it should not?" Are you smoking crack? We've already told you, multiple times, why it doesn't work. There's not enough C14 left after 10 half-lives to stand out from background contamination! How much clearer can you get? As an electrical engineer, do you understand what signal-to-noise ratios are?

I will add:

Dave, you claim to be an EE with background in telecommunications, right?

What do you see when you try to measure a -80dBm signal on a spectrum analyzer that has a noise floor of -70dBm?

Date: 2006/06/17 06:46:44, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave, please explain for the Christian lurkers how your YEC 'theory' accounts for all the many different, independent C14/C12 calibration curves that precisely overlap with one another.

http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalCurveBuildFiles.htm

Your continued evasion of this critical piece of evidence says as much about your intellectual honesty as it does about the emptiness of your claims.  A good Christain would not continually avoid facing the evidence, ALL the evidence.

Every non-answer = loss for AFDave, win for evolution

Date: 2006/06/17 11:45:57, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave prepares to run away once again with
   
Quote
I am glad of one thing with the C14 discussion.  You (not others, but you) came at me with really the only shred of wood that can possibly keep your long age scenario afloat -- contamination.  So thankfully I didn't have to spend a great deal of time explaining the basics to everyone else.

I'll point out for all to see that AFDave failed to even acknowledge the C14/C12 calibration data that was presented to him four different times in the last week alone.  His ridiculous RATE claims don't begin to address this contrary evidence, and AFDave himself is way too dense to think of an answer by himself.
   
Quote
OA:You claim that radiocarbon dating is faulty based on incorrect assumptions about decay rates and C12 concentrations. You have been shown several times now how dates from C14/C12 decay rates are precisely calibrated by at least six different, completely independent methods (denrochronology, ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, speleothems, coral samples) and are accurate to within a few percent for dates back to 60,000 YBP.  You were provided the actual data, including the calibration curves themselves that all overlap almost exactly.  

Those data sets and many others  - over 40 total - are available from CalPal, the University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package: CALIBRATION DATA SETS

http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalCurveBuildFiles.htm

Please don't waste our time by C&Ping some ICR or AIG argument as to why each individual calibration curve method is wrong.  I'm asking again for your explanation as to why the independent methods all agree with one another.  If you see six independent sets of data that you say are all screwed up, then how do you explain that all six are screwed up but screwed up in precisely the same way as to give precisely matching results over the whole date range?


AFDave once again disgraces the title 'Christian' by his total lack of honesty in dealing with the radiocarbon dating topic.  Instead, AFDave gives us his concept of how an 'honest search for the TRUTH' means that he can misrepresent or totally ignore any and all data that exposes his scientific ignorance.

Great job Dave, Jesus would be proud.  Bet you're not still showing this thread to your wife and fellow church goers, are you?

Date: 2006/06/17 12:48:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Massive oils beds.  Massive coal beds.  Massive chalk beds.  Massive organic material, OA, buried catastrophically.  The explanation?  Massive quantities of organic material pre-Flood.  100X is very conservative.  Could be as high as 500X.  Are you really  telling me you don't know about these three HUGE instances of organic matter?  Are you going to make me cite references to prove what should be so obvious to you?  Have you really no idea how massive our coal, oil and chalk beds are?

Keep wriggling and squirming Dave, anything rather than admit you are wrong.  You claimed the C12 was 100x higher in the ATMOSPHERE.  Not total biomass Dave, ATMOSPHERE.  Go look up the word ATMOSPHERE.  The total biomass could be 500X and it wouldn't tell you what the percentage of C12 in the ATMOSPHERE would be.  Yes, I'm going to make you cite your source that details how the figure of 100X the C12 in the ATMOSPHERE was calculated.  I'll bet here and now that you can't do it.

While you're at it, how about producing evidence that all that biomass was alive in the same extremely narrow time frame less than 6000 years ago.  I'll add to my bet that you can't produce that evidence either.
   
Quote
Have you really no idea how massive our coal, oil and chalk beds are?

And do you have any idea how coal, oil, or chalk beds are produced naturally, and how long it takes for them to be formed?  Apparently that is yet another area on which you are totally ignorant.
   
Quote
I will be happy to look at your "calibration data" as I have time, but I suspect I will find many holes in it just as I have been finding holes in your other arguments about origins.

Delay, stall, avoid... anything that prevents you from actually dealing with the data.  You're just a shining beacon of Christian honesty Dave - Jesus would be proud.

Every non-answer is still a loss for AFDave and a win for evolution.  And AFDave is still 'Oh-for-2006'  :p

Date: 2006/06/17 15:30:36, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
HOLY TAP DANCIN' CHRIST!! AFDave actually admits that he was wrong about something!!!  Somebody please save this to the archives before he edits it out.
     
Quote
I'll bet you are right.  I meant to say 100X the biomass.  But C12 is related to biomass.  I don't have the exact correlation at my fingertips right now.  We will get to that.

You'll have to understand if no one believes you anymore.  You've broken too many promises to 'get to it' to have any credibility.
           
Quote
What is important now in relation to C14 is that AMS labs all over the world scratched their heads when they discovered C14 in coal and diamonds.  They still cannot explain it.

And neither can you.

You don't even try ... all you can do is yammer at me about calibration curves and you miss the elephant in the living room of C14 in diamonds and coal.

No Dave, the 'elephant in the living room' is the six independent lines of evidence that all confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.  Not one, not two, not even three, but six independent lines of evidence for you to deny Dave.  The fact that you continually refuse to deal with it shows that it bothers you greatly, and that you have yet to figure out how to deal with it, save just ignoring it.  

You have to know that you're being dishonest when you ignore the calibration data, which means that Jesus knows you're being dishonest too.  How do you justify your dishonest actions to Him?  Do you say 'hail Mary' three times after confession and hope that covers it?

You're a sad, pathetic little man Dave.  You let your ego get in the way of both your honesty and your better judgement.  You will have to answer for all this dishonesty some day Dave, and you know it.

Date: 2006/06/17 16:13:54, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Yeah, no one except those lurkers that you said you were worried about.  You'd better get with it refuting me with some sciency stuff so they don't get corrupted with my 'moronic beliefs.'


Right back in your face little man.  You'd better get busy explaining away for the lurkers those six independent lines of evidence that confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.

When you're done with that, you can share with the lurkers how little you know about coal and oil formation, and how chalk beds are laid down.

Your ignorance is being exposed Dave, and we both know it. You're standing here with your pants around your ankles, looking sillier by the minute.  The lurkers can see it all too, and it ain't pretty. :p

Jesus is looking down on you and frowning Dave.  You're breaking His commandment to 'not bear false witness'.  Are you prepared to be banished to he11 just to protect your titanic ego?

.

Date: 2006/06/17 16:34:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Hey Aftershave ... What happened to your great interest in Carbon 14?

You were hounding me for several days ...

Now that I gave you what you asked for, you're suddenly not interested anymore.


No Dave, I asked you for your explanation of the six independent lines of evidence that confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.  

I'm still quite interested, but we both know you're too busy protecting your ego to admit you have no clue as to how to honestly respond.

I'm also quite interested in you demonstrating your ignorance about coal and oil formation, and how chalk beds are laid down.

You ever gonna address that 11,000 YO Turkish village I pointed you to, the one that was dated with dendrochronology as well as radiocarbon?

The lurkers are laughing at you with your pants around your ankles, and Jesus is getting angrier with you by the minute.  You think it's a good idea to keep lying?  I mean, isn't your mortal soul at stake here?

Date: 2006/06/17 18:13:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
You guys are going to be embarrassed and chagrined after insulting Dave so much, when it comes out in a few years that there was a secret military project to find out what happens when a troop's brain is replaced with kitty litter.


Oh, and here I though all those scratching cats were just trying to cover up AFDave, not add to his cranium filling.  

My bad.

Date: 2006/06/18 05:32:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
(If anyone still wants to talk about C14, be my guest)


Sorry AFDave, we haven't even begun to discuss the C14/C12 data.  Are you admitting defeat and running away so soon?  Another one-sided loss for AFDave as he cowardly backs down from yet another challenge.  Who'da thunk it? :p

Oh, and you also avoided explaining how you think coal, oil, and chalk beds form, and how an 11,000 YO village in Turkey can exist before your 6000 YO Earth was formed. ;)

       
Quote
Aftershave just wants me to go look at tree rings and varves and stuff


That's right AFDave, I do. I want you to honestly address all the evidence that's been placed right in front of you.  Dendrochronology, lake varves, ice core samples, ocean sediment samples, etc.;  ALL the evidence that is used to independently confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.  ALL the evidence that blows your target drone '6000 year old Earth' out of the sky.  The evidence won't go away Dave, even though you are too intellectually dishonest and inept to deal with it.

That you continually refuse to do so says more about you and your arguments than I ever could.  How do you think other Christians view your lying, evasive behavior?  Are you showing this thread to your wife and children as an example of how to 'honestly seek the TRUTH'?  Is this your idea of being a good Christian role model to them?

If I don't hear any objections,  I think I will post all my C14/C12 calibration data on your blog.  It's not like you get many hits, but then your immediate family and friends could get a better look at how you deal with challenges.  You're objectively looking for the TRUTH so you shouldn't complain, right?

BTW, if you are going to C&P Humphreys' young earth arguments directly from ICR in "Gish Gallop" style , at least have the decency to cite the source so you don't look like a plagiarist.  And have the IQ to remove the footnote references too.

Date: 2006/06/18 19:06:51, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I love the way target drone QFDave thinks he can rewrite his history here and no one will notice.  We all know how QF made this claim about Portuguese:
     
Quote
I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

When this was shown to be laughably wrong, and in a desperate attempt to save face, QF changed his story to
     
Quote
I meant exactly what I said ... It is an accurate GENERALIZATION to say that 'Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French'

Got that?  It’s an ACCURATE GENERALIZATION, not a statement of absolute fact.

And now it’s changed again to
     
Quote
.. I made a casual generalization: P=F+S, in a conversation about something else.

Now it’s a CASUAL GENERALIZATION.  Next week it will be ‘street theater’, and the week after next Dave won’t have said it at all.

All that whining about GENERALIZATION, and yet this is the same bonehead who offered this passage from World Book as an iron clad, can’t be wrong, proof positive of a less than 6000 YO young Earth.
     
Quote
"But the story of world history begins only about 5,500 years ago with the invention of writing."

But the ‘tard can’t grasp the fact that the statement is a GENERALIZATION where ‘world history” roughly means ‘the period of time when humans began changing their lifestyle from nomadic hunter-gather tribes into agricultural based permanent city-states and began recording their transactions.”

QFDave:

Loser
Liar
Lunatic

But his brainless YEC regurgitations do make for great targets.

Date: 2006/06/18 19:19:05, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Looks like we'll have to add one more descriptive term to QFDave's resume:

Loser
Liar
Lunatic
Welcher

Date: 2006/06/19 04:26:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA: No Dave, I asked you for your explanation of the six independent lines of evidence that confirm the accuracy of radiocarbon dating.
 
 
Quote
AFDave...namely that the conventional C14 assumptions are wrong and that the supposed 50,000 year date should really be about 4500 years, etc.  Are you getting it yet?

Again, if you can show me what they have to do with C14 dating specifically, I'll be happy to address them.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I get to them in my sequence.

AFDave’s dishonest attempts at avoiding discussion continue unabated.  You think that six independent lines of evidence that confirms the C14 assumptions were correct, evidence that confirms the accuracy of C14 dating, evidence that directly refutes your 6000 YO earth claims, has nothing to do with C14 dating??
 
Quote
OA: Oh, and you also avoided explaining how you think coal, oil, and chalk beds form, and how an 11,000 YO village in Turkey can exist before your 6000 YO Earth was formed.

 
Quote
AFDave: Too easy.  Give me some harder questions. Your 1st answer:  The Flood.  Your second answer:  Invalid C14 assumptions.  No accounting for pre-Flood carbon levels.

No Dave, ‘The FLUD’ is NOT an answer.  I asked you for your specific details as to how the fields were formed, including how long it took.  Show us some of that ‘sciency’ stuff Dave.

Also, the 11,000 YO Turkish settlement was dated by dendrochronolgy Dave, and merely cross-verified with C14 testing.  Once again, you need to come up with a reason as to why the two independent dating methods gave the same age, which is way older than 6000 years.
 
Quote
OA: If I don't hear any objections,  I think I will post all my C14/C12 calibration data on your blog.

 
Quote
AFDave:  You cannot post anything on my blog.  I shut down comments because some of them were so childish and asinine.

Translation:  Too many people were embarrassing me on my home turf by posting actual scientific data, so I deleted those entries and cut off all discussion.
 
Quote
AFDave :I hope at least on your deathbeds when you are 5 minutes from meeting your Creator, maybe you will consider some of this information you have been given.  Maybe then it will all gel in your minds and the lightbulb will come on and you will say "I get it!  The Bible really is true!  The earth really is only about 6000 years old.  There really was a Flood!  There really is a Creator, and I am about to meet Him!" And like the thief on the cross, you too can make your amends with Him before it's too late!

So says Mr “I’m not about religion, I only want the scientific TRUTH!!” :p

Every day you sink deeper into your cesspool of lies and evasions Dave.  You think Jesus would approve of your actions?  How about your fellow Christians?  Can you feel those he11fires burning yet Dave?  Because if you don’t stop lying and avoiding, you’ll get there sooner than you think.

Date: 2006/06/19 05:14:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave: Eric, my friend ... listen ... you cannot even point to ONE example of a mutation which increases information.  The truth is that mutations decrease information content.


AFDave gets caught lying again.  I provided this information to AFDave back in April, and he commented on it so I know he read it

     
Quote
Posted by OA, April 18 2006,21:11 Here is a mutation to a protein that was documented in a population in Italy.  It helps reduce the risk of arteriosclerosis (clogged arteries), heart attack, and stroke. The mutation is now becoming fixed in the local population.  There are many others if you cared to look for them - Google is your friend.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html


Unless Dave wants to claim the mutation made the population lose the ability to not lower the risk of arteriosclerosis  :D


FYI Dave, the Morton you refer to in this statement
 
Quote
Estimates for the amount of C in this inventory are typically several hundred times greater than what resides in the biosphere today [Brown, 1979; Morton, 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann, 1992; Giem, 2001].

is Glenn R. Morton, who was a YEC geology major in school but who totally reversed his position after working as a geologist in the field and seeing the old Earth evidence first-hand.  Glenn is still a devout Christian who is quite active on a number of C/E boards (like TWeb). He provides much old Earth evidence and writes extensively about how the YEC 'scientists' are nothing but charlatans who duped him when he was younger.

Glenn's story in his own words

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

a link to many of Glenn's YEC refuting articles

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

Date: 2006/06/19 06:15:56, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave, I'm really curious.  Did you read Glenn Morton's testimony of why he left ICR and now campaigns against their YEC deception?  What are your thoughts on it?
 
Quote
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.html

For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian,  when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly.  I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood.  I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.(See http://www.seg.org/publica....336.pdf   for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see http://www.netl.doe.gov/publica....4-1.PDF

One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon. This picture was downloaded from a site which is now gone from the web. It was http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart168/3DInterpretation/Deltain3d1.gif


I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to
a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last  young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

John Morris came to the stage to challenge me. He claimed to have been in the oil industry.  I asked him what oil company he had worked for.  I am going to let an account of this published in the Skeptical Inquirer in late 86 or early 87.  It was written by Robert Schadewald.  He writes,

"John Morris went to the microphone and identified himself as a petroleum geologist. He questioned Morton's claim that pollen grains are found in salt formations, and accused Morton of sounding like an anticreationist, raising more problems  than his critics could respond to in the time available.  Morris said that the ICR staff is working on these problems all the time.  He told Morton to quit raising problems and start solving them.         "Morton chopped him off at the ankles.  Two questions, said Morton: 'What oil company did you work for?'  Well, uh, actually Morris never worked for an oil company, but he once taught petroleum engineering  at the University of Oklahoma.  Second, How old is the Earth?' 'If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.'  Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith.  The were utterly unprepared to face the geologic facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis.  Morton neglected to add that ICR is much better known for ignoring or denying problems than dealing with them."  

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

Above I say that I with drew from publishing for 10 years. I need to make one item clear. It is true that I published a couple of items in the late 80s. The truth is that these were an edited letter exchange I had with George Howe. When George approached me about the Mountain Building symposium, I told him I didn't want to write it. He said that was ok he would write it, give it to me for ok and then publish it.  Since it was merely splicing a bunch of letters together, it was my words, but George's editorship that made that article. To all intents and purposes I was through with young-earth creationist (not ism yet) because I knew that they didn't care about the data.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. During that time, I re-read a book I had reviewed prior to its publication. It was Alan Hayward's Creation/Evolution. Even though I had reviewed it 1984 prior to its publication in 1985, I hadn't been ready for the views he expressed. He presented a wonderful Days of Proclamation view which pulled me back from the edge of atheism. Although I believe Alan applied it to the earth in an unworkable fashion, his view had the power to unite the data with the Scripture, if it was applied differently. That is what I have done with my views.  Without that I would now be an atheist.  There is much in Alan's book I agree with and much I disagree with but his book was very important in keeping me in the faith. While his book may not have changed the debate totally yet, it did change my life.

Here is professional geologist Glenn Morton's detailed analysis of why coal could not have formed 4500 years ago in a 'great Flood'.

Canadian Coal Not Formed Catastrophically
   
Quote
I would love to see the global flood explanation for roots growing in a marine sandstone beneath coal during the global flood.
How does one do that? How do they explain 7 coal seams there each home grown? Can any YEC explain this?

Any smart-assed 'sciency' comments Dave?

Every non-answer is a loss for AFDave and a win for evolution!

Date: 2006/06/19 07:26:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
"Don't forget, lurkers, Davie doesn't know what he's talking about even though he sounds like he does.


Actually Dave you sound like a blustering, complete ignoramus on scientific topics, which comes as no surprise since you are a blustering, complete ignoramus on scientific topics.

Now how about your explanation for the six independent lines of evidence that validate C14 dating?  Or your comments on Glenn Morton's experiences with ICR?

Date: 2006/06/19 17:37:09, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
QFDave succumbs to his true clown calling:

 
Quote
I was going to tell you about what we did on Father's Day ... I thought you might be interested....


Ha ha ha!  Gee Dave, what a new, creative zinger!

You wanna know what's even funnier?

A sh*t-for-brains ex AF pilot who doesn't know squat about the biological or physical sciences, and who is caught waddling about with his pants around his ankles as he tries in vain to dodge those embarrassing C14 calibration method questions!  :D  :D  :D

Now that's entertainment!

Hey, did you hear about the conversation QFDave had with his wife when they got back from the zoo?

“Good night, mother of five”
“Good night, father of two”   :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/06/19 17:43:22, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I got one: Is it ok to screw goats? (If you're a person).

Billy goats or nanny goats?  It does make a difference in your liberal attempts to destroy marriage, ya know.

Date: 2006/06/20 04:45:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Wow AFDave, all that time spent in those many posts this morning and yet you said

not one word about your explanation for why the six independent lines of evidence that verify the accuracy of C14 dating all agree

not one word about the 11000* year old village in Turkey that was dated with dendrochronology and radiocarbon

not one word about Glenn Morton’s direct experiences with the YEC charlatans at ICR

not one word on Glenn Morton’s challenge to YECs over the Canadian coal formations here

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm
 
Quote
I would love to see the global flood explanation for roots growing in a marine sandstone beneath coal during the global flood.
How does one do that? How do they explain 7 coal seams there each home grown? Can any YEC explain this?


Don’t your butt cheeks get cold, waddling around with your pants around your ankles all the time?  Apparently acting like a dishonest chickenshit is part of your Christian credo.  In what verse of your Bible does Jesus tell you to act like a dishonest chickenshit, huh Dave?

ETA: *Clarification: Earliest traces of habitation at the Turkish village at Çatal Hüyük have been dated to 11000 YO via radiocarbon dating, but the dendrochronology record from houses there only extends back to 9000 YO.

Date: 2006/06/20 06:23:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Every time I read that, Tennyson's poem springs into my head.

         Half a Dave, half a Dave,
            Half a Dave onward,...


Half a Dave, Half a Dave,
Half a Dave onward
Into the valley of Knowledge
Rode the 60 IQ moron
‘For ICR!’ cried Half a Dave
'Evidence be dammed’ he said
Into the valley of Knowledge
Rode the 60 IQ moron

'Forward, the Fundy Brigade!'
Was Half a Dave dismay'd ?
Not tho' the ex-pilot knew
AIG had blunder'd:
His not to make reply,
His not to reason why,
His but to squirm & lie,
Into the valley of Knowledge
Rode the 60 IQ moron

Science to the right of him
Science to the left of him
Science in front of him
Peer-reviewed evidence
Storm'd at with data well
His refutations stunk
Cowardly away he slunk
Away from the valley of Knowledge
Ran the 60 IQ moron

When can his stupidity fade?
O the wild ass claims he made!
All the world laughed
Laughed at the claims he made!
Laughed at Fundy Half a Dave,
The 60 IQ moron!

Date: 2006/06/21 05:01:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Half a Dave, full time Ass says
   
Quote
Don't argue with me.  Argue with Brown, 1979; Morton, 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann, 1992; and Giem, 2001.  Baumgardner didn't just pull this out of thin air.  I think you are tripping over the idea of 100X the biomass on TODAY's land area.  But you are overlooking the fact that there is much evidence that the pre-Flood land area was much, much larger than it is today.  Have you never studied submarine geology?  Much of the sea floor was undoubtedly ABOVE WATER at some point in history.  Things were different before the Flood, Jon, much, much different.


I bet myself before I logged on this morning that I'd find another lie-filled, fact free post from QFDave and - *ding* - there it was.  Now I owe myself lunch.

QFDave continues to cite professional geologist Glenn Morton even though it was shown that Morton retracted his views in this paper, and disavowed all the pseudoscience of the YEC charlatans at ICR.   Baumgardner was shown to be another YEC backstabber who ignored Morton's old Earth evidence also, and accused Morton of not being a TrueChristian ™. Where have we heard that line before?

Glenn Morton's home page

And true to lying form, QFDave absolutely refuses to discuss any of the evidence that refutes his 6000 YO Earth canard:

no discussion on C14 calibration curves
no discussion of human artifacts dating way older than 6000 YO
no discussion of Glenn Morton's dealings with ICR
no discussion of Glenn Morton's old Earth evidence

Here is another one of Glenn Morton's many fine YEC refuting articles that dishonest QFDave just can't deal with:

Carbonate hardgrounds disprove the global flood.

QFDave continues to be the poster boy for YEC stupidity, arrogance, and dishonesty.  Dave also continues to show his distain for Christianity and the Bible, which teach us that bearing false witness i.e. lying - is a sin.
Quote
I have satisfied myself that it is quite common.  I can't help it if you have no interest in this.  Your loss.  Go ahead and wallow in your ignorance.  It is only my responsibility to lead you to the water.  I cannot make you drink.

I’m sure you satisfy yourself all the time QFDave, and you’re right that we have no interest in your mental masturbations.  You keep lying and claiming “victory”, and the rest of us will laugh and continue to discover and deal with the physical realities of the natural world.  We can lead you to 150+ years of positive evidence, but we can’t make you think.

Date: 2006/06/21 06:33:23, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA: I bet myself before I logged on this morning that I'd find another lie-filled, fact free post from QFDave and - *ding* - there it was.  Now I owe myself lunch

   
Quote
QFDave: Pretty risky bet, there, OA.  Maybe you could bet yourself that the sun will rise tomorrow.  

So you agree that it’s a sure bet for you to be dishonest when you post.  I knew we could find some common ground.
   
Quote
QFDave: I'm not real interested in what Glenn has to say.  I'm more interested in what YOU have to say ... if it has to do with science, that is.

Of course you’re not interested – it’s personal testimony from a professional geologist who worked directly with ICR, and who got so disgusted with their dishonesty that he decided to quit and expose their lies.  You’re also not interested in the technical articles that Morton has written that directly refute your YEC horseshit, because you have no answer for them.  What a surprise!

You have no interest in the technical questions I and others keep asking for the same reason.  If you can’t find a quick C&P answer at one of your brain dead fundy apologetic sites, you’re hopelessly lost.  Just look at how you have avoided all discussion on the C14 calibration, and the 11000 year old village in Turkey, and the other >6000 YO human artifacts, and the Canadian coal formations, and the carbonate hardgrounds, and the lack of RATE peer review, etc.  The list of things you run from gets longer every day.  All the regular readers and all the lurkers have watched you waddle around with your pants by your shoes, and laughed at your feeble attempts at avoidance.

What’s really a shame is how you keep debasing the Christian faith by your continued lying and ignoring all contrary evidence.  I really do wonder what kind of an example you think you are setting for anyone reading your tripe.

Date: 2006/06/21 07:18:44, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey AFDave, a 'sciency' question for you:

Please tell us how you arrived at the dates you have been giving us for historical events, i.e.

Earth created 6000 years ago
Humans created 5500 years ago
'The Flood' 4500 years age
Tower of Babel 4200 years ago, etc.

Don't just say 'from the Bible', that's a cowardly cop-out.  I would like to see your evidence and calculations as to how you arrived at those exact dates, and what their accuracy is.  Is the age of the Earth 6000 +/- 100 years?  +/- 1000 years?  +/- 4.5 billion years?

Same for the Flood dating.  How did you get that number, and how accurate is your figure?

Are you using Bishop Ussher's number of Oct. 23, 4004 B.C as the date of creation?

What assumptions did you make in obtaining these results?  

Please show all your work and calculations.  Thanks

ETA:  I did find the Ussher timeline on AIG

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i4/TimelineOfTheBible.pdf

But that's not evidence of anything except someone's fanciful interpretation of non-verified Biblical ages.  That doesn't cut the muster in anyone's scientific results.  What I want to see is corroborating non-biblical scientific evidence that give the dates you claim.  If I had never heard of the Bible but had unlimited time, money, and scientific resources to determine those ages, how would I do it?

Date: 2006/06/21 12:12:54, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave, when are you going to address all the scientific details that you've been avoiding for the past two months?

Things like the C14 calibration data?
and the 11000 YO village in Turkey?
and Glenn Morton's testimony about ICR?
and the Canadian coal fields?
and the carbonate hardgrounds?
and your scientific evidence for how you determined those Biblical dates?
and plate tectonics?
and the water source for the 'Flood'?
and evidence that startlight was created 'on the way'?

You keep promising to address these things 'tomorrow', or 'soon' but that day never comes.

Your little fantasy world keeps getting more and more bizarre, while that pile of lies and excuses you vomit up keep gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

The Dave Hawkins “Good Christian” example:  no evidence, no honesty, no integrity, no original thoughts, no explanation for contrary data, no clue.

You’re gonna fry in he11 for the lies you tell here, you know that don’t you Davie?

Date: 2006/06/21 15:57:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
C'mon deadman_932, what's the matter with you?!?!

AFDave promised us he'd get around to explaining all that contrary evidence in a day or two.  Just because he's broken every single promise to address the data in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't take him at his word now.  And surely a good TrueChristian ™ like AFDave would never lie, because lying is a sin.

Of course with AFDave's f*cked up 'Earth was created in 6 days' time scale, a day can take 4.5 billion years, plus or minus...

See, he's right on schedule!  :D

Date: 2006/06/21 19:40:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Psst, hey AFDave, over here.  We need to talk

It should be obvious to even you by now that your repetitive droning and ignoring of data aren’t accomplishing anything, save wasting board space and trying the patience of most everyone.

Here’s the deal – I don’t like seeing you get beaten up so badly day in and day out, although most probably agree you deserve it.  It’s like watching a crippled kid get picked on in gym class.  You really need to understand that we have seen everything you’re C&Ping from AIG and ICR literally dozens of times, and we have pointed out their same dumbass errors dozens of times.  It’s boring us to tears.  When we do give you a chance to reason for yourself (like by explaining why the six independent lines of evidence for C14 calibration all agree) you stand there dumb as a fence post.

The only thing, the only thing you bring to the discussion that’s of the slightest interest is our fascination with the psychological makeup of people like you. I’m talking about otherwise intelligent, successful, normal people who have this incredibly huge blind spot when it comes to any scientific evidence that contradicts their narrow religious views.

If you have an honest desire for the truth, then don’t post anymore of that tired old Creationist bullshit from Humphreys or Baumgartner or Sarfati or Woodmorappe.  Instead, have an honest discussion about folks like Glenn Morton, who actually worked for ICR and saw every dishonest thing they do up close and personal.  Analyze his actions for us, then analyze your own.  Tell us why you refuse to even discuss Glenn’s experiences, and the testimony on his web page of those many other geologists he works with who used to be YECs also.  Tell us why you won’t even look at the young Earth refuting evidence that we keep setting right in front of you.  

Every last piece of ‘evidence’ you have presented to support your YEC position has been met with detailed rebuttals.  Even if you don’t agree with the data, you have to admit that your arguments were addressed.  You, however, have flat out refused to even acknowledge most of the evidence against your YEC position.  It’s not that you’re too busy and can’t get to it either.  It’s that you just flat out refuse to deal with anything that causes your cognitive dissonance to spike.  Go look at yourself in the mirror and see if you can convince yourself you’re honestly seeking the truth, because you sure aren’t convincing anyone here.

You have a choice to make.  You can keep on your present path, keep regurgitating the same old tired pseudoscience crap that you’re too ignorant to understand anyway, keep ignoring all contrary evidence.  Do that and you’ll keep getting people frustrated and angry with you, or thinking you’re a clown, or (like I do) both.  OR you can try moving past that and start having honest discussions about ALL the evidence.  It would make our respect level for you rise above the bottom scraping level it now occupies, that’s for sure.

Over to you Mr ‘honestly seeking the TRUTH’..  Show us what ya got.

Date: 2006/06/21 19:51:52, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
So, my question to this board is: why do you persist? Why do you think creos like Dave will change? Why do you spend so much time & energy trying to show him the errors of his ways? Isn't there something better you could be doing than trying to point out errors in thinking to the likes of Afdave?


This was discussed just a few weeks ago, but there are two basic reasons.  The first is for the benefit of any lurkers out there, especially young people who are just being exposed to scientific viewpoints, to show them just how shallow and inane the YEC 'arguments' really are.  The second is because it stimulates interesting discussions and learning among the pro-science regulars here too.  I learn something new and interesting almost every time I visit.

It's not about AFDave at all, even though his titanic ego wishes it to be.  It's about learning, and teaching, and the importance of scientific integrity.

Welcome to ATBC by the way.

Date: 2006/06/22 04:24:42, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Not to pile on (well OK, to pile on) poor confused AFDave, here is another detailed critique of why his "Pangea took 2000 years to form the continents we see today" fantasy is just another steaming heap of YEC dung.

Runaway Subduction is a Sham
   
Quote
But the motion of the pre-Permian continents are not consistent with what Baumgardner proposes. And the Paleozoic continental distribution is not the Pangean distribution.

The YEC leaders don’t talk about this issue when they support runaway subduction. It doesn’t make it into their literature. If it hadn’t been for this one question by Austin, this problem would not be there at all. As I have said, not a single geological feature I was taught by the YECs (if it differed from conventional geology) turned out to be true. All YEC geology is fraught with problems (read that as observationally falsified).


And to add insult to injury, here is yet another detailed geological analysis that shows Baumgardner's 'catastrophic plate tectonic' scenario is impossible

THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS: INCOMPATIBLE WITH A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL
Quote
In essence, the problem for young earth creationists is to develop a self-consistent model of rapid spreading that can yield the bathymetric profiles observed in the current ocean floors.  Modern geology has already done so and the conductive cooling model of the ocean floor fits perfectly within the old earth paradigm.  

  The conductive cooling predicted by modern geology also matches the age distribution on either side of the ridge.  The predicted age of a piece of ocean floor based on conductive cooling is a near perfect match for the radiometric and magnetostratigraphic age11 of the ocean floor.  These observations are not consistent with the hypothetical profile shown in Figure 4.  For example, radiometric ages in the convective region would be nearly identical and would show greatest change in the conductive region.  This is contrary to what we observe.   In short, the observed bathymetry is a near perfect match for an old earth model and seriously challenges the model proposed by Baumgardner and other advocates of rapid drift.  


Enjoy!

Date: 2006/06/22 05:47:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Under the right conditions, it apparently takes a lot less than a year:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Not to support any of AFD's idiotic conjecture but he can't be wrong about everything...


All AFDave has to do now is provide evidence that those extreme pressure and temperature conditions existed naturally and everywhere on the planet for the year following the FLUD.

Anyone wanna bet we get a 'Goddidit' miracle as an explanation?

Date: 2006/06/22 06:36:57, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Dear Occam's Various Toiletries and Grooming Appliances,


For the record - I'm Occam's Aftershave and I do not support any YEC positions.  I've been using the OA nik for about 3 years now on various E/C boards.

Occam's Toothbrush is a different entity who began posting here recently and for some reason picked a nik that's very similar to mine.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I hope :)

I don't like the confusion his choice causes, but I guess it's his right in a free country.

Date: 2006/06/22 10:14:40, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Well, there you have it.

AFDave was offered another olive branch, and a chance to engage in honest discussion about the topics being discussed here, but decides instead to stick with his lying and ignoring contrary evidence ways.  Sad but not unexpected.  Thinking that someone as mentally hosed as Fundy Dave could ever deal with an honest appraisal of his position, or could think for himself was just a fleeting dream.  

Oh well, life moves on.  Let’s look at AFDave’s latest batch of stupidity and lies.

First we get the same old “I’ve proved a young Earth” claims, and we still get no mention of  the C14 calibration evidence, or all the examples of human culture dating back 40,000 years, etc.

Dave, how about that Turkish village that has been dated with independent methods to 7000 BC?

Now Dave wants to use contemporary archaeology as evidence of a literal Genesis.  Dave thinks that since some of the places mentioned in the Bible are real places, that ALL of the Bible must be true.  Wow!  So by AFDave’s logic,  since Arthur Conan Doyle mentioned London (a real place) in his stories, then Sherlock Holmes was a real live person.  Great logic there, for a tard that is.

Next let’s look at the timelines involved.  According to Dave’s and AIG’s timeline, Humans (Adam & Eve) were created at 4200 BC, the FLUD occurred at 2349 BC, and the Tower of Babel at approximately 2200BC.  Keep those dates in mind.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i4/TimelineOfTheBible.pdf

Now Dave starts talking about finding tablets at the ancient city of Ur.  Turns out that Ur has been thoroughly excavated and examined, and there is abundant archaeological evidence that Ur was inhabited continuously from 5000BC to 300 BC.  So from Dave’s own sources, Ur was inhabited from 800 years before the creation of Humans, and was inhabited right through the FLUD without being the least bit disturbed.

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/goto?id=enc386

Oops! Looks like AFDave f*cked up his history !

Then, Dave refers briefly to Egyptian history, but Egyptian history contains detailed records of the Dynasties going back to 3250BC up to the present and going right through the FLUD without being the least bit disturbed.  

http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~ancient/chron.htm

Oops! Looks like AFDave f*cked up his history again!

Now, let’s look at more evidence for language and culture

Dave references the Akkadian texts (a form of Babylonian and Assyrian cuneiform early writing) which are reliably dated to 2800 BC, again before the FLUD.  Then, Dave refers to Chinese culture, which has a detailed, continuously documented history dating back to over 3000 BC.  Somehow this Chinese civilization also went right through the FLUD without being the least bit disturbed.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshan_culture

Oops! Looks like AFDave f*cked up his history yet again!

Now note that the Chinese language and Babylonian languages are completely different from one another, even in this ‘pre-FLUD’ time frame.  But according to Dave there was only ONE universal language until the Tower of Babel at 2200BC.

Oops! Looks like AFDave f*cked up his story one more time!

I could keep pointing out AFDave’s stupidity for days, but frankly it gets pretty boring.  Anyone else want to take a shot at exposing AFDave’s lies and ignorance?  It’s not hard to do.

Date: 2006/06/22 13:20:01, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA and Deadman raise a good point.  I am not dogmatic about the 4004 BC date for Creation.  I understand that there may be some names left out of Biblical genealogical tables and some other issues.  Creation could have been as early as 7000 BC with the Flood somewhere around 5000 BC.  It is obviously very difficult to nail this down with certainty.

Which is exactly why I asked you earlier:  How do you determine dates in a scientific manner independent of the Bible?  I know a dating technique that's accurate to a few percent up to 50,000 years, and has been independently verified by at least six different methods.  Would you like me to explain it to you?
         
Quote
The point of my article is that Genesis is literal, eyewitness history and is proven to be so by 20th century archaeology.

All 20th century archaeology has shown is that many of the places listed in the Bible are actual historical sites.  Only a tard of the first order would conclude that means that every event mentioned in the same book must be literally true.

Holy crap Dave, just how stupid can you be?  If I show you evidence that the Empire State Building really exists, is that also evidence that in 1933 a giant gorilla named King Kong actually climbed the thing and swatted down biplanes??  I think you just established a new 'most idiotic YEC argument to date' benchmark.
         
Quote
I don't think it matters a lot one way or the other.

Of course it matters you f*cktard.  Your whole friggin' argument hinges on the accuracy of your dates for 'creation'.  If you can't establish any dating accuracy, then why can't we accept 6000 BC +/- 4.5 billion years as the creation date?

Your kids must be scared spitless to take you to PTA meetings, lest you open your mouth and embarrass them to death with your rampant tard stupidity.

Date: 2006/06/22 19:44:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Is Antipasto by any chance related to Thordaddy?

The style seems awfully familiar...

Date: 2006/06/23 05:36:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Here is a good summary of the latest thinking on the Mediterranean / Black Sea Flood hypothesis (circa 2002).  It doesn't look very promising.

The article was written by Glenn Morton, the ex-YEC geologist who used to work for ICR until be got disgusted with their dishonesty.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm

Date: 2006/06/23 06:34:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I know.  Carbon 14.  But we have already talked about how it is based upon assumptions which do not take the Flood into account.  This is a big problem for the method and must be remedied.  As for your 6 lines, my guess is that they have similar problems.  We shall see!


AFDave, please clarify your arguments against C14 dating for me

You claim C14 is not reliable for dates before the Flood, but is OK for dates after the Flood.  Is that correct?

You claim the ratio of C14/C12 was from 100X to 500X lower before the Flood than after, but you don’t know precisely much lower.  Is that correct?

You claim the decay rate from C14->C12 was substantially faster before the Flood than after, but you don’t know how much faster.  Is that correct?

Date: 2006/06/23 06:52:30, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I have an interesting observation about respect.  Would a crowd of teeny-boppers at a rock concert have respect for Pavarotti if he showed up and sang "O Solo Mio" at their rock concert?  No.  Is it because Pavarotti is not respectable?  No.  It is because of the audience.  Same thing here, Rilke.  Now you can legitimately ask why Pavarotti would do such a thing.  And you can legitimately ask why AFDave would show up in front of this crowd.  But we have been have over that already.


So AFDave sees himself as a scientific Pavarotti, singing his technical arias in front of us scientifically illiterate bumpkins who just can't appreciate his genius.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

You owe me a can of monitor cleaner for that one Dave. :p

Hey Dave, explain to me again how if a book mentions an actual real-world place, that means that every event described in the book is literally true.   ;)

Date: 2006/06/23 12:17:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA: Hey Dave, explain to me again how if a book mentions an actual real-world place, that means that every event described in the book is literally true.

   
Quote
AFDave: Didn't say that.  I just said that no one has shown me an error yet, so why should I believe the book is false?  Maybe you could be the first and make a name for yourself.

You're lying again Dave.  Here are your exact words:

 
Quote (Posted by AFDAve @ June 22 2006,16:48)
The point of my article is that Genesis is literal, eyewitness history and is proven to be so by 20th century archaeology.

Why you feel compelled to lie about it we can only speculate, but you did indeed say it.

Now tell me how having Biblical sites excavated by 20th century archaeologists proves that the events in Genesis are literal.

Date: 2006/06/23 19:51:09, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA: Now tell me how having Biblical sites excavated by 20th century archaeologists proves that the events in Genesis are literal.

Quote
AFDave: 1) The received tradition prior to Astruc was that Genesis was a literal,eyewitness historical record.

Tradition for who Dave?  Certainly not for the scientific community.  Oral or even written ‘traditions’ are just worthless folklore unless you can back them up with hard evidence.
Quote
2) Some goofy scholars came up with the Documentary Hypothesis and sold it to academia.  They believed it for at least a hundred years.  Many still do.
3) 20th Century archaeology showed just how goofy these scholars were.
4) So now we are back to the pre-Astruc postion of Genesis being a literal,eyewitness, historical record.

No Dave, the scientific community is not ‘back’ since it was never there in the first place.  You’re lying again.
Quote
5) There has never been an archaeological find which controverted a Biblical statement.  Archaeology has always confirmed the Bible.

Pure unadulterated bullshit Dave. Myself and others have given you dozens of examples of archaeological finds that directly contradict your 7000 YO age of the Earth claim.  We could provide thousands more if we had to.  The fact is that you continue to lie about the evidence because you’re too much of a scumbag to deal with it honestly.  

Want to prove me wrong?  Then let’s discuss the dating of the Catal Huyuk settlement and the multiple independent ways that C14 dates are confirmed NOW.  Do you have the ‘nads? Or will you avoid discussion and show everyone again what a cowardly liar you are?
Quote
6) There are plenty of things for which we have not found archaeological confirmation, however, why should we doubt the things we have not yet confirmed when the record has been perfect so far?

Because that’s not how science works you moron.  You want to make fantastic claims?  Then provide your own positive evidence. Things aren’t assumed ‘true’ until proven false.  Folklore events are assumed to be merely folklore until you provide positive evidence for the occurrence.

Now try again DaveTard2.  List the positive evidence found by archaeologists that prove a literal creation of the Earth less than 7000 YBP, a literal creation of all living things at the same time, and a worldwide cataclysmic flood that killed almost every living thing and moved the continents tens of thousands of miles less than 5000 YBP.

You have been asked multiple times how to scientifically and  independently confirm the Biblical dates you keep throwing around without referencing the Bible.  You have yet to answer. How does a YEC archaeologist date a settlement in South America, or Australia, or somewhere not mentioned in the Bible?

It that such a hard question that you can’t even come up with a good lie?  How very unAFDavelike.

Date: 2006/06/24 14:11:40, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
As predicted, another day is here and a now sobered up QFDave begins his daily lying regimen.
         
Quote
OA: Tradition for who Dave?  Certainly not for the scientific community.  

         
Quote
QFDave: Oh yes.  The science community.  Most of them were Biblical literalists and most of them were creationists.  Did you forget that small detail?

Maybe 200 years ago, but certainly not now.  Did you forget that small detail?  Science has come a long way since then Dave. Maybe you should learn a little bit of it.
         
Quote
OA: Oral or even written traditions are just worthless folklore unless you can back them up with hard evidence.

         
Quote
QFDave: What are you talking about?  Did you not read my lost post on page 82?  How much more hard evidence do you need?  Do you want me to take you personally over to the British Museum and let you touch this stuff?

Sure Dave, and I'll show you a manuscript for King Kong that proves giant gorillas climbing buildings in NYC are real.  A stone tablet inscribed with folklore is still just folklore you moron, unless you provide positive evidence for the events described on the tablet.
         
Quote
OA: No Dave, the scientific community is not 'back' since it was never there in the first place.

         
Quote
QFDave: Yes, you're probably right.  Why not hang onto the Documentary Hypothesis Myth in addition to the Darwinian Myth?  If we are into mythology, why not go all the way?

Sorry Dave, the scientific community only works with positive evidence.  That thing you are 100% lacking.  Hence, your need to lie and try to prop up your stories.
         
Quote
OA: Pure unadulterated bullshit Dave. Myself and others have given you dozens of examples of archaeological finds that directly contradict your 7000 YO age of the Earth claim

         
Quote
QFDave: No.  Actually you have not given me a single one.

Now you're flat out lying again Dave.  What about the 9000 YO settlement at Catal Huyuk?  What about the 28,000 YO cave art at Lascaux?  You were directly challenged to discuss and analyze the dating of these things, but you ran like a coward  again when faced with the prospect of actual scientific evidence.

Every artifact older than 7000 YO directly contradicts your literal Bible views Dave, and there are millions of them.
         
Quote
QFDave: Some people have said things like "You cannot find any trace of Solomon's kingdom" or "You can't find any evidence of the Exodus plagues"  ... Fine.  That's a big difference.  What I said is the "No archaeological find has ever controverted a Biblical statement."  I did not say that we have archaeological support for every Biblical statement.  That's impossible.  We're never going to find an artifact that supports every Biblical statement.  But we've found plenty.  And not a single one has been in disagreement with a Biblical statement.

Lies, lies, and more lies from Missionary Dave.  What Science really says is "You haven't provide any evidence that the Earth is only 7000 YO." Or "You haven't provide any evidence that the entire Earth surface was covered for a year by a global that killed almost all life only 5000 YO." AND YOU HAVEN'T Dave, because such evidence DOESN'T EXIST. Science also provides millions of pieces of evidence that shows those two events didn't happen the way your literal Bible claims.  That data DOES EXIST and you were provided with plenty.   That you choose to be a lying, willfully ignorant dumbshit is your problem Davie Dear, not Science's.
         
Quote
QFDave: I already debunked your C14 dating ... I'm not going to waste time explaining it to you again.

Lying must come as naturally to you as farting, doesn't it Gaseous Dave.  You have yet to address my basic question about the six independent methods that are used to accurately calibrate radiocarbon dating.  You can't explain why we have a continuous dendrochronology record extending back 11000 years.  You can't explain why we have a continuous lake varve record extending back 29000 years.  You can't explain why we have a continuous ice core sample record extending back over 100,000 years.   You can't explain why all these phenomenon extend well past 7000 years ago.  And best of all, you can't explain why to within a few percent dates for all these phenomenon agree with the C14 results.
         
Quote
OA: How does a YEC archaeologist date a settlement in South America, or Australia, or somewhere not mentioned in the Bible?

         
Quote
QFDave: I don't know any necessarily YEC archaeologists.  The great archaeologists I mentioned on p. 82 are the only ones I am concerned with.  I actually don't know how they arrived at the 5500 ya date for the beginning of civilization in Mesopotamia, and later dates for Egypt, China and all other civilizations, but I like it, I know that.  It agrees with my worldview and contradicts yours.  Pretty slick, I'd say, eh?

You know of an ex-YEC geologist, Glenn Morton, who used to work for ICR but got disgusted with their lies and became an OEC.  You know he changed his views when saw the actuall, physical, old Earth evidence for himself.  Glenn's a real embarrassment for you isn't he, since you still use ICR as one of your primary information sources, right?  That's why you refuse to discuss his evidence and experiences.

And guess what Dumbass Lying Dave - all those dates you are so cock-proud of were actually confirmed via C14 radiocarbon dating.  So either you accept the C14 results as valid and be a hypocrite, or you throw them out and are left with NO way to date ANY historical find.  Real 'sciency' approach there Davie Dumbass.

Are you going to teach your kids to be lying, thieving Missionaries like you and your Daddy were?  Keep that family tradition of 'Lying for Jesus' going?

Date: 2006/06/24 18:47:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote

If I'm right, that wouldn't make him a liar. It would make him deeply delusional, but that's a different thing.


AirFarceDave could be insane.  Or he could just be a tard.  But my money's on purposeful and willful liar.

Date: 2006/06/25 05:18:30, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDavie the Dumbass writes
   
Quote
All the cultures you mention beyond 5,500 YA are not dated with written records.  It's all C14 or some other equivocal method like dendrochronology.  Here is the real story on Dendrochronolgy written by plant physiologist Dr. Don Batten - a guy with no long age pre-conceived fairy tale notions.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp  As usual, evolutionists are trying to twist a dating method with certain assumptions to fit their beloved viewpoint of gradualist human evolution.  They just HAVE to have some "scientific" method of validating their ideas of a 200,000 year history of mankind.  So they take a perfectly good method of dating LIVE trees, add some goofy assumptions that no one would ever make unless they were trying to justify long ages, and PRESTO!  Pseudo-Dendrochronolgy!  See?  Look at all these artifacts that are 10,000-30,000 years old!  See?  This provides a wonderful cross-check of C14 dating (never mind that BOTH of them are flawed, wink, wink).


Hey Davie Dumbass, remember way back when we first started talking about radiocarbon dating and I posted this?

   
Quote (OA: June 10 2006 @ 00:07)
Radiocarbon dating is an extremely well known and well researched branch of science.  It is one of the backbones of archaeology, especially paleoarchaeology.  The scientist who pioneered it, Willard Frank Libby, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960 for his work.  Today there are over 130 labs worldwide providing radiocarbon dating services, doing millions of dollars in business.  The science even has its own peer-reviewed journal, Radiocarbon, to keep up on the latest developments.

C14 dating does have limitations, but these are understood and accounted for. It is well known that the level of C14 in the atmosphere can vary due to external factors – cosmic ray level due to solar activity, climate change that disrupts the carbon flow between the ocean / organic matter into the atmosphere.  It is also know that the C14 level in individual samples can vary due to external factor such as sample contamination.  That is why radiocarbon dating has been subjected to rigorous multiple independent calibration methods.  These methods include denrochronology (tree-ring dating), ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, and speleothems (cave deposits).  All these methods combined have provided calibration curves accurate to +/- a few percent for dates up to 60,000 years old. Go do your homework now Davie Girl, because we will be addressing all of these methods in detail.

See, you’re got a really tough job ahead Washout

You can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 ratios being 100x different
You can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 decay rate being not constant
You can lie about trees growing 10-20 rings a year instead of 1
You can lie about all the ice core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
You can lie about all the ocean core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
You can lie about all the lake varve samples being off by greater than a factor of 10.
You can lie about all the cave deposits being off by greater than a factor of 10.

But what is really going to tax your lying circuits is explaining how all the above methods are wrong due to completely different causes but still all give dating results that agree precisely with each other.


I did that because I knew you would, when pressed, just C&P the same old tired bullshit from AIG or ICR.  Sure called that one right, didn't I?  ;)

You, Davie Dumbass, still have the same problem.  Claiming each individual method is wrong still doesn't help you, moron.  You still need to explain why all the independent calibration methods give dates that all agree precisely with each other.

You can't begin to address that one Davie dear, because it would require you to

1. have an original thought
2. post an honest response for the first time in your lying life.

So here you stand again Davie, pants around your ankles, looking foolish.  Another day, another episode of the AFDave the Clown show.

Date: 2006/06/25 05:41:09, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDavie the Dumbass also claims
 
Quote
I am saying that the Book of Genesis is a Compilation of written, eyewitness history.  It is composed of the material from 11 tablets, edited by Moses ca. 1400 BC.  The tablets themselves vary in age, the oldest being the first two dated at least at 3200BC (latest date for Adam in old age), the later tablets being dated near the end of the lives of the patriarchs named at the end of each tablet.  So the tablets thus compiled by Moses represent the oldest written records.  Much older that the Gilgamesh epic.  Examination of the two makes it clear as well that the Gilgamesh Epic was copied from these older records, not vice-versa.  The Gilgamesh Epic is quite irrational and full of gross polytheism, which is proven to have developed AFTER the original mono-theism.


So what part of "folklore written on a stone table is still just folklore unless you can come up with some positive evidence that the events described actually took place"  don't you understand?

 
Quote
Nope.  You are the one way off on your dates.  See above.


For the fifth time Davie:

How do you independently date archaeological finds like your tablets above without using the Bible as a self-reference?

Date: 2006/06/27 16:53:49, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Wow.  I take a few days off, and I come back to this whiny batch of excuses from AirPussDave

     
Quote (AirPussDave June 26 2006 @ 10:45)
Now I don't expect you to agree with me.  I expect you will continue to believe in your fairy tale world of apes that become human and bacteria that become jellyfish over millions and millions of years.  This is far more comfortable because well ... "everyone who is anyone believes this" and "who wants to believe some goofy Jewish book written by some Bronze age tribesmen?" and "I don't want some piss-ant 'god' telling me how to run my life" and "Carbon 14 proves long ages and so does dendrochronology and it's calibrated six ways from Sunday!"  and "look at radiometric dating" ... "how could anyone not agree with that??!!" blah, blah, blah, blah ...


Yeah PussDave, all that sciencey evidence stuff is just “blah, blah, blah, blah ...” to your ignorant teeny pea-brain, isn’t it?  Guess I was right in predicting you wouldn’t have the balls to even attempt to answer the challenges.

It’s nice for all the lurkers to see how you deal with real evidence and technical details that refute your lies your lies, Davie.  Cry like a little girl, piss your pants, then try to change the topic.

AFDave admits he has no explanation for all the various independent methods that accurately calibrate C14 dating.
AFDave admits he has no explanation for all the various independent methods of dating that show an Earth much older than 10,000 years.
AFDave admits he has no explanation for all the copious archaeological evidence that directly contradicts his literal Bible hypothesis.

       
Quote
So ... since none of you will buy into any of this good evidence no matter how long I spend on it, tomorrow we will move on to the Flood.  That should be fun as well !!


Well PussDave since the time you spent actually dealing with the contradictory evidence is exactly ZERO, what should the lurkers expect?

Looks like you’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture once again, and once again had your cowardly ass kicked up one side of the thread and down the other.  Pull your pants up from around your ankles Dave, it’s embarrassing.

Intelligent, educated segment of the culture gets the win.  AirPussDave gets his 937th consecutive loss

Date: 2006/06/29 13:36:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AirPussDave's list of what he needs to see
     
Quote
1) Written historical records back to 100,000 or so BC instead of 5500 BC

You were given conclusive evidence that human culture dates back far older than just writing.  You were shown art, and musical instruments, and settlements that date back well over 10,000 years ago; as far as 50,000 years in some cases.

You were shown how the dating methods were calibrated by six independent methods that all corroborate one another.

You're still too much of a cowardly, dishonest turd to even discuss the accuracy of the dating methods.
     
Quote
2) Lots more 'humanoid' fossils than we have now and lots less equivocal ones

The fossil record is expected to be sparse, and the humanoid fossils we do have are equivocal only to an untrained ignoramus like yourself.
     
Quote
3) Existing 'sub-human' cultures found in various parts of the world.

Chimps, Bonobos, and Gorillas do have their own 'culture'.  What you fantasize their culture 'should be' has no bearing on scientific reality.
     
Quote
4) Evidence for a Super-Homo-Sapiens race such as the one Hitler thought he had.

WTF does this have to do with the ToE?
     
Quote
5) A true transitional nature of the fossil record -- it is woefully lacking in transitional forms

You were given a detailed overview of the recent Tiktaalik fossil find as one of many examples, but you were too stupid and ignorant to appreciate it.
     
Quote
6) Demonstrated macroevolution in the lab -- like the creation of some Super Fruit flies or something.

Speciation, which is the definition of 'macroevolution', has been demonstrated both in the lab and in the wild (cichlid fishes, various 'ring species', etc.).  You have already been provided with numerous examples.
     
Quote
7) Observation that mankind behaves just like an animal, nothing more.

Humans are animals you nitwit.  Of course we behave like other animals, and vice versa.
     
Quote
8) Archaeological finds contradicting the Bible

You were presented with dozens of examples of archaeological finds that contradict your literal 6000YO Genesis interpretation of the Bible.  You're too intellectually dishonest to deal with them.
     
Quote
There's just a few for you ...

Well, we kept our end of the bargain Dave - we fulfilled most of the requirements on your list. Are you ready to keep your word and give up your literal Genesis claims yet?

Date: 2006/06/29 14:56:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey AFDave, I have a question about written testimony vs. empirical evidence. It’s aviation related, so you should be able to answer.

Back in Oct. 1999, an EgyptAir Boeing 767 carrying 217 passengers and crew crashed into the Atlantic off Nantucket Island, killing all on board.  

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-02/21/article02.shtml

The Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder were both recovered, and an NTSB accident investigation was begun.  According to the FDR, the co-pilot of the aircraft deliberately shut off the engines and put the plane into a near vertical dive which overstressed the airframe and caused the plane to break up in mid-air.  The VCR showed that minutes before the dive the pilot had left the cockpit to hit the head, leaving the co-pilot alone in command.  The VCR also caught the sounds of the pilot leaving, the co-pilot shutting the door from the inside and saying out loud (in Arabic) “I put my trust in God” several times before doing the -3g nose over.  A possible motive for a potential suicide was also found.  The co-pilot had just been told he was being removed from his normal cross-Atlantic route (with a big drop in pay) due to allegations of sexual misconduct, and the EgyptAir Exec who had demoted him was on the plane as a passenger.  Every flight control system on a 767 was thoroughly gone over, and no failure mechanism for the FDR results save deliberate pilot action could be identified.

The NTSB concluded that the co-pilot had committed suicide, and took everyone on the plane with him.

The Egyptian government and Egyptian Pilots Union vehemently denied that any of their pilots would do that, as suicide is repugnant to their Islamic culture.  They instead produced written, eyewitness testimony from the co-pilot’s family and friends that said he was a normal, upbeat guy with no suicidal tendencies.  They also claimed a 'different interpretation' of the FDR and VCR data, but couldn't show why it was different except that it went against their religious preconceptions.

OK Dave, you’re with the NTSB.  Do you accept the written history from the family over the empirical data from the FDR and VCR?  Why or why not?

Date: 2006/06/30 18:54:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AirPussDave fibs again with
     
Quote
Aftershave wants to equate FDR/VCR testimony with Carbon 14 dating ...

You're lying again Dave.  Perhaps you can show me where in the FDR/VCR post I mentioned C14 dating.  Could it be you have a guilty conscience for avoiding all discussion of C14 evidence so far?

The whole point of that particular post was to show your blatant hypocrisy, and you didn’t disappoint.  When it comes to the Bible, you claim written records supercede physical evidence.  When it comes to anything else, you claim that physical evidence supercedes written testimony.   You said you accept the FDR/VCR data over the written testimony, but you never said why.

That makes you a flaming hypocrite Dave.

But now that you brought up C14 dating again, are you ever going to be honest enough to discuss the actual techniques?  Are you ready yet to discuss the many different independent ways that C14 dating is confirmed to be accurate?  In many ways, C14 dating and FDR/VCR results are quite similar.  Both use sophisticated scientific instruments to measure and record known physical phenomena.  Accuracy in both is critical, so both have been thoroughly tested and calibrated to a high level of precision.

Give me a good reason why you accept the science and reliability of results from one but not the other.

On some level, you have to know you’re just lying to yourself Dave.  Not even the biggest Fundy retard in the world can perpetually deny the never ending stream of evidence that you’ve been shown.  You strut and crow here at ATBC, but you have to know when you look in the mirror that the only one you’re fooling is yourself.

Date: 2006/07/01 05:47:36, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Another day, another batch of AirPussDave’s  dishonesty

Quote
When you can ask a smart question, I'll answer it.  Until then, don't bother asking ... you're wasting my time.


OK Dave, here’s a couple of smart questions.  I’ve asked them of you many times before, but you just won’t provide an answer.

In many ways, C14 dating and FDR/VCR results are quite similar.  Both use sophisticated scientific instruments to measure and record known physical phenomena.  Accuracy in both is critical, so both have been thoroughly tested and calibrated to a high level of precision.

Give me a good reason why you accept the science and reliability of results from the FDR/CVR but not the C14 dating.

Now given your track record, you’ll probably use your same excuse “the C14 dates are based on bad assumptions – the C14/C12 ratio was 100X higher before the FLUD”.  Right?

Never mind that you have no evidence for this goofy-assed claim whatsoever.  The important point is that the whatever the C14/C12 ratios were, they are accounted for in the calibration.

Did you get that retard?  If the C14/C12 ratios were vastly different at some time in the past, the independent calibration methods would all show a huge spike at the same dates but they don’t.

The independent calibration curves do all show fluctuations up to +/-5% in the C14/C12 ratio at earlier times – these fluctuations have been measured and produce what are known as  ‘wiggle’ in the calibration curves.  Statistical ‘wiggle matching’ is then done to produce calibration curves as accurate as possible.  

Here is the link again to 41 separate, independent C14 calibration curves derived from at least six completely different methods

http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalCurveBuildFiles.htm

Why do all the independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other, but none of them show your claimed 100X C14/C12 ratio?

You really get irritated when you realize you’ve been lying to yourself, don’t you Dave? The rest of us can see it plain as day.  Your cognitive dissonance kicks in, and you get hostile and abusive.  It must really suck being you – knowing that you must keep lying to defend your position, and realizing that lying will get you a one-way ticket straight to he11.  No wonder your brain short circuits.

Date: 2006/07/01 06:40:58, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave July 01 2006 @ 11:26)
So why do you care about getting so specific?  

And why should I care?


Because science cares about the details Dave - that's how science works.  It's been proven a hundred times over - the surest way to get a creationist to run screaming from the room is to press him on the scientific details of his claims.

That's why you're too much of a chickenshit to discuss any of the tons of detailed evidence that's been presented to you.  You really do seem to think "the Devil is in the details" so you avoid them like the plague - is that it?

How's your cognitive dissonance doing today?  Have you thrown anything across the room in your anger and despair yet?  Kicked your dog?

Date: 2006/07/02 08:59:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
carlsonjok says to AFDave

 
Quote
Excellent. There is quite a few layers there, so it helps that we understand that you feel the majority were laid down by the flood. Of course, it would be better if you defined what you meant by "majority".  So, can you answer which specific layers you thought were laid down by the flood and which were indigenous.  Words like majority are not very precise.  And since we are talking science here, precision is important.  After all using words like "majority" can allow either of us to shift the goalposts and weasel out.  And I am sure, now that you have me on the ropes, you don't want to give me an out.  


AFDave, Carlsonjok makes the same excellent point once again that we've been hammering you with since day one.  Science deals with the precise details of the evidence, not the 'so broad as to be meaningless' claims that you make.

You say “C14 dating is wrong because of bad assumptions”, but you will never deal with the details of the precise and independent calibration procedures used to verify the accuracy.

You say “Your dating of the Catal Huyuk is wrong since it is based on your flawed Pseudo-Dendrochronology.”  But you can’t give any details as to exactly where the dendrochronology record for that part of Turkey is wrong, and you can’t explain why the C14 dating and the dendrochronology dating agree with one another.

You say “It is perfectly plausible for an animal to make footprints in mud, then the footprints got covered up with a new layer of mud.’ But the details of the way that fossil footprints are made is 1) animal steps in mud or ash 2). Mud or ash dries out and hardens 3) Dried layer with footprint is later covered with additional layer of soil or ash.  Now Dave, do you want to tell us how the original footprints in the coconino sandstone managed to dry out with 40 days and 40 nights of torrential falling on them?

You say ‘the FLUD created the grand canyon’ but you can’t explain at all how all that water managed to created the steep sides and meanders in the canyon like this


or this


or tell us why the whole state of Colorado is not one big canyon instead of just one section.

And how about the order of plant and animal fossils found in the layers?  If all the life was killed simultaneously, why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) only 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?

Details Dave, scientific details.  They make creationists run like cockroaches when the kitchen light’s turned on.  Just like you’re scurrying for cover now.

Bet that cognitive dissonance throbbing in your head keep getting worse and worse, doesn’t it Davie?  Lying to yourself will do that to you, ya know.  It’s not too late to start being honest – look at Glenn Morton’s example of an honest Christian.

Date: 2006/07/02 11:30:58, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Oh, come one, Aftershave.  Why don't you read some books before you throw something at me?

Morris and Whitcomb addressed "incised meanders" way back in 1961 ...

I'll hold your hand, though, and take you through it :-)


Oh please Pavarotti, do take me through it in detail :)

Then, you can take me through your detailed explanation for the independent methods that calibrate C14 dating

Then, you can take me through the detailed steps of where exactly the Turkish dendrochronology studies are in error.

Then, you can take me through the detailed steps in fossilized footprint formation.

Then, you can take me through the detailed steps in how certain fossilized animals are only found in specific layers, while other fossilized animals are found only in different specific layers,

Details Dave, you just can't deal with the details.  That's why you'll always look like a bumbling ignoramus  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/07/04 10:54:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Well, looks like AFDave’s mouth wrote another check his YEC evidence can’t cash

Dave promised to walk us through the details of the formation of the Colorado River incised meanders.  Instead, we get this

         
Quote
2) "Much study has been devoted to the subject of the mechanics of meandering rivers, since it inbolbes engineering problems of considerable importance.  In particular, extensive model tests have demonstrated that the phenomenon of meandering is associated only with non-resistant banks." [***** Did you hear that?  NON-RESISTANT BANKS *****] (Joseph F. Friedkin: [i]"A Laboratory Study of the Meanderings of Alluvial Rivers," Vicksburg, U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Mississippi River Commission, 1945.) (Quoted in TGF, p.154)  

Bottom line here:  DEEP CUT MEANDERS = SOFT RIVER BEDS = GLOBAL FLOOD RUNOFF.  You simply don't get this type of incised meanders in solid rock eroded over millions of years.  Sorry!  Long Agers lose!


Which is a paper about the original formation and migration rate of meanders on a shallow flood plane, in this case the Mississippi delta.  It says nothing about incised meanders, especially mile deep ones like are found in the Grand Canyon.

You didn’t investigate the formation of incised meanders at all Dave, did you?  You just mindlessly C&P’d your YEC bullshit just like always.
         
Quote
Incised meander. A continuous flow of water over rock, e.g., a stream or river, will erode its path into that rock. If the rock is highly sloped, the water will generally cut a fairly straight channel down the slope. However, if the rock is level, the water will snake its way around any slight bump in the terrain. This frequently leads to the water course making wide, curling loops that almost, but not quite, double back on themselves. Such a loop is called a meander. The point where the water course almost closes the loop is called the neck of the meander. If there is uplift in the area, the water will tend to erode its path into the rock to remain at a constant elevation as the rock around it rises. If the uplift is rapid, shear-walled cliffs may form along the banks of the water course. In this way, meanders can become deeply incised into rock. For many such incised meanders, the neck will become a tall, thin wall of rock. Other processes of erosion can then create an opening through the wall to form a natural arch.

source

Do some reading on the formation of incised meanders, Dave.  There’s plenty of good geological data readily available on the web.

Then walk us through in detail

How a one year rapid run off formed a mile deep incised meander through layers of solid rock that predates even your Biblical flood “layer” model.

More importantly, tell us where all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’, water that covered every square foot of dry land surface, ran off to.

Where did the water go Dave??

If you did the slightest bit of research on the details of this stuff before shooting your big mouth off, you wouldn’t look like so much of an ignorant ass all the time, ya know?

Oh, and before I forget, you posted this Dave
   
Quote
And Aftershave ... I still think that Carbon 14 Dating is much different than Flight Data Recording and Videotaping.  How about you?


I already told you twice, but here it is again:

In many ways, C14 dating and FDR/VCR results are quite similar.  Both use sophisticated scientific instruments to measure and record known physical phenomena.  Accuracy in both is critical, so both have been thoroughly tested and calibrated to a high level of precision.

Now why won't you answer these simple questions which I have asked you repeatedly?

Give me a good reason why you accept the science and reliability of results from the FDR/CVR but not the C14 dating.

Why do all the independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other, but none of them show your claimed 100X C14/C12 ratio?

Date: 2006/07/04 19:41:10, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave, here is a closer look at the details of various rock layers that are exposed in the Grand Canyon.  Details, Dave – you know, those pesky things that make you and your fellow YECs shit your pants?



           
Quote
Paleozoic Strata
Kaibab Limestone - This layer averages about 250 million years old and forms the surface of the Kaibab and Coconino Plateaus. It is composed primarily of a sandy limestone with a layer of sandstone below it. In some places sandstone and shale also exists as its upper layer. The color ranges from cream to a greyish-white. When viewed from the rim this layer resembles a bathtub ring and is commonly referred to as the Canyon's bathtub ring. Fossils that can be found in this layer are brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth.
Toroweap Formation - This layer averages about 255 million years old and is composed of pretty much the same material as the Kaibab Limestone above. It is darker in color, ranging from yellow to grey, and contains a similar fossil history.
Coconino Sandstone - This layer averages about 260 million years old and is composed of pure quartz sand, which are basically petrified sand dunes. Wedge-shaped cross bedding can be seen where traverse-type dunes have been petrified. The color of this layer ranges from white to cream colored. No skeletal fossils have yet to be found but numerous invertebrate tracks and fossilized burrows do exist.
Hermit Shale - This layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of the Canyon. Many of these blocks end up in the side drainages and down on the Tonto Platform. The color of this layer is a deep, rust-colored red. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians.
Supai Formation - This layer averages about 285 million years old and is composed primarily of shale that is intermixed with some small amounts of limestone and capped by sandstone. The limestone features become more and more prominent in the western regions of the Canyon, leading one to believe that that region was more marine. The eastern portions where probably a muddy river delta that fed into an ancient sea. The color of this layer varies from red for the shale to tan for the sandstone caps. Numerous fossils of amphibians, reptiles and terrestial plants exist in the eastern portion which are replaced by marine fossils as you move westward.
Redwall Limestone - This layer averages about 335 million years old and is composed of marine limestones and dolomites. This is probably the most prominent rock layer in the Canyon as it usually forms a sheer cliff ranging from 400-500 feet in height, which has become a natural barrier between the upper and lower regions of the Canyon. The only way though this barrier is in areas where the rock has faulted and broken apart to form a slope which can be climbed upon. The deep reddish color of this layer is caused by iron oxides leaching out of the layers above it and staining its outward face. Behind the reddish face the rock is a dark brownish color. Numerous marine fossils can be found in the Redwall Limestone including brachiopods, clams, snails, corals, fish and trilobites. Many caves and arches can also be seen in the Redwall.
Temple Butte Limestone - This layer averages about 350 million years old and is composed of freshwater limestone in the east and dolomite in the west. In the eastern Grand Canyon this layer occurs irregularly and only then by way of limestone lenses that fill stream beds that have been eroded into the underlaying Mauv Limestone. Apart from these channels, which are quite large in places, the Redwall Limestone sits directly atop the Mauv Limestone. The Temple Butte Limestone is quite prominent, however, in the western regions and forms massive cliffs hundreds of feet high. The color of this layer ranges from purplish in the eastern regions to grey or cream colored in the west. The only fossils to be found in the eastern region are bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. In the western region there are numerous marine fossils.
Tonto Group - These layers average about 515 to 545 million years old.
- Muav Limestone - This layer averages about 515 million years old and is composed primarily of limestone that is separated by beds of sandstone and shale. The Mauv Limestone layer is much thicker in the western areas of the Canyon than it is in the east. Its color is grey and it does not have much in the way of fossils, some trilobites and brachiopods.
- Bright Angel Shale - This layer averages about 530 million years old and is composed primarily of mudstone shale. It is also interbedded with small sections of sandstone and sandy limestone. The retreat of the Canyon rim is attributed primarily to the erosion of this layer which forms the top of the Tonto Platform. The plateau is much wider in the eastern portions of the Canyon where the Bright Angel Shale contains less sand and is more easily eroded. The color of this layer varies with its compostion but it is mostly various shades of green with some grey, brown and tan thrown in here and there. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of marine animals such as trilobites and brachiopods.
- Tapeats Sandstone - This layer averages about 545 million years old and is composed of medium-grained and coarse-grained sandstone. Ripple marks formed by ocean waves of an early Cambrian sea are common in the upper layer. The Tapeats is similar to the Redwall in that it forms a barrier between upper and lower reaches of the Canyon that can only be traversed where a fault has caused its collapse. The color of this layer is dark brown and it contains fossils of trilobites. brachiopods, and trilobite trails.

Great Unconformity
- This non-layer indicates an age in which no sediments can be found. It is indicative of a time when an advancing sea eroded away the sediments that should be here.

Late Pre-Cambrian Rocks
Chuar Group - These layers average about 825 to 1,000 million years old and is composed of the following:
- Sixtymile Formation - This tan colored layer is composed primarily of sandstone with some small sections of shale.
- Kwagunt Formation - This layer is composed primarily of shale and mudstone with some limestone. In the area of Carbon Butte the lower layer also contains a large section of reddish sandstone. The shales within this layer are black and the mudstones range from red to purple. Fossils to be found in this layer are those of stromatolites, the oldest fossils to be found anywhere in the Grand Canyon.
- Galeros Formaton - This layer is composed of interbedded sandstone, limestone and shale. The color is primarily greenish with some of the shales ranging from red to purple. Fossil stromatolites also exist in this layer.
Nankoweap Formation - This layer averages about 1,050 million years old and is composed of a coarse-grained sandstone. This layer is exposed only in the eastern section of the Canyon and belongs to neither the Chuar or Unkar groups because it is bounded on both sides by unconformities.
Unkar Group - These layers average about 1,100 to 1,250 million years old.
- Cardenas Lavas - This dark brown layer is composed of basaltic lava flows.
- Dox Sandstone - This layer averages about 1,190 million years old, is composed of sandstone interbedded with shale, and occurs primarily in the eastern regions of the Canyon. Its color varies from red to orange and its fossil record contains stromatolites and algae.
- Shinumo Quartzite - This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed of sandstone. This layer is only exposed in a few sections in the Canyon. Its color can be deep red, brown, purple or white.
- Hakatai Shale - This layer averages about 1,200 million years old and is composed primarily of shale with some sandstone. The color is a very bright orange-red red and is the layer that gives Red Canyon its name.
- Bass Formation - This layer averages about 1,250 million years old and is composed primarily of limestone with some interbedded shale. It is greyish in color and its fossil record consists of stromatolites.

Pre-Cambrian Unconformity
- This non-layer represents a time where the mountains that had grown here were gradually eroded away to form a plain.
Early Pre-Cambrian Rocks
Vishnu Schist and Zoroaster Granite - This layer averages about 1,700 to 2,000 million years old and consists of mica schist. These were originally sediments of sandstone, limestone and shale that were metamorphosed and combined with metamorphosed lava flows to form the schist. This layer along with the Zoroaster Granite were once the roots of an ancient mountain range that could have been as high as todays Rocky Mountains. The mountains were eroded away over a long period of time and new sediments were they deposited over them by advancing and retreating seas. The color of this layer is dark grey or black.


Grand Canyon Rock Layers

Now Dave, according to you, all of the uppermost layers (up to the Great Unconformity) were laid down in the year of the FLOOD, right?

And all of the underlying layers (below the Great Unconformity) were put there in the time between CREATION and the FLOOD, a period of roughly 2000 years, right?

And according to you, the ‘Flood run off’ managed to follow its meandering path AND erode all the way down to the lowest Visnu Schist layer in roughly one year, right?

Please provide your detailed geological explanation for the following:

1) How did the waters of the flood manage to sort materials and create the upper individual layers with each having a very different physical make up – sandstone, limestone, shale, etc.?
2) How did your ‘hydrodynamic sorting’ manage to put brachiopod fossils in the upper layers (Kaibab, Toroweap) and the lower layers (Redwall, Temple Butte, Tonto) but put none in the middle layers (Coconino, Hermit)?
3) How and when did the distinct underlying layers, each with a very different physical make up, get there?
4) How did the ‘Flood run off’ (Colorado River) manage to flow slowly enough to create its many meanders, but still manage to carry the required trillions of tons of sediment away AND cut through all the layers of pre-Flood solid rock in just one year?

Thanks for sharing your understanding by walking us teeny-boppers through such detailed scientific data.

Date: 2006/07/05 10:06:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (afdave July 05 2006 @ 10:23)

OA...                  
Quote
 
1) How did the waters of the flood manage to sort materials and create the upper individual layers with each having a very different physical make up – sandstone, limestone, shale, etc.?
2) How did your ‘hydrodynamic sorting’ manage to put brachiopod fossils in the upper layers (Kaibab, Toroweap) and the lower layers (Redwall, Temple Butte, Tonto) but put none in the middle layers (Coconino, Hermit)?
3) How and when did the distinct underlying layers, each with a very different physical make up, get there?

It was a catastrophic event.  How can one predict where layers and fossils will end up except in a general, statistical way?


No one asked you to predict anything Dave.  You were asked for your YEC explanation for the actual data seen.

What is the YEC proposed mechanism that allows violent swirling flood waters to sort sediment into distinctly different layers?

You posted this on hydrodynamic sorting, and it mentions brachiopods by name:
         
Quote
"It is significant that the organisms found in the lowest strata, such as the trilobites, brachiopods, etc. are very "streamlined" and are quite dense ... of course, these very pronounced "sorting" powers of hydraulic action are really only valid statistically, rather than universally.  Local peculiarities of turbulence, habitat, sediment composition, etc., would be expected to cause local variations in organic assemblages ... But, on the average, the sorting action is quite efficient and would definitely have separated the shells and other fossils in just such a fashion as they are found, with certain fossils predominant in certain horizons, the complexity of such "index fossils" increasing with increasing elevation in the column, in at least a general way." (TGF, p. 274)


What is the YEC explanation for why the hydrodynamic sorting of brachiopods skipped entirely the middle layers of the Grand Canyon?

You also avoided the question entirely about how the many lower level layers were formed.  Typical behavior from you when you have no YEC C&P answer handy but have to think for yourself.

       
Quote
 
OA:4) How did the ‘Flood run off’ (Colorado River) manage to flow slowly enough to create its many meanders,but still manage to carry the required trillions of tons of sediment away AND cut through all the layers of pre-Flood solid rock in just one year?
AFDave: It didn't flow slowly.  It flowed rapidly.  See above.


How rapidly Dave?  The mechanics of meanders is well researched, and the bend radius of the meanders is directly related to the velocity of the flowing water.  Water that is running too fast doesn't create meanders, it creates straight cut channels.  For the Colorado river, the meander bend radius gives a flow rate of <10mph maximum during the early stages of the meander creation.

And what about the time to erode all that soil?  Here is a detailed analysis of the process from your favorite ex-YEC geologist Glenn Morton
       
Quote
Steve Austin presents an argument for the age of the earth in his 1994 book  "Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe" on pages 87-89. Starting with an observed sediments carried by the Colorado River  of 168 million tons per year, he  shows, (correctly) that this represents the erosion .015 cubic miles per year. He then correctly notes that the volume eroded out of the Grand Canyon is approximately 1000 cubic miles.  Dividing the two numbers he incorrectly obtains an age of 67,000 years for the time it would take to erode the Grand Canyon.  Beyond the fact that this is ten times too old to fit into his young-earth scenario, Austin argues that the evolutionists are wrong to believe in millions of years for the canyon to form.

Where does Steve go wrong?  Well, it is in assuming that ALL the sediment carried by the Colorado River comes from the Canyon itself. Without his reader's knowing it, Steve is saying that absolutely no erosion is occurring in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, which, of course, is a bizarre claim to make if one were to make it explicitly.  But by not mentioning this implicit assumption in his calculation, those unfamiliar with the geologic facts will be fooled into thinking Steve has proven a short erosion time for the Grand Canyon.

The Colorado River extends 1450 miles from the mouth to the source in Colorado. Only 500 miles of this length are to be found in the Grand Canyon. The drainage area of the Colorado River is 640,000 square kilometers but the Canyon has an area of only 13,000 square kilometers.  Scott Mclennan (reference below) reports that the Colorado River, prior to the building of the Glen Canyon Dam, carried 121 million tons of sediment each year. This is slightly less than the study cited by Austin so we will use his larger value of 168 million tons per year so that no one can claim we are shopping for values favorable to us.

The drainage area of the Colorado is 640,000 sq. km. and the area of the canyon is only 13,000 sq km. 800 km x 16 km wide = 12,800 sq. km. Thus, on a linear weighting, one can expect that only 2 percent of the sediment actually comes from the canyon, the rest comes from the rest of the area. But let's  be fair to Steve and say that 30 percent of the sediment comes from the canyon. That means that  168,000,000*.3 =50,400,000 tons per year are moved by the river OUT OF THE CANYON AREA with the rest coming from the rest of the drainage basin. To a first approximation there are 1000 kg/ton which means that 50.4 billion kg of material is moved down the river, or given a density of 2500 kg/m, we have 20.1 million cubic meters moving down the river each year. Dividing by the area of the Canyon ( which is 13,000,000,000 square meters) we have a lowering of the Canyon surface by 20.1 x 10^6/1.3 x 10^10= 1.5 x 10^-3 m per year--hardly indicating a young earth. This is about 1.5 mm per year of excavation out of the Canyon.

So how long will it take the canyon to be excavated at this rate?

20.1 million cubic meters sediment per year = .0048 cubic mile sediment/year

1000 cubic miles/ .0048 cubic mile sediment/year = 207,000 years

Only 207,000 years? Yes, but remember, we have favored Steve greatly by allowing 30% of all erosion to occur in 2% of the area and there is NO evidence that this is the case. If one scales the determines the canyon erosion by its proportional area it would take  three million years to erode the canyon, a value much more aligned with the geologic evidence.

But one question arises here. Why do young-earth creationists think that a 67,000 year age (or a 207,000 year age) for the Grand Canyon indicate a young earth?  I have been on this earth less than 100 years. Does my age indicate that the earth is really only 100 years old? Does the silting up of the Colorado River behind the Glen Canyon Dam (a process which has been going on since the dam was close less than 100 years ago) indicate that the earth is only 100 years old or less?  Of course, this is a silly line of logic and would be roundly condemned if stated explicitly. But that is what Steve is doing with his calculation. He is claiming that something which began long after the earth was formed, limits the age of the earth.

And what he doesn't tell people is that there are conclusive evidence of long ages prior to the Canyon's erosion in the sediments of the canyon. This evidence consists of burrows in the sediment (http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/nacofm.html     http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand2.htm, footprints on sedimentary layer after layer (Lockley and Hunt,1995, p. 57), and cave erosion and collapse all occurring prior to the beginning of the canyon erosion. This last evidence is particularly interesting.

The Red-wall limestone contains collapsed caves which collapsed at a time when the entire Grand Canyon area was covered with an additional couple of hundred feet of sediment.  When the cave collapsed the sediment above it fell into the cave void, filling it. This is what happens in Florida with a sink hole--a cave below the surface collapsed and whatever was above the collapse falls into the hole. At the Grand Canyon  Wenrich and Huntoon (1989, p. 212) write of these pipes which occur at a rate of 6 per square mile:

    "The breccia pipes formed as sedimentary strata collapsed into dissolution caverns in the underlying Mississippian Redwall Limestone.  Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic strata, involving units as high as the Triassic Chinle Formation."  

The Chinle is a Triassic bed which lies above the Moenkopi which in turn lies above the Triassic Shinarump. Just north of the Canyon the Shinarump and Moenkopi are 1900 feet thick. Thus it is possible that when the caves collapsed, the Grand Canyon was covered with as much as an additional 2000 feet of sediment which was nearly totally removed. There is a small remnant of it on the SE side of the Canyon at Cedar Mountain. Assuming that  we removed this covering layer at the same rate as the Colorado River today removes sediment how long would it take? The Triassic strata has been removed over at least 20,000 square kilometers and was at least 2000 feet thick. This means that nearly 3000 cubic miles of sediment have been removed BEFORE THE CANYON EROSION BEGAN. Using the 2 percent rule we last used above, 3000/.0048 = at least 625,000 years of erosion. Of course, Steve never tells anyone about that erosional event.

It takes time for the sediment to be deposited, burrows be dug, more sediment be deposited more burrows and animal tracks to be made and then for  caves to erode in solid rock and then to collapse and then for the Triassic strata to be almost completely eroded from the Canyon area AND ONLY THEN does the Canyon erosion begin.

One general comment, if Steve admits that it takes several tens of thousands of years to dig out the canyon (by his own calculation) he must then allow for other buried canyons which are found on seismic data.

Thus the age of the entire canyon sequence must be older than the length of time it takes to erode the canyon. Of course, the young-earthers can't accept this evidence. It is a shame that Christian apologetics relies on such sloppy logic to support a young-earth.

References

Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research, 1994)

M. Lockley and Adrian P. Hunt, Dinosaur Tracks, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995),

Scott M. Mclennan "Weathering and Global Denudation", Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296

Karen J. Wenrich and Peter W. Huntoon, "Breccia Pipes and Associated mineralization in the Grand Canyon Region, Northern Arizona," Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th Int. Geol. Congress, Field Trip Guide Book, (Washington: AGU, 1989), p. 212


Grand Canyon Erosion

So you're f*cked once again Dave.  A flow fast enough to remove all that sediment doesn't create meanders. Too slow of a flow, you can't remove near enough sediment in your YEC time frame.  And a varying flow doesn't work either.  If the whole mile high area was all soft mud as you claim, increasing the flow rate after the meander was started would just blast through the mud and remove the meanders.

Date: 2006/07/05 13:16:20, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
After watching AFDave give yet another textbook demonstration of cognitive dissonance, I thought I’d share this with the crew.  Many of the regulars know about Glenn R. Morton, a professional geologist and ex-YEC who actually used to write for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in his younger days.  Mr. Morton became so disgusted with the dishonesty continually exhibited by YEC’s in general and ICR in particular that he changed his views 180 deg.  Glenn is still a devout Christian, but spends much time writing detailed geological articles that totally refute those goofy YEC claims.  

Mr.Morton's home page with dozens of great, well researched and referenced geological articles that refute YEC claims is here
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
He encourages his articles to be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.

Mr.Morton's story about why he left ICR is here
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
AFDave refuses to even acknowledge Mr. Morton's ICR experiences and testimony, which should come as no surprise to those who have seen DavieDenial in action.


In Feb. 2002 Mr.Morton's wrote another great article about YECs and denial of evidence that was Post of the Month at TalkOrigins.  In honor of our own little pet retard AFDave, I present that post in its entirety here.  See how much applies to AirFarceDavie

           
Quote
Morton’s Demon

Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed. Oppositely, when he sees a speedy molecule coming at the gate from room B he closes the gate but when he sees a slow molecule from room B coming toward the gate he opens it. In this way, the demon segregates the fast moving molecules into one room from the slow ones in the other. Since temperature of a gas is related to the velocity of the molecules, the demon would increase the temperature of room B and cool room A without any expenditure of energy. And since a temperature difference can be used to create useful work, the demon would create a perpetual motion machine.

       Maxwell's demon was shown to fail by Szilard who showed that the demon needed to use light (and expend energy) to determine a fast molecule from a slow one. This energy spent to collect information meant that the demon couldn't violate the 2nd law.

       The reason I mention this is because I realized tonight that the YECs have a demon of their own. In a conversation with a YEC, I mentioned certain problems which he needed to address. Instead of addressing them, he claimed that he didn't have time to do the research. With other YECs, I have found that this is not the case (like with sds@mp3.com who refused my offer to discuss the existence of the geologic column by stating "It's on my short list of topics to pursue here. It's not up next, but perhaps before too long."  And with other YECs, they claim lack of expertise to evaluate the argument and thus won't make a judgment about the validity of the criticism. Still other YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them.

 Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

       However, my conversations have made me aware that each YEC is a victim of my demon. Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.

       The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!
       
He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood.  He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.(emphasis mine - OA)

       But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.

       But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy--he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.
       
The demon drives his victim to go to YEC conventions so that the demon can rest. By making his victim be with those equally afflicted, the demon doesn't have to shut the door or even be watchful. This is because it allows the demon time to rest when all that is in the room is supportive data. For the victim, there is comfort in numbers even if they are few.

 Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!


http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm

Wow, did Glenn call it right on AFDave or what!

enjoy!

Date: 2006/07/05 16:13:44, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave July 05 2006 @ 10:23)
       
Quote
OA: Why do all the independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other,but none of them show your claimed 100X C14/C12 ratio?


If you really want me to answer this, then take them one at a time and explain them each in your own words as simply as possible.  This will help me understand them and it will confirm for me that YOU understand them.


Well Dave aren’t you special.   I and others have presented this data to you at least half a dozen times already, and each time you denied the results were valid.  Now you finally admit the truth that you didn’t understand the data.  If you didn’t understand them, why did you claim the results were invalid?  Was it your big fat bloated ego?

OK, since the AF made you fly on this plane



let’s hold little Davie’s hand and walk through the evidence again.

1. Natural processes in the biosphere produce small amounts of radioactive carbon C14 to go along with natural C12
2. Living things ingest carbon with the current C14/C12 ration
3. When things die, the C14 begins to decay and the ration of C14/C12 in the sample decreases.
4. C14 decays with a half life of 5730 years.  You, AFDave, have already agreed that this is true.
5. By measuring the C14/C12 ration in the sample, we can estimate when the living thing died if we know the original C14/C12 ratio.
6. The C14/C12 ratio is known to have varied at times in the past, so we must independently calibrate the C14 dating results.

One way to calibrate is by lake varves.  A varve is a seasonal layer put down in a lake due to biological activity (pollen, etc.) that can be accurately counted to give a yearly date.  Samples of dead biological material (twigs, leaves) that rest in the layers can be accurately dated by layer count.  C14 readings on the same material are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn.  This has been done for many different varve sources.  The most famous is lake Suigetsu in Japan, with an annual varve count going back over 29,000 YBP



Another way to calibrate is by dendrochronology – tree ring counting. Tree rings are seasonal growths, and by matching overlapping tree ring patterns dates can be accurately measured back to 11,000 YBP.   C14 readings on the same tree samples are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn.  Many forests have been subject to dendrochronology studies.  Trees from the Black forest in Germany have extended the dates back over 11,800 YBP



Another way to calibrate is by ice core samples.  Ice cores show regular seasonal patterns that can be counted to show yearly dates.  Samples of dead biological material (twigs, leaves) that rest in the core layers can be accurately dated by layer count.  C14 readings on the same material are then taken and a calibration curve can be drawn.  Ice core samples from glaciers in Greenland have extended dates back over 50,000 YBP



There are other similar, equally independent ways of calibrating C14/C12 ratios using speleotherms (cave stalactite growths), coral growths, marine core samples, etc.  When all are taken together, they provide an accurate calibration of C14 dating looking like this



University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package

So Dave, the questions for you still remain

Why do all these independent calibration curves agree with each other to within a few percent?

Why do the all these independent calibration curves extend back well over your 6000 YBP creation date, and as far as 50,000 YBP?

Why do none of these independent calibration curves show the 100X C14/C12 ratio spike you claimed was caused by the FLOOD?

Date: 2006/07/05 17:39:41, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Dr. Brand (non-YEC) of Loma Linda University showed with detailed studies on amphibians walking in sediments in water in the lab that the tracks in the Coconino more closely resemble these than tracks formed in dry sand.  


Dr. Brand a non-YEC?  

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!  That's a good one Davie

Here is the article you cite

http://www.grisda.org/origins/05064.htm

published by the Seventh-day Adventists in their "Geoscience Research Institute - Integrating Science and Faith" non-peer reviewed, pro-Creation newsletter Origins  ;)

Here is a quote from Dr Brand
   
Quote
The implications of this work must be considered as we develop geologic flood models, and on the other hand perhaps our flood models can suggest new ways of looking at the Coconino Sandstone. A model or an idea is useful to science if it can suggest new lines of research that can be done successfully, and that improve our understanding of the subject we are investigating. Perhaps our flood model can suggest useful, new types of research that need to be done and that might not have been thought of by someone who did not believe in a flood of worldwide geologic significance.

 The Coconino Sandstone is classified as a Permian deposit in the upper Paleozoic (Figure 1). As was mentioned earlier, the Paleozoic strata above and below the Coconino Sandstone are believed to have been deposited by water. Some of the flood models that are being developed propose that much of the Paleozoic sequence was deposited in the early part of the flood activities, and in these models the Coconino Sandstone would be a deposit laid down during the main part of the flood. Could there be a large-scale deposit of wind-blown sand in the middle of predominantly flood water-deposited strata?

   The geologic data tell us that even though the flood was a rapid geologic event, it was nevertheless a very complex geologic event. We cannot arbitrarily rule out the possibility of a deposit of wind-blown sand forming during an interval of lowered water level, but our flood models do suggest that it may be very profitable to reinvestigate the Coconino Sandstone to see if there might be another explanation of its origin.


...a flood of worldwide geologic significance?
...deposited in the early part of the flood activities?
...the flood was a rapid geologic event?

No YEC Biblical spin here Dave, no siree!   :D  :D  :D

   
Quote
Come on ... you guys really do think I am stupid, don't you??!!


Damm Dave, you do have an amazing grasp of the obvious, don't you?   :p  :p  :p

Date: 2006/07/05 18:03:42, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA ... I only refuted the dendrochronology ... I didn't address the other 5 ... the other ones are probably the same story though ... more made up stuff to support your theory no matter what the evidence says.


You didn't refute a damm thing about dendrochronology Dave.  You C&P'd some worthless AIG article that didn't come close to addressing the presented evidence.  And you didn't address at all your claim that you could show the dendro results used at Catal Huyuk were in error.

As for the other independent methods for C14 calibration - you requested this
 
Quote
If you really want me to answer this, then take them one at a time and explain them each in your own words as simply as possible.  This will help me understand them and it will confirm for me that YOU understand them.

And I responded by reposting the explanations and data from the results that you asked for.  I held up my part of the bargain Dave, but it looks like AFDave will renege on his word again.

You know what Dave?  I'm actually happy when you lie and squirm to get out of answering questions.  Every time you are too much of a lying chickenshit to answer them as you said you would, your dishonesty and ignorance are on parade display all the regulars and all the lurkers.  

You're a regular poster-boy for just how slimy and dishonest a YEC can be.  Does that make you feel good Davie?

Date: 2006/07/05 18:12:23, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
*bumped* for AFDave so he can add his comments, since I know damm well he read this thread with his name on it.

How about if Davie Cakes - give us your thoughts on Glenn Morton's experiences with the charlatans at ICR.

Or are you too afraid to explore those dark avenues, lest doubt creep into your tiny Fundy brain?

Date: 2006/07/06 04:53:45, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Add these to the list of questions that AFDave the Coward ran crying from and refused to address.

1. What was the flow rate of the ‘flood run off’ that was slow enough to allow the Colorado River meanders to form AND was fast enough to carry away trillions of tons of soil in one year?

2. What is the YEC proposed mechanism that allows violent swirling flood waters to sort sediment into distinctly different layers?

3. What is the YEC explanation for why the hydrodynamic sorting of brachiopods skipped entirely the middle layers of the Grand Canyon?

4. How and when did the distinct underlying lower layers of the Canyon, each with a very different physical make up, get there?

5. Why do all the independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other to within a few percent?

6. Why do all the independent C14 calibration curves extend back well over your 6000 YBP creation date, and as far as 50,000 YBP?

7. Why do none of the independent C14 calibration curves show the 100X C14/C12 ratio spike you claimed was caused by the FLOOD?

Date: 2006/07/06 06:53:18, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AirFarceDaveTard squirms with
 
Quote
My scenario of the Himalaya uplift is BELIEVEABLE and agrees with the evidence ...

Your scenario of the Hermit Shale uplift is LUDICROUS ... PREPOSTEROUS ... for all the reasons I mentioned .......

So a 29,000 ft. uplift in 4500 years over half a continent is believable, but a 5000 ft. uplift over millions of years in a much smaller area is ludicrous and preposterous.

Dave, you get funnier every day! :D :D :D

OA Questions
 
Quote
1. What was the flow rate of the ‘flood run off’ that was slow enough to allow the Colorado River meanders to form AND was fast enough to carry away trillions of tons of soil in one year?

2. What is the YEC proposed mechanism that allows violent swirling flood waters to sort sediment into distinctly different layers?

3. What is the YEC explanation for why the hydrodynamic sorting of brachiopods skipped entirely the middle layers of the Grand Canyon?

4. How and when did the distinct underlying lower layers of the Canyon, each with a very different physical make up, get there?

5. Why do all the independent C14 calibration curves agree with each other to within a few percent?

6. Why do the all the independent C14 calibration curves extend back well over your 6000 YBP creation date, and as far as 50,000 YBP?

7. Why do none of the independent C14 calibration curves show the 100X C14/C12 ratio spike you claimed was caused by the FLOOD?

AFDave NON-ANSWERS, LIES, AND EVASIONS:  
 
Quote
1) My definition of 'FAST' = 'Less than a year' (as opposed to millions of years).  My definition of 'SLOW' means slow enough to cause the Incised Meanders in soft sediments.  This is not that difficult, OA.

You were asked for the flow rate, moron, the flow rate that allows two mutually exclusive events to happen at the same time.  This is not that difficult, Davie.
 
Quote
2) Already covered.  You missed it.  Go back and do your homework.  Better yet, buy a copy of TGF.

Another lie from Dave.  Show me where you covered it Dave.  Link to the post.
 
Quote
3) You'll have to show me some pictures of specifically what you are talking about.

Already described in detail in my previous posts on Grand Canyon layering.  You’re evading again.
 
Quote
4) The Sedimentary layers were laid during the Flood.  The others were formed either during Creation Week or also during the Flood.

Another non-answer.  The question was how did each individual layer form.
 
Quote
5) You lie and fudge and twist and stretch and swallow elephants because you guys need support your bogus 200,000 year history of mankind

More lies and evasion to cover the fact that you can’t deal with the detailed scientific data presented.
 
Quote
6) Already covered and refuted many times

Another lie.  Show me where you covered it Dave.  Link to the post.
 
Quote
7) Because Evos are too blind to recognize the Global Flood

More lies and evasion to cover the fact that you can’t deal with the evidence presented.  Evidence that independently confirms the accuracy of C14 dating, and totally trashes your ridiculous 100X C14/C12 ratio claim.

You’re pegging the Clown-O-Meter today Davie!  Keep up the good work!

 
Quote
Any more questions?

Does the fact that you know you’re telling such blatant lies in front of God cause you to lose sleep?

Date: 2006/07/06 09:16:47, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AsinineFraudDave July 06 2006 @ 12:05)
I do not have to be able to explain every detail for my theory to be believable ... all I have to do is show (for my own benefit mainly) the HUGE BEAMS in the eye of your theory while also showing several plausible alternatives for my theory to work.

You're right in one respect Dave.  You only have to explain all the scientific details if you expect your codswallop to be believable to anyone else besides yourself.  Since you haven't been able to begin to deal with the tons of evidence that contradict your mental masturbations, everyone else remains unconvinced.  Your cheese stands alone there Davie-poo.

Do keep lying to yourself about your 'victories' here though.  It's hugely entertaining, and we're having a ball!!

Date: 2006/07/06 11:32:57, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave forced to face his cognitive dissonance induced psychosis



"I am AFDave!  I am perfect!"

"But AFDave, you have made multiple errors!  You have ignored all contrary scientific data and avoided all discussion!  You are imperfect!

"I am AFDave!  I am perfect!  I am...imperfect?!?
 
*spark!* *pop!*  *fizzle*

"ERROR!    ERROR!  ...sterilize!  ...sterilize!  ...GAAAAKK!"

Date: 2006/07/07 05:18:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDAVE'S LAST POST FOR ABOUT 10 DAYS (sniff, sniff)
I know this comes as a supreme disappointment to all of you AFDAVE Fans, but I'm afraid that unless I figure out how to post from Mexico, it will in fact become a sad reality.  My problems are 1) I don't know if I will have access to a computer (we're doing some remote work) and 2) even if I did have access, I've never been able to post from anywhere except my desktop computer - I guess the system checks your IP address or something ... maybe since you guys are REAL scientists, you could tell me how to post remotely :-)  (but then you probably won't tell me even if you know because then you wouldn't get a much needed break from defending yourselves from all the heavy bombardment you've been receiving for the last several months)


OK, have a safe trip.  Your ass-whupping will resume when you return :)

- Occam

Date: 2006/07/08 17:45:36, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Off topic for deadman_932

Hey DM, since you seem to be the most knowledgeable here on Native American anthropology - what's the latest inside dope on Kennewick man?

Last I read, in 2004 the scientific community was granted the legal right to study the remains.  I see where the East Benton County Museum in Kennewick, Wash., opened a Kennewick Man exhibit in Jan. of this year.

Are any of the Northwest tribe still fighting legal battles, or (hopefully) was a good compromise reached for all?  Has anyone done a facial reconstruction of the skull?  Any further results from any DNA testing?

Thanks for any info you might have.

- OA

ETA:  Scratch the facial reconstruction question.  I just found the Tom McClelland site here.  Cool stuff!

http://www.tom-mcclelland.com/360KennewickMan.htm

Date: 2006/07/12 06:35:02, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Trust half a D*** to come up with a 130 year old discredited piece of wishful thinking.

Now 1/2 a D makes the plainly false rhetorical and therefore an an appeal to the truly stupid, claim by Biblical literalistists that the genealogy of the "One true word of FOG" proves (in a totally scienti-fickle sense u understand) that the age of DOF's world is around 6000 somethings, give or take, but if D divided by 2 actually did a  genealogy on every human on DOG's green rock he would find that the time line traces back to well over a 100,000 years otherwise Kane and Able would have to have had something like 500,000 children each.

Now I know in fractional D's world that is not an impossibility, but everyone should know that even though each man could theoretically impregnate every single women on earth with each ejaculation the reality is there are not enough boxes of chocolate and bottles of cheap wine that one man could accumulate in his short pre Christian life time to make that a certainty.

On the other hand (no pun intended..oh OK pun intended) if Kane was a Gene Simmonds look alike and he had a rock band and didn't wear condoms he may have been able to get it up, with a respectable frequency, producing a vast Asiatic and African offspring, but the returned rings and letters by village scribes may have shortened his romantic and thus procreatic career.


<OA slips into loony AFDave mode>

Ha!  Just look at Wilt Chamberlain.  He claims to have slept with over 10,000 women in his day, and he didn't even live to be 900 years old like many of the patriarchs!  How many chicks do you think those old guys could have scored in 900 years?!?!  Therefore it would be possible for my Biblical population model to be correct!! You Evos can't disprove it, so it must be true!!

</loony AFDave mode>





Wow, it hurts to type stupidity like that.  Wonder how Davie manages?

Date: 2006/07/14 18:12:32, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
This seems to be a follow up on the work of biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant as detailed in The Beak of the Finch.

The Beak of the Finch

Wonderful book BTW, for those who haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

Date: 2006/07/14 18:22:28, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AirFarceDave is still in Mexico I presume.

Can't wait till he gets back so I can ask him if he visited any of the core drill locations for investigation of the Chicxulub crater or any of the many K/T layer research sites.   ;)

Date: 2006/07/14 18:37:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Oh yeah? If the Galapagos finches are evolving...

then how come we still have finches? ? ? ?

(Sorry, someone had to say it.)


Actually, Ichthyic said it (kinda) in the title of the thread.  :O

Date: 2006/07/16 08:01:49, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Well AFDave, looks like you made it back from Mexico just as dumb and evasive as ever.  You are probably hoping we’d forget all the questions you left unanswered, like ‘how did a continent-wrenching global flood manage to sort strata of so many different materials into so many distinct layers?’ – but we won’t.  You’ll still be pounded with questions about the details of your claims, and you’ll still look like an idiot trying to tap-dance and avoid answering.

Since you insist on remaining a scientifically illiterate goober, expecting you to answer technical scientific questions is like expecting differential equations from a banana slug.  That being the case, I’ve decide to try a different approach.  You claim to be an astute businessman, right?  I’ve got a business question for you.

Oil and Gas companies hire thousands of professional geologists all over the world to help in locating new deposits.  There are many examples of YEC geologists who converted to OEC after actually working in the field and seeing the evidence, a la Glenn Morton (the ex-YEC you love to hate).  But there aren’t any professional geologists anywhere who started off OEC but became YEC after working in the field.   Without exception, every single Oil and Gas exploration company used the Old Earth model to help know where to search.

There are thousands of successful laboratories all over the world that offer radiometric dating as a professional service.  Without exception, every single radiometric dating lab uses the physics that support the Old Earth model.

My latest questions for you are –

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?  


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.

Show me the YEC business case Dave.

Date: 2006/07/16 18:44:45, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
A guy in high school said this to me about monkeys and humans. What could I do? I think my jaw fell open and I just sat there dumbfounded.


Everyone should learn the proper response:

"If God made us from dirt, why is there still dirt ??"   ;)

Date: 2006/07/17 16:40:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Because I was bored, I actually attempted to read through all of the YEC Walt Brown's Creationscience web site, the one that AllFoolDave is now championing

Center for Creation Science

Holy Moly! :O :O :O :O :O

I knew a bit about Brown and his hydroplate theory from before, and I'd read about his bogus debate "challenge" that he keeps running from (a la Hovind).  What I didn't realize is just how BATSHIT INSANE that old reefer fiend is!

Reading through page after page of his "make it up as you go, no evidence required" fantasy almost shorted out my brain.  :p Got an issue with plate tectonics?  No problem - Walt makes the continents accelerate from 0 to 100 MPH for a day, then have them come to a screeching halt without dissipating any heat energy that would have vaporized Noah, or creating giant tsunamis that would have pulverized a 450' wooden boat. Frozen mammoths?  No problem - Walt makes the superheated steam from the 'fountains of the deep' shoot into space and freeze into ice, which then falls as snow and deep freezes the wooly beasties.

L. Ron Hubbard has nothing on this tard when it comes to poorly written science fiction.  My jaw was getting sore from falling open and hitting the keyboard. :D

(Shakes head and laughs heartily)

all I can say is ...wow, just...wow.  :)

Date: 2006/07/17 19:49:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave!  Quick!  Look at these pictures!



See that - they're almost IDENTICAL!

They both are the SAME COLOR
They both are the SAME SHAPE
Heck, they even both have the SAME MARKINGS!

Because they look so much alike they must both be made the SAME WAY, from the SAME MATERIALS, with the SAME COST, in the SAME AMOUNT OF TIME, and with the SAME LEVEL OF EFFORT.  Right?

???

Holy f*ckin Christ-on-a-stick Dave, will you ever stop being such an ignorant dumbass retard??.

Date: 2006/07/17 20:14:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
hi guys. i am what you call a "lurker" and am posting from a third world muslim nation somewhere in seasia. i have been following this discussion for some time now and find it very interesting. inadvertently, have increased my knowledge in a great many things (thanks people). ever since kvd, i have tried to read up on a lot of things related to creationism, yes, i am a christian. i went thru the local public education system up till university, studied geology and physics, so i do understand almost all your arguments.


Hi lawman, and welcome!

Please feel free to join in with a comment or question any time.  Science boards like this are a great way to learn many new things -I learn something with almost every new topic that comes up.  And don't worry about your English - it seems to be fine, and if there is any confusion I'm sure between everyone we can figure out what was meant.  :)

Date: 2006/07/18 04:33:33, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey AFDave, how about these questions?

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?  


How's that YEC business case coming Dave?  You ready to show us your business acumen yet?  Or were you just 'embellishing' your abilities like you did when you claimed to be a sh*t hot fighter pilot?

Date: 2006/07/18 04:49:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
For years, he has claimed that he is employed by God and has no income or property because everything he owns belongs to God. He believes man and dinosaurs inhabited the earth together and has offered a $250,000 reward to anyone who can offer him satisfactory proof of evolution.

When asked where he lived, Kent Hovind replied, "I live in the church of Jesus Christ, which is located all over the world. I have no residence."

JC and his Dad must own the Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary too, so when Hovind gets assigned his ‘room’ there, he’ll still be living in God's place.   ;)

Date: 2006/07/18 05:01:30, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
For starters, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have done exactly that.  Though the latter is currently going through some rough times, he's certainly made a lot of money from the YEC "paradigm".


My original questions to AFDave last Sunday pointed that out

"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."

   
Quote
Off topic, but where did that come from


AFDave has been caught 'padding his resume' before, so to speak.  He wanted us to believe he was a sh*t hot fighter jock when all he ever flew were unarmed trainers.  Turned out he *hung around* with real fighter pilots, so in his mind that made *him* one too.  Kinda like the towel boy for the Steelers claiming to be a professional football player.

AFDave has also bragged about what a great businessman he is too.  I just want to see some of those business skills applied to the YEC case, that's all.

Date: 2006/07/18 05:20:06, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave: Give me an example, please.


Successful Oil and Gas exploration companies that use OE models

 
Quote
ADNOC - Abu Dhabi National Oil Company - state owned oil gas exploration company
Amerada Hess - independent oil gas exploration services and processing company
ConocoPhillips - an international, integrated oil gas exploration and production company
Exxon Mobil Corporation - world's premier oil, natural gas, LNG and petroleum products company
Gazprom - is the world's biggest gas exploration and production company
Kerr-McGee - is one of the largest U.S.-based independent crude oil exploration and production companies
ONGC - Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd - leading National Oil GAS exploration Company of India
Petrobras - brazilian integrated corporation whose business is oil and natural gas exploration, production
PetroCanada - is a Canadian integrated oil and gas exploration and production company
Sinopec - China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation
SNEPCO - nigerian oil gas exploration and production activities
Sonangol - angola oil gas exploration and production company
Statoil - one of the world's largest net sellers of crude oil. operator of fields, exploration
Aminex plc - experienced, independent, oil and gas company
London, UK, Europe(North)  
Anadarko Petroleum - one of the largest independent crude oil and natural gas exploration and production companies
Houston, USA, America(North)  
ATP Oil and Gas Corporation - develop already-discovered offshore petroleum reserves
Houston, USA, America(North)  
BG Group plc - exploration and production, liquefied natural gas, transmission and distribution
Berkshire, UK, Europe(North)  
BHP Billiton - an international oil and gas exploration and production company in australia
Melbourne, AUSTRALIA, Australia  
Blue Dolphin Energy Company - pipeline and oil gas exploration services
Houston, USA, America(North)  
BP Amoco Corporation - a leading provider of oil and natural gas exploration and production
Aberdeen, SCOTLAND, Europe(North)  
Burlington Resources Inc - oil and natural gas exploration and production
Houston, USA, America(North)  
Cabot Oil and Gas - natural gas producer and marketer
Houston, USA, America(North)  
Cairn Energy PLC - oil and gas exploration and production company based in Edinburgh, Scotland
Edinburgh, SCOTLAND, Europe(North)  
Canadian Natural Resources - oil and natural gas production canada
Calgary, CANADA, America(North)  
ChevronTexaco - among the world's largest global energy companies
San Francisco, USA, America(North)  
CNOOC - China National Offshore Oil Corporation - China National Offshore Oil Corporation - CNOOC
Beijing, CHINA, Asia  
CNPC - The China National Petroleum Corporation
Beijing, CHINA, Asia  
Conoco Inc - integrated oil company explores for oil and gas production
Houston, USA, America(North)  
Dana Petroleum - ten North Sea fields in production
Aberdeen, SCOTLAND, Europe(North)  
Devon Energy - independent oil and gas exploration services and producer
Oklahoma City, USA, America(North)  
DNO - development of smaller petroleum fields
Oslo, NORWAY, Europe(North)  
DONG - danish oil and gas exploration services company
Hørsholm, DENMARK, Europe(North)  
Encana - one of North America's largest independent gas and oil exploration producers
Calgary, CANADA, America(North)  
Eni SpA - integrated energy production company
Rome, ITALY, Europe(South)  
Enterprise Oil plc - a crude oil and natural gas exploration and production operator company
London, UK, Europe(North)  
Galp Energia, SGPS, S.A. - Oil Petroleum, Natural Gas Supply, Regasification, Transport, Storage and Distribution portugal
Lisboa , PORTUGAL, Europe(South)  
Gas de France - one of the leading European gas groups
Paris, FRANCE, Europe(North)  
Gazflot - russian exploration and ship owning company
Moscow, RUSSIA, Europe(North)  
Iceland Oil - oil gas exploration company in Iceland
Reykjavik, ICELAND, Europe(North)  
Inpex Corporation - oil gas exploration in japan
Tokyo, JAPAN, Asia  
Lukoil - is Russia's leading oil company
Moscow, RUSSIA, Europe(North)  
Lundin Petroleum - independent oil and gas exploration and production company
Stockholm, SWEDEN, Europe(North)  
Marathon Oil Company - worldwide exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas
Houston, USA, America(North)  
Murphy Oil Corporation - oil and gas exploration and production
El Dorado, USA, America(North)  
Nexen - is a Canadian-based, global oil gas petroleum company
Alberta, CANADA, America(North)  
Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited (NLNG) - joint venture LNG company, largest shareholder is Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
Lagos, NIGERIA, Africa  
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation NNOC - commercial international corporation
Garki, NIGERIA, Africa  
Norsk Hydro - an industrial company based on the use of oil, natural gas, LNG resources
Oslo, NORWAY, Europe(North)  
Occidental Petroleum Corporation - oil and natural gas exploration and production
Los Angeles, USA, America(North)  
Oilexco Inc - exploration and production company
Calgary, CANADA, America(North)  
OMV Exploration & Production GmbH - austrian oil gas exploration companies
Wien, AUSTRIA, Europe(North)  
Pertamina - state-owned oil and gas company
Jakarta, INDONESIA, Asia  
Petronas - is Malaysia's national petroleum
Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA, Asia  
Phillips Petroleum Company - exploration and production; gas gathering, processing and marketing
Bartlesville, USA, America(North)  
Pioneer Natural Resources Company - independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company
Irving, USA, America(North)  
Premier Oil plc - independent oil and gas company
London, UK, Europe(North)  
Repsol YPF SA - integrated international oil and gas exploration and production company
Madrid, SPAIN, Europe(South)  
Rocksource ASA - oil and gas exploration services
Oslo, NORWAY, Europe(North)  
Rosneft - russian oil and gas exploration company
Moscow, RUSSIA, Europe(North)  
Shell Oil Company - is one of the largest major oil and natural gas companies
Houston, USA, America(North)  
Sibneft - petroleum exploration, production, refining, and marketing
Moscow, RUSSIA, Europe(North)  
Spinnaker Exploration Company - independent energy production company
Houston, USA, America(North)  
Sunoco - gas stations, crude oil production and petroleum products
Philadelphia, USA, America(North)  
Teikoku Oil - japan oil and gas exploration, production and pipeline
Tokyo, JAPAN, Asia  
Texaco - finds and produces LNG, crude oil and natural gas
San Francisco, USA, America(North)  
TotalFinaElf - major integrated oil and gas exploration corporation
Courbevoie, FRANCE, Europe(South)  
Tullow Oil - independant oil and gas production
London, UK, Europe(North)  
Unocal Corporation - oil and natural gas production and exploration development company
El Segundo, USA, America(North)  
Woodside Petroleum - is involved in the exploration, development and production of hydrocarbons
Perth, AUSTRALIA, Australia  
Antrim Energy inc Calgary, CANADA, America(North)
Apache Corporation Houston, USA, America(North)
Black Rock Petroleum NL Perth, AUSTRALIA, Australia
Cabinda Gulf Oil Company Ltd, CABGOC Luanda, ANGOLA, Africa
Callon Petroleum Company Houston, USA, America(North)
Chevron Corporation San Francisco, USA, America(North)
Dragon Oil Dubai, UAE, Middle East
EGAS - Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company Cairo, EGYPT, Middle East
Huskey Oil Limited Calgary, CANADA, America(North)
Paladin Resources plc London, UK, Europe(North)
PetroChina Beijing, CHINA, Asia
Petsec Energy Sydney, AUSTRALIA, Australia
Pogo Producing Company Houston, USA, America(North)
Ramco Energy plc Aberdeen, SCOTLAND, Europe(North)
Roc Oil Company Limited Sydney, AUSTRALIA, Australia
Talisman Energy Inc. Calgary, CANADA, America(North)
Venture Production plc Aberdeen, SCOTLAND, Europe(North)
Yukos Oil Corporation Moscow, RUSSIA, Europe(North)


Successful Radiocarbon dating labs that use OE models

 
Quote
Austria
VERA: Vienna Environmental Research Accelerator  
Absolute Chronology for Early Civilisations in Austria and Central Europe using 14C Dating with AMS (University of Vienna)  
Australia
Australian National University - Accelerator Mass Spectrometry  
Explanations and applications lists of several varieties of radiosotope dating.
ANSTO  
The Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Group operates the AMS resources at ANSTO, including the measurement capabilities at the Australian National Tandem for Applied Research (ANTARES) and sample processing and target preparation in the AMS chemistry laboratories.
Canada
Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) - Radiocarbon Dating
IsoTrace - The Canadian Centre for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry  
Brock University (LSC), sample submission forms, prices, etc.
Denmark
University of Aarhus - AMS Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory  
France
Centre de datation par le RadioCarbone - Université Claude Bernard I, Lyon, France
Information in French and English: measurement techniques, sample submission forms, etc.
Germany
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut - Berlin. Website in German, with English version in preparation.
Erlangen-Nürnberg University AMS Group;   same site auf Deutsch  
Institut für Bodenkunde - Isotopendatierungslabor - University of Hamburg (in German)
University of Heidelberg Institute for Environmental Physics
Leibniz Labor for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research - Christian Albrechts University, Kiel;  same site auf Deutsch List of services, pricelists, sample data sheets
Köln Radiocarbon Laboratory - Cologne University - Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Köln-Lindenthal, Germany
Greece
Laboratory of Archaeometry, National Center for Scientific Research Demokritos - Information in English and Greek
Ireland
Radiation Physics Research Laboratory, University College, Dublin - Sample submission forms, prices
Italy
CEDAD, AMS Radiocarbon Dating Facility,  University of Lecce
ENEA Bologna Research Center, Bologna
Korea
Inter-University Center for Natural Science Research Facility,  Seoul National University
Netherlands
Centre for Isotope Research, Groningen  
Utrecht University AMS Facility  
New Zealand
Rafter Radiocarbon Laboratory (AMS)  
Price lists for dating, illustrations of pretreatment and measurement equipment.
University of Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory (AMS) including:
New Zealand Archaeological Date List
WebInfo - Radiocarbon Dating  
Poland
Gliwice Radiocarbon Laboratory
Information in Polish and English about the lab's operations, staff, publications, and upcoming conferences.
Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory  
Information about the lab's 1.5SDH-1 spectrometer "Compact Carbon AMS" produced by NEC.
Senegal
Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire (IFAN)
South Africa
Quaternary Dating Research Unit (QUADRU)  
Pretoria Dating Laboratory, South Africa. Proportional gas counting for radiocarbon, and several other dating techniques.
Sweden
University of Lund Department of Quaternary Geology  
Switzerland
University of Zurich Dep't of Geography Radiocarbon Laboratory  
Includes downloadable sample forms
ETH/PSI AMS facility, Zurich Switzerland
Information about dating services and AMS equipment
United Kingdom
NERC Radiocarbon Laboratory, East Kilbride, Scotland
Information about dating services and grant funding for analysis
Oxford University - Research Lab for Archaeology and Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit  
Information about dating services and OxCal calibration program
Queen's University of Belfast - Radiocarbon Laboratory
Information on dating options, sample size requirements
SURRC Radiocarbon Laboratory, Glasgow, Scotland
Commercial service, quality assurance, submission forms, prices.
United States
Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating -Radiometric, AMS, Stable Isotopes and SEM  
Beta Analytic is the largest radiocarbon dating facility in the world, currently analyzing 10,000 samples each year for researchers worldwide.
Center for Applied Isotope Studies - University of Georgia
Radiometric and stable isotope dating and other services
Geochron Laboratories - Cambridge, Massachussets  
Isotope analyses for researchers in the fields of geology, economic geology, geochronology, archaeology, anthropology, and hydrology; environmental, metabolic, and food adulteration studies.
Keck-Carbon Cycle AMS facility (KCCAMS) - University of California, Irvine
A compact AMS particle accelerator, a dedicated companion instrument for measuring carbon stable isotope ratios, A new sample preparation laboratory to supplement existing UCI preparation labs to pre-treat, combust, hydrolyze and graphitize radiocarbon samples.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (CAMS)  
Measurements of eight anthropogenic and cosmogenic isotopes.
NOSAMS, National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometer Facility at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution  
Information on AMS dating, World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE)
Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement Laboratory (PRIME Lab)  
AMS dating of C14 and other radionuclides, chemical sample preparation; newsletter "What's new at PRIME Lab"
T.M.B.Group Inc, Stable Isotope Ratio Laboratory - Miami, Florida
Stable isotope ratio measurement of 13C/12C, 13C/12C, and 18O/16O
NSF - University of Arizona AMS Facility  
Information on dating, fees, sample submission form
University of Arizona - Department of Geosciences, Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry
Stable isotope and C14 measurements. Price list, downloadable sample information form
University of Colorado-INSTAAR Laboratory for AMS Radiocarbon Research  
Information on services, projects, sample submission.
University of Minnesota, Limnological Research Center
AMS C-14 Target Preparation Unit, with downloadable sample forms
University of Washington Quaternary Isotope Lab
Includes download access to CALIB calibration program.


OK Dave, now you please give me an example of a successful business that is based on the scientific evidence for a 6000 year old Earth.

Date: 2006/07/18 05:39:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE PICTURE ABOVE -- WHERE DID ALL THAT DIRT GO?

The standard answer for how the Grand Canyon was formed for over a century has been that primarily the Colorado River and side streams carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened, wouldn’t you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California?  It’s not there.  Nor can geologists find it anywhere else.  Where did all the dirt—1,000 cubic miles of it—go?

MAYBE JonF CAN TELL US WHERE THE GIGANTIC RIVER DELTA IS ...


Much of the sediment IS in the Pacific, more of it is scattered around other older outlets for the Colorado River

Quote
The reason that it looks the way does is due to the sequence in which the events that help to create it happened. We already know that there was once a very tall chain of mountains in the area that occupied the Grand Canyon. These mountains were, over many millions of years, eventually eroded away to form a level plain. Fluctuations in climate then caused the oceans to move in over successive periods and each time a new rock layer was deposited. The rock layers were deposited one on top of the other and sometimes there were long periods in between in which some of the upper layers were eroded away, sometimes completely.

And now the Colorado River comes into play. The ancestral "Colorado River" came into being when the Rocky Mountains to the east of the Grand Canyon were formed, at sometime around 60-70 million years ago, as the primary western drainage for these mountains. Over millions of years the course of this ancestral river changed its course a number of times as the terrain around it was altered. The course of the ancestral Colorado River probably started in Colorado and at one point it entered the region of Marble Canyon, but that is about all that can be agreed upon at this point.

Some geologists believe that very young rock layers to the west of the Grand Canyon, dated at only 5 and 10 million years old, and through which the Colorado now flows, indicate that the river could not have been flowing there prior to that time. The river had to cut through these layers after they were deposited. The search for another exit for the Colorado River from the Grand Canyon has been a hotly debated issue. Some geologists believe that it flowed out of Marble Canyon where the Little Colorado now enters, others believe that it exited near present day Diamond Creek and still others believe that it exited through massive caves in the Redwall Limestone. The most likely exit at this point seems to be up through Kanab Creek which would have had the ancestral river flowing back up into Utah and then across Nevada and California to the Pacific.

At around 17 million years ago, while the river was flowing across this ancient landscape, the land mass know as todays Colorado Plateau began to uplift. The uplift was caused by pressures deep with the Earth and may have been caused by additional conflict between the North American Plates and the Pacific Plates. This process continued until around 5 million years ago which interestingly enough is the date of the sedimentary layers just west of the plateau. At its greatest hieght the Colorado Plateau was once about three miles above sea level. The rise of the plateau probably prevented the seas from submerging it again and instead the topmost layers were eroded away and carried into the sea. The most favorable currently accepted theory is that the Colorado River continued to cut through the Colorado Plateau while the land rose around it.

At some point around 5 million years ago something happened to cause the Colorado to change its course and exit via its present route down to the Gulf of California. The most likely cause for the change in its course was probably due to it being captured by another river, which was draining the western portion of the Colorado Plateau. This other river eroded northward along the San Andreas fault, then eastward and eventually entered the Grand Canyon and joined with the Colorado near present day Kanab Creek. The Colorado would then have abruptly changed its course and flowed out this newly formed exit.

Much of the eastern Grand Canyon was already formed by the time the river changed its course. Side canyons had formed along fault lines in the rock and these were eroded away and the rock within them carried down to the Colorado. The Colorado River took all of the rock that was put into it and carried it off to the Pacific Ocean. Over many more millions of years the erosion along the course of the Colorado continued to widen the Canyon to present the vistas that you see today. Before the Glen Canyon Dam was built the Colorado River used to carry three cubic miles of sediment into the Pacific Ocean every hundred years.


Source

Hey numbnuts, where did all the soil in YOUR dumbass model go, huh?  Or better yet,

Where did all the flood water go?

Date: 2006/07/18 05:53:23, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Please take ONE company and show me how the "Long Age Interpretation" of geology helped them turn a profit.


How about Geochron Labs ?

Quote
Geochron Laboratories has been providing high quality isotopic analyses to geological and archaeological communities for more than thirty years. Established in 1960 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Geochron was the first laboratory to provide both potassium-argon age determinations and stable isotope ratio analyses on a commercial basis. Our analytical services also include radiocarbon age determinations as well as other radiometric analyses and we remain a world leader in these and all our services.
Geochron's facilities are housed in a single building with an area of 11,000 square feet and include:

Radiocarbon laboratory with preparation equipment for the conversion of carbon in various types of samples to an appropriate counting medium, and both gas proportional counters and a Quantulus liquid scintillation counter for precise 14C activity measurement. We also can arrange for 14C analysis by accelerator mass spectrometry.

Stable isotope laboratory with various preparation lines and two VG Micromass gas source stable isotope ratio mass spectrometers for analyzing nitrogen, sulfur, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen isotopes on a variety of materials.

Tritium laboratory with distillation equipment and a Quantulus liquid scintillation counter for determining tritium activity in water samples by direct counting.
A staff directory and list of analytical services are provided on this site. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss in more detail the nature of your research and samples. We will help you decide which analyses are most appropriate for your research and advise you on sample selection, sample size, and shipping guidelines.

For more detailed information on the topics in this web site, we recommend the book Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, by Gunter Faure, published by John Wiley & Sons, 1986.


Geochron Labs

There ya go Davie, plenty of detail for your pea brain to choke on.  

Also, read the PDF file from BP that improvius provided.  It has LOTS of detail about oil and gas exploration using old Earth geological models.

Now how about you quit stalling your lazy ass and give me an example of a successful business that is based on the scientific evidence for a 6000 year old Earth.

Date: 2006/07/18 06:41:15, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
How about that YEC business case Dave?  We're waiting, Mr. sh*t hot businessman....

Date: 2006/07/18 08:15:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ArrogantFoolDave says
   
Quote
So much for Aftershave's fancy assertion that "Long Age Philosophy" helps Oil and Gas Co's make money ...

I was pretty sure that was a farce ...

Ho ho ho !!


OK Dave, we'll take your blustering, farting evasion as your standard admission that you can't explain how all those companies use the Old Earth paradigm to produce results that make money.

You can't explain how the specific example you requested and were given (i.e Geochron Labs) managed to be a successful business for over 30 years based on a 'faulty' OE assumptions.

You can't come up with a single example of a company using a 6000 year old Earth model to produce a viable business plan.  The only way YECs make money from YE is by selling books to delusional morons like you Dave.

Looks like all that bragging you did about you being such an astute businessman was just more empty boasting.  Your big mouth sure gets you into trouble, ya know?  It makes you look so stupid and dishonest when you can't back up the talk.

AFDave waddles away with his pants around his ankles again.  Why is no one surprised?

Date: 2006/07/18 10:47:12, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I'm normally a nice, polite person, unless insulted first. I grew up in an area of L.A. where shootings were common and minding your manners might be enforced by a 13-year-old with a shotgun. But this simply irritates me when a photo is labelled "90-degrees" and it's obviously not near that, nor could unconsolidated ash/mud layers BE 90-degrees for more than a mere couple of meters. It's plainly deceptive and dishonest.


You have to understand that AFDave is both mathematically and dimensionally "challenged".  After all, he's been telling his wife for years that this is six inches  :D

Date: 2006/07/18 12:43:02, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
A process that could sunder one huge continent into the various currently-existing continents in less than 500 years, at velocities of more than a meter a day, using a mechanism that didn't create enough heat to vaporize the oceans;


500 years?  AFDave's latest infatuation is with Walt Brown's 'hydroplate' theory, which has all continental tectonic movement and mountain formation happening in 1 day.  :O

That's right boys and girls - Pangaea broke up and the continents moved thousands of miles in one 24 hour day, or over 100 miles per hour!  

Mt Everest rose 29000 ft. and all the Andes, Alps, Rockies, Himalayas formed in one 24 hour day,  or over 1000' per hour!

Noah must have shit himself when he saw all the mass of Asia coming towards him at 100 MPH and growing at 1000' per hour!  Maybe God put a force field around the Ark to protect it from getting vaporized or being smashed into toothpicks. ;)

Is that how it happened AFDaveTard?

Date: 2006/07/18 17:14:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
So Davie-doo, since you are so good at photoshopping in lines - why don't you photoshop in lines that show the many 1000'+ vertical surfaces cut through at least 14 different layers, including granite?  Then you can explain how a river was slow enough to meander but fast enough to carry away all that soil in a vertical cut.

You can't explain any of that of course, because 1) you're a cowardly idiot and 2) the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by DA FLUD only 4500 years ago.

Date: 2006/07/19 06:34:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
From Glenn Morton, the ex-YEC geologist AFDave can't stand:

 
Quote
Erosion much slower than YECs think

Creationists are always claiming that erosion occurs very rapidly. In their model, it has to because long times taken to erode something will blow their time scheme out of the water. Austin writes:

"Regional unconformities do exist between some strata in Grand Canyon, but the evidence favors rapid erosion." ~ Steven A. Austin, "Interpreting Strata of Grand Canyon," in Steven A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe, (Santee: Inst. for Creation Research, 1994), p. 52

So, lets look just a bit north of the Grand Canyon, where similar rocks were deposited and see how much erosion has taken place in 100 years.



One can see that very very little erosion has taken place at Bowknot Bend in Utah. A close examination of the original photo shows that some of the rocks in the foreground are identical today as to shape as they were 100 years earlier. Clearly erosion, even with a major river going through these channels, doesn't do much eroding in 100 years. Even in a thousand years (ten times what you see here), it doesn't look like much geologic work would be done to these rocks.

Given the tiny tiny difference between these two photos, one must wonder how long it would take to have eroded away the cliff material seen in the background. That rock, you must realize, used to cover the area and it was eroded away by this slow eroding river.

Think about this when you consider the erosion of 10s of thousands of feet of sediment like we see in the Appalachians and the North Sea.


source

I predict AFDave will give his usual moronic reply "BUT SEE, IT HAS A 45 DEG. ANGLE!!!!"

Date: 2006/07/19 08:38:56, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
But I'm sure of this ...

A rinky dink river (the Colorado River) cannot form the features of the Grand Canyon even if given millions of years


If you say so Davie-doo. :D :D :D We're sure of many things too...

We're sure you're a raving Fundy nutter without the slightest understanding of geology, or chemistry, or physics, or biology (or good business cases either it now seems).

We're sure your bloated ego makes you lie and squirm and avoid actual scientific details like the plague.

We're sure your continued tard-isms will create great peals of laughter!  Keep up the good work Davie!  Don't forget to put those stunning rebuttals in CAPITALS and bold and repeat them at least three times to make them true!

AirheadFoolDave's A LOSER!!
AirheadFoolDave's A LOSER!!
AirheadFoolDave's A LOSER!!

See how that works?  ;)

Date: 2006/07/20 05:19:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I try very hard not to ignore DATA ...


That's Grade A 100% bullshit Dave.  You've done nothing but ignore all the pages and pages of data that people have spoon fed you since you started preaching here.

You ignored all the data on C14 calibration.
You ignored all the data on human/chimp genetic similarities.
You ignored all the data on the formation of river meanders.
You ignored all the data on the different layering found in the CG.
You ignored all the data on sedimentation removal rates from the GC.
You ignored all the data about the impossibility of soft mud having the mechanical strength to maintain a mile high vertical cut.
You ignored all the data that there are no successful businesses anywhere in the world based on YE 'science'.

You may have a teeny excuse for ignoring all the physical data since you're so ignorant about almost every scientific topic. You have no excuse for ignoring the 'no YEC business case' data presented, unless you are lying about your business background too.  Is that it?

Date: 2006/07/20 07:45:53, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Davie-girl whines...
 
Quote
I color you WINDY ... meaning you (and OA and Faid with you) fill up a lot of space saying how stupid I am and very little space giving any scientific info ... maybe you should take some lessons from Deadman and Glen D and JonF ... I disagree with their interpretations of data, but at least they have something substantive to say ...


Dave, would you like me to repost the scientific info on C14 calibration again?  It frightened you off last time - have you finally decided to address it?

How about the scientific info on river meander formation I showed you?  I can repost that too if you've finally grown a pair.

Or the scientific info on the different layering found in the Grand Canyon I provided?  That's another one you hitched up your skirt and ran from.  You ready to talk about it now?

I know - how about we review the data on all the successful businesses based on OE models, and the zero businesses based on YE models.  You game?

:D :D :D

Naaah....not Dave Hawkins the Cowardly Lyin'.  Discussing scientific details just isn't your thing, right Davie?  It's easier to lie and say the information wasn't presented than to actually deal with the reality.

What does the Bible say about bearing false witness Dave?

Date: 2006/07/20 09:47:05, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Is it my imagination, Dave, or have the evos been particularly nasty lately? Even Faid and Number Nine have lost their good humour. Strange attitude to take with such unskilled morons like us.


Yeah GoP, dealing with intellectually dishonest repeated liars like AFDave and shit-stirring morons with nothing to add like yourself will do that to even the most patient people.

Date: 2006/07/21 06:52:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OK.  Now that we have established that it is quite reasonable to suggest some type of WATER CATASTROPHE as the cause of the Grand Canyon--i.e. Mt. Saint Helens, Missoula Flood, Uniformitarians morphing into Catastrophists, etc.--let's look at the layers a little more closely and answer some questions.


The only thing you've established Davie is your profound ignorance of geology, combined with a titanic ego that won't let you admit that you made yourself look like a fool yet again.

 
Quote
You say I won't look at the layers and answer questions, but that is not true.  


Great Davie, a ray of honesty from you at last!  You can start with the layer basics.  Please explain for me how DA FLUD managed to sort the CG into all those distinct layers to begin with; each layer with a unique physical makeup, both in materials and fossils contained.

To save you time, just saying 'hydrodynamic sorting' is NOT an answer Davie.  Your FLUD model need to explain the detailed mechanisms of how such sorting could occur.

Over to you, Davie-doo.

Date: 2006/07/21 07:16:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1340#comment-48839

Looks like one of the UD mods has already 'disemvoweled' post #16 by taciturnus.  WTF?  Anyone know why that was done?

Date: 2006/07/21 07:28:39, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
My "INCISED MEANDERS = SOFT SEDIMENTS" assertion is actually well supported and it didn't take anything close to hundreds of thousands of years.  Remember the study I cited a while back?


Wrong again Davie-doo.  The study you cited said nothing about incised meanders.  It talked about the phenomenon of 'wandering' meanders on a shallow flood plane, in this case the Mississippi delta.

'Incised' means cut through rock solid enough and deep enough so the meander no longer wanders.

'Shit-hot' ignorant Dave drops pants to ankles again!

Now Dave, you were going to explain how the FLUD formed all those CG layers, remember?  Better get to it!

Date: 2006/07/21 07:48:47, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Two more posts at UD just got 'disemvoweled', these by Ofro.

So much for the new look 'kinder and gentler' UD where honest discussion is encouraged. ;)

ETA  What I don't understand is - why go to all the trouble to 'disemvowel' a post?  Why not just delete the whole message to begin with?  Is it so they can claim that all dissenting posters can still post?  Or is it just a middle finger to the dissenters?

Date: 2006/07/21 07:58:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Who exactly is removing the vowels?


I wonder if DaveTard left himself a 'backdoor' to Dembski's site so he could still do a bit of creative editing?

Date: 2006/07/21 11:38:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
(shakes head sadly)

Davie, Davie, Davie...you're getting more pathetic by the minute.

You hold on to Brown's and Baumgardner's pulled out of their ass "theories" like a security blanket, but do you realize those two moronic theories contradict each other in many ways?  Brown has all continental drift happening in one day, Baumgardener has it taking months.  Brown has the ice age happening in one day before the FLUD, Baumgardner has it after.  Note also that both those goofy fantasies are contradicted by every single piece of geological and archaeological evidence in existence.  They both can't be right Davie, but they sure both can be wrong.

You're like a little kid who can't understand why his parents don't buy his "an invisible elephant stepped on my toy and broke it" excuse.

Now, I thought you were going to be honest and answer questions on the CG layers, remember?  So how about keeping your Good Christian word?

Please explain for me how DA FLUD managed to sort the CG into all those distinct layers to begin with; each layer with a unique physical makeup, both in materials and fossils contained.

To save you time, just saying 'hydrodynamic sorting' is NOT an answer Davie.  Your FLUD model need to explain the detailed mechanisms of how such sorting could occur.

Date: 2006/07/21 19:17:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA ... sorry, but I'm not an expert on the Religion of Millionsofyearsianism ...


The only thing you do seem to be competent at is lying and evasion.  Oh, and making us laugh at you...can't forget that one!  You certainly don't know squat about geology, or biology, or physics, or chemistry, or business either.

           
Quote
I was nice enough to dredge up your pretty picture ...

Now the ball's in your court if you want to discuss it ...

You saw my questions ...


BZZZZT!  Wrong again Davie.  My questions for you that went with that picture about your how the FLUD formed those layers have been on the table for weeks and you've avoided every last one, just like you avoided every other question on your silly assed YE claims - meanders, C14 calibration, YE business models, etc.  Trying to weasel out now by shifting the topic just won't work Davie - is that something you learned at Vacation Bible School?

How did the FLUD form the separate, unique layers Dave??

It is certainly true that you are free to run crying away from my questions about those nasty details yet again.  That's fine.  Do that, and everyone who witnesses your chickenshit behavior will have that much more evidence that you are nothing but a mouthy ignorant blowhard.  Making your claims look stupid and you look cowardly in front of the whole board works for me.  Does it float your boat there too, Davie-doll?

You're just a shining beacon of Christian honesty here Dave, a real lamp unto our feet.

Date: 2006/07/22 13:28:41, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey AFDave, since you’ve decided to blow off all those embarrassing Grand Canyon / FLUD questions that you can’t answer and instead are all chatty about the literal Bible again – I’ve got a few questions

First, which version of the Bible is the inerrant, literal one?  The KJV seems to be the leading contender – is that the one you are using as your literal source?  There have been many different translations over the last 2000 years.  More than a few passages have been added, deleted, and changed over time.  For example, the KJV mentions unicorns several times

"God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn." (Numbers 23:22)
"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?" (Job 39:9)
"His glory is like the firstlings of his bullock; and his horns are like the horns of unicorns." (Deuteronomy 33:17)
"He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn." (Psalm 29:6)

Does that mean that unicorns actually existed, and are literally real?

Now the KJV uses ‘unicorn’ as a translation for the Hebrew word re’em.  In all actuality, re’em probably was a type of wild ox (aurochs) unknown to the KJV translators  Since it is known that unicorns are mythical beasts that never actually existed, we have a clear example of the KJV NOT being a literal record of factual events due to a translation interpretation.  Similarly, the KJV uses ‘day’ (as in ‘the World was created in six literal days’) as a translation for the Hebrew word yom, which can mean ‘a period of time’ and not just ‘24 hour day’.  Just like the re’em / unicorn example, assuming yom means ‘24 hour day’ is a translation interpretation.  Because there is so much other scientific evidence that the world was NOT created in six literal days but is actually billions of years old, it is reasonable to assume the KJV is NOT a literal record of ‘six 24 hour days’ factual events due to a translation interpretation.

How do you, AFDave, justify using such translation interpretations as a basis for claiming literal events?

Date: 2006/07/22 15:42:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA ... Puck is chatty about the Bible ... maybe you could chat with him since you are both in agreement ... go see if AIG has an answer to your unicorn question, then get back to me ...


My question was specifically to you Dave, and it wasn't about unicorns.  It was about translation interpretations .

How do you, AFDave, justify using translation interpretations as a basis for claiming literal events?

Date: 2006/07/22 20:44:55, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA ... Can you read the original languages in which Herodotus' works were written?  How about Tacitus?  Josephus?  Berosus?

No.  You trust the translators.  There's your answer.


Can you read in those original languages Dave?  No?  Well, there are many versions of the Bible out there, and many different interpretations of what is the proper translation.  Which translation should be trusted Dave, and why?  

Do you think 'unicorn' should be trusted as the best translation for re'em Dave?  Why or why not?

Do you think '24 hour day' should be trusted as the best translation for yom Dave? Why or why not?

I asked before and you didn't answer, so I'll ask again -

Which version of the Bible is the inerrant, literal one?

Date: 2006/07/23 08:12:16, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA ... there are no inspired versions ... the inspiration applies to the originals of which the later copies and translations are very good, but not perfect.


Once again you are changing the wording to avoid the question.  I made no mention of inspired versions.  You told me I should trust the translators.  I merely asked you how to determine which translations to trust.

     
Quote
There are many good English versions which are faithful to the meaning of the original languages ... NKJV, NASB, KJV, NIV to name a few.


I have already show you an example (unicorn/re'em) where the KJV English version is definitely NOT faithful to the meaning of the original language.

How do you, Dave Hawkins, determine which words are faithful to the meaning of the original language, and which words are not?

What evidence do you have that yom should be translated 'literal 24 hour day' and not 'indeterminate period of time'?

I'll keep asking until you stop avoiding, or until I feel I've made you adequately demonstrate your dishonesty for the lurkers yet again.

Date: 2006/07/24 09:15:42, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
IF ... there were a band of subterranean water--the "Fountains of the Deep" about 10 miles below the pre-Flood crust averaging about 1 mile in thickness and covering maybe 80% of the basalt just above the Moho (20% accounts for the "pillars" which rest on the water chamber floor and support the crust), we would have the following volume of water available underground prior to the Flood:

Volume of the "Fountains of the Deep", Vf=201 X .8 X 1 = 161 Mcu. mi.

Now if we postulate the pre-Flood land surface to have shallower seas and lower mountains, we can see how the total amount of water could cover the entire earth during the Inundation Phase of the Global Flood.  With the above assumptions, we have ...

Volume of original oceans, Vo=329-161-20=148 Mcu. mi.

(assume 20 Mcu. mi. shot out into space?)  
Assuming this was spread out over 70% of the earth's surface gives ...

Avg. pre-Flood ocean depth, Do=148 / (201*.7) =~ 1 mile depth

If the pre-Flood mountains were low (3000-5000 ft), then the water from the "fountains of the deep" could easily have covered these mountains.


Sure thing Davie-doo. Since you're into brain-danaged fantasies now days, how about these?

IF a giant space alien's little boy threw a giant cosmic water balloon at his sister, which missed and hit the Earth...

IF the earth was hollow, and all the inhabitants of the center forgot and left their lawn sprinklers on...

IF an infinite number of monkeys quit typing Shakespeare and flew out of AFDave's butt, build a time machine, and carried Perrier bottles back to dump into the ocean basins...

See Davie, there are any number of scenarios that a fundy fanatic can dream up.  Problem for the fundy fanatic is, there is not one single bit of evidence that any of his bullshit is true, and tons of evidence that says it's, well, bullshit.

Tell me again about the unicorns in your literal and inerrant KJV Bible.  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/07/24 10:21:01, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
If only we could get you (AFDave) to be open-minded enough to step back and say....
"What if the bible is wrong?"


He doesn't have to consider that all of it is wrong, or most of it is wrong.  All he has to do is be open mined enough to consider that certain parts weren't meant to be taken literally.

It's really a shame that folks like AFDave are so insecure in their religious beliefs that they must resort to intellectual dishonesty to prop themselves up.

Date: 2006/07/24 10:25:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

GW Bush = Worst    President    Ever

Date: 2006/07/24 17:20:37, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA ... calm down ... there's plenty of evidence for a water catastrophe, and there's quite a bit for this nifty Hydroplate Theory ...


Then why Dave, after 120 pages, have you not presented one single solitary piece?

Pretend you met a man who was marooned on an island since he was 2, and had never heard of ToE or the Bible.  What physical evidence can you show him that the world is only 6000 years old?  Or that these huge underground reserves of water actually existed?  Or that the continents went racing around the globe in one day at over 100 MPH?

Show us the physical evidence Dave.  Your idiotic assertions that these mythical things actually happened just don't cut it.

Does your butt get sore from all the stuff you pull from there?  Flying monkeys included?

Do you still claim the KJV Bible is inerrant and 100% literal?  Why did you run from the questions about how you tell if a translation is accurate or not?

ETA And Dave, because you're such a major league dumbass, I thought I'd save everyone some time by giving you a reference that provides a detailed description of how metamorphic rock really forms (from Tulane U. Geology Department)

Quote
Time - The chemical reactions involved in metamorphism, along with recrystallization, and growth of new minerals are extremely slow processes.  Laboratory experiments suggest that the longer the time available for metamorphism, the larger are the sizes of the mineral grains produced.  Thus, coarse grained metamorphic rocks involve long times of metamorphism.  Experiments suggest that the time involved is millions of years.


Metamorphism and Metamorphic Rocks

Date: 2006/07/25 03:45:11, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dembski the scumbag at it again:

Yesterday he posted his willingness to defend the 'evolutionary science' he supposedly taught Ann Coulter

Dembski's "defense"

 
Quote
Read my lips: “I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters”


Denyse, the new kid on the block, let in a poster called TANSTAAFL who politely but firmly detailed many of Coulter's mistakes and blatant falsehoods about Evolutionary theory.  Girly-man Dembski's response?  

 
Quote
TANSTAAFL appears to be blowing smoke, which he is welcome from now on to do elsewhere. –WmAD


IMMEDIATE BANNING -  what else is a whiny little puss like Billie D to do?

Date: 2006/07/25 07:23:15, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave,

What version of the Bible are you using as your 100% literal and inerrant one?

For me to understand your position I need to know your baseline.

It's a simple question for a Christian man like you Dave - why do you avoid answering and make me ask it of you so many times?

Date: 2006/07/25 07:48:55, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
BTW -- I've got a shorthand code for you ... just type #1 everytime you want to say "Dave has no evidence" ... maybe you could save yourself some typing that way  :-)


Given your propensity for pulling your YEC 'evidence' out of your ass, I'd say we should type  #2.   :p

One more time Dave:

What version of the Bible are you using as your 100% literal and inerrant one?

Date: 2006/07/25 12:55:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave July 25 2006 @ 13:20)
There is no 100% literal, inerrant translation ...

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


That's not what you claimed here Dave

Quote (AFDave April 29 2006 @ 16:48 )
Yes, I've read many of the myths and they help confirm my theory that the Christian Bible is inerrant ... we'll cover that under Point 9 of my "Creator God Hypothesis".  I have also studied the different sections of Genesis and, as you can probably guess, have a different theory than you which I believe has excellent support.


Well well, AFDave actually changes his tune and concedes a point. :O

The next obvious question for you AFDave is

How do you determine which parts of the NKJV Bible are literal and inerrant, which are metaphor, and which are just plain wrong?

----------------------------------

Aside for Glen D:  While I am not above dropping the occasional obscenity to emphasize a point, doing it repeatedly makes it lose its value and only gives AFDave a reason to ignore all of our comments.  Chill out a bit and don't give AFDave any reason to ignore the tough questions.

Date: 2006/07/25 17:20:01, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Uh Dave, you just congratulated Diogenes for confirming what has been my point all along.  

         
Quote
No, I'm not conceding anything ... you need to go read Diogenes' post ... the original text is inerrant ... the copies are not.

You see?  Why is that so hard to grasp?


Because Dave, after 120 pages you have finally admitted you haven’t been arguing for an inerrant, literal original text Bible; you’ve been posting gobs of ridiculous nonsense arguing for an inerrant, literal Bible translation  And as I made you finally own up to (and Diogenes agreed), NO translation EVER is going to be inerrant.

Now that THAT MAJOR HURDLE IN UNDERSTANDING for you has been cleared, maybe you can start finally using your million dollar Air Force brain.

The problem to solve now is – how do you tell if a translation accurately represents what the original authors meant to convey?  Or tell if a story is meant to be literal or metaphorical?  When there is debate over meaning, I say the best and only way is to look to sources outside the Bible for guidance.

Which is why I provided the re’em example.  Some Hebrew scholars (KJV authors) translated it as unicorn.  Others scholars translate it as wild ox.  How do you decide which one is more probable?  You go outside the Bible and look at all available scientific evidence.  I learn that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that unicorns ever existed – no fossils, no frozen specimens (a la mammoths), no DNA samples.  I find legends and mythology that mention unicorns, but these have a logical explanation (unknowledgeable ancient people trying to explain a narwhal skull). I conclude that there really weren’t unicorns living in those days.

Now let’s go through the same thought process with the word yom.  Some Hebrew scholars translate it as ’24 hour day’.  Others scholars translate it as ‘indeterminate period of time’.  How do you decide which one is more probable?  I say the best and only way is to go outside the Bible and look at all available scientific evidence.  I learn that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the claim that the entire universe was created in six 24-hour days, and plenty that contradict it  – no agreeing radiometric results, no way to explain the geologic column,  no way to adequately explain the fossil record,  no way to adequately explain the genetic record.   I learn that there are millions of pieces of evidence that the Earth has been around for roughly 4.5 billion years, and life for over 3 billion years.  I find legends and mythology that mention various Gods creating the earth in a brief time frame, but these have a logical explanation (unknowledgeable ancient people trying to explain their existence)  I conclude that the Universe and Earth really weren’t created in six literal days.

This is exactly the same thought process we’ve been pounding you snotless with for weeks over the Noah’s Flood story.  The original text doesn’t say 'fountains of the deep’, it says macyenoth tehôm rabbah, which roughly translates to “underground springs”.   And the original text doesn’t say ‘covered the entire planet Earth’, it says kol erets, which translates roughly into “whole land”.  You’re been arguing for a literal English translation, NOT the original text.  We’ve provided gobs of physical evidence that the English translation of the Noah story you've been arguing is not literally true.  You ignore all the evidence and offer a pulled-out-of-your-ass counter “theory” (several, actually) with NO evidence.  You desperately cling to your literal interpretation despite all the contrary evidence.

What do these revelations do to ones faith?  If one really is secure in an Omnipotent God, the answer should be NOTHING.  If your faith in God is based on clinging to easily disproved translation errors and myths, you’re in deeper kimchee than you realize.

Here’s the punch line Dave – NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU, PERSONALLY, BELIEVE.  There’s only a problem when you or other YEC morons try and get their particular interpretation of demonstrated non-literal Biblical mythology pushed as literal science into science classrooms.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

Date: 2006/07/25 17:35:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Conversation with AFDave

evo: "Dave, here is the C14 calibration data"

AFDave : <drools on shirt>

evo: "Dave, here is the Human/Chimp genetic data"

AFDave : <farts loudly, leaves skid marks>

evo: "Dave, here is the plate tectonics data"

AFDave : <picks nose and eats booger>

evo:  "Holy f*ck Dave, are you gonna keep your head up your ass your whole life?

AFDave: "Huh? What? Did I miss something?"

Date: 2006/07/25 17:53:55, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
The actual AFDave ‘logic’ method

1) Your parents force feed you this book see?  Commonly called the Bible ...
2) You hear your Fundy parents claiming that it's supernatural, so you investigate
3) You find lots of contradictory evidence, but you totally ignore it
4) You find a single piece of questionable data that will support the idea ONLY IF you suspend the laws of physics.
5) After this ‘thorough’ investigation, you agree with what you were indoctrinated with
6) You conclude from your preconceived ideas and despite the evidence that this book is supernatural ... superintended by a Supernatural God, who apparently created all things
7) The Bible claims to be inerrant
8) There are many claims in the Bible which are easily proven to be in error, but you ignore them all
9) Despite the huge amount of ‘scientific’ interpretations which have been proven erroneous, but just because some bits of the historical data HAVE BEEN proven to be true, you conclude that the Bible's claims to be infallible definitely must be true

No logic.  Just brain-dead Fundy mental masturbation.

Date: 2006/07/26 03:34:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave July 26 2006 @ 06:00)
HOW TO EVALUATE THEORIES

To explain scientifically an unobserved event that cannot be repeated, we must first assume the conditions existing before that event. From these assumed starting  conditions, we then try to determine what should happen according to the laws of physics. Three criteria should then be used to evaluate the proposed explanation....(snip rest)


Plagiarized from here

Dave, if all you can do is mindlessly C&P crap from creationist web sites, you may as well go home.  At least have the honesty to credit your source.

Oh BTW Davie-doo, you keep forgetting to answer :

How do you determine which parts of the NKJV Bible are literal and inerrant, which are metaphor, and which are just plain wrong?

Date: 2006/07/26 11:54:18, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
HEAT, PRESSURE, TIME ... AND MAGIC!!

(Where are those mountains going to get all that heat, JonF?  Rocks can melt and bend deep underground, but last time I checked it never gets above 120F or so above ground unless you have a fire ... )

(Oh, yeah, I forgot ... the mountains took the "Disney Down Elevator" to a magical place deep underground, then took the elevator back up ... silly me ... I forgot about that)


Dave, now you're being an assho1e just to be an assho1e.  All that was covered IN DETAIL on the Tulane U. Geology Webpage I provided to you earlier

Metamorphic rock formation

If you're too f-ing lazy to even read the info when it's shoved right under your nose, then don't cry like a big pussy when your ignorance continues unchecked.

And Dave,

How do you determine which parts of the NKJV Bible are literal and inerrant, which are metaphor, and which are just plain wrong?

Date: 2006/07/26 16:09:05, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
On the other hand, if you are a YEC, life is easy and explanations are easy ...


Wow, Davie gets it right twice in one week! Ignorance truly is bliss for a YEC, eh Davie?  Or is it 'no brains, no headaches!' for you? :D

If you're a YEC, explanations are easy because you get to lie and make shit up as you go.  What could be easier than that?  You don't need any of that 'evidence' stuff, or that 'pathetic level of detail' that actual science requires, no siree!  You just pull a fantastic claim (the more known scientific laws it violates, the better) out of some orifice, then declare it to be true in ALL BOLD, CAPITAL LETTERS unless the  evil atheist Evos disprove it.

Doing actual science, OTOH can be brutally hard, dirty, repetitive work.  Some experiments or field research can occupy a scientist's whole professional career.  Of course, the rewards are a much better detailed understanding of the world we live and the physical processes that make it so.

Davie, I notice you haven’t uttered one peep about the NKJV being a non-inerrant translation, something you finally admitted after 3 months of “IT”S LITERAL AND INERRANT!!” bullshit from you.  You haven’t addressed at all the fact that you’re defending an imperfect translation and not the original text.  I know that must be giving you fits, because it cuts the legs right out from under your biggest argument - ‘because the Bible says it, it must be true’.

C’mon Davie –speak up!  Tell us how you justify claiming that because something appears in a known imperfect English translation it must be literal and true. Then tell us:

How do you determine which parts of the NKJV Bible are literal and inerrant, which are metaphor, and which are just plain wrong?

These are important questions Dave, and they won't go away.

Date: 2006/07/27 11:12:40, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA ... go back and do some remedial reading on mine and Diogenes posts about inerrancy.  Lie face down on a white mat and pray to your "God of Millionsofyearsianism" ... maybe He will explain it to you.


No can do, Davie-doo. The question wasn't about anything Diogenes said, it was about your words.

Remember your words Davie-doo?

 
Quote
Afdave wrote: There is no 100% literal, inerrant translation ... But I use NKJV ... it's close ...


I'm sure you regret saying them, even though it was one of the few honest thoughts you have had.  Problem for you is - it totally screws your "The original text of the Bible is literal and inerrant" claim because you don't have access to the original text Davie, all you have are known imperfect translations.

C'mon you macho Bible 'expert' - pull your pants up and tell us

How do you determine which parts of the NKJV Bible are literal and inerrant, which are metaphor, and which are just plain wrong?

Date: 2006/07/27 12:34:22, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
This has been a really bad week for our YEC target drone AFDave.  He's been getting pounded unmercifully from both sides, top, and bottom with no let up in sight.  He's been made to look like a complete fool not only in geology, but also in his Bible 'expertise'.  :D  Looks like he's going a bit unstable too from all the evidence he can't explain and questions he can't answer - regressing farther and farther into child-like denial.  The fact that he brought it all on himself with his arrogant actions and ignorant claims should not deter us from taking pity on his sore, stretched rectum.

Anyone think we should give him a breather, maybe let him stop whimpering and catch his breath?

How about it Davie - you need a minute to grab a grab a hankie and change your Maxi-pad?

Date: 2006/07/27 18:38:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Aftershave ... no, I'm NOT sorry I said the NKJV is not without errors.  I'm quite sure it has a few.  This has no bearing on the concept of inerrancy of the originals.  Get a clue.  Go back and do your remedial reading.


Of course you're not sorry Davie doo doo head - compulsive liars like you rarely are.  I'll just point out once again that you don't have access to the originals, that you have never read or even seen the originals, and you have no idea what the originals said or meant.

That being the case, any claim about the inerrancy of the originals is strictly wishful thinking bullshit on your part.  Funny, but bullshit seems to be the stock and trade of just about every YEC that I meet.  Sure is easy to be a YEC!  You, Davie, are a master of the craft!

Jesus must be so proud of you for the lies you tell for Him, right Davie?

Date: 2006/08/03 17:57:36, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Apollo230: If I outline a research protocol for detecting a designer, you are probably going to summarily dismiss that, too.  


As a lurker, I'm quite interested to see if anyone could come up with a viable scientific protocol for design detection in a biological entity.  Every design detection scheme I've ever heard of, from archaeology to detecting genetic modifications in food crops to SETI, works by trying to match a previous, known to be human created 'pattern' with the suspected unknown.

The key word here is viable.  Dembski has already offered up his 'explanatory filter' which has proven to be both logically unsound and totally worthless in the real world.  If trying a conventional approach to detecting design in life forms, what do you use as your 'pattern' template?

Show us what ya' got!

Date: 2006/08/04 06:27:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Glen, thanks for the compliment!  I'm glad to know ...

a) That you agree that I have scientific expertise, and
b) That you think using scientific expertise to train children is a waste of one's time


To the sarcasm-impaired ArrogantFundyDave:

Deliberately teaching known false information to innocent, trusting children and charging money for it is truly despicable.  Davie-doo, you really are a POS stuck on the bottom of Christianity's shoe.

Date: 2006/08/05 17:45:20, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey AFDavie the child abuser:

You ready yet to give us the YEC explanation for why the six independent C14 dating calibration methods all agree with one another, and extend back to 50,000 YBP?

Or why NO ONE in the world has used the YEC model for an honest successful business case?

Or maybe you could show us the calculations about where the heat energy went when the trillion trillion ton continents accelerated and decelerated to/from 100MPH in one day?

What are you hiding from Davie?  Don't you want to know the TROOTH?

Date: 2006/08/05 17:55:05, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDavie the Child Abuser says:
 
Quote
Remember what my purpose here is?  Do you need a reminder?


Yep Davie, we sure do remember:

1) Hone your lies to make them sound more 'sciency' and believable to the other YEC idiots.
2) Force feed your known lies to innocent children.
3) Make money off the gullible like all the other Fundy TV Evangelist shitheels.

Did I miss any?

Date: 2006/08/06 18:35:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave walks into a geology convention and tries to find evidence for his global flood.  He goes to the post presentation Q&A session:

AFDave:  “Excuse me, I’d like a hundred trillion gallons of water for my ‘fountains of the deep’ flood model please”
Geologists: “I’m sorry sir, there is no source for such water”
AFDave:  “Oh, OK.  In that case, I’d like ten trillion gallons of water for my ‘fountains of the deep’ flood model please”
Geologists: “We just told you sir, there is no source for such water”
AFDave:  “Oh, alright.  I’d like one trillion gallons of water for my ‘fountains of the deep’ flood model please”
Geologists: “Look sir, how do you spell the ‘mount’ in ‘mountain’?
AFDave:  “er…M-O-U-N-T”
Geologists “And how do you spell the ‘plate’ in ‘plate tectonics’?
AFDave:  “er…P-L-A-T-E”
Geologists: “Now sir, how do you spell the ‘fuck’ in ‘water source for the fountains of the deep’?
AFDave:  “but there is no ‘fuck’ in ‘water source for the fountains of the deep’”
Geologists: “That’s what we’ve been telling you, you moron.  There is no fuckin’ water source for the fountains of the deep!”

Date: 2006/08/12 12:55:45, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Davie Dumbshit sez: Of course there are canyons all over the world similar to the Grand Canyon ... and they were ALL caused by massive quantities of rapidly flowing WATER, my friend.

Not by dinky rivers flowing over millions of years.

Hey DavieDumbfuck, check out this canyon.  Looks just like the Grand Canyon, right?  Must have been formed by massive quantities of receding FLUD water, right?



Only problem for you is, this canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment!  That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.  It is in the Tarim Basin in far western China, and was discovered and mapped by geologists using reflection seismology methods for exploration of deep underground petroleum deposits. It is from the Ordovician  period of the Paleozoic era, and was formed between 480 – 430 million years ago, then buried by the subsequent sedimentation from seas that later covered what is now China.

Now Davie Dickless,  you want to tell us how your FLUD model explains the canyon being formed in exceptionally hard limestone (which itself first had to be deposited), then was covered by 17000 feet of sediment in just a few days?

Source for this and more info on other buried canyons and buried river formations courtesy of the ever helpful geologist Glenn Morton, the ex-YEC Davie loves to hate.

Date: 2006/08/12 14:31:28, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
DavieDumbass sez:  
Quote
1) Limestone gets deposited by water
2) Limestone hardens

When did the limestone get deposited Dave?  Before the FLUD?  During the FLUD?  Remember, according to you there were at most only 1500 years between Genesis and the FLUD.  The fastest known rate for the depositing of limestone is 1210 grams/meter squared per year, measured in a reef environment in the tropics, or less than 1mm per year.  The limestone with the canyon I showed you is thousands of feet thick.  How long did the limestone take to deposit Dave?
 
Quote
3) Canyon is carved rapidly

How long did it take to carve the canyon Dave? Limestone is an exceptionally hard material, much harder than the ‘soft mud sediment’ model you’ve been pushing for the CG – it doesn’t just ‘wash away’.  Less than a hundredth of a gram of limestone can be dissolved in a gallon of fresh water Dave, and virtually none will dissolve in sea water.  How did the FLUD carve meandering channels in rock-solid limestone Dave?
 
Quote
4) More sediment gets deposited in the canyon

If the receding FLUD carved the canyon, how did an additional 17000 feet of sediment later appear?  A second, undocumented FLUD II?  Where did the 17000 feet of sediment come from Dave?  
 
Quote
Come on, OA.  Give me a hard one ... that one's too easy.

The pro-science folks here have been giving you the hard one ever since you began spouting your rubbish Davie – it’s just so weird that you grab your ankles and enjoy it so.

Date: 2006/08/13 04:25:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ericmurphy says:
 
Quote
If you want your flood to deposit all 5,000 feet of sediment just at the Grand Canyon, I think you need more like two million feet of water.


Forget the 5000 feet.  I want Shit For Brains to explain the 17,000 feet of sediment over the buried Chinese canyon that he says was cut from FLUD run-off.  How many million feet of water would that take?

How about it SFBDave?  Tell us what you know about how a limestone canyon could form and get buried 17000 feet deep by DA FLUD.

Date: 2006/08/13 19:38:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
eight?

ten?

Anyone make an actual count of the number of normally silent lurkers who were moved to submit a post just to comment on what an ignorant shit-for-brains scumbag AFDave is?

AFDave is sure winning hearts and minds with his 'arguments', ain't he? :D :D :D

Date: 2006/08/15 16:07:56, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Don't know if anyone else saw this, but I had to comment:

Yesterday Dumbski posted this boast about how well his book sales were going.  He titled it:

Academics may despise ID . . . but they sure are buying our books

The very first (paraphrased) comment some insightful soul posted was:

"What ever makes you think it's Academics buying your books?"  :p  :p  :p

The comment was deleted in under fifteen minutes :D

To whoever gave the DembskiTard that middle finger - I owe you a beer!

I guess we should feel sorry for Dumbski.  After all, I hear he's selling his books to pay for his operation - an addadictomy.  ;)

Date: 2006/08/16 09:08:53, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey ShitForBrainsDave:

Since without your beloved Encyclopedia Brittanica you'd be reduced to blubbering in a puddle of your own urine -

Please go look up the EB entry for Origin of Limestone.  Pay particular attention to the formation time for the process.

Then look up the entries for Niobrara Limestone, Solnhofen Limestone, and Helderbergian Stage Limestone.

Come back and tell what EB says the formation time is, and the dates for those deposits are, OK?

If it's in Encyclopedia Brittanica it must be true, right Davie-doo?

Date: 2006/08/16 11:56:32, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
SFBDave: Does that help clarify my position for you?


We all know your position by now Dave.

Date: 2006/08/16 13:25:12, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
SFBDave, what did Encyclopedia Britannica say about the time required for formation of limestone, huh?

You ever gonna give us the details of how the buried limestone canyon in China was formed, and then covered by 17000 feet of sediment?

Date: 2006/08/18 05:15:49, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Guys, it's time to give up talking to ShitForBrainsDave.  SFBD is not a Christian interested in learning.  SFBD a willfully ignorant lying moron only interested in preaching his own narrow Fundy beliefs.

SFBD was a willfully ignorant lying moron yesterday, he'll be a willfully ignorant lying moron today, and tomorrow's not looking too good either.

IMHO, best thing to do is to address comments to the lurkers.  Keep pounding SFBD with scientific facts he can't explain, questions he can't answer, evidence he can't just hand-wave away.  Then, when he goes into his squirming, evading tap dance, everyone can see what worthless arguments SFBD the coward is offering.

By the way, please keep heaping the ridicule on his oh-so-deserving lying ass.  Those pics of the flying monkey cracked me up!

Date: 2006/08/18 14:31:23, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
SFBDave the martyr whines...
     
Quote
Yes.  It does sound familiar.  I don't share the religious beliefs--Evolution--of people here at ATBC, so you try to persecute me.  Name calling, stupid pictures, what have you.  Someone even said they would harm me physically if they could.


After all these posts you still just don't get it, do you DumbassDave.  You are not being ostracized because of your beliefs you moron, you are being ostracized because of your behavior.

When people have tried to engage you in honest debate you have totally ignored the evidence presented, refused to follow references to learn anything for yourself, lied repeatedly about what was and wasn't said, and generally acted like an arrogant shithead.

You can be the most devout YEC on the planet, and as long as you make an attempt to honestly address all the evidence and honestly repeat what was said, you'd be treated with respect.

You could be the world's biggest old Earth evolution accepting atheist, but if you behaved the way you do we'd still think you were an assho1e.

Any part of that you don't understand Davie?

Date: 2006/08/20 13:16:39, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFdave @ Aug. 20 2006,06:59)


6) the fact of incised meanders showing that sediments were soft when the meander was cut


SFBDave continues to lie about the GC.  A river slow enough to cut meanders could not possible carry away all the sediment required to form the CG in Dave's creationist one year time frame.  A flow fast enough to carry away all the sediment in one year could not possibly cut meanders.  Dave is dishonest and continues to lie about this.

 
Quote (AFdave @ Aug. 20 2006,06:59)

7) the fact of two modern examples of flood waters creating very similar features to what we find in the Grand Canyon and other canyons


SFBDave continues to lie about the Chinese canyon cut in limestone and buried 17000 feet below today's surface.  Dave lies about how long it takes a thousand feet of limestone to form.  Dave lies about how long it takes water to carve a canyon in super-hard limestone.  Dave lies about how 17000 feet of sediment could have been deposited after the canyon was carved.

Dave Hawkins, the cowardly egotistical anti-Christian - lying for Jesus and embarrassing real Christians everywhere.

Date: 2006/08/20 17:42:58, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
SFBDavie asks:
Quote
This afternoon I came home from church and found some brown piles of smelly stuff in my front yard...

From this evidence can you tell me what most likely happened in my front yard?


Sure thing Davie.  What happened was someone must have squeezed your head.


Date: 2006/08/21 05:14:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AirheadGirlDavie whines

"Waaahh!!  Waaaahh!!  Mommie, make them stop persecuting me, the poor little Christian missionary!!  Make them stop threatening me!!  Nobody likes me!! Waaaahh!!"

For someone who brags about being a macho ex fighter jock, you sure are a crying little pussy Davie, you know that?

Date: 2006/08/21 11:47:09, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Have you noticed that I keep "putting up" and I never "shut up"?


The only thing you keep "putting up" is putting your head up your ass, Davie-doo.

   
Quote
How old is the earth?   6000 years or so, evidence given ... oh about 80 pages ago I guess ... were you sleeping that day?


Davie, please explain for us why there are so many independent calibration methods for C14 dating that all agree with one another, and all give dates well older than 6000 YBP?  Were you sleeping for the solid month I hammered you about that Davie?  I notice you're still dishonest enough to ignore that evidence, you poor little persecuted victim you.

Please explain how limestone gets deposited, and the rate it gets deposited.  How long would it take to lay down a limestone bed 1000' thick?

Please explain how long it takes for a canyon to be eroded in rock-hard limestone.

Please explain how such a limestone canyon could be buried under 17000' of sediment.

And it's easy to make you selectively shut up Davie.  All anyone has to do is ask you detailed technical questions about the bullshit claims you make, and you immediately shut up and change the topic.

Date: 2006/08/21 13:30:17, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Hey Aftershave ... do your fingers ever stink?

I was gonna say "just the middle one - ask your wife" but that wouldn't be fair to her.  She's not the assho1e in your household, all she did was marry one.

Now, please show the lurkers some Christian honesty and quit avoiding these questions:

Please explain for us why there are so many independent calibration methods for C14 dating that all agree with one another, and all give dates well older than 6000 YBP?  

Please explain how limestone gets deposited, and the rate it gets deposited.  How long would it take to lay down a limestone bed 1000' thick?

Please explain how long it takes for a canyon to be eroded in rock-hard limestone.

Please explain how such a limestone canyon could be buried under 17000' of sediment.

See Davie, an honest Christian would say "I admit I have no rational explanation for all those scientific facts that directly contradict my YEC claims", but we all know you're not an honest Christian, right?  Better to squirm and evade to avoid embarrassment, right?  What's one more Lie for Jesus among the many lies you've already told?

Date: 2006/08/22 04:27:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
SFBDavie, your feeble attempts at shifting the focus from your ignorance and lack of evidence for YEC is noted.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume

1. Poor Davie really is the victim of Christian persecution.
2. There really is an Evil Atheist Conspiracy, Science Division that goes around the world and deliberately hides all positive evidence for YEC.
3. Davie's "common sense" is better evidence that the work of thousands of experts in the fields of geology, biology, physics, etc.

NOW DAVE:  how about answering these questions just to show the lurkers how sincere you really are about finding the TROOTH.

Please explain for us why there are so many independent calibration methods for C14 dating that all agree with one another, and all give dates well older than 6000 YBP?  

Please explain how limestone gets deposited, and the rate it gets deposited.  How long would it take to lay down a limestone bed 1000' thick?

Please explain how long it takes for a canyon to be eroded in rock-hard limestone.

Please explain how such a limestone canyon could be buried under 17000' of sediment.

C'mon Davie, show us your Christian honesty and sincerity.  ADDRESS THE TOUGH QUESTIONS for once in your cowardly life.

Date: 2006/08/22 04:38:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Ved says:
Quote
Paley, Dave could be arguing that 2 + 2 = 4, but he'll quote an article that says it's 3, and say that we're wrong.


But 2 + 2 does = 3, for very small values of 2.  ;)

Date: 2006/08/22 13:19:28, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
and again, from here

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1484#comments

someone let this comment (#11) slip by

 
Quote
It is a sad state of affairs when a supposed scientific site(which this claims to be) can only sustain that illusion by excluding all who disagree.

I came here to discuss the theories you have put forth, but a few minutes reading disabused me of the idea that debate and exchange of ideas are welcomed here.

Mr. Demski had an opportunity to widely diseminate his views in Kansas, but he was a no-show(and certainly not worth 200 dollars an hour). At least Behe had the courage of his convictions and testified(even though the plaintive’s lawyer cleaned his clock for him).

Don’t worry, I won’t be wasting my time here any more, your words and deeds indicate this is not a site in search of knowledge, but one for the stroking of Dumski’s ego.

Grumpy


Double ouch!  Looks like someone at UD is trying to embarrass Dumbski!  Wonder who??   ;)

Date: 2006/08/22 18:05:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
like two peas in a pod!


LOL!  Separated at birth? :D

You have to keep in mind, Dumbski is seriously f*cked in the head.  He’s a mousy little man with a titanic ego, and ID was going to be his ticket to the big time.  Now his 15 minutes of fame is up and look what he’s left with.  He’s a laughingstock of the scientific community, an untenured professor at a second-rate religious college, doing no research, no technical publishing, and accomplishing exactly zilch.  For the “Isaac Newton of Information Theory” :p, that’s a huge bitter pill for him to choke on.  All he has left is his ever shrinking pool of brainless IDiot suck-ups to buy his hopelessly muddled books, which is why he runs UD like the clown circus it is.  He’s actually pretty pathetic, in a “drunk guy who pissed his pants and doesn’t know it” kinda way.

Or maybe he’s just angry because Morphodyke O’Leary gets more p*ssy than he does. ;)

Date: 2006/08/22 18:28:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Dave, do us all a favor and do in search in the real scientific literature before you waste our time with crap like this.


Our ShitForBrainsDave research the actual scientific literature?  NEVER!  It's just filled with that technical mumbo-jumbo and big sciency words that little Davie can't understand.  Probably written by those evil Atheist scientist deceivers anyway, right SFBDavie?

It's much easier for SFBDave to do a quick search in his favorite Creationist shit-piles, then C&P something so ridiculously wrong it makes everyone here LOL.  Of course SFBDavie doesn't have the reasoning skills to figure out why it’s comically wrong though, so he'll declare victory and go back to humping his Bible for satisfaction.  I wonder if he has the one with the Teflon cover so it's smoother, and doesn't stain?

Date: 2006/08/23 16:13:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I know this has nothing to do with anything else, but when I saw these pajamas the other day, I immediately thought that Dave would probably buy these and dress his children in them as they go to sleep at night. Armor of God


BWAHAHAHA!!*  That's the perfect gift for our little Davie-doo.  We should take up a collection and buy SFBDavie a pair to protect him from all those evil Christian-hating scientists :)  I'd be willing to kick in $5 to the pot.

How about it SFBDavie - what size jammies do you wear?

* Note to self:  NEVER read ATBC comments with a sip of wine in my mouth - the spew factor is too high! :)

Date: 2006/08/28 05:15:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey ShitForBrainsDave, did you read this part?
Quote
Although it is unclear how many successive forest layers are present in the Lamar River Formation, estimates range from 9-12 for Specimen Ridge. Some of the levels have very wide and old trees trunks.

That means an intact, mature forest was covered, another mature forest grew over top of the covered one, then that mature forest was covered.  Repeat for 9-12 cycles.

How long does it take a mature forest to grow SFBDavie?

Also, you keep forgetting to answer this



How is limestone deposited Davie? How long does it take for 1000' of limestone to be laid down?

Date: 2006/08/28 05:54:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
To answer your question, YES, I read all of that.  And I also quoted this part to you ...
 
Quote
Karowe and Jefferson note that the "striking similarity between features of of trees buried in situ by Mount St Helens mudflows and features of upright fossil trees in the Specimen Ridge section of Yellowstone National Park strongly supports a depositional model of in situ burial for the upright trees at Yellowstone" (p. 203; see also Yamaguchi and Hoblitt, 1995).


Predictably, the article then goes on and tries to say how Lamar River is different that Mt Saint Helens.  They couldn't agree with creationists. That would never do!!!  Their disagreement doesn't sound very convincing though especially considering the quote above that admits a "striking similarity" to Mt Saint Helens, and the fact that they changed the sign.  Did the Mt Saint Helens trees represent successive forests?  Not at all.  They represented CATASTROPHISM, a word that, like it or not, you are going to have to get used to, my friend.


The Mt Saint Helens trees represent a single layer of trees felled by a single event.  The Yellowstone trees represent 9-12 distinct layers, each representing a different mature forest felled by a different event for each layer.

How does that occur in 3-4 days Davie?

How long does it take a mature forest to grow SFBDavie?

   
Quote
Well, what do you know ... Aftershave shows up again!!  I was just wondering where you disappeared to.


I've been here watching all along SFBDavie - it just that the others were doing such a thorough job of thrashing your dishonest ass there was nothing left for me to kick.

Date: 2006/08/28 07:28:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Aftershave ... what makes you think those layers represent Successive Forests.  You are wrong.  There are many distinct layers in the Mt Saint Helens situation as well.  Different layers are caused by different waves of sedimentation, differences in particles, differences in sediment composition, different weights of sediments, etc, etc, etc.

Again, what makes you so sure those Lamar River trees are SUCCESSIVE FORESTS?

Because ShitForBrains, the layering has been thoroughly analyzed and identified as having distinct paleosols between each layer of volcanic/pyroclastic material.

Yellowstone Geological/Paleontology Survey

   
Quote
"Specimen Creek": The first known map of the Gallatin Petrified Forest is found in a 1935 report, "Petrified Sequoia Trees in the Northwest Corner of Yellowstone National Park" by Dr. Paul A. Young of Bozeman. He identified and mapped 21 standing trees in the Gallatin/Specimen Creek area and noted the discovery of leaf impressions of poplar, willow, and magnolia trees. Most of the previous paleobotanical fieldwork had been conducted in the Lamar River Valley.

Andrews (1939) surveyed the Gallatin region of the park in the 1930s, collecting specimens in the Gallatin Petrified Forest in 1936. He reported at least 12 successive layers of fossil forest around Bighorn Peak, predominantly consisting of Sequoia magnifica, and fossil impressions of S. langsdorfi along Bighorn Creek. The petrified trees are preserved in the Eocene Sepulcher Formation.

Lamar Region

The Lamar Region is limited to the ridge on the south side of the Lamar River, and includes well-exposed Lamar River Formation and Langford Formation. Small exposures of Sepulcher Formation occur at the northwest end of "Specimen Ridge." Its fossiliferous exposures extend from the northwest edge of "Specimen Ridge" to Timothy Creek just south of Mirror Plateau and include "Amethyst Mountain," "Fossil Forest," and "Mirror Plateau."

"Amethyst Mountain/Specimen Ridge": This locality is 10 miles long, lies 2,000 feet above the valley, and exposes 27 successive layers of fossil forest.

"Fossil Forest": The paleontological significance of the region comes from the presence of standing fossil tree trunks and a stratigraphic succession of at least two dozen fossil forests that were first recognized by Knowlton (1914). "Fossil Forest" has been extensively studied by Dorf and other paleobotanists.


Show me where Mt Saint Helens has dozens of successive layers of soil interspaced with layers of ash/pyroclastic material.

Date: 2006/08/28 17:46:58, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Polytard?


Damm !  PolytardDave!  There goes another spewed-on keyboard!  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/08/29 04:41:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey PolytardDave

What about the stratigraphic succession of at least two dozen fossil forests in the Lamar area of Yellowstone Davie?  When I showed you evidence that there were indeed distinct layers of mature forests that had been covered over by separate, distinct pyroclastic events you sure shut up quick and changed the subject.

How long does it take a mature forest to grow Davie?

How long does it take to lay down a 1000' layer of limestone Davie?

What is the mechanism for a canyon to be carved in limestone, then buried under 17,000 ft. of sediment?

   
Quote
I'm not going to re-post answers unless there is a benefit to my purposes for being here.


You can't 're-post' because you never posted any answers to start with.  We all know you're lying Davie, and so does Jesus - do you think you're honoring Him by lying so often?

Bonus question:  What's the name and address of your church - I may want to visit too.

Date: 2006/08/29 07:39:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I think you are hitting a good balance as is, see no reason to change anything.

Date: 2006/08/30 17:21:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Over at UD BarryA issues the "Mt. Rushmore test"

 
Quote
Assume that a Stephen King super virus wipes out all human life next year. 500 years later an alien visits earth and observes Mount Rushmore. The alien has two and only two choices to account for his observation:

1. He could infer from the specified complexity of the sculpture that it is not the result of the random erosion of the mountain, and based on this inference he could conclude that the sculpture is the result of design by an intelligent agent.

2. He could appeal to chance erosion of the mountain to account for the sculpture.

If he chooses theory 1, would it be fair to accuse him of trying to inject the “supernatural” into the debate when the theory says nothing about the nature or purpose of the intelligent agent who designed the sculpture?


I responded with this:

"By the way Barry, just what is the specified complexity of Mt. Rushmore?  Has anyone ever actually calculated it?  How would you calculate it?  What SC threshold value would the sculpture have to exceed before the alien decides the carving was intelligently designed?

Of course there is a third choice that you don’t offer – if these aliens are smart enough to master interstellar travel, they are smart enough to study and analyze the rest of the artifacts left on Earth.  They find millions of similarly shaped objects made of non-natural occurring materials – metal alloys, plastics, etc.  They find studios with many of these objects in the process of being manufactured.  They then have enough information to pattern match Mt. Rushmore with other similar objects made by the previous inhabitants.

Or a fourth choice – the aliens are an energy-based, non material life form who make no distinction between the shape of different physical objects, only the material. To them Mt. Rushmore is just another lump of granite.

My point is, hypothesizing about oddball, unbounded science fiction scenarios doesn't add much value to scientific discussion about present time and place issues.  I can get any answer I want depending on what attributes I assign to the aliens.  

If you still want to do SF - what would the space aliens think if they found a meteor in deep space with a flagellum-bearing single celled animal on it, and had never seen anything human before, including the cute 'artist's conception' poster depicting the flagellum as a human-like rotary motor? In fact, these space aliens never invented the wheel or the rotary motor.  How would they conclude the flagellum was designed?"

He then challenges anyone to answer him:

 
Quote
Are there any materialists out there braver than Leo who want to take a shot at a response?


I responded

"I have done so.  Are you brave enough to allow my response to be posted?"

It's been over two hours now and my post hasn't seen the light of day.  Guess I can now claim

"It has now been over two hours since I posted my response. This means BarryA has almost certainly seen the questions I asked, and my prediction was right on. He chose to ignore the questions. He knows a no win situation when he sees one."

Not too tough to 'win' when you censor out the opponents' responses, now is it?

Date: 2006/08/31 03:36:29, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Back on the Mt Rushmore Test at UD, poster Tom English took BarryA to task for only allowing Leo only two hours before BarryA declared victory.  BarryA's response?

 
Quote
I have two answers to that question. As I pointed out above, it was Leo, not I, who implied he would be coming back to see if anyone had responded to him. Secondly, now it’s the next day. No one (including you) has answered my questions. Your point has no force.


He again claims that no one has answered his questions, even though I know of at least one answer (mine) that was censored out.  Guess we know what the 'A' in BarryA stands for, eh?

What a manly bunch of he-men they have there at UD. ;) Make a challenge, delete all answers that rebut your claims, then claim no one has answered.

And Dembski et al still wonder why so many people consider him and the IDiots to be such lying hypocrites.

Date: 2006/09/01 04:34:09, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
bystander...      
Quote
 
What I would like to see is one of the kids Dave is poisoning see this thread and sue his pants off.


SFBDave
     
Quote
This one statement speaks volumes about you.


What does it say Davie?  That yet another lurker thinks that harming children’s development by deliberately lying to them is reprehensible and should be punished?

I'd love to see one of them sue you and your church too - but I guess you guys lining your own pockets already put the parish 15 million bucks in the red, so there's not much left.   Can't get blood from a turnip, right Davie?

Maybe they could sue you for your brain and testicles Davie-poo.  After all, it’s not like you ever use them.

Date: 2006/09/01 06:25:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Mt. View CA., about 35 mi. south of SF, or 10 mi. north of SJ if you prefer.

Lucky enough to have bought a house here way back in '86.  It's quintupled in value since then, but the way I see it it's all Monopoly™ money.  I'd have to sell and move to Bumf*ck Idaho to recognize a real profit.

Date: 2006/09/01 10:13:39, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
SFBDave rambles on with:
 
Quote
What I see though is that the biggest evidence for a global flood doesn't even require reading a single scientific paper.  It doesn't require a geology degree.  It doesn't even require any high school level science classes at all.  

Guys, I don't know how to say this any more clearly.  We have something like 2 miles thick (maybe I'm off a mile or two--doesn't matter for my present point) of mostly water-laid sediment on planet earth!!  All you have to do is look at the abundant pictures of the Grand Canyon or any other exposed area.  The evidence is there.  There was a whale of a lot of water required to lay down all that sedimentary rocks, friends!

Now HOW exactly did it happen?  OK ... now we need to do some scientific work and write some papers.  I agree.  But to show it DID OCCUR?  No scientific papers required, friend.  

All that's required is some eyeballs and some functioning synapses.

Let me try a little SFBDave logic (it’s gonna hurt I’m sure, but here goes):

Background:

My Holy Book teaches me that the world is populated with an abundance of invisible tree fairies.  These tree fairies have teeny paint brushes, and every autumn they roam the world (the Northern hemisphere anyway) painting the leaves in their favorite colors – red, gold, orange!  Then, when they tire of the colors, the tree fairies take tiny invisible pruning shears and cut the leaves off!

My Argument:

What I see though is that the biggest evidence for tree fairies doesn't even require reading a single scientific paper.  It doesn't require a biology degree.  It doesn't even require any high school level science classes at all.  

Guys, I don't know how to say this any more clearly.  Every autumn we have something like 2 million square miles of forests whose leaves change color and then fall to the ground!!  I'll say it again -billions of colored leaves lying on the ground every autumn.  All you have to do is look at the abundant pictures of the Appalachian Trail or any other heavily forested area.  The evidence is there.  There were a whale of a lot of tree fairies required to paint and cut all those leaves, friends!

Now HOW exactly did it happen?  OK ... now we need to do some scientific work and write some papers.  I agree.  But to show it DID OCCUR?  No scientific papers required, friend.  

All that's required is some eyeballs and some functioning synapses.

NOW SFBDave – can you tell me what is wrong with my logic?

Date: 2006/09/01 17:37:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey SFBDave, since you want to talk about evidence:

How about those six independent methods for calibrating C14 dating results that all cross-correlate with each other, and all indicates dates of a minimum of 10,500 YBP?  Any explanations yet?

How long does it take 1000' of limestone to form Dave?

How long does it take water to erode a 500' deep canyon in rock-hard limestone Dave?

How could such a canyon be formed and then buried under 17,000 ft. of sediment in only 3-4 days Dave?

And what about the Yellowstone buried forests Dave?  The ones you brought up that have over two dozen mature forests growing and then buried one on top of the other in distinctly identified layers?  How long does it take a mature forest to grow Dave?

SFBDavie, as long as you continue to dishonestly refuse to address this factual info, you'll be both empty handed and empty headed.

Oh, I forgot.  You do believe in the tree fairy religion, right?  Even an idiot can see the evidence...

B I L L I O N S   O F  C O L O R E D  L E A V E S  L Y I N G   O N   T H E  G R O U N D  E V E R Y  A U T U M N  ! ! ! :p

Date: 2006/09/02 20:38:12, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ericmurphy writes
       
Quote
On more question, Dave, to add to the four dozen or so you've never answered: how did your remarkably turbulent, chaotic floodwaters separate all their sediment (more sediment, in fact, than water) into nice neat layers, exactly the sort of layers the competing theory expects? I've never seen floodwaters lay down nice neat layers, filled with nicely organized fossils—organized according to exactly the sort of order to be expected by evolutionary theory, have you?

We’ve already beaten PolytardDave about the head and shoulders with this, say, 70 pages ago.  Dave’s "defense" was to C&P the AIG article where they showed that in a small laboratory tank under benign non-turbulent conditions, sand particles of different sizes will settle in recognizable layers

Large particles
Medium particles
Small particles

Of course ShitForBrainsDave can’t explain how such a process could possibly scale up to an incredibly violent flood with continents racing around at 100 MPH churning the oceans, and water moving so swiftly it would carve the Grand Canyon in just a couple of days.

SFBDave also can’t explain how his AIG hydraulic sorting BS accounts for areas like the buried Yellowstone forests, which have dozens of layers of the same materials in different strata, i.e.

Topsoil
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Bedrock

SFBDave is way too ignorant about the sciences involved, and is utterly incapable of thinking for himself.  If he can’t C&P a quick answer from his favorite Creto source he’s up sh*t creek with a turd for a paddle.

Being the dishonest schmuck our Davie boy is, he’ll either completely ignore the questions, or claim he already answered in a previous post.  Just watch.

How about it Davie - got any explanation for the dozens of layers of buried mature forests?  How long does it take a mature forest to grow Davie?

Date: 2006/09/02 21:21:41, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I captured this exchange for posterity before it gets deleted.

Never having actually read the book, Churchlady is so brain damaged she thinks The Selfish Gene is about how there is a specific gene that causes selfish behavior in humans. :O

Then in the finest UD Tard tradition, she deletes all the posts that inform her of her ignorance based boner. :angry:

 
Quote
4. can’t help but laugh at the editor’s desperate need to remove posts that hold Ms O’Leary up to the ridicule she deserved.

Comment by MikeFNQ — September 3, 2006 @ 1:01 am

5. From moderator Denyse: I removed a bunch of posts here from Dawkins fans who are so absolutely sure of their position that they cannot be bothered to spell it out, but merely attacked the blog post. I am sure those posters will not want for a hearing among the Thumbsmen. (One caution post got caught up in it; sorry about that.)

Comment by O'Leary — September 3, 2006 @ 1:04 am

Ms O’Leary

6. If you ARE the editor doing the deletions then I was wrong. You are dishonest rather than just boneheaded.

Comment by MikeFNQ — September 3, 2006 @ 1:05 am


Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!  Why, soitantly!   :p

Date: 2006/09/03 04:46:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ShitForBrainsDave writes:
   
Quote
I write materials for kids.  And I want to write accurately.  So I investigate the claims of Evolutionists and the claims of Creationists.  So if it frustrates you that I C&P from AIG and ICR, well ... I guess you'll just have to be frustrated.

OK Davie, how about you give us your accurate explanation for the multiple independent calibration methods for C14 dating that all cross-correlate to ages well older than 10,500 YBP.

Then give us your accurate explanation for how the dozens of stratigraphic layers of buried forests in Yellowstone formed.

Then give us your accurate explanation for how long it takes 1000' of limestone to form, and how long it would take to erode a 500' deep canyon in such limestone.

AIG and ICR can't help you here SFB - you'll have to do research and come up with answers on your own.  I know that's something that a dishonest dog turd like you just can't handle, which is why you lie and evade every time these questions are asked.

How about it Davie - you gonna share your accurate answers with us?  Or were you just lying about your desire for accuracy too?

What will you tell the kids when they get older and see this evidence for themselves?  What will you say when they ask -
"Deacon Dave, why did you lie to us?"  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

Date: 2006/09/03 05:03:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave



What's all this I hear about selfish jeans??

Why, those evil Darwinists should be ashamed, keeping those fine durable britches all to themselves!


...what?


...huh?


Oh.... never mind!

Date: 2006/09/03 14:13:06, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Moan.  Complain.  Gripe.  Dave's dishonest.  Dave won't answer questions.  Dave this.  Dave that.


The truth hurts, doesn't it Davie.

   
Quote
Hey, someone has to pick the topics, right?  Why not me since this is my thread?


Guess what SFB - You were the one who brought up the topic of the buried forests in Yellowstone looking like the single one at Mt. Saint Helens.  Not us Davie, YOU.   When you were pressed about the details at to how a single violent flood could produce layers of two dozen mature forests buried right atop one another with paleosols between each layer, you cowardly ran the other way.

   
Quote
I do answer many of your questions.


BULLSHIT Davie.  All you do is C&P something from AIG when you can match the appropriate buzzword.  Even with that, most times you're too stupid to even understand what is being argued.  You NEVER answer any question that requires actual thought on your part.

You're a dishonest, arrogant coward Davie.
And as long as you keep acting like one, you'll get treated like one.

Of course, you could easily shut me up and prove we wrong to the lurkers by actually addressing those tough questions.  
But we both know you won't, because you can't.

Date: 2006/09/04 18:38:02, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave


I tell you, you unbelievers have been blown away, but you are too blind and committed to Millionsofyearsianism to see it.  In the name of the One True God, my mission shall be a relentless pursuit of the truth and a tireless walk through the points of my Creator God Hypothesis.  You Atheist evilutionists have been crushed like sand fleas by the camel, and run begging for God's mercy.   As I have been completely honest and up front, admitting my errors when I make them, but I have made none.

Date: 2006/09/05 05:58:04, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ShitForBrainsDave destroys every irony meter within a cubic parsec with:
   
Quote
But alas ... what's a Darwinist to do?  Honest dealing with facts is impossible for many of them ...


Like the way you "honestly" dealt with fact of the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone Davie?

Or the way you "honestly" dealt with the facts about C14 calibration?

Or the way you "honestly" dealt with time for the formation of limestone?

Davie - Everyone here knows you are a scientific nincompoop and a compulsive liar who says whatever sounds good just to prop up your Zeppelin ego.  Why do you even bother pretending to be anything else?

Deacon Dave Dawkins - Lying for Jesus and embarrassing honest Christians everywhere for over 5300 posts!

Date: 2006/09/05 13:40:54, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Nah, I've got it on good authority that bananas were specifically designed for the human hand!   ;)

Date: 2006/09/08 11:39:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ShitForBrainsDawkins lies again:
   
Quote
And the sad thing for you, Eric, is that you do not have a single real date in excess of 6000 years.  Too bad!  So sad!


Hey Shit For Brains - for the tenth or so time:

How do you explain the six independent calibration methods for C14 dating that all agree with each other, and all give a minimum age of 10,500 YBP?

Keep sinning by lying Davie, God hates liars.  - Remember that God is watching you, and he's keeping score.  :p

Date: 2006/09/08 20:01:40, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave


Do you know what makes Jesus angry, Dave?

LIARS make Jesus angry, Dave.

LIARS who refuse to address the tons of evidence that have been placed before them.

LIARS who misrepresent and ignore what other, more knowledgeable Christians have patiently explained to them.

LIARS who have sinned by bearing false witness.

LIARS like Dave Dawkins.  That's what makes Jesus angry Dave.

You know you will have to answer for these lies someday, don't you Dave?  Can you feel the flames already?

Date: 2006/09/09 14:23:40, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Hello Mr. Aftershave--  I see you're still with us ... do you know anything about Argon dating?


Yes I do Mr. Dawkins  I'm not an expert, but I have a good working knowledge of the basics.

Now Mr. Dawkins, do you know anything radiocarbon dating?  Do you know that there are not one, not two, not three, but at least six independent calibration methods for C14/C12 decay rates that all agree to within a few percent, and all give accurate dates to a minimum of 10,500 YBP, up to 50,000 YBP?

Did you know that when scientists do a radiocarbon dating of Catal Huyuk and get a value of 9000 YBP, that date comes from a method that has been independently verifed six different ways?  And when when scientists do a radiocarbon dating of the cave art at Lascaux and get a value of 28000 YBP, that date comes from a method that has been independently verifed six different ways?

Mr. Dawkins, do you realize that ALL radiocarbon dates older than 6000 YBP kick the living snot out of your literal young Earth Genesis claim?

Do you know anything about intellectual honesty Mr. Dawkins?   That means dealing with ALL the evidence that is presented, not lying and avoiding those unpleasant facts that directly contradict your views.

Do you know any honest YECs who are willing to actually discuss this C14 calibration data Mr. Dawkins?  Because I sure can't find any around here.

Date: 2006/09/09 15:05:09, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Joseph is actually Joe Gallien, a moronic legend in the C/E discussion world and a Tard’s Tard if ever there were one.  His exploits include:

Claimed to be a qualified “scientist” because he has a Bachelor of Science, Engineer Technology degree.
Claimed to be a Muslim so people wouldn’t call him a YEC
Got caught using an anonymizer and posting under *dozens* of multiple aliases so he could agree with himself and pat himself on the back
Claimed that there are alien cities on Mars and the Moon

His normal MO has been to C&P the standard antiscience crap, then get into insults and mud slinging with those who rebut his stupidity, escalating to him making threats of physical violence against his perceived “enemies”.  I know for a fact he has been kicked off of more than one board for this behavior.  He did the same thing with me before over at NAIG, but when I called his bluff and gave him a place and time to meet he chickened out, of course.  Funniest time was a few years ago when the tard was making physical threats from his work computer, and someone reported it to his company.  You never saw someone scramble and lie so much in order to cover his ass and avoid getting fired.

Looks like he’s finally found a home with the other ass kissers at UD.  Comments that point out his extraordinary stupidity get edited out, so JoeTard can keep his temper.

Date: 2006/09/10 19:07:13, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Will someone who is not banned at UD remind those IDiots that the John Templeton Foundation still has had no one apply for its millions of dollars in annual science-related grants for intelligent-design research?

Quote
Cambridge Templeton Consortium: The Emergence of Biological Complexity

The John Templeton Foundation has made up to $3 million available for research grants to stimulate and sponsor new research insights directly pertinent to the 'great debate' over purpose in the context of the emergence of increasing biological complexity. Areas of research supported include:

1. Chemistry, "fine tuning" in biocentricity, emergent order and the origin and existence of life
2. Evolution directionality and convergence
3. Archeological and anthropological research in human evolution and the origins and early developments of purpose-seeking and spirituality or religiosity

The focus is primarily on innovative scientific and systematic research, but projects with strong philosophical or theological components are also encouraged.  Grant proposals from all sides of this 'debate' are welcomed.

Date: 2006/09/11 05:16:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
SFBDave sez
Quote
For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.  Would you drive across a bridge that the engineers said was sound "except for those 4 out of 20 times that it broke when a truck went across it" ??  


So if 1 out of 20 Christians at Tri-Cities Ministries is shown to be a scientifically illiterate, egotistical, pathological liar by his actions on a C/E discussion board, then ALL Christians at Tri-Cities must be scientifically illiterate, egotistical, pathological liars.

Did I get that logic right Davie?

Date: 2006/09/12 13:20:31, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey SFBDave, check this out!

Over at TheologyWeb Natural Science, geologist Glenn Morton (the devout Christian and ex-YEC you love to hate) has a new thread about the geological evidence that refutes YEC.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=83841

Glenn can provide dozens of examples (including the buried limestone canyon in China you already ran from) that make your pathetic YEC claims look just silly.

Here's your big chance for redemption Davie.  Why don't you go register over there (it's free) and tell him yourself why his geology is all wrong?

I'd pay money to watch an honest Christian like Glenn Morton kick your lying ass up one side of the page and down the other.  Do you have the balls to take on a Christian professional geologist Davie?  Or is anything beyond lying to kids outside your comfort zone?

Date: 2006/09/14 06:26:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Now, once again ... anyone want to hazard a guess as to why CERN appears to use "666" in their logo?  (I honestly have no idea ... I just find it interesting)


CERN doesn't use 666 in its logo, you idiot.  The circle in the logo represents a cyclotron, and the straight lines represent particles being emitted.

Sheesh....

Date: 2006/09/14 06:51:02, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I think Dave is exhibiting the Southern Baptist equivalent of seeing the Virgin Mary in a tortilla.

Actually, Dave's reaction to the logo gives a great insight into his paranoid schizophrenic personality.

In Dave's mind, he's the persecuted Christian warrior who sees the evil hand of Satan EVERYWHERE!  - CERN logos, Proctor & Gamble lables, grilled cheese sandwiches, you name it. He HAS to battle Satan’s Minions™ to save his mortal soul!  That’s why he keeps coming back to ATBC despite getting his ass kicked up one side and down the other.  It’s his destiny.  :p

Date: 2006/09/14 06:58:50, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
The cyclotron with 3 long arms forms 3 sixes stacked on one another, so you have 666.


How do you know it's not 999, or qqq?  :p

Are the black helos hovering over your house now Davie?

Date: 2006/09/14 08:00:14, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
There are 3 long arms and 2 short arms.  The long arms could be viewed as 3 stacked sixes by someone with not even a very active imagination.


I asked before in jest, now I'll ask seriously:

What makes you think they're 666, not 999 or qqq?  Could it be you are predisposed to see 666?  Give me a good reason why a neutral observer (i.e. someone who had never heard of 'the number of the beast' ) would conclude 666 instead of the other possibilities.

Think about it Dave, and give me a serious answer.

Date: 2006/09/14 11:44:57, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Of course I'm predisposed to see a 666.  Where have you been?  Is it not obvious that I think Revelation is a book inspired by God himself?  But, contrary to what you may think, I have not made up my mind that it IS, in fact, intended to be a 666 ...


OK Dave, but you didn't answer this part of the question:

Give me a good reason why a neutral observer (i.e. someone who had never heard of 'the number of the beast' ) would conclude 666 instead of the other possibilities of 999 or qqq, or see NO alpha-numeric pattern.

The only way I see 666 is if I turn the logo upside down - rightside up I get 999 or qqq.  Why should anyone turn the logo upside down?

Date: 2006/09/14 16:46:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
SFBDave the liar resurfaces with:
Quote
Are you not aware that creationists have no problem with C14 dating for post Flood events?  I think I have said that several times before.  The problem with pre-Flood C14 dating is the uniformitarian assumptions of  carbon levels.  Deep Timers dismiss the Global Flood and thus render their assumptions invalid for any "dates" older than the Flood.


Tsk tsk tsk...Davie, you're lying again.

We've already been through the data on this very thread Dave.  The whole point of doing *independent calibration* of C14/C12 ratios is because scientists don't assume uniform C14/C12 levels.  As a matter of fact, the evidence shows that at times the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio has varied by up to 20% off of what it is today.

I showed you multiple calibration curves going back as far as 50,000 years Dave.  They all precisely cross-correlated to within a few percent, and NONE of them show any trace of the Flood caused 100X C14/C12 level 'spike' you claim.  Do I need to rub your nose in the cal curves again Davie?  Last time I pointed this out to you, you shut up and refused to discuss it anymore.  Why was that Dave?  Are you finally willing to discuss the data now?

It's said that the most important thing a liar need is a good memory.  Well Davie, you'd better start working on yours ASAP, because you're already forgetting the lies you've told.

We, however, won't forget them Dave, and we won't let you forget them either.

Date: 2006/09/15 07:14:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave:Whooppee!  20% huh?  I thought your "calibration curves" were supposed to validate you 20,000 year old cave paintings and such, thereby refuting by 6000 year old earth.  I never heard you mention this 20%.


The C14/C12 ratio has varied considerably, NOT the measured dates, you idiot.  The ratio variance is accounted for in the calibration curves, which is why we do calibration.  The 28,000 year old cave dates are accurate to within <0.5%

Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are being deliberately obtuse, or really are dumb as a sack of doorknobs.

Here is another good overview of how multiple independent calibration sources are combined to produce as accurate an overall calibration curve as possible

radiocarbon calibration

The final curve (with error bars) looks like this


The theoretical C14/C12 ratio correlation (assuming uniformity) would be a straight diagonal line from (0,0) to (45, 45).  The empirical data shows the C14/C12 ratio has not been constant.  To get the true calendar age of a sample, you measure the C14/C12 ratio in your sample, calculate the theoretical date, find that data point on the Y axis, then get the actual date from the cal curve X axis.

Notice Dave there is NO big spike around your claimed Flood date

I will be reminding you often of your promise to discuss this data Dave.  Be prepared to deal with it.

Date: 2006/09/17 05:51:57, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave: The Missoula Flood story is one worth reading and gives a very good explanation of how the Grand Canyon and many others were formed


Tell me again Dave, how did that buried canyon in China form?  You know, the one I showed you that's cut into rock hard limestone and covered with over 17,000 feet of sediment?

Date: 2006/09/19 15:36:50, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
That Amazon review russ cited was supplied by someone named "Discovery Reviewer" in Seattle, WA.  Any alarm bells sounding yet?  :p

Turns out that "Discovery Reviewer" has submitted 54 reviews total, and every last one is a glowing 5-star tribute to one of the Discovery Institute's Big Name IDiots - everything by Dembski, everything by Phil Johnson, Behe, Henry Schaefer, etc.  Now there's an honest source for a review.

Didn't Dumbski get caught last year writing a "stellar" Amazon review of one of his own books, using a fake name?

And they still wonder why 99.9 % of the scientific community consider them pseudoscientific charlatans as well as Grade-A assholes.

Date: 2006/09/20 08:08:01, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave: DATA, Jon, DATA ... not some scientist's biased conclusions.


You mean like the data on the C14 calibration curves that you totally ignored?

Or the data on limestone formation and erosion rates that you totally ignored?

Or the data on river meander formation that you totally ignored?

Or the data on the two dozen mature forests in Yellowstone that are buried one on top of another that you totally ignored?

We all know you're an intellectually dishonest habitual liar Davie.  What would you do with another data set to totally ignore?

Date: 2006/09/20 11:17:05, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave


ROFPMSL!  I guffawed so loudly at that my co-workers came over to see what the fuss was about!  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/09/22 19:04:15, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Put a potato in your front pants pocket - go as a dictator.   ;)

Date: 2006/09/24 15:00:55, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Apparently, this dude climbed back into his garderobe.


Yep, he had to take a steaming Dembski.  But the job wasn't done until he wiped his Robert O'Brien   :p

Date: 2006/09/26 14:59:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I like this part
     
Quote
Overwhelming Evidence is a site where high school students can network and communicate their views on intelligent design and evolution.

We believe that today's students are smarter than they are given credit for, and that rather than being told what to believe, they have the ability to explore the range of possibilities and figure out what to believe on their own.

Wow.  OE is like a teenage version of AFDave's "Lies4Kids", only even more underhanded.

This new site reminds me a lot of the old cigarette ad campaign with "Joe Camel", where teens were manipulated with things like "We say smoking is for ADULTS only, so if you're not ADULT enough , DON'T SMOKE".  Substitute ID for SMOKE and you get the picture.

Nothing like pandering to the desperate desire of adolescent kids' to be grown up to sell the product.

Date: 2006/09/26 16:13:00, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I was the one who was censored for the following comment, expressing my utter distain for Dembski's actions with his new OE website.  

 
Quote
Dembski really is a scum sucking, worthless piece of shit.  I hope he catches some unpronounceable disease and his tiny balls painfully rot off.


I was most unpleasantly surprised and angry when my thoughts were summarily censored out.  My words weren't mindless 'spitting'.  They were indeed harsh and vulgar, and they were carefully selected to express my feelings about people who deliberately manipulate children.  I meant them.

ATBCs main strength is that allows unlimited freedom of expression.  If that means some reader might perceive that a comment of mine makes me 'look bad', that's my risk, and I will willingly take it.

One of the worst things about sites like UD is that it censors posts that the mods perceive will make it 'look bad'.

Censoring people's posts is a lot more Davetard than any heartfelt comments will ever be.

- Occam's Aftershave

Date: 2006/09/26 16:20:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Censorship is a very serious issue, and it affects many more people than just me.

It's a topic that deserves discussion in an open, public forum IMHO.

Date: 2006/09/26 16:57:11, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
You're right Ichthyic, I'd forgotten about that thread.

However, I went back and re-read the whole thing.  There were no comments at all about censorship, and the few that even mentioned moderation all said "the less the better".

I have nothing against stevestory, he's been doing a great job (up until this one hiccup ;) ) and hope he continues.

I just think censorship in any form is deplorable.  I hate to see the free expression of ideas, ANY ideas, stifled in any way. If someone wants to say "OA sucks donkey balls" - more power to 'em.  Let their ideas stand or fall on their own merit, not the whim of a moderator.

Freedom of speech IS ATBC's greatest strength over the ham-fisted censors at the IDiot boards.  As long as someone is not spamming the board or posting tons of off-topic junk, all ideas (even vulgar, insulting ones) should be allowed.

That's just one man's opinion, your mileage my vary.

Date: 2006/09/26 18:26:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Yeah, but how many got those gaudy numbers from being on 'roids??? :O

Date: 2006/09/27 18:10:28, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
If you are uncomfortable with the broad, but not completely standards-less, moderation in effect here, I'm sure that you will be able to find, or found, one more to your liking elsewhere.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing  /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

Where's Inigo Montoya when you need him? :) (said while hoping Wes has a sense of humor)

My objection was to the somewhat arbitrary application of the standards, not to the standards themselves. Things much worse than I wrote have been posted and allowed to remain.  Also ignored was the fact that my words were not just a flame written in a vacuum, but were a continuation of my previous chain of thought.

I enjoy ATBC, and have no problem with its policies.  I always recognize that my posting here is a privilege I am granted, not a right.  

Can you tell me where I can find the official board definition of 'annoying', or 'excessively annoying'?  Or is it like SCOTUS Associate Justice Potter Stewart's call on pornography?   ;)

Date: 2006/09/29 06:03:37, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
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.

Date: 2006/09/29 06:21:43, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
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.

Date: 2006/09/29 10:13:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
From the latest UnderwhelmingEvidence Engineer...
Quote
Dear Uncommon DescentHouse,

I never did believe anything I ever read on your website until just the other night...


Five will get you ten he has a part time job writing letters to Penthouse.  ;)

Date: 2006/09/29 10:49:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
(Desperately tries to resist writing a bunch of Occam's-Aftershave-type comments here)



Hey!  I resemble that remark!

Nyuk nyuk nyuk!  Why, soitantly!

Date: 2006/09/29 11:00:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
And Aftershave, the Penthouse parody was my work.  Well, actually I cribbed it from some John Prine lyrics.

Sorry, I totally missed the 'House' part of UncommonDescentHouse.  My bad.

Man, this just hasn't been my week around here... :angry:

Date: 2006/09/29 11:28:46, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Over at UD Bill "Bonecrusher" Dembski crows:
 
Quote
I did not withdraw from the Dover case — the Thomas More Law Center fired me over a perceived conflict of interest relating to my role as academic editor of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (the publisher of the book in question — OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE). I was frankly looking forward to being deposed by the ACLU and staring them down at the trial. Perhaps another trial is in the offing, and Ken and I can finally have our day in court.




"I'll fight ya!  I'll fight ya!"

Date: 2006/09/30 11:48:30, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
As usual, SFBDave can't type two consecutive sentences without lying

         
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.

Note that we had a whole separate thread about Glenn's conversion from YEC and AFDave here, which I know Davie-dufus read because it named him.  Davie and I have also discussed Morton many times (although usually it was me telling, and Davie pretending to ignore).

Topic: AFDave’s Psychosis and Glenn Morton’s 'Demon'

     
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?


And we've already been through this before Davie, about a hundred pages ago.  Everyone else on the planet determines the literalness of a book account by looking for independent evidence that either confirms or rebuts the story.  Having *part* of a book be literal or historical (like the Bible) does not mean the WHOLE FRIGGIN' THING is literal.

Is King Kong really real Davie?  NYC is a real place, and the Empire State building is a real structure.  However, there is no historical record of a tower climbing giant ape in NYC taking place besides in that book,  More importantly, the laws of physics and biomechanics make it impossible to scale up a 6' creature into 100' size with the same relative dimensions.

You're getting boring with your repetitiveness Davie.  Why don't you move on to a new topic, like C14 calibration, or limestone formation, or sequentially buried forests?

Date: 2006/09/30 13:55:03, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)

I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?


No Dave, you have not "explained this already".  We're waiting for you to tell us how you determine which parts are literal, and which parts are figurative of ANY text.

It was your thought question to the board Dave, let's hear your answer.

Date: 2006/10/01 08:02:45, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2006,05:00)

You can find pond scum posting under the name "Dave Hawkins" at http://soundingtrumpet.weblogs.us/2006....-design where it claims to have read Glenn Morton back in April 2006, but seemed baffled recently when the name was raised.  God works in mysterious ways.

Great catch Deadman.  So not only did Davie-doo know about Glenn Morton, Davie admits to having read and researched quite a bit of Glenn's work.   All that, yet Davie still wonders why everyone here considers him a lying dog turd.

I wonder how Dave Hawkins will respond to this latest case where he was caught in another bare-faced lie?

Date: 2006/10/01 14:12:15, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (Dave Hawkins at SoundingTheTrumpet @ April 19th, 2006 at 11:29)

Answers for Ivy Privy …

GLENN MORTON
I read Glenn Morton’s story … does his 30,000 ft sedimentary layer have a name or an exact location that you could give me for investigation? It appears to me that his main problem with Flood Geology is that he thinks much more time would be required than is available in the Biblical account. At first glance, it appears that he may not realize that the Creationist view of the Flood involves HUGE upheavals including precipitation of some massive quantity of atmospheric water not present today–possibly a vapor canopy, volcanism and seismic upheaval, collapse of massive underground water reservoirs, massive tectonic activity, massive, global sedimentation and fossilization, and uplift of mountains.

I followed his link and got almost there, but to read the article required a subscription.
3-D seismic reflection tomography on top of the GOCAD depth modeler


 
Quote (Dave Hawkins @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
   
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.


Dave, why did you lie about not knowing Glenn Morton's story, or his other geologic evidence for an old Earth articles?

Does your ministry teach it's OK to lie like you continually do Dave?

Is lying a sin Dave?

Date: 2006/10/01 14:22:16, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
*Bumped* to the top.

AFDave has been caught flat out lying when he said he didn't know about Glenn Morton's story or old earth views.

Here is Dave's chance to stop lying and discuss Glenn Morton's anti-YEC conversion and anti-YEC evidence.

IF Dave Hawkins has the stones to be honest, which I seriously doubt.

Date: 2006/10/01 16:31:41, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 01 2006,19:50)

Er ... what lie?   I am telling the truth ...

Date: 2006/10/02 05:34:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dave, why did you bail out on your "literalness vs. figurativeness in ANY text" question?

I bumped the Glenn Morton thread to the top just for you.  When will you discuss Glenn's reasons for abandoning YEC?

When will you discuss the C14 calibration evidence like you promised?

When will you discuss the formation and erosion rates for limestone like you promised?

When will you discuss the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone that you brought up?

Is lying a sin Dave?

Date: 2006/10/02 06:25:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (ShitForBrainsDave @ Oct. 02 2006,10:56)
Evos NEED Deep Time to support ToE.

So geochronologists select or reject dates to conform to the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.

Now please ... tell me how am I mistaken?


No one selected the dates for deep time you moron.  The empirical evidence shows the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, and that life has existed here for 3+ billion of those years.

Your lame-brained claim is like saying pilots selected the ambient density of air to be 1.168 kg/m3 because they NEED that value to make their “heavier than air theory of flight” work.

Every day I don’t see how you can possibly be more stupid Davie, yet every day you give us this

Date: 2006/10/02 06:58:45, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave


DAVE, READ THE FRIGGIN LINKS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PROVIDING, YOU MORON

Date: 2006/10/04 13:22:43, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
You guys should all win perseverance awards for continuing to deal with Dave Hawkins, the Tard's tard.

All the technical detail is great for the lurkers, but never forget what Davie-poo has filling his lying little Fundie cranium:

Date: 2006/10/04 18:13:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
steveS, your "inconsistant moderator" act is wearing kinda thin.  

You wanna give the board your rationale for why today you allowed Richardthughes to post this about DaveScot

It was DaveScot,


but you deleted my picture of a dog turd?

Date: 2006/10/04 19:17:35, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
So an an obviously faked latex mask of a terribly deformed and mutilated human being is OK, but an obviously faked latex mold of a dog turd is verbotten.  Wow, just...wow.

Mea culpa.  Will all those who emailed stevestory (he tells me it was more than one) and complained because they couldn't stand a photo of fake dog poo please identify yourselves here, and I will issue each a personal apology.

Thanks in advance

ETA: Please respond to this request by PM - I have no desire to waste board space or distract from AFDave's regularly scheduled floggings  ;)

Date: 2006/10/05 15:49:39, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Tango Juliet ... excellent post!  If I'm going to get insulted, I like for you to be creative about it (as opposed to uncreative ones like dog turds.)

Well Davie, since you were undoubtedly one of the delicate flowers who cried like a little girl over the fake dog poo pic, here is one just like you - a great big spineless pussy.

Date: 2006/10/09 07:01:51, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
I'm going to make a prediction.   I've never read The Blind Watchmaker, but given that you used a Richard Dawkins quote to back up a creationist position, I'm guessing that's a quote mine.  Further on in that same paragraph (and most likely the very next sentance) will explain what he really means.  Any with a copy of the book care to quote the full paragraph?


You win.  Here is the whole Dawkins quote in context, with SFBDave's quote mined part in bold


"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animals types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative. "

Of course, predicting that AFDave Hawkins has been dishonest again is as tough as falling out of a boat and hitting water.

Date: 2006/10/09 08:47:18, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
And just to pour salt into SFBDave's sucking chest wound..

In the years since Dawkins wrote the piece you quote mined, there have been many Precambrian fossils found

Precambrian fauna

Date: 2006/10/09 09:06:34, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:57)
CREATED KIND: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.


and now for the $64,000 question:

Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

ETA:  Here Dave, I'm sure you'll be wanting some of these  :p


Quote
Aluminium Portagoal Wheels

Easily moved by four adults. Simply flip all four 260mm diameter pneumatic wheels over into position and wheel goal to required location.

Date: 2006/10/09 09:44:11, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 09 2006,13:57)

CREATED KIND: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.


Dave, here is a recent study (2005) of Afrotherian (of African-origin) animals that shows conclusively not only that they all descended from the same ancestral gene pool, but also the relationship between the groups created by the divergence.

A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny





These must all be of the same kind, right?

Date: 2006/10/09 13:53:01, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Glen, you do tend to get a bit, er, verbose.  Well, maybe a lot.

Just sayin... ;)

Date: 2006/10/09 17:44:58, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Good Dave, I see you're still here sniffing around

Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

Second time asking.

Date: 2006/10/10 09:21:18, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

Third time asking.

Date: 2006/10/10 09:31:08, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
I think we should take up a collection to send JanieBelle and Corporal Kate to the DI /CSC dinner.  What a hoot that would be!  I'm good for $20.

Date: 2006/10/10 13:35:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

Fourth time asking.

Date: 2006/10/11 09:34:52, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
OA:Dave, how do YOU determine if two living organisms descended from the same ancestral gene pool?

Quote
AFDave:Reproductive compatibility seems to be an obvious way.  There are probably other ways which are not clear to me.  If you are looking for me to be able to classify every living organism on earth according to original created kinds, I cannot.  

Great! So you finally admit that the Creationists have no objective way of determining whether two creatures are the same ‘kind’.  You can’t even tell us how many ‘kinds’ there were originally.  I’m sure you won’t mind if I remind you of these facts the next time you bring up ‘kinds’.
Quote
AFDave:This is no more possible that you can describe every supposed Common Ancestor of every living organism on earth.

ToE doesn’t have to describe every last single one to support the hypothesis.  ToE only needs evidence of enough examples which it has in spades that show the pattern over time.  You, OTOH, can’t show evidence of any single ‘kind’.  You can’t even define ‘kind’ in a scientifically meaningful way.
Quote
AFDave: I think the best that either theory--ToE or Creationism--can hope for is to propose viable hypotheses that do not contradict any known data. As far as I know, Creationism does not contradict any known data

So when will you tell us how YE Creationism doesn’t contradict the multiple independent lines of C14 calibration data that extend back over 50,000 years that I showed you?

Or how YE Creationism doesn’t contradict the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone?

Or how YE Creationism doesn’t contradict that Chinese 500’ deep limestone canyon buried under 17000’ of sediment?

Or how YE Creationism doesn’t contradict the genetic study of the Afrotherian animals I showed you?

You can lie to yourself all you want Dave, and it won’t bother me a bit.  It’s your continued pattern of lying to others that’s so unchristian and disturbing.

Oh, I just couldn't pass this gem by
Quote
AFDave:No.  I have historical records claimed to be written by eyewitnesses and we have no reason to doubt these eyewitnesses because of a century or more of archaeological confirmation.


Who was the eyewitness to the continents zooming around at over 100 mph during the break-up of Pangaea Dave?  Was Noah up on deck that day playing shuffleboard and catching some rays?

Date: 2006/10/11 16:29:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (SFBDave @ Oct. 11 2006,21:01)

And who was it that was trying to tell me that there is such a thing as a transitional fossil?  Still waiting for someone to show me one.

Why ShitForBrains, so you can cry "AHA!  That's not a transitional, it's a whole fossil!!"

How about whales?

or horses?


There are dozens of other series we can look at Davie-poo IF you're not too much of a

Date: 2006/10/11 18:27:17, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
ShitForBrainsDave: OA ... thanks, but I'm not interested in artist renderings.  Seen plenty of those ... this has proven that there are artists with good imaginations ... have you got any real transitional forms?

As was already pointed out, all you need to do is follow the links provided to find actual photos of the fossils themselves like this almost complete Dorudon

   
Quote
ShitForBrainsDave: Any explanations for HOW they are transitional

They show a time sequential morphological change in closely related species from land dwelling creatures to fully aquatic mammals
   
Quote
ShitForBrainsDave: and the mechanisms for HOW they changed into what you say they did?  

Random genetic variations in the animals that provided a small but significant survival advantage accumulated over many generations, resulting in a slow morphological change from legs to fins as the animals spent more time in an aquatic environment.  It's called EVOLUTION, ShitForBrains.  You really should read up on it sometime.
   
Quote
ShitForBrainsDave: Any explanation for why those prominent scientists I quoted are frustrated that there are no truly transitional forms?

You mean the ones you dishonestly quote mined, then lied about?  The ones who really said there was a scarcity of transitional forms, NOT a complete lack?  Those scientists, ShitForBrains?
   
Quote
ShitForBrainsDave: BTW ... your cat pictures and feces pictures help your credibility tremendously

LOL! You mean like you helped your credibility by getting caught repeatedly lying (about contacting AIG with corrections, and not knowing about Glenn Morton as just two of many instances), and posting fraudulent data you concocted yourself, and refusing to answer all those scientific questions that make you look stupid?

Do tell us about credibility Mr. Hawkins.   :p

Date: 2006/10/12 18:09:33, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (ShitForBrainsDave @ Oct. 12 2006,21:20)
Aftershave-- You gave me ONE fossil picture and a bunch of artist renderings.  


No ShitForBrains.  I only posted one picture to this board to save bandwidth, but I gave you links to a whole lot more at places like Dr Hans Thewissen’s Cetacean Research lab.

No one ever lost money by underestimating your intelligence, have they Davie-poo.

     
Quote
And here's the truth about supposed whale evolution for those who missed it several months ago ...
     
Quote
The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3


Holy f*ck Dave, that quote is from 1962.   Nineteen hundred and sixty two Dave.  That's forty four years ago, you ShitForBrains moron.  Do you think no research was done or no discoveries have been made in the last forty four years?!?!

Why don't you tell me in your own words why those examples I provided should NOT be considered transitional species?

Better yet, why don't you tell me what you think a transitional species should look like?

Date: 2006/10/12 19:31:26, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey boys and girls!  Let’s all play the SFBDave Hawkins game of

Argument by Ancient Quotation!

Look Dave, I can prove you were lying about flying an airplane!
 
Quote
"heavier than air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895

…and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island never happened!
 
Quote
"there's not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable." - Albert Einstein, 1932

…and no one needs more computer RAM!
 
Quote
"640K of memory should be enough for anybody" – Bill Gates, Microsoft founder, 1981


You really have no clue about just how blindingly stupid you look, do you Davie-poo?

Date: 2006/10/13 04:17:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
Langugages?! WTF, Dave? Shouldn't you "correct" this "diagram"?




Big LOL!  Another coffee-spewing moment from ATBC  :D  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/10/14 06:35:30, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ShitForBrainsDave sez
     
Quote
Deadman has apparently been transformed from a guy who once made positive claims for ToE and attempted to support them with lots of scientific papers that at least gave the appearance of support

... to a guy who now says nothing but ...

"Liar.  Quoteminer.  Stupid."  ... and the like.

But Dave, you are a proven liar.  And you are a proven quote-miner.  And you have been proven to be the most stupid fukkwit to come through here in ages.  Why are you mad at Deadman for pointing out the obvious?  If you don't like being seen as a stupid lying quote-miner then stop being a stupid lying quote-miner.  Simple, n'est pas?

   
Quote
This has shown me clearly how powerful it is to show people the truth about ToE from the words of the scientists themselves!

But Dave, you haven't commented on this quote that shows you were lying about flying an airplane
   
Quote
 "heavier than air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895

Do you know who Lord Kelvin was?  He's one of the most famous scientists of all time Davie-poo.  Go look up his accomplishments, especially his work on thermodynamics.  This has shown me clearly how powerful it is to show people the truth about heavier-than-air flight from the words of the scientists themselves!

Date: 2006/10/14 13:57:55, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
C'mon guys - after the first 5 pages AFDave's "Hypothesis" turned out to be the same old tired crap we've seen from every e-Creationist since the www sprang up.

Face it, there are better places than this site for serious scientific debate on evolutionary issues.  The only reason for following this thread is for the entertainment value, a large part of which is the creative insults lobbed at our Fundy Davie.  I tell ya, I go through a can of monitor cleaner a week after seeing what the fertile minds of the church burnin' ebola boys come up with :D

And it's not like SFBDave doesn't earn every last ad hom directed his way.  If he keeps asking for it, we are honor bound to let him have it. Ridicule the controversy! I say.

Date: 2006/10/15 19:32:33, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
You keep forgetting that most of the IDiots at UD are computer programmers.  Those 1940 names work out to over 3600 in octal   :p

Date: 2006/10/16 09:28:51, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Look SFBDave - you lied, you quote mined, you got caught.  Deal with it.

Now, how about you get back to the 'sciency stuff' that you mangle so badly?  Tell a few more juicy porkers, or pull some more 'data' out of your ass.  I could use a few more good laughs.  :D

Date: 2006/10/18 04:56:32, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
IMPORTANT BREAKING NEWS!

Sun rises in the East!

Ocean found to be wet and salty!

AFDave caught lying, quote-mining, and plagiarizing again!

...no film at 11.

Date: 2006/10/18 14:45:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
It's all about the "O"    ;)

(obscure reference to stupid US TV commercial, I'll explain if anyone asks)

Date: 2006/10/18 18:02:12, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
On another thread Mike PSS notes:
   
Quote
"You have to constantly hit idiocy and stupidity in the face.  Otherwise, idiocy and stupidity think they are alright."


Here we see Deadman educating SFBDave  

Date: 2006/10/19 19:30:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
ORT!

Ort! Ort! Ort! Ort! Ort! Ort! Ort! Ort! Ort! Ort!






...no real reason for saying that, it just makes my lips feel all roly-poly  :)

Date: 2006/10/22 18:18:06, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
BTW, get used to AFDave. From recent comments I infer that he's not going away any time soon.


hehe...AFDave, the herpes simplex of the ATBC creation/evolution debates.   :D

Date: 2006/10/22 18:25:56, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey Zero, has anyone ever told you how witty and interesting your lengthy C&P jobs are?




They haven't?




Then where in he11 did you get the idea from??!?, you brain-scrambled bandwidth-wasting knob.  :angry:

Date: 2006/10/24 05:10:19, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
SFBDave blindly gropes along with:    
Quote
Remember, the broken heater switch--HIGH & HOT--in Antarctica could be construed as "beneficial" under those extreme circumstances.  It seems entirely possible to me that "Increased Antioxidant Behavior" = "Beneficial" only because we are considering it within the context of the extreme circustances in which western culture finds itself in -- lousy eating and exercise habits and commensurate high incidence of heart attacks.


It's amazing how you accidentally come so close to 'getting it', only to stumble away at the last minute.  The definition of a beneficial mutation is one that increases an animal's survival potential in its specific environment.  OF COURSE you have to consider the circumstances when determining 'beneficial' you moron.

The mutation that allowed certain bacteria to digest nylon was beneficial to them because the bacteria live in an environment where nylon is present, so tapping it as a food source it increased the chance of survival.  If there was no nylon, the mutation would have been neutral or even detrimental.

The APO-AI Milano is beneficial to those who carry it because it increases the chance of survival in an area where fatty foods are common.  Had it occurred on a pacific island where the diet is mainly low-fat fish, it may well have been neutral or even detrimental.

Even your "stuck heater" in Antarctica is beneficial if it gives you a better chance of survival in -60 deg weather that a heater that fails 50% of the time and you freeze to death.

SFBDave, you operate at a stupidity level almost beyond human comprehension.

Date: 2006/10/24 13:47:55, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 24 2006,17:09)

AIG Point 1) the mutated protein has LOST function, not gained, i.e. it is LESS effective in the mutated form at doing what it was designed to do -- assembling HDLs.


Look SFB, the primary "function" of any protein is to keep its owner alive.  THAT'S THE ONLY GOAL.  If a mutation raises the owner's chance of survival, then the mutation was BENEFICIAL because it is MORE EFFECTIVE at its primary job.

And as far as your other stupidity about "mutations can't add information, only lose it" - here's an example even a idiot like you should understand

here is a genetic sequence 1)  AABBCC

next generation it mutates to 2) AABBCD

next generation it mutates again to 3) AABBCC

sequences 1) and 3) have identical information

now if going from 1)--> 2) lost information (according to SFBDave), and going from 2)--> 3) lost information also, then

how did 1) and 3) end up with identical information?


Holy Christ on a stick Dave, you're a dumb f*ck.

Date: 2006/10/25 07:18:25, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Why doesn't he just start calling all the AIG employees 'volunteers' or 'missionaries', and stop paying their Social Security tax to the Feds?   :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/10/25 12:27:21, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave:  
1) that we need to be able to identify information in biological systems and
2) we can


Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

Are there any natural processes that allow the quantity of biological information to increase?

Date: 2006/10/25 16:50:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (GOP @ Oct. 25 2006,21:00)
Well, I'm no electrical engineer and I don't even play one on the internet, but isn't the multiplicity of definitions part of the problem? Does anyone really agree on how information load translates to biological systems, I wonder? Perhaps a better approach would be to analyse whether or not evolutionary mechanisms can build systems, cascades, and organs. Gene duplication (for example) seems to be a pretty powerful mechanism of change, and especially pertinent to biological complexity. Do you think gene duplication + mutation adds information to the genome? If not, why not? If you've addressed this, would you mind pointing to where?

In case anyone missed it, SFBDave has admitted that mutations can indeed add information to a genome; it just may not be the "correct" information (whatever that means).

 
Quote (OA @ Oct. 24 2006,18:47[/quote)


here is a genetic sequence 1)  AABBCC

next generation it mutates to 2) AABBCD

next generation it mutates again to 3) AABBCC

sequences 1) and 3) have identical information

now if going from 1)--> 2) lost information (according to SFBDave), and going from 2)--> 3) lost information also, then

how did 1) and 3) end up with identical information?

 
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42[/quote)

In OA's example above, if we assume that "AABBCC" is the "correct" sequence (this needs to be defined as Russell points out), then step 2) represents a loss and step 3) represents a gain regardless of HOW this occurred -- chance or intelligent agent.

Please feel free to use this tidbit when beating ShitForBrainsDave about the head and shoulders, or I can do the job myself.   :p

Date: 2006/10/25 17:22:27, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

Dave, what is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?

Date: 2006/10/25 17:33:01, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave:  And please tell me how in the world are we to have a meaningful discussion of biological information.  Am I to take my entire lexicon and scratch everything out and write in new definitions?

Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?

Third time asking.  I know it normally takes at least five tries to get an answer from you, so pretend this is 3x as long.

Date: 2006/10/25 19:04:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Hey Dave, explain something to me.

First you say ToE needs an increase in specificity to work, but that you’ve never seen it.
       
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
What ToE needs in order to get from a "simple" single celled organism up to a complex vertebrate such as a human, is massive increases in specificity.

To my knowledge, this has never been demonstrated.

Then, when talking about the A-IMilano mutation, you claim loss of information = loss of specificity
       
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 25 2006,13:55)


4) overall, there was a net LOSS of specificity, or IOW, information.

That's right ... Loss of Specificity = Loss of Information. (Ved's comment about the broken heater switch being MORE specific will be addressed tomorrow.)

But you already agreed that mutations can add information
     
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 25 2006,12:42)
then step 2) represents a loss and step 3) represents a gain regardless of HOW this occurred -- chance or intelligent agent.

So if

A mutation can cause loss or gain of information, and
loss of information due to mutation = loss of specificity, then
gain of information due to mutation = gain of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?

Please fill in the blank for me Dave.  

And before you start in with “but I said MASSIVE increase in specificity”, please explain how to measure specificity to tell if it increased or decreased, and how much is “massive”.

Which of these has more specificity Dave?  This?

or this?

Date: 2006/10/26 04:47:47, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Well, whatta ya know.  If enough people pile on Davie, he'll actually give a half-assed answer!  Let's recap

Dave, what is your definition of information as it applies to biological systems?

Dave says the information on a biological system is defined as the sequence of base pairs in the genome.  Dave gets 1 point.

How do you measure the quantity of biological information?

Dave says it's the number of bits required to define the DNA sequence, i.e. 4 base pairs = 2 bits.  Dave gets 1 point.

What is your definition of specificity as it applies to biological systems?

Dave gives Dembski's generalize definition of specificity as how closely an object matches an independently given pattern, but doesn't explain how it applies to biological systems.  Dave gets 1/2 point.

How do you measure the amount of specificity, to tell if it increased or decreased?

Dave totally avoids this one, Dave gets 0 points.

63% Dave - that's a flunking "D" in most schools.  Tsk

Another recap:

Dave has defined information in biological systems.
Dave has agreed that information in biological systems can increase by natural means.
Dave has defined specificity, but not for biological systems
Dave has agreed that an increase in information = an increase in specificity.

Time for more questions Davie!

How do you determine the independently given pattern for a DNA sequence in order to determine its specificity?  You can't just measure the pattern after the fact and say "see, it matches itself!".  Where do you go to determine what the independent pattern should be before the fact?

You have been using 'information' and 'specificity' interchangeably.  Are they the same thing?  How do they correlate?

Which has more information, Ken Ham or the amoeba?

Why do you have a problem with evolution creating new functions, when you have admitted that both information and specificity can increase by natural means?

Date: 2006/10/26 06:49:48, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote
AFDave:  This thread is not some kind of "final exam" for AFDave to get his PhD in Creationism and/or Anti-evolutionism.  This is a learning process for me and I have clearly stated many times that I do not know everything.  Also, if I find that ToE is true, I will become an advocate.  How about a little of the same attitude from you?

This thread was suppose to be about you presenting evidence for AFDave’s Creator God Hypothesis, remember?  Since you failed miserably at that - why do you keep making claims using a term like 'specificity of biological systems' when you can't even define what it means?

Now, how about answering these questions about your previous statements:

How do you determine the independently given pattern for a DNA sequence in order to determine its specificity?  You can't just measure the pattern after the fact and say "see, it matches itself!".  Where do you go to determine what the pattern should be before the fact?

You have been using 'information' and 'specificity' interchangeably.  Are they the same thing?  How do they correlate?

Which has more information, Ken Ham or the amoeba?

Why do you have a problem with evolution creating new functions, when you have admitted that both information and specificity can increase by natural means?

Date: 2006/10/26 11:15:38, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 26 2006,09:10)
KEN HAM VS. A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM -- WHICH IS MORE SPECIFIC?
Answer:  Ken Ham  

Why?

Because Ken Ham has not just one cell in his body, but trillions (?) of cells, all of them highly specific for all manner of different functions.  There are far more functions specified in a human body than in a single celled organism which is why the genome is much larger.


Well, since new poster ck1 went and ruined the little trap I set for Dave  :angry: I guess we can look at the data

Dave, assuming Ken Ham is a human, his human genome has around 2.9 billion base pairs.

The amoeba that I pictured, amoeba dubia, has over 670 billion base pairs.

That's right Dave - the amoeba genome is over 230 bigger than that of Ham-bonehead, and even by your logarithmic formula contains almost 5 1/2 times more information

Now I'll ask you again - which one has more specificity, and why?

Date: 2006/10/26 11:27:59, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dave, you lying sack of shit

How can you claim this
     
Quote
What there are none of to my knowledge are mutations which increase specificity, IOW information.  This is what you desperately need as a ToE advocate, yet you have none.


When not one day before you said this

     
Quote
     
Quote
A mutation can cause loss or gain of information, and
loss of information due to mutation = loss of specificity, then
gain of information due to mutation = gain of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _?

Please fill in the blank for me Dave.  

"SPECIFICITY" goes in the blank.


You put in right here in writing that gain of information due to mutation = gain of specificity

You agreed on a definition of information based on genome size and we showed you a mechanism (gene duplication and point mutations) that increases genome size.

You agreed that information can increase.

Look again ShitForBrains:

Dave says information can increase.
Dave says information = specificity
That means Dave says specificity can increase.

It boggles my mind that you can sit there and lie your ass off without one bit of remorse or shame.

Date: 2006/10/26 17:01:14, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dave Hawkins....ShitForBrains...you're lying again!

The topic of gene duplication adding complexity to the genome has been brought up numerous times in this thread.  In fact, there are many well know mechanisms that increase the size and complexity of the genome, including gene duplication, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements.  

Unless you are claiming amnesia, you know about these Dave.  You know about specific real world examples like

Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes
Jianzhi Zhang*, Helene F. Rosenberg , and Masatoshi Nei*,
PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 7, 3708-3713, March 31, 1998
source

and this

The Evolution of Functionally Novel Proteins after Gene Duplication
Austin L. Hughes
Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 256, No. 1346 (May 23, 1994), pp. 119-124
source

and this

Gene duplications and the origins of vertebrate development.
Holland PW, Garcia-Fernandez J, Williams NA, Sidow A.
Dev. Suppl. 1994;:125-33.
source

You just got yourself caught in your zipper again Dave.  Like always, you C&Ped a bunch of stuff you don’t understand, then tried to bullsh*t your way through.  Didn’t work last time, didn’t work this time, will never work around scientifically literate people you POS liar.

You repeated an old claim that ‘specificity = information’, the made the fatal mistake of using a definition of ‘information’ based on size of the genome that is quantifiable. That the size of a genome can and does increase via natural means has been demonstrated for years SFB, as the papers above document.

To hedge your bets, you also quoted Dumbski’s definition of specificity as 'matching an independently given pattern', but you have no independent pattern to compare a genetic sequence against.  Too bad!  No independent pattern to compare means no specificity measurement.

See Dave, you’re screwed no matter which of your bogus claims you decide to back. Either specificity increases, or you can’t measure it at all.   I know it, you know it, and the whole board knows it.  That’s why we’re all laughing at you again SFB.

Deacon Dave Hawkins – liar, cheat, moron, abuser of children’s trust,  AIG charlatan wanna-be, ATBC board clown.

Date: 2006/10/27 04:37:54, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Deacon Dave Hawkins – liar, cheat, moron, abuser of children’s trust,  AIG charlatan wanna-be, ATBC board clown.

Davie, I noticed you didn't address at all the huge holes in your 'specificity' claim.  Why is that Dave?

Which has more specificity Dave, Ken Ham or an amoeba dubia, and why?

BTW, some time ago you promised to address the multiple independent lines of C14 calibration issue, and the two dozen sequentially buried forests in Yellowstone issue, and the 500' deep limestone canyon buried under 17000 ft. of sediment issue.

What happened to those promises Dave?  Looks like you were lying about them too, right?

Date: 2006/10/27 05:58:24, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Dave now adds a third definition for 'specificity'.  It's now the 'sum of all functions.'
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 27 2006,10:01)
Biological Specificity is the Sum of All Unique Functions in an Organism

Now I know cars better than cells, so I will use an analogy to explain what I mean.  To use my car analogy, a car has a large function for transmitting power to the wheels we call the drive train, which can be subdivided into many sub-functions, like the engine, the transmission, the U-joint, the driveshafts and the wheels.  These sub-functions can in turn be subdivided into smaller functions such as the wheel has a rim, a tire a brake system, etc.  As we can see there are many unique functions in a car which have to be manufactured in a very SPECIFIC sort of way in order for the car as a whole to operate.

In the same way, every living organism is a system of large functions which are composed of "sub-functions."  Now I will tread carefully here because I obviously misspoke about genome size, but I think that a worm would have more unique functions than a bacteria or an amoeba (single celled organism), and a lizard (reptile) would have more than a worm, for example.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  

Now I'm not sure about comparisons between things like humans and lizards and mosquitos.  It is possible to me that these could all have close to the same number of unique functions, thus specificity, they would just have many DIFFERENT functions ... although many would also be the same.


OK, now explain to me why you think mutations which we know can increase the size and complexity of the genome cannot add functions?

To use your car analogy - if I take a performance street car, and I bolt a wing to the rear deck, I have added a function (providing aerodynamic downforce) that increases performance without changing any of the other functions you named. If I want, I can remove functions (i.e. take out the passenger seat to save weight) to achieve a faster car.  

Mutations can add functions (i.e. ability to digest nylon), mutations can remove functions (i.e. eyes in blind cave fish) - the only 'goal' is to maximize the survival potential.  Why do you think there should be a 'conservation of function' rule for ToE?

Date: 2006/10/27 17:50:30, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 27 2006,23:02))
That's the worst, most bullshit ending to a book in the history of books.


Sorry, but this isn't exactly what I want to read in this thread.

Hopefully the mods will look into something like 24-hour bans for people who can't control themselves. Like a timeout, or a cooling off period.

Or at the least a hypocrisy filter.

Date: 2006/10/27 19:08:07, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
AFDave, I know you've been lurking here tonight.  I'd really like you to consider and answer these questions that you skipped from the earlier talk on 'specificity' and 'function'.

Why you think mutations which we know can increase the size and complexity of the genome cannot add functions?

Why do you think there should be a 'conservation of function' rule for ToE?

Date: 2006/10/28 04:08:06, Link
Author: Occam's Aftershave
Quote (AFDave @ Oct. 28 2006,08:29)
INTUITION AND COMMON SENSE
All this brings up an opportunity to talk about Intuition and Common Sense.  To me Darwinism is the 20th Century's Monstrous Example of the Death of Common Sense.  Now ATBCers will counter and say Religion is the All Time Example of the Death of Common Sense.  And I say they are correct. (Surprise! You all think I'm religious because I talk about God and Heaven and the Bible, but you are wrong.  I am not religious at all and my main hero, Jesus Christ, was also not religious ... stay with me long enough and you will gradually understand this seeming paradox.)

We can talk about Religion another day, but today, let me just say that to me "Darwinism = Death of Common Sense."  What we have here is a theory (ToE) that defies all observation (no one has ever observed macroevolution in action, organisms are degenerating, not getting better, the fossil record has failed to document gradualism, there are no cases of mutations that increase specificity, etc. etc.), and yet is adhered to by most scientists.  My poem I wrote at Kids for Truth, http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html pokes fun at this "Death of Common Sense" but it does so with good intent.  We are all better off if more people use common sense.  

This latest exchange about Information is just another example where a little common sense could have helped.  Intuitively, we should have all known that something is wrong with the statement "Noise has more information than Speech."  Our intuition should have driven us all to a search for the truth and for the source of the confusion.  I have been accused of using my intuition too much and my calculator too little, but I maintain that I have a pretty good balance between the two and I think many modern scientists are out of balance.

Some may say, "Well, Dave, if you use your intuition on the question of whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa, you will come up with wrong answer.  Ditto for the shape of the earth."  True, which is why we need to keep our telescopes and our microscopes and our calculators handy.  But this does not mean we should completely throw away our intuition.  Our intuition is quite valuable and many times steers us to the right answer.  We walk outside on an uncloudy day and feel heat on our skin.  Our intuition tells us that "Maybe the Sun is a burning ball of fire."  And it turns out that we are correct.

ToE advocates should revive their sleeping intuition.  There is something dreadfully wrong with the theory and your intuition should be flashing big red warnings at you.  There are too many really smart people in the world who doubt ToE.  This in spite of the fact that ToE has had a virtual monopoly on all public avenues of education for almost a century.  I'm not saying they are all creationists either.  I'm just saying that in spite of this monopoly, there is a high level of dissent and that if you are a ToE advocate, you have cause to be uneasy.

No matter how many times it's explained to you, or you are given concrete examples, you just can't grasp that many things in science are counter-intuitive.  One of the biggest breakthroughs in human thought came when smart men realized this, and began relying on the scientific method instead of 'intuition' or 'common sense' to figure out the natural world.

I know I mentioned this before Dave, but when you are flying in zero-zero conditions at night, do you trust the results from your scientific instruments to keep you flying straight and level, or do you trust your intuition?  If you listened to your inner self only in such conditions, how long would it be before you made a smoking hole in the ground?  What would you think of an untrained passenger who kept telling you "ignore the artificial horizon and altimeter that say we're descending, my common sense tells me we're in a climb!  Put the nose down now!"

Scientists and th