AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: deadman_932

form_srcid: deadman_932

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 107.20.30.170

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: deadman_932

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 'deadman_932%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/05/14 18:08:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave doesn't know what the **** he is, which is on a par with the rest of what he claims to "think." Here's two posts dealing with his "views" :

"I’m not a religious person myself .. I’m deeply offended when I see attacks made not on ideas but instead on the people who hold them "...Comment #14012 Posted by DaveScot on January 17, 2005 09:43 AM http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....ng.html

" I’ve raised many different species of birds and mammals as pets...and if you look into their eyes you’ll see part of yourself in them ... They’re as much God’s creatures as you are."
Comment by DaveScot - November 2, 2005 @ 10:08 pm http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/445#comment-11687

Date: 2006/05/14 21:46:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
Re : Dumbo and Dumbo's Man and their retraction:  Ah, what a tangled web we weave, and how bitter the taste of crow. HAHAHAHAHA. Ah, ya gotta love it

Date: 2006/05/16 12:48:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
I have a question for you, AFDave: When did the Global Flood  occur, as referred to in Genesis ? What date was that, BCE? (Before Common Era?). Please respond.

Date: 2006/05/16 13:29:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
I want a flying monkey, too! Even if it comes out of my butt, it would be worth it--I could show it on Oprah and get really famous and rich.  :O *Prays fervently*

Date: 2006/05/16 14:28:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
I am just as adept at retrofitting current data to my preconceptions as AFDave, hence I will boldly assert that this Dilbert cartoon is merely evidence that a time-travelling alien DEVIL took my idea and went BACK in time to Scott Adams, thereby depriving me of my rightful renown as founder of the Monkey-Buttology Research Institute. I protest this injustice.

Date: 2006/05/16 15:00:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
HA! This photographic  http://www.retrocrush.com/100monsters/monkey3.jpg  proof, (courtesy normdoering) as well as the living specimen provided by my associate, Professor Toejam, demonstrates the incontrovertible scientificalicious validity of our work here at the Monkey Buttology Research Institute. The existence of flying butt-monkeys is prima facie evidence of the woeful inadequacy of Darwinian Evolutions Theory.

Date: 2006/05/16 15:55:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
Glen: agreed. Beyond the psychological comfort of their worldview, there's the additional commonality that I see in people like Dembski, AFDave, etc.: the desire for power. If power is the ability to get others to think and do what you want them to (and I think it is), what these people want is to be seen as an authority figure speaking from on high, and anything counter to their assertions *must* be wrong. Science , paraphrasing Sagan, produces unlike any other mode of "knowing," but it's *hard*...it requires actual time and effort. Ex Cathedra proclamations of authority are so much easier.

Date: 2006/05/16 18:15:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
stevestory: Interesting -- The "quote" that GilDodgen cites is one that he drew from Jonathan Well's bullshit here : here . Wells said "Indeed, he wrote to Asa Gray in 1860 that he considered this to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory.” (Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Appleton, 1896, vol. II, p. 131)"  NOTE that Wells says "my theory."

In contrast to that, Cambridge's Darwin Correspondence Project says here that the actual quote refers ONLY to `the strongest single class of facts in favour of CHANGE OF FORM' (my emphasis, of course).

GilDodgens and Jonathan Wells of the world unite in quote-mining.

Date: 2006/05/17 16:50:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave: I asked a very simple question yesterday. I will ask it again. When did this global flood described in genesis happen? What date BCE? Don't avoid this simple question, dave, just deal with it.

Date: 2006/05/17 17:20:06, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh, I had to add this, given that AFDave thinks he's as "dangerous" as Newton and Maxwell.

You're not, Dave. You're a mediocre mind given to delusions of grandeur.

Newton spent the last two decades of his life working on the occult, numerology and the alchemical pursuit of the "philosopher's stone" that would convert "base metals" into gold, Dave. In the words of John Maynard Keynes -- who purchased Newton's notebooks and journals in 1936 -- in a lecture to the Royal Society Club in 1942. "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, He was the last of the magicians." Newton also followed the Arian heresy, Dave. He denied the divinity of Christ.

This is not to say that Newton did not accomplish great things, Dave, it's just that you're delusional enough to consider yourself of that rank. The only way you could be compared to Newton would be in the last decades of his life.

As for your comparing yourself to Maxwell..uh, no. When you publish a peer-reviewed work in physics, you let me know, Dave.

Date: 2006/05/17 17:33:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm glad you said that, Dave,because that agrees with what the Bible says, when one works backwards ( or forwards) using the dates and lifespans given. But there's a problem, Dave: Your whole edifice of cards balances on this one point: that the Bible is absolutely true. Yet you admit that the Global flood, wiping out all things on the face of the Earth...happened at between 2000-3000 BCE. Let's look at why you are wrong:

During this period that the BIBLE says the "global flood " happened, the records of various groups continue uninterrupted: By 2375 BC, most of Sumer was united under one king, Lugalzaggisi of Umma, Sumerian records continue on.Uninterrupted by any mention of global flooding . The earliest surviving inscriptions in Akkadian go back to 2500 B.C. and are the oldest known written records in a Semitic tongue. They continue in an unbroken record.

Egyptian history during the Old Kingdom (2700-2200 BC) continues unbroken by global flooding . 2200 bc is the date of oldest existing document written on papyrus, prior to that, we have inscriptions and incised clay tablets as well.  The Chinese had settled in the Huang He (or "Ho" in some translations) , or Yellow River, valley of northern China by 3000 BC. In the Indus Vallley, we have  the  Early Harappa Phase C, 2550 BC  which continues unbroken to c.1900 BC . We also have the early minoan and mycenean groups in the mediterranean, and as for the new world, Researchers publishing in the Dec. 23 edition of the scientific journal Nature date the  first complex society of the Americas, from roughly 3000 to 1800 B.C. NONE of these groups were destroyed by any "global flood" NONE.

But you'll say it's all a lie, Dave, because the "dates" must be wrong, or some other similarly dishonest shit. But there's a problem with that, too, Dave.

 We have to either :
(1) reject the factual historicity of the Flood account;  
(2)accept the historicity of the Flood account, but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event, showing the Bible is in error; or
(3) accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the massive amount of written and archaological evidence establishing the chronology of history in the near East. This chronolgy is not just supported by radiometric dating methods (C-14, etc.), but other absolute NON-radiometric methods as well: dendrochronology, corals, varves, ice cores, stalagmite/stalactites and more. Now, how could it be that ALL of those dating methods agree that no global flood happened and that the archaeology and other sources are correct?

You are the son of a missionary and a YEC (Young-Earth Creationist) , Dave, and I sincerely doubt that there was any time in which you critically, skeptically reviewed the claims of the Bible. Similarly, you know diddly-squat about science and yet embark on this idiotic campaign to use patently fallacious and erroneous claims against people that DO know science-- I myself spent 8 years at UCLA in Archaeology and Paleoanthro, Dave-- but you choose not to actually learn, you have your predetermined answers...and have had them since your daddy first indoctrinated you.
Instead what you have done and shown here time and time again, is to RETROFIT all available data to meet your initial claim of Biblical Literalism and Infallibility. Any data that does NOT fit ? Well, You claim it must be wrong, since the Bible is always right. This is not skepticism, Dave. This is manic, mindless fundamentalism.

Date: 2006/05/17 18:28:41, Link
Author: deadman_932
In logic, there is a standard example given that if one asserts that all geese are white, the existence of one black goose negates the claim, Dave. The gaggle of black geese saying that the world did not experience the global deluge referred to in Genesis is more than enough.

Oh, and I noticed I didn't give the year on the Nature article--it's 2004. The online summary is at : http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/2004/dec/peru.shtml

Here's some other references for your perusal, dave, slight emphasis on dendro:

http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/references.htm
Stuiver, Minze, et al, 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300 years BP and the 14 C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone pine chronologies. IN: Calibration issue / Stuiver, Minze, et al., Radiocarbon 28(2B): 969-979
Becker, B. & Kromer, B., 1993. The continental tree-ring record - absolute chronology, C-14 calibration and climatic-change at 11 KA. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology, 103 (1-2): 67-71.
Becker, B., Kromer, B. & Trimborn, P., 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the late glacial Holocene boundary. Nature 353 (6345): 647-649
Iversen, J. Jouzel, B. Stauffer, & J. P. Steffensen, 1992. Irregular glacial interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature 359: 311-313
Chang, Kwang-chih, The Archaeology of Ancient China, Yale University Press, fourth ed., 1986

Date: 2006/05/17 18:53:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
Patrick Caldon: Hey There! As another recent wayward exile from Dembski's barrel of baffled, bewildered and bamboozled baboons (writing under another name, of course) -- Have a seat, put your feet up and grab a beer. The show is funny as #### from a nice comfy chair.

Date: 2006/05/17 19:11:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
Statler: That was quite a program! I would have only changed one thing!

Waldorf: What's that?

Statler: The channel!

Both: Doh ho ho ho ho ho!

Date: 2006/05/17 19:32:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
Snoeman: you know, I was gonna say this to Patrick Caldron, who seemed kinda depressed about the ...weirdness at Uncommon Descent--After a while you can see clearly that they don't really intend on clarifying or supporting either ID or their caricature of modern evolutionary theory.

They can't get published in a fairly peer-reviewed setting, they can't honestly debate, they can't handle dissent, they lose in the courts and are many are rightly shown to be consistent liars and generally ugly human beings. Dembski's recent "you're a racist" attack on Padian being a prime example.

All I can do, as in so many other tragic areas of life, is to try to make the best of it and move on. So, in the immortal words of Elvis Costello, "I used to be disgusted but now I'm just amused"

Date: 2006/05/18 02:15:25, Link
Author: deadman_932
No, Dave, I don't want to hear a bunch of YEC drivel. What I want is for you, as a person,  to explain why your flood date range is occupied by people who wrote nothing of it and never vanished at that time. IF there was a global flood, all those people would have died. The general date given for the flood is 2250-2300 BCE, Dave. and even if you extend that back further, the Egyptians were still building early step pyramids, like that of Zoser.  

The Egyptians didn't get wiped out, Dave. Nor the Chinese. Nor the Sumerians. Nor the Harappans. Nor the Early Amerinds. WHY? Because the Bible was wrong on this matter, Dave. If you can't address that directly, then you are more mental than I thought.

Date: 2006/05/18 04:56:25, Link
Author: deadman_932
I thought you'd ignore what I posted, Dave, and plow ahead without addressing it. See, this is the thing about debate, Dave -- you're supposed to address counterarguments *before* plowing ahead. You're supposed to follow a basic protocol of give-and-take.

You can't, because you can't deal with reality, you can only hope that you're "winning" with some imaginary audience of lurkers.  

Before you move on in what you want to be your little monologue, Dave..address directly what I posted. THEN move on. Don't avoid my direct disagreements with your claims. If you wanted to DEBATE these issues, debate them. If you cannot, then why bother saying that you are trying to convince others of the errors in their thinking?

Have some morals and ethics before you go off stealing C.S. Lewis' inane gibberish about morality.

Date: 2006/05/18 05:26:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave, you BEGAN this thread with the premise of an inerrant Bible and God. Don't LIE. I am questioning your basic PREMISES for a reason -- because as I said, your entire house of cards rests on it. There is no "proper sequence" that can avoid this fundamental issue, since you MADE it a FUNDAMENTAL issue of your argument. Deal with what I asked, Dave. Be a man. Have some ethics.

Date: 2006/05/18 06:43:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave, that's hilarious. You say that you don't want to answer any objections "out of sequence," then post a sequence in which point 2 says : "So we compare some "holy books" and investigate the claims".

That is precisely what I asked about, Dave. I am investigating the claim that the Bible is any kind of inerrant work. It is YOUR premise, Dave. It is found in your "rules of engagement " to this debate/discussion, DAVE  
Quote
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE)
There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.


You then set out your "UPDATED HYPOTHESIS" with EACH AND EVERY POINT A-P REFERRING TO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE AND EVENTS IN THE BIBLE.

But you say...you don't deal with the inerrancy OF the Bible...despite using figures IN the Bible for each point? You conclude point "P" by saying  
Quote
these Scriptures should be the basis and starting point for all human activities from individual behaviour to family operation to nation building and governance of human affairs to scientific endeavors and the arts
but points A onwards have nothing to do with that?

Look through this thread, Dave, you deal with issues "out of sequence" constantly, referring to the Bible constantly, but ....I can't ask you to support the veracity of that bible NOW? You're a hoot, Dave. You have no ethical spine.

Date: 2006/05/18 06:53:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Eric and Argy, thank you. Eric's listing of "elements" in which Dave implies an inerrant Bible is what led me to simply saying Biblical events and/or the Biblical God are mentioned in A-P. Because the Bible is the source of his claims about God, I merely sought to question him on the truthitudosity of said mish-mosh before he launches into the rest of his monomaniacal diatribe

Date: 2006/05/18 07:23:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
Patrick: agreed. I don't think I can pin down any one "primary" reason why they engage in this other than a desire for power--the ability to tell you, your kids and so on...what to think and how to think and how to behave/act. They all seem to want that.

Religion is such a swiss-army knife of ideology that it motivates every one of them in different ways. Some, I think, genuinely beleive ( like Dembski) that if only materialism -- as they believe is found in evolutionary theory -- were overcome, it would lead to some new age. Others seem to simply want comfort. But the manner in which they pursue their goals is just..dethpicable.

It seems to me that Dawkin's view of selfishness in genes is expressed in every critter's drive for continued existence and propagation. Couple that with the "laziness " of least-energy expenditure tendencies in achieving those goals and we wind up with humans that are simply taking the lazy way out in propagating "memes" that they view as beneficial.  I may not have stated that well, but..eh, I'm just rambling, anyway. Either way, I get a kick out of watching their acrobatic intellectual contortions

Date: 2006/05/18 08:17:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
That's nice, Carol, Except the bible  Genesis 7:19-20 says that all the (hills, mountains) which were under ALL the heavens were covered by the waters of the flood. Another point is that "local" floods don't last ...what, 371 days? As for it being local to only mesopotamia and sumer...well,sumer is in mesopotamia...and the Jews certainly knew of the lands called Egypt. And the bible says "under all the heavens." And if the flood was merely "local" ...well, then Noah could have gone to the Zagros mountains directly north of the mesopotamian plains. And the apostle Peter says that the "world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water." not "part of the world." I don't accept a global flood either, Carol...but AFDave does, and uses the Bible to say it was "real" and not merely a borrowing from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which it was. As for your use of ha-aretz, sure, great. except it can mean the whole earth, too, not just " the lands" or "the land"

Date: 2006/05/18 10:23:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
As to why Noah couldn't escape to a nearby mountain, first, that is none of your business, second, if you really need to know
. I don't recall being rude to you, Carol. But your story of a local flood, from a biblical standpoint, makes no sense. What was the point of the flood? To wipe out...Who? And would that be ...only PART of mankind, Carol? A local flood wouldn't wipe out all of mankind, nor would Noah need so large a "ship" for "local" animals. The context of the flood story is UNIVERSAL sinfulness, not just local Jewish sinfulness. As for your claim that the reason why Noah couldn't go to the mountains was because God wanted to show the ark being built so locals would mend their ways...uh...no. If you can show evidence of that Biblically, do so.

As to the use of ha-aretz...uh, well, what does the genitive case indicate in Hebrew, Carol? and was it used in genesis in conjunction with ha-aretz? I won't bother with "tebel" since it never appears in the pentateuch so far as I know, but ...when the earth is created, what term is used, Carol?  And consider the use of "kol" in regards to mountains and "heaven." and animals, too. Note that even the biblical apologists have spotted the use of a DOUBLE "kol" ( hence a superlative) in 7:19 Genesis..."all, ALL the mountains". I find this largely uninteresting, since I don't subscribe to this Mythology, Carol, really...I wasn't even posting to you initially.

Date: 2006/05/18 10:42:41, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and thanks for the heads-up, Toejam. I didn't see that before I posted   :( Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have

Date: 2006/05/18 12:37:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
Steve: Nooooooo. I have no desire to take up her apologetics. I was just responding, and I really only wanted to deal with antievolution goobers like AFDave. I'll take Toejam's hint and just tell her to errm..something.

Her claim about "why Noah couldn't escape to a nearby mountain, first, that is none of your business, second, if you really need to know.." was kind of eerie

Date: 2006/05/19 05:30:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave: As I posted earlier, you have no ethical spine, considering your unwillingness to actually address the disagreements people have with your claims. You, like C.S. Lewis, gloss over substantial counterarguments in pursuit of your own ego-driven goals. When I point out that your "rules for engagement " contain claims of biblical inerrancy, you avoid it and can't seem to manage the character needed to examine objections as they appear. You just plow on , stealing C.S. Lewi's tripe from "Mere Christianity" as though it were ...gosh, holy writ. Oh, and by the way-- obviously-- by using the term "truthidosity" I was merely having fun with language.

Let's see...I have read Lewis. Disagree with it thoroughly, for a number of reasons. Lewis' argument, despite your regurgitation of lengthy passages, is reducible to a simple set of claims:

1) there is a universal moral law
2) this "universal" morality must stem from a "lawgiver"
3) This lawgiver must be "god"

Now, notice that in Lewis' writing, he never really gives specific examples of univerally held moral values. He merely refers to it a sense of doing the right thing. But what is the "right thing" varies from culture to culture, from context to context. Diving into a river to save a child may or may not be "moral" depending on ...that's right...context. Using your own Bible as evidence, there are numerous examples of god ordering the deaths of innocent children. Was this bad? if so, why? god ordered it, you know. has to be "good, " right? Consider that children such as babes in arms cannot wield swords and god, being all-powerful, COULD have done otherwise than order them to die. Also note that in at least three places, the bible says children shall not bear the sins of the fathers, so you can't say they were ALREADY guilty or that they WOULD be guilty in the future -- that would be predestination-- which is antithetical to Christian tenets, isn't it?

Sociologists and Anthropologists (of which I am one, archaeo and phys anth) would and do laugh at Lewis' claims of "universal morality" because of this. Here's the challenge for you, AFDave: name a univerally held moral value. Don't say something as vapid as "cherishing life" because that is not true. Example: Human sacrifices, well, like your own Jesus, give up their lives willingly (and joyfully) at times, as did SOME amerind "sacrifices." both the sacrifice and the onlookers saw the sacrifice of life as "good" not "bad." More importantly, in this example, Lewis has not shown that ordinary instinctual behavior CANNOT account for a drive for survival, he merely glosses over the weakest possible counterarguments acting as if the theories countering his claims didn’t even exist at the time, which they did. Certainly Lewis was well aware of such simple examples as James Frazer's work. This alone shows the amazing willingness to simply force-fit available data as ...well, as you do, AFDave.

I find Lewis' claim that this "universal" moral code being "consistent" as amusing, given that Lewis, as Tolkien pointed out, was knowledgeable about Greek and Roman and other cultures that negated his claims.

Biology, Zoology, Ecology, Ethology, Anthro, Sociology, Sociobiological and Evolutionary Psych studies have shown that the basis of what WE term "moral" behavior is easily observable and explicable in non-human primates and other species. This alone shoots his claim to "no other explanation being possible"--to he11. Group dynamics--"getting along" in animal groups..lies at the heart of human "rules" and "morality,"  not some mystical appeal to "god." No god is needed to show that survival and reproduction of the individual is enhanced by the emergence of feedback systems to both encourage and control behaviors.

Your refusal to take up your claims of biblical inerrancy as laid out in both your rules of engagement and in your "order" of evidence reveals you to be quite the hypocrite, so I think I'll let you plow on, pointing out your inadequacies as you go.

Date: 2006/05/19 06:43:47, Link
Author: deadman_932
For anyone interested, a useful critique of "Mere Christianity" and Lewis' largely childlike apologetics can be found here.

Date: 2006/05/19 10:42:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ha. You said you wanted rebuttal, and you fail to address it. You slimy invertebrate. Why not address what I wrote? Well, maybe because you are delusional enough to believe that:
Quote
We have previously shown that Biological Machines and Cosmic Fine Tunig speak powerfully about some Super Intelligent Designer outside the universe.  Now, C.S. Lewis' Morality argument give us more clues as to the nature of this Designer.
you've done no such thing, you lying sack of excrement. You've avoided all counterarguments each #### time, using the entire plethora of fallacies. You sicken me, baboo, but I'm quite willing to point out your lies each time.

Date: 2006/05/19 10:59:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
As a relative novice to biology, even I recognize the inherent stupidity evoked in DaveTard's claims. Lamarckism? Maybe it's because I actually subscribe to Nature and Science. Maybe it's because I have a deep desire to know. Maybe it's because I took a few classes.  Maybe it's because DaveTard is simply..well, an idiot.

Date: 2006/05/19 11:22:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
As to the stupid-ass claim that Portuguese is a "mixture of Spanish and French, I recommend Mario Pei's "History of Latin and the Romance Languages."  
Quote
Galician-Portuguese references first appear in the 12th century, in the earliest examples of lyric poetry ...Galicia was a backwater of Spain ...The range of varieties of Brazilian Portuguese may well be greater than that of American English...For a long period, the lingua franca of Brazil was Lingua Geral (Tupi) from Indian and Southeast Asian languages: this gave way to pidgin and creole varieties of Portuguese (such as Tabanreho, Matutenho, Caipria, and Fazendeiro as well as the standard language.

Date: 2006/05/21 13:15:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let's recap.
1) AFDave says that Lewis' argument where people "feel" a sense of what is right and wrong is proof of god.
2) Others object, pointing out that Lewis deliberately overlooked the most basic counterarguments to his assertion

3) AFDave overlooks those objections and concentrates maniacally on the origins of Portuguese
4) AFDave is shown wrong in his claim that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French

5) The original objections to Lewis' assertions remain unrefuted by AFDave

Date: 2006/05/22 05:58:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
I just saw AFDave's cognitive dissonance brought to a boil. It burst under his insanity.

If the bible were true, then God ordered the deaths of innocents and Dave says:

 "In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off. "  This is predestination. You lose.

Date: 2006/05/22 07:46:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
I don't like hurting people, Dave. I don't need a god to tell me about ethics or morals. I feel bad that you are wrong. I feel bad that you think the way you do.

(Deuteronomy 24:16) The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

(II Chronicles 25:4) But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

(Ezek. 18:19) The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

I am sorry you feel otherwise.

Date: 2006/05/25 08:57:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Okay, AFDave: Let's begin again. Your broken link should be  this one.. This paper is not "research" it is a literature review, and a poorly done one at that.


A cursory search for papers that directly contradict what "Kevin Anderson, Ph.D." was saying in his "review of the literature" comes up with some fast results:

http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/48/4/1289  "Effect of rpoB Mutations Conferring Rifampin Resistance on Fitness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis" Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2004, p. 1289-1294, Vol. 48, No. 4
Quote
... resistance mutations appear to confer no cost (<1% reduction in fitness), at least as measured by in vitro assay systems. For example, certain rpsL mutations (streptomycin resistance) in M. tuberculosis , Escherichia coli, and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium , katG mutations (isoniazid resistance) in M. tuberculosis , and gyrA and parC mutations (fluoroquinolone resistance) in Streptococcus pneumoniae confer no measurable reduction in growth rate.


Also :
Quote
Fitness costs conferred by mutations that [do]alter target molecules may also be partly or fully ameliorated by compensatory mutations without loss of resistance. Such compensatory evolution has been observed in vitro, in experimental animals, and in clinical situations. Thus, the occurrence of cost-free mutations and compensatory evolution suggests that antibiotic-resistant bacteria will not disappear as a result of restricted use of antibiotics


Your boy, Kevin Anderson, also claims that no mutations resulting in drug resistance have been identified. He somehow believes that lateral transfer happens miraculously:
Quote
Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated


Point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase and dihydropteroate synthase genes of Plasmodium falciparum and resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine in Sri Lanka. Hapuarachchi HC, et al  (2006).
Am J Trop Med Hyg 74: 198-204
Quote
Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is the second-line treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Sri Lanka. Resistance to SP is caused by point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of P. falciparum.


As to your claim that " to establish Common Descent for Apes and Humans still requires an explanation for what I call The Big Three: Absence of Hominid Civilizations living today, enormous non-biological differences, and the unconvincing fossil record"

Uh, Dave, we are hominids. We have civilizations. For you to ask for "civilizations " for our hominid and hominoid forebears, is amusing, though, if *THAT* is what you meant.

There are in fact enormous differences both anatomically (and genetically, as in Svaante Paabo's work on Neanderthalensis) that can be shown in our ancestors. You are just ignorant of the literature and ..well, just about everything. Including the fossil record, which is more than enough to show you wrong by itself. The lineage of fossils from Australopiths to  H. habilis to H. erectus to transitional H. sapiens to H. sapiens sapiens...includes thousands of fossil specimens. Your argument will be to say that the differences anatomically are "not enough." as if you had some basic knowledge of the subject. Silly invertebrate.

Date: 2006/05/25 11:44:58, Link
Author: deadman_932


Hi Dere, Boys and Girls! I, too, am a graduate of de Hollywood Upstairs School of Biochemistry!!!  Punctuashuns are BUNKtuashuns! De Fossil records have lots of skips but no LINKS!

Seriously, I'm almost sure I saw DaveScot use the same "parallel evolution" line that "skeptic" did. Not that I want to wade through DS' drivel

Date: 2006/05/25 18:57:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ghost of Paley: Congratulations. What you wrote is undoubtedly the kind of epistemic mental masturbation that got you awestruck swoons in your Intro to Philosophy class.

You are relying on hyper-relativism. Like -- oh, a manic Heraclitus or Protagoras -- you claim that all is in flux, hence no universals can be true. Then you claim that only particulars can be true. But, Paley, once you begin racing down the epistemological road to solipsism, you cannot stop partway and claim some superior stance..let's see how true your particulars are:

If Paley knows that he has a True Bible, then Paley knows that he is not a brain in a vat. Paley does not know that he is not a brain in a vat. Therefore, Paley does not know that he has a True Bible.

You cannot claim the bible as "metajustification" at all, can you? If you say you can, refute what I just said.

Date: 2006/05/25 19:39:54, Link
Author: deadman_932
I haven't been on this thread for a while. Good to see it's still providing life-enhancing amusement whilst marvelling at the mental contortions of Dumbo, Dumbo's man, et. al.

If DaveScot were (somehow) no longer the curtain that shields the Great and Powerful Oz, I'd be saddened. He's the funniest thing on the blog there.

Date: 2006/05/25 20:56:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Your post was on epistemology, Paley. I suggest you read up on it.

The subject involves the origins and nature of knowledge -- and its relation to ideas of truth and belief (or faith, if you will). In a succinct phrase, it's about "How you claim to know what you claim to know." You use relativism to claim that Science has no particularly good claim to "knowing," then state that your faith in the bible "meta-justifies" your claims to knowing. But you fail to justify your claim about your faith being meaningful in relation to epistemology.  As I said :
Quote
If Paley knows that he has a True Bible, then Paley knows that he is not a brain in a vat.

Paley does not know that he is not a brain in a vat.

Therefore, Paley does not know that he has a True Bible.

You cannot claim the bible as "meta-justification" at all... If you say you can, refute what I just said.


The reason I tossed that out was your bizarre concatenation of claims/conclusions, Paley. To wit:

Fractatious quotes you as saying:
Quote
It is possible for humans to have knowledge without reading a word of Scripture, but the existence of that knowledge depends on the Bible being true
She cites the example of the Aztecs, among others. Then you say :
Quote
I specifically said the Bible was not necessary to have knowledge, but only to meta-justify knowledge
while you insulted her as "a true idiot"

Let's look at the logical extensions of your "logic."

I can only read your statement to mean that you believe that the Bible is true for all time, regardless of its temporal oral/written status. That the Aztecs "need" the Bible for what they "knew" to be true...to be true.
This is amusing. The Aztecs probably did indeed offer up sacrifices ( If you don't accept that, then I can mention cultures that definitely did). I could also mention cultures that definitely "knew" it true that cannibalism of select parts of ritual sacrifices would lead to the magical importation of desired qualities into their own bodies.  
This would mean, by your logic, that what they "knew" to be true could only be true due to..the bible. This is the first time that I've heard of the Bible used as justification for the epistemic "truth" of  ritual sacrifice and cannibalism. Good Job!!!

Date: 2006/05/26 07:07:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Once again, I'm amused at you, Paley. You select out ONLY *PART* of the overall argument I make, then answer it in circular fashion. I stated it clearly, unlike you in your previous posts, so I can only assume that you -- like most of your ilk -- are simply avoiding *that* reality, along with others. (like the tragic logical extension of your claim that the Aztec "truth" is justified by the bible).

I said quite clearly:
Quote
If Paley knows that he has a True Bible, then Paley knows that he is not a brain in a vat.
Paley does not know that he is not a brain in a vat.
Therefore, Paley does not know that he has a True Bible.


You said your "special" faith allowed you "meta-justification" of your epistemic claims. I say you're as full of shite as an outhouse. I point out that your stance is fallacious. You say you know your stance is true..because of faith.  
Quote
I know I am not such a "Brain in a vat" because of my faith in the authority of God's Word
In this fallacy of circular reasoning, often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving.

You cannot invoke the Bible or your faith in it as "meta-justification" in anything -- because you cannot rely on it or claims of god to show you "know" any such thing about you NOT being a brain in a vat.

I don't and didn't claim to have "meta-justification" for my epistemology, Paley. You did. I showed *your* claim to be as hollow as your YEC dreams. That is all I wanted to do, and all I did do.

Date: 2006/05/26 07:33:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
As for you, Dave, I'll only ask you to clarify AND cite your sources for your claim that:
Quote
'Homonoid' (there, is that better?) civilizations SHOULD BE a prediction of ToE and they were early on.
I doubt you can. Darwin was only aware of Neanderthalensis (1857). He published The Origin in 1859. I know of no time when he proposed that neanders would/should be shown to have "civilizations"  

Also, Dave, before you use big, unfamiliar (to you) words like "hominid," "hominoid," and "civilization," I suggest you look each one up. You're confusing the first two.

Date: 2006/05/26 07:56:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Please point out where I used "moral" in any of my posts, Paley. Your inability to do so will amuse me further.

Note that several times I pointed out that your claims were on epistemology. Not morality, or anything near that. Your claim was
Quote
It is possible for humans to have knowledge without reading a word of Scripture, but the existence of that knowledge depends on the Bible being true


Now you say
Quote
you can have knowledge without the Bible, but you can not have knowledge that you have knowledge without it.


So, the Aztecs now didn't KNOW that they had knowledge? Yet they wrote Codexes containing their knowledge and beliefs?

Your flailing about amuses me, as does your mangling of epistemology, logic and language.

Date: 2006/05/26 09:18:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDAVE KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a looney.
AFDAVE KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then. [whop] [ARTHUR chops the  AFDAVE KNIGHT's last leg off]
AFDAVE KNIGHT: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
AFDAVE KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

Date: 2006/05/26 09:39:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Just to remind you, AFDaveKnight:
Quote
As for you, Dave, I'll only ask you to clarify AND cite your sources for your claim that: (AFDaveKnight says)
Quote
'Homonoid' (there, is that better?) civilizations SHOULD BE a prediction of ToE and they were early on.
I doubt you can. Darwin was only aware of Neanderthalensis (1857). He published The Origin in 1859. I know of no time when he proposed that neanders would/should be shown to have "civilizations"  

Also, Dave, before you use big, unfamiliar (to you) words like "hominid," "hominoid," and "civilization," I suggest you look each one up. You're confusing the first two.

Date: 2006/05/26 12:58:20, Link
Author: deadman_932
With AFDave, the delusion seems real. I'd be willing to bet a goodly sum that he views himself as a "knight of jesus" jousting with the heathens..all to compensate for whatever lack of self-esteem drives him (personally, I think it's his father's doing).

Paley, on the other hand, reminds me of the immature 30-year-old that calls up talk radio stations to boost his ego. He does a drive-by announcement of a ridiculous geocentric model like the weird kid in class basically begging: "Look at meeeeee!!"

Date: 2006/05/26 19:13:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
[AFDave saying]:
Quote
Um......Paley, I'm here to show that the Earth is only 5,000 years old. But this business about the sun going around the Earth? That's crazy talk.

Made me #### near snort my evening coffee out of my nose. The irony is just sweeeet. Also:
Quote
AFDave,

Just a quick question:
Why AREN'T you presenting your YEC evidence?

Date: 2006/05/26 20:50:25, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hi Everybody!!!
Calm down, you are going to give yourself skin failure! If you have questions about evolushuns or Geneticomolecularizashuns, dial 1-800-DOCTORB. Note the extra B is for BIOCHEMISTRY!!!

*disclaimer* Not endorsed by the Hollywood Upstairs School of Biochemisty

Date: 2006/05/27 04:59:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Roger that, AFDave flathatting:
And Davey-boy, a laundry list is not presenting your evidence.

Date: 2006/05/27 06:26:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
Evidence: support for the truth of a proposition, especially that derived from empirical observation and experiment. Evidence in science is distinct from that in law and other fields, largely due to its application in proving/disproving hypotheses. Recommended Reading: Karl R. Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge, 1992).

You presented argument and conjecture, Dave. Even in a courtroom, however -- as people like you have seen time and again-- you'd still lose.

Oh, and Davey-boy? As far as your idea of linking to your blog is concerned : that's a big negatory, Whiskey Delta. Post it here -- I wouldn't want to give your crap site "hits"

Date: 2006/05/27 13:52:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
HAH, I find this really amusing, Dave. I just glanced at this thread for the first time.

I HAVE NEVER POSTED ON THIS THREAD BEFORE.

But Dave, YOU decided that you were going to address my post on your "Creator God Hypothesis " thread ----- HERE??????

THAT I POSTED TWO DAYS AGO???

You little weasel, you couldn't even address my post on the same thread that it was placed on? You chose this thread....that you KNOW I have never posted on, and tried to make claims about the veracity of my post?

Let me quote the full passage of "Kevin Anderson, Ph.D's ."  article in question...
Quote
resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated
 this is available here

NOw, there are only two possibilities here, Dave. One is that your "Kevin Anderson" is saying that mutations cannot account for a gene like the dihydrofolate reductase gene of P. falciparum...but look at what he SAYS, DaveTARD...he is saying
RESISTANCE GENES...

GENES THAT HAVE GAINED RESISTANCE

NOTE THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINS OF THE UNALTERED GENES DAVETARD, IT HAS TO DO WITH RESISTANCE GENES. YOU DUMBSHIT

Now, in your little post ON THIS THREAD, which addresses MY POST ON ANOTHER THREAD... you ask:
Quote
Did I say it was "research"? Did I say this guy performed all the relevant experiments himself to support his conclusions?  


Well, yes, Dave, you sure as #### suggested it by saying on your Creator God Thread that :  
Quote
AF Dave finds a very recent (2005) scholarly article by a real scientist who "you know ... really wears a lab coat and does experiments" (there Eric, are you happy?). Here's the title and source for the article ...


Here, you ask aboutthis article ("Effect of rpoB Mutations Conferring Rifampin Resistance on Fitness of Mycobacterium tuberculosis" Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 2004, p. 1289-1294, Vol. 48, No. 4) and boldly  ( and stupidly) say "prove it" when the article says:
Quote
mutations that [do]alter target molecules may also be partly or fully ameliorated by compensatory mutations without loss of resistance. Such compensatory evolution has been observed in vitro, in experimental animals, and in clinical situations. Thus, the occurrence of cost-free mutations and compensatory evolution suggests that antibiotic-resistant bacteria will not disappear as a result of restricted use of antibiotics  


Well, Okay, DaveTard:

IN VITRO

Björkman, J., D. Hughes, and D. I. Andersson. 1998. Virulence of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella typhimurium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:3949-3953 " avirulent-resistant mutants rapidly accumulated various types of compensatory mutations that restored virulence without concomitant loss of resistance...compensatory mutations could increase the fitness of resistant bacteria and allow them to persist and compete successfully with sensitive strains even in an antibiotic-free environment. "

P. Sander, B. Springer, T. Prammananan, A. Sturmfels, M. Kappler, M. Pletschette, and E. C. Bottger (2002).Fitness Cost of Chromosomal Drug Resistance-Conferring Mutations.  Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 46: 1204-1211

"We found that the chromosomal drug resistance mutations studied often had only a small fitness cost; compensatory mutations were not involved in low-cost or no-cost resistance mutations. "

IN ANIMALS

Schrag, S. J., V. Perrot, and B. R. Levin. 1997. Adaptation to the fitness costs of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli. Proc. R. Soc. London B 264:1287-1291.

"While fitness costs have been demonstrated for bacteria and viruses resistant to some chemotherapeutic agents, these costs are anticipated to decline during subsequent evolution. This has recently been observed in pathogens as diverse as HIV and Escherichia coli. Here we present evidence that these gentic adaptations to the costs of resistance can virtually preclude resistant lineages from reverting to sensitivity.
in experimental animals"

Björkman, J., I. Nagaev, O. G. Berg, D. Hughes, and D. I. Andersson. 2000. Effects of environment on compensatory mutations to ameliorate costs of antibiotic resistance. Science 287:1479-1482

A. I. Nilsson, A. Zorzet, A. Kanth, S. Dahlstrom, O. G. Berg, and D. I. Andersson (2006). Reducing the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance by amplification of initiator tRNA genes. (on rifampin resistance)

"Conclusions: The fitness impact imposed on E. coli 345-2 RifC by carriage of antibiotic resistance elements was generally low or non-existent, suggesting that once established, resistance may be difficult to eliminate through reduction in prescribing alone."

N. Luo, S. Pereira, O. Sahin, J. Lin, S. Huang, L. Michel, and Q. Zhang (2005).
PNAS 102: 541-546. Enhanced in vivo fitness of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in the absence of antibiotic selection pressure.

"The prolonged colonization in chickens did not result in loss of the FQ resistance and the resistance-conferring point mutation (C257-> T) in the gyrA gene. Strikingly, when coinoculated into chickens, the FQ-resistant Campylobacter isolates outcompeted the majority of the FQ-susceptible strains"

CLINICAL SITUATIONS

Prouzet-Mauléon,Valérie, M. Abid Hussain, Hervé Lamouliatte, Farhana Kauser, Francis Mégraud, and Niyaz Ahmed. 2005. Pathogen Evolution In Vivo: Genome Dynamics of Two Isolates Obtained 9 Years Apart from a Duodenal Ulcer Patient Infected with a Single Helicobacter pylori Strain. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, p. 4237-4241, Vol. 43, No. 8

"Microevolution, however, was observed in the cagA gene and its right junction, the vacA m1 allele, and a member of the plasticity region cluster (JHP926). These results suggest that H. pylori has a great ability to survive and reemerge as a microevolved strain "

Nagaev, I., J. Björkman, D. I. Andersson, and D. Hughes. 2001. Biological cost and compensatory evolution in fusidic acid-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Mol. Microbiol. 40:433-439.

"observation suggests that fitness-compensatory mutations may be an important aspect of the evolution of antibiotic resistance in the clinical environment, and may contribute to a stabilization of the resistant bacteria present in a bacterial population."


You're a cowardly litle Chickenshit that can't even respond to my posts on the same thread that they were posted on and you're a complete idiot for trying to imply any lack of support for what I did post there.

Notice that I addressed fully and completely each one of your stupid-ass "objections" DaveTard, maybe some day you can grow the balls to do the same in response.

Date: 2006/05/27 14:10:22, Link
Author: deadman_932
Just in case I didn't make this clear enough for your tiny brain to grasp, DAVE, I'm going to spell it out in terms even microcephalics like yourself MIGHT be able to grasp:
1. Take genes like the  dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of P. falciparum. THESE are genes native , unaltered at that moment.

2. Drugs are developed that act upon those genes, disrupting them and their ability to deal with, oh, say FOLATES.

3. THOSE GENES MUTATE...RESULTING IN...RESISTANCE GENES. GENES THAT CAN RESIST  Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine

Your "boy" Kevin Anderson, PhD...mentions what in his post, DAVETARD? WHY, he mentions "Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated"  but of WHAT GENES? RESISTANCE GENES.

Contrary to what your boy said...here's what the article *I* cited said: "Sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) is the second-line treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Sri Lanka. Resistance to SP is caused by point mutations in the dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of P. falciparum"

Date: 2006/05/27 14:23:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
DaveTard2, you might want to grow a pair of balls and respond to what I posted on your "prove evolution to Davetard2" thread.

Where I was forced to answer your objections....to a post I made HERE....on your OTHER thread that I had never even posted on....until today, you slimy little chickenshit.  

Next time, have the nerve to answer my objections on the same thread I post them on and not run off to another thread to whine about it there, weasel-boy

Date: 2006/05/27 14:28:11, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and DaveTard2? You might want to take a note on how I answered each and every one of your whiny WRONG-ASS claims DIRECTLY, THOROUGHLY and without YOUR avoidance, "distract them to another topic" or "change your terms/goalpost-moving" tactics. One day, you might have the moral and ethical spine to try that, but I doubt you'll ever have the brain

Date: 2006/05/27 14:59:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm thinking I might not have made myself simple enough for y0u to grasp, DaveTard2, so here:

Different genetic mutations yield different types of resistance:

1.Some mutations enable the bacteria to produce enzymes that inactivate antibiotics.

2. Some mutations eliminate/alter the cell target that the antibiotic attacks -- As in the example I gave about the dihydrofolate reductase (Pf-dhfr) and dihydropteroate synthase (Pf-dhps) genes of  P. falciparum. A point mutation in each enables them to now resist the drug... hence they are resistance genes at that stage.

3. Some close up the entry ports that allow antibiotics into the cell.

4. I'm sure there are others

So, DaveTard2, when "Kevin Anderson, PhD says:    
Quote
resistance resulting from horizontal gene transfer merely provides a mechanism for transferring pre-existing resistance genes. Horizontal transfer does not provide a mechanism for the origin of those genes. Spontaneous mutation does provide a potential genetic mechanism for the origin of these genes, but such an origin has never been demonstrated


and I give you a citation for a study that DOES show the precise mutational origins of...RESISTANCE GENES...you  cannot say that I am misreading "Kevin Anderson, PhD"

Date: 2006/05/27 16:36:54, Link
Author: deadman_932
I don't think DaveTard2 *really* has a clue for what he's going to have to deal with. Not just radiometrics that contradict his young earth crapola -- I mentioned dendrochronology, corals, varves, ice cores, stalagmite/stalactites a few pages back ...and there's soooooo much more that you folks are all aware of....it's hardly a wonder that he avoids so much. The contortions involved in each one are going to be funny as he11.

Date: 2006/05/27 16:40:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
DaveTard2: Your post was on this thread, stupid. You regurgitated Kevin Anderson's stuff HERE. I responded quickly HERE. YOU never mentioned it was on some other thread...because you never responded to ME.

Date: 2006/05/28 04:22:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear Dumbass Davetard2: I realize you have the cognitive abilities of a child, so I will explain this to you like I would to a small, particularly stupid child-- let's start.

For starters, let's call your two threads here the HYPOTHESIS (davetard's creator god hypothesis shite) and EVOLUTION ( prove evolution to davetard) threads. Got that, dave? two threads...one Hypothesis, the other Evolution...

now, little DaveTard, look at my post ...my very  FIRST post ( the one posted yesterday, stupid) on your EVOLUTION  thread...what does it say?  Why, it says that I had never posted on it before....never even read through it...ever....before.

Now, a logical person might assume then, that I HAD NEVER READ THROUGH that thread before and could not possibly know what it contained until that point...correct?

But here, on your HYPOTHESIS thread....TODAY...you say that ..I should KNOW that you had posted there?  HOW would I know that, since I have told yu that I didn't read through it in the past ( until yesterday, stupid?)

Nww, DaveTard, try using whatever remains of an adult mind you have left in your mentally-diseased brain...Add up the clues, DaveTard...and tell me ....

IF I first saw your Kevin Anderson post HERE (page 17,May 25 2006,12:06) on the HYPOTHESIS thread....and I say that on your EVOLUTION thread....why would you magically expect me to know what your EVOLUTION thread had on it...before I ever read it?

I realize you're mentally ill, dave...and it's not that I dislike theism in general...i don't, personally. In fact, I think it's needed for stupid shits like you that couldn't form their own ethical and moral code on their own. What I hate is people like you that are willing to lie each and every day for their religion, DaveTard. Each time you raise your slimy serpentine head, I will put my boot on it, DaveTard. Now address what I put in my EVOLUTION post about Kevin Anderson, and your cognitive dissonance.

Date: 2006/05/28 04:42:26, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear DaveTard: your current argument ( based on incredulity) for YEC....is that humans lived on the planet a long time, but you find it incredible that they only developed writing ...recently.

Well, DaveTard...guess what? some groups didn't develop it until VERY recently or not at all...Consider Sequoyah, who first gave the Cherokee a written form of their language ....in  1821

You see, DaveTard, for many, many cultures, written language is just not a priority...it's cumbersom, requires a syllabary or ideographs and is just...not...needed.

So your argument from incredulity on the subject of written language is just as stupid as I would expect, DaveTard. It comes late..because oral language works just fine...humans lived in small groups up to about 10-15,000 years ago, DaveTard...most groups were in bands of 50, or tribes, later chiefdoms, then small proto-states, and finally state-level systems....it is only in the latter stages of this roughly outlined social complexity that interactions become so complex that writing becomes paramount.

Consider the Amerind groups you claim to have lived with, DaveTard. I am half Mescalero Apache. Did the groups you say you lived with NEED a written language to get along? There's an old joke I used to use in the very few times I ever taught cultural anthro as a Grad student, DaveTard...and it goes like this:

While an anthropologist was visiting the Kung!-San (bushmen) in the Namib desert, he asked them..why they didn't take advantage of the goods and foods afforded by agriculturalism and instead stuck with their age-old practices of Hunter-Gathering...and an old man replied: "why plant, when there are so many mongongo nuts?"  In a word....they didn't NEED the social complexification offered...they got along just fine, stupid. Just as most people on this planet got along fine without a written language up to recent centuries

Date: 2006/05/28 12:14:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear DaveTard2: I came back to read what other people thought of your stupid idea and have a laugh, then I started wondering where you got the idea that we, as humans, Homo sapiens sapiens...are 2 million years old, and it hit me -- that's where most people place H. habilis.

Do you realize what this means, Dave? It means at least two things: (1) You don't know how to "read" a Linnean binomial and (2) You're so stupid as to think that ANYTHING any taxon with "Homo" in front of it = modern humans.

DaveTard, beyond your mere dishonesty, willingness to dissemble, avoid, divert, shift the goalposts and use every fallacy known to man, you're stupid.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid, depleted uranium stupid. Stupid... so stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid,  meta-stupid... supra-stupid.

You're stupid collapsed on itself, Dave-- so far that even the single neuron you had popped ITSELF out of existence. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.You broadcast more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.You're like some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid uncontaminated by any recognizable intelligence. Ur-stupid, antediluvian, pre-eukaryotic stupid.

It is my sincere hope that your children grow up to be smarter than you are, DaveTard, and see that you're an idiot, as any moderately intelligent person would. Whether they give you pity or scorn is not my concern.

Date: 2006/05/28 13:37:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
BWE: I tip my hat to you -- you inspired me to greater heights of elucidating the awe-inspiring stupidity of DaveTard2. And yeah, I gotta agree with you, clamboy. That level of fucked-upness is simply impenetrable. But, as you say, more time for grog.

Date: 2006/05/28 21:10:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
Arden: I had a minor sort of interest in the area for a short time ( my office mate was a linguist...possibly the cunning type, but I never asked her)...anyhoo..I was led to Joseph Greenberg and Lyle Campbell. Fun to read, mostly based on comparative methods. For the neanders, that was the hyoid bone presence. I suspect they had language...####, even Joan Silk's work on macaques shows communication to be pretty intense even without a "true language"  Dean Falk's stuff ( and Ralph Holloway) on the development of communication areas in primate brains (broca's , sylvian fissure, wernicke's ) as shown in endocasts is pretty neat, too.

Date: 2006/05/28 22:08:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hah, talk about serendipity: I was poking around on the Santa Fe Institute page and found this: The Santa Fe Institute project on the evolution of language.  http://ehl.santafe.edu/intro1.htm

Date: 2006/05/29 09:53:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
DaveTard2: To fully educate you on paleoanthropology and archaeology would require years, I suspect, and even though both are my areas of specialization (North American prehistory), I don't want to waste years on you. Therefore --  I will list a few of your quotes in one large block quote, easily seen as separate statements. I will address each one as thoroughly as my patience permits, and raise some questions for you to respond to.

*IF* you are even vaguely honorable, you will address fully each one, as I do yours. Don't cherry-pick and try to answer only some of them, answer each as completely as you can.  
Quote
(1)It is still very implausible that H. sapiens sapiens lived on the earth for 194,000 years (or 144,000 or whatever), then voila! ... everybody learns to write all of a sudden. Now maybe I could buy into it if you are talking about 20,000 years instead of 200,000.
***********************************************
(2)Written history begins about 6000 ya. This is because mankind appeared about 6000 ya. Mankind appeared about 6000 ya because the earth was probably created about 6000 ya.
***********************************************
(3)There is much evidence that the so called "Indians" of North and South America descended from advanced civilizations after those civilizations declined. Most of the ancient civilizations had writing ...so the most likely scenario is that your ancestors and the ancestors of my dad's jungle natives did have writing
***********************************************
(4)If you are a scientist concerned with evidence, you would know that the evidence supports the sudden appearance of civilization and it's subsequent demise. The hunter gatherers you speak of are the result of 'devolution,' not evolution, if you want to be consistent with the evidence.
***********************************************


Now, as to your overall claim--you contend that because writing only appeared late in the history of H. Sapiens, that it is unreasonable to assume humans lived earlier. In your view, the late appearance of writing means that humans appeared at that time, and that any groups that have no writing...lost it by "devolution." I find this offensive on any number of levels.

For your claim to be "true" you have to pretend that virtually all science, from archaeology, archaeoastronomy to zoology, all dating methods-- both relative and absolute, are false, you have to pretend that the math, chemistry, physics, biology, and dozens of more branches of science--along with literally millions of scientists worldwide that practice them--are wrong, and are systematically involved in a massive coverup the scale of which has never been seen on this planet. You have to assume that they are doing so just because they are against your "Biblical" dating. This is amusing.

I would like you to think for a moment, DaveTard2: why is it that you don't see a "list of 500 scientists against" Radiometrics and other absolute dating methods? It is primarily because it would have to overturn physics, Dave...by showing that the accepted values for literally dozens of kinds of elemental decay rates, both alpha and beta, would need to be ACCELLERATED by 10-20 orders of magnitude. This is a lot, in case you don't know, Dave.  See Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp. This is just an aside, Dave. Let's deal with your claims now.

(1-2) You say that you find it hard to believe that modern humans could exist for about 200 thousand years ( not 2 million, Dave--That is about the time of the emergence of the genus Homo, not modern humans, as I mentioned in my previous post that showed you could not read a Linnean binomial and thought that all "Homo" = modern sapiens sapiens.). This is called an argument from incredulity, DaveTard. It is a fallacy.

I will now say why you are wrong. Set aside your magical beliefs in the special creation of mankind, DaveTard. Consider that humans at 10,000 years ago were already present in areas all across the globe. This is shown by archaeology and concomitant dating methods, not all of which are radiometrically dependent on decay rates, DaveTard. In an earlier post, I mentioned things like dendrochronology, which all by itself says that the Earth is older than your given dating, DaveTard. I could add dozens of other methods, like ice cores, paleomagnetism, varves, corals, stalactites/stalagmites, obsidian hydration, thermoluminescence and fission-track dating. These all also have to be wrong.

Now, I ask you Dave: why do we find humans already present across the globe, from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, from South Africa to Australia at 10,000 BCE? How did they get there if the Earth was created at 4004 BCE? THINK about it, Dave...THEY ARE ALREADY IN THOSE PLACES AT THAT TIME AND BEFORE IT.

In order to support the Bible, you have to start making things up, DaveTard. And it is when you and people like the ICR and AIG begin disagreeing with the millions of other scientists I mentioned.

Note that even the dendrochronology for the Middle East disagrees with the YEC position Dave, just to take one minor example.

At any rate Dave, let's look at why WRITTEN language only develops late in the H. sapiens sequence.

For the majority, the vast, vast majority of H. sapiens existence, humans lived in small groups. Bands, they are commonly called, of 50-200 people. Scientists like myself, who study these things, show that the earliest emergence of H. sapiens sapiens occurs in Africa, where the archaeology, genetic studies and paleoanthropology all agree. No earlier fossils of H. sapiens have been found anywhere else, etc. These bands begin to "fission" and disperse, eventually moving across all the major land masses LONG, LONG before your Bible suggests, DaveTard, so again, you and ICR, etc. must begin to lie about that.    

Population levels begin to rise as groups move across the landscape and exploit environments-- bands fission and begin to fill entire geographic areas, newcomers arrive, etc. Social complexity levels increase, and tribes and chiefdoms emerge. Eventually, the shite begins to hit the fan. If the environment was open and population expanded, excess population could be accommodated by the splitting up of social groups and the colonization of new areas. However, many environments are circumscribed. Circumscription may be physical or social. Islands and alluvial plains in deserts are physically circumscribed areas. Valleys, such as those riverine areas where most "civilizations " develop...are circumscribed. Social circumscription exists when the possibility of fissioning and colonization is blocked by neighboring populations. This happens at different rates in differing areas, DaveTard, and in marginally fecund areas it may not happen at all.

It is at the circumscription points that things begin to happen. Like the emergence of pre-state and state level systems. We can see this perfectly in the middle east, for example, where pre-agriculturalists begin exploiting domestication of plants and animals gradually... societies like the Natufian preagriculturals begin to engage in the "Neolithic Revolution." Globally, we only begin to see this from between 15,000-7000 BCE, depending on the area. This is because of the enormous numbers of variables involved. Some complex cultures, as in the American Northwest and Scandinavian Mesolithic Cultures and even Australian aborigines..."farmed" aquacultures...some never develop even basic agriculture, or even make pots, because they DON'T NEED them. NEED DRIVES technology/cultures and the continuity of technologies, DaveTard...and this NEED can include written language.

The earliest writings that we have are generally either mystical in nature (as the early "oracle bone" tortoiseshell and bone inscriptions of China) or --far more commonly -- to record-keeping in complex agricultural/pastoral/agrarian societies, where tallies have to be kept of grain storage or herds and individual/family/clan producers of it. WRITING emerges late because social complexity emerges late, and complex systems often REQUIRE means like writing (or the Incan QUIPU) to keep track of things. No magic and no mystery, DaveTard, and all...ALL the available data agree with this. Now, On to your other stupid claims.

(3-4)You say that the ancestors of Amerinds had written languages, DaveTard, and yet there is no evidence of this. NONE. At European contact, there were thousands of different tribes/bands and hundreds upon hundreds of languages differing from each other as much as Chinese and English do today. Of those cultures, you only see writing in ..what, DaveTard? That's right, State-level systems like the Aztec and Maya...why? Because they needed and had the leisure time to develop them. What few Codices that do survive show mainly mythic references, but there are strong suggestions in the Spanish literature and that of the Incan Quipu that other written works involved...record keeping and tallies.

Now my questions, DaveTard:

(1) What is your evidence that Amerinds other than the Maya and Aztec had written languages precontact? Show me one example of a large-scale culture that HAD written language and lost it.

(2) Why is the dendrochronological record of the U.S. wrong, DaveTard? Be precise and specific. Cite your data and evidence.

**************************************
On a completely unrelated note: I like your little cellular automata flash-thing, Ved. And I generally HATE macromedia flash.

Date: 2006/05/29 13:48:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
Norm: Yeah, the accelerated decay crap is part of their RATE nonsense (Radio isotopes and the Age of The Earth) The ICR's crap is cited by idiots like Woodmorappe and others and is found here for starters. Let me quote one bit of it:
Quote
Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago
 Smoking wasteland indeed.

Date: 2006/05/30 01:55:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
Review of your delusion so far, Dave:

A1) fine tuning is a post hoc fallacy with a sample of one, and no way to calculate anything other than humans can live in this universe. No god needed.

A2) Lots of things, like snowflakes " look designed" but are not anything but a product of natural forces. No god needed, This includes biological organisms, too, baboo. If you can prove otherwise, do so.

A3) C.S. Lewis' claims about universal morality were revealed as not only wrong, but vapid.

A4) Dave got slaughtered on that one, too

And Dave has yet to respond to the spanking he got on his YEC claims so far. Arguments from incredulity about written languages were addressed thoroughly and Dave is running scared. Score: Dave 0 Reality 4

Date: 2006/05/30 02:11:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, yeh, I forgot that nonsense claim about antibiotic resistance and Dave's claims concerning Kevin Anderson's demonstrably false claims, which I posted responses to, with specific examples countering them.

IN particular, I cited examples where there was NO "loss" of function and instead a co-opted gain in antibiotic resistance on top of it. He said he wasn't qualified to judge those cited articles, but thinks he's right, regardless. Silly boy.

Date: 2006/05/30 06:51:09, Link
Author: deadman_932

AFDAVE KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a looney.
AFDAVE KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then. [whop] [ARTHUR chops the AFDAVE KNIGHT's last leg off]

AFDAVE KNIGHT: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.

AFDAVE KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

Date: 2006/05/31 03:13:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
Faid: I think you pretty much covered it. An honest debate over the evidence would be nice, but AFDave simply can't allow that--not only would he be forced to learn about science, but also the shortcomings of his YEC fellows.

If Human Endogenous Retroviruses cause Dave's brain to go to "white noise " mode, imagine what might happen if he had to question his Daddy's dogma.

Cranial implosion is my guess.

Date: 2006/05/31 07:41:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
The whole episode raises some questions in my mind about the variables and trade-offs involved in dealing with these people. Dembski, for instance, is every bit as ideologically blinded and willfully dishonest as AFDave, I think. But he's still fun to throw facts at and watch his logical acrobatics. Is it just the level of sophistication in his weaseling? At what time does a cost-benefit sort of analysis determine that the amusement/heuristic value of a fanatic is overridden by the depth of their weaseling?

Obviously, each case is unique -- despite the tiresome use of the same old arguments, but is it *just* Dembski's "status" as a "figurehead" that makes him continually fun to poke at? I mean, if what AFDave says is true....why isn't it still a good thing to confront him on every level (reasonably) possible, if he intends on inflicting his bizarre abuses of science and logic on kids?

I am unwilling to suggest to anyone *else* that they are wasting their time on dealing with AFDave -- because it's unclear in my mind that it IS a waste of my time to at least make fun of him and point out the errors in his claims, just as I would with Dembski or anyone of their kind.  AFDave has shown the kind of blindness, willful lying, proud ignorance and utter fanatical use of every underhanded rhetorical device/fallacy I can imagine. No doubt about it. But how is he all that different from Hovind/Behe/Dembski?

The only thing that gave me pause was the idea that we are feeding AFDave information that he's simply too lazy/stupid to digest himself.

Date: 2006/05/31 08:04:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
I wonder how DaveTard1 reconciles this:
Quote
I don’t get the connection. I’m not a reborn Christian. I gave up a positive disbelief in God for the belief that there might be a higher intelligence of some sort. I traded in atheism for agnosticism 15 years ago which is where I remain today.
 

With this "insight" :
Quote
"I’ve raised many different species of birds and mammals as pets...They’re as much God’s creatures as you are." Comment by DaveScot - November 2, 2005 @ 10:08 pm uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/445#comment-11687


Oh, that's right -- cognitive dissonance and B-S.

Date: 2006/05/31 08:33:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh, even his theodicy is a joke. Reading it gives insight into the kind of evil God that Debski subscribes to.

One that -- to use an analogy I was prevented from posting there -- resembles a parent of 7 children who beats all of them daily for the misconduct of the firstborn.

Date: 2006/05/31 10:12:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ichthyic:  that's kinda what I think. Dembski comes up with new ways of baffling with bullshit and DaveTard2 is much more low-level on the continuum of the antievos. This makes Dembski inherently more fun to poke at, since he's re-packaging the same old arguments from incredulity, god of the gaps and other fallacies in newer wrapping . I *do* get bored of AFDave's crap more easily, since I've seen it so many times.

On that note, here's something amusing about Hovind: Fractatious once tried to get him to debate online and Hovind set up this list of "debate rules" that basically made it a presentation, not an actual debate. But what was interesting was Hovind's near-dyslexic use of language in the e-mail exchange. I think it was a indicator of his underlying motivations...he's embarassed of  his ignorance but is somehow (too lazy?) unable to "fix" it. Read his "thesis" excerpts and it's pretty obvious there, too. So, what he seems to do is to use his tactics against a "suitable" target in an effort to boost his ego.

AFDaveTard seems to be pretty much the same ( from yesterday) :
Quote
I guess it is also embarrassing to be shown the truth by a layman.


DaveTard2 and Hovind types aren't "producers, " they're leeches, but DaveTard2 wants to POSE as an academic, per his "Hypothesis." And even though Dembski has a pocketful of degrees, his whole stance seems to be the same,basically, just more driven and less lazy. Making him a more interesting target, since he's just more productive

It's all still interesting to me, and I still think I'll step on DaveTard's slimy serpentine head every time it appears. Mostly by mocking, per stevestory. I'm used to taking that approach with plain ol' fundamentalists in debate, and he's headed into really old ground with his Biblical YEC crap, so it won't be like I'm offering him any "new" info he can subvert/caricature. I hope no one gets irritated at me continuing to try to thwart his child-brainwashing efforts. I'd much rather discuss languages, the really neat stuff I picked up on antibiotic resistance, the motives of these assholes, etc. but I will be taking an occasional moment to step on DaveTard2's claims and laugh at him.

Date: 2006/05/31 14:53:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dante, I know DaveTard1, I've been banned by DaveTard1 ( three times in diff. names). I've seen DaveTard1's hysterics. You , sir, are no DaveTard1 ( hallefuckinfallujah!;)

Date: 2006/06/01 10:38:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDaveTard2: I don't intend on responding to your RATE claims ( although there are perfectly good responses to Humphrey's claims---that invalidate his claims entirely). CalTech is right down the street from me, AFDave...wouldn't it be nice if you had a fat quote from Farley at Caltech on this matter? All you have to do is answer the questions I asked earlier on "language and writing" , AFDave. Until you begin to respond to the actual questions put to you...I'm not going to deal with you.

Beyond your refusal to questions regarding your assertions ( like your claim that the lack of written language in the Americas reflects a "devolution" from previously literate cultures...) there's another reason I am going to not feed you, AFDave:

I don't believe your little charade here is to gather material for "children's education" at all, AFDave. I believe what you want most is the imprimateur of groups like ICR. So you come here, spew your claims, get responses that you can re-package and show to ...oh, ICR members...so you can get their "approval" and access to their built-in audience. That is the real reason you are here, I would wager. Beyond being merely intellectually lazy. You want to make money off kids and their parents. You need the backing of Christian groups and their audiences.  

Until you begin responding honestly to specific questions concerning your claims, AFDave...I'm not going to do your research for you, nor provide you with fodder for your exploitation of others. The ball is in your court, AFDave...play fair, or take your YEC ball and go home.

Date: 2006/06/01 10:54:13, Link
Author: deadman_932
Note: should be "imprimatur" above...I've been reading too much 19th C. Victorian stuff lately.

Date: 2006/06/02 09:26:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
Gosh, AFarceDave ignores questions and anything contrary to his myopic...no, I should say blind..."view." Color me surprised.

I find it interesting that the ICR group used...well, LIES--to even get the cooked results they did. They faked a "Mining Company" ("Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing") just to get Ken Farley's lab to do the analysis.

Lies on top of lies are not surprising from the ICR, they've done that time and again.

Date: 2006/06/04 11:27:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFarceDave: You can't honestly answer stevestory for the same reason you can't answer my questions that I've reposted multiple times. You are a liar. Very simple. If you say you're not, DaveTard, try and answer what I asked long ago:

1) Why do we find humans on every continent except Antarctica at 10,000 years ago if that is when you believe the earth was created? (Don't say that the archaeology is only dated by radiometric methods,  Dave. It's not. Don't say that all other methods are flawed when they are not. You have to show that all the dozens of dating methods we use are flawed in the peculiar way that they give agreeing answers, Dave. And you cannot do that. )  

2) What is your evidence that Amerinds (other than the Maya and Aztec) had written languages precontact? Show me one example of a native culture that HAD written language and lost it as you claimed.

3) Why is the dendrochronological record of the U.S. wrong, DaveTard? Be precise and specific. Cite your data and evidence. This was related to your claim about written languages, Dave. You never answered either, plus over 100 questions from myself and others that I have counted in this thread.

My prediction is you will avoid addressing these questions fully and honestly. You will avoid, though.

Date: 2006/06/04 12:40:54, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFarceDave: You can't honestly answer stevestory for the same reason you can't answer my questions that I've reposted multiple times. You are a liar. Very simple. If you say you're not, DaveTard, try and answer what I asked long ago:

1) Why do we find humans on every continent except Antarctica at 10,000 years ago if that is when you believe the earth was created? (Don't say that the archaeology is only dated by radiometric methods,  Dave. It's not. Don't say that all other methods are flawed when they are not. You have to show that all the dozens of dating methods we use are flawed in the peculiar way that they give agreeing answers, Dave. And you cannot do that. )  

2) What is your evidence that Amerinds (other than the Maya and Aztec) had written languages precontact? Show me one example of a native culture that HAD written language and lost it as you claimed.

3) Why is the dendrochronological record of the U.S. wrong, DaveTard? Be precise and specific. Cite your data and evidence. This was related to your claim about written languages, Dave. You never answered either, plus over 100 questions from myself and others that I have counted in this thread.

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.

Date: 2006/06/04 14:48:10, Link
Author: deadman_932
DaveTard:
1) Why do we find humans on every continent except Antarctica at 10,000 years ago if that is when you believe the earth was created?
2) What is your evidence that Amerinds-- other than the Maya and Aztec-- had written languages precontact? Show me one example of a native culture that HAD written language and lost it as you claimed
3) Why is the dendrochronological record of the U.S. wrong, DaveTard? Be precise and specific. Cite your data and evidence.

NB to Occam:
I'm going for the GOLD, BABY!!! Bwahahahaha

Date: 2006/06/04 14:55:04, Link
Author: deadman_932


"Dot's SEEX -- SEEX times he ask de qvestions."

Date: 2006/06/04 19:09:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFarceDave: You didn't answer what I asked.

(1) Note that it was YOU that made the claims about Amerind groups, Dave. Don't call it a "rabbit trail" when you are asked questions at the time you make statements ....then you fail to answer them for a week. You said this, Dave:

Quote
There is much evidence that the so called "Indians" of North and South America descended from advanced civilizations after those civilizations declined. Most of the ancient civilizations had writing ...so the most likely scenario is that your ancestors and the ancestors of my dad's jungle natives did have writing


I asked you to PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT AND YOU AVOID IT

NOW you say :

Quote
The Mayas and Aztecs were some I had in mind.  My understanding is that there are many 'indian' tribes all over Mexico some of which descended from these civilizations who have lost their written language.  I believe Wycliffe Bible translators has encountered many such tribes


Note the disparity in your claims, DaveLiar. **Mexico is not South America, DaveTard.** You know that you cannot support your claim that Amerinds such as the Apache ( note that you mention my ancestors) HAD writing and lost it. Yours was an over-arching claim about "amerinds" in general, liar.

So you run from your original claim and my question on it that I had to ask 6 times to get this ... utter lie out of you. Strike One, DaveTard2

(2) When I ask you about humans existing on every continent except Antarctica at 10,000 years ago, you say :

Quote
Who said we do?  How do you know this timeframe?


I say we know this and I have said WHY we know this, DaveTard: I gave you a list of non-radiometric methods used to date sites across the world, DaveTard, and you know that, but you avoid answering at all.  

Strike TWO, DaveCoward

(3) When I ask you about the dendrochronology used to date such sites in North America, DaveTard, you avoid that too. I asked you specifically why you say dendro is wrong, DaveTard, and you fail to answer at all. Remember, DaveTard, I asked you about this due to your claims concerning the dates of civilizations and writing, and YOU FAILED TO RESPOND THEN...AND NOW.

That's strike three, DaveTard.

I predicted that you would do precisely this, DaveTard, and it is clearly stated in my posts.

What you will do next is to claim that none of this is relevant, even though these questions I asked were directed at you when you were making claims about human history. You ignored them then and you ignore them now. Because you can't back your own claims, DaveTard. It is not a "rabbit trail" if the questions are asked in a timely fashion, DaveTard, such as right after you make your lying claims.

What you will do NOW is to pretend that you HAVE answered me, when the fact is that anyone reading this thread knows you have not. Nor can you.

Yeah, you sicken me.

Date: 2006/06/04 20:12:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ichthyic: The next time will be 7. ####, I could ask again now, since the little liar never answered me.

As you can see from his claim, DaveTard didn't qualify his claim in the least about Amerinds. He mentioned North AND South America, then retreats to "I meant Mexico." But the thing that really set my teeth on edge and should make DaveTard glad he's not within my arm's reach, is this one:  

Quote
The hunter gatherers you speak of are the result of 'devolution,' not evolution, if you want to be consistent with the evidence.


This is the scarcely-concealed tacit racism that led to missionaries like DaveTard's daddy to spend their time among "degenerate heathens" that didn't *need* anything from DaveTard's kind except to be left alone.

Millions of people across the globe were enslaved,tortured and killed off by people waving crosses and bibles while carrying "guns, germs, and steel" and I take it personally when my ancestors are called "devolved."

Date: 2006/06/05 03:59:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Yeah, it's interesting how some "Christian" creationists claim that AIDS is "God's Justice."

Just something comforting --for the 300,000 children under the age of FIVE who die each year of AIDS--eh, GoP?

It matches perfectly the mindset of AFarceDave, who views Native Americans  as "devolved" because they don't match his "Christian" criteria.

Date: 2006/06/05 05:22:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ghost of Paley: I could not care less about Foucault's sex life or his fantasies--which you find so fascinating. I don't care about Foucault's "philosophy," either. I am not a post-modern "deconstructional" structuralist.

What I do care about is you saying that AIDS is "God's Justice" -- considering that the children I mentioned die of it.

Foucault's views on many things are stupid and destructive, but I don't believe he tried to proclaim them as those of a god.

Yours are evil and you ascribe them to a god. Which is worse?

Date: 2006/06/05 06:34:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
Argy: Yeah, that was taken from UNICEF at this site which has links for documentation on stats and methodology.

GoP: I took the time to read through your posts on "thordaddy's " thread so I will say only this: Your claim that AIDS is "God's Justice" was ill-constructed at best and massively fallacious at worst.

Claiming that a god would visit AIDS on Foucault, regardless of his "thought crimes"-- while simultaneously waving away the deaths of children from the same disease --is offensive. You don't speak for any god, Paley, nor are you privy to the thoughts of any god on this specific matter. Don't pretend to be.

Date: 2006/06/05 07:46:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
Argy: no yielding needed, bud :). Unlike Paley and AFarceDave, I expect and welcome people wanting me to support any claims I make. I don't view this as an exercise in ego as those two seem to, I see this as a chance to learn and to hone whatever debate skills I have, as Rilke's mentioned earlier.

Date: 2006/06/05 08:56:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFarceDave: you didn't answer what I asked.

You claimed that amerinds in both North and South america had written language and lost it, Dave.
Quote
There is much evidence that the so called "Indians" of North and South America descended from advanced civilizations after those civilizations declined. Most of the ancient civilizations had writing ...so the most likely scenario is that your ancestors and the ancestors of my dad's jungle natives did have writing


I asked you to support that , Dave. -- 2) What is your evidence that Amerinds-- other than the Maya and Aztec-- had written languages precontact? Show me one example of a native culture that HAD written language and lost it as you claimed.

You want to use the Aztec and Maya as examples, though? Please show me that the Maya groups lost their writing ability, Dave. What they did was adopt European syllabaries as a substitute. Same with the  Nahua Aztecs, Dave. Same with the Zapotecs, Dave. Same with the descendants of the Mixtec, Dave...forcible replacement of one written language with another is not quite what you claimed , Dave.

To try to back your stupid claims, DaveTard2, you list the  Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Iran, and Mexico. You say that these groups appeared abruptly, recently and simultaneously.

No they didn't. They were thousands of years apart in the case of the Olmecs and Crete versus China and Egypt.

Nor were they "abrupt" since each of those has known antecedent archaeology that lead up to state-level systems.

Nor does the emergence of those state-level systems match your flood dates, Dave...or your Creation of the Earth dates, Dave.

Then, DaveTard, most amusingly of all, you stupidly say this:      
Quote
ALL civilizations **originated in the areas listed above** and the people spread out from there shortly after the Tower of Babel incident.
(my emphases)

Dave...stupid....The tower of BABEL was where? Where is Mexico? Where is China? How could civilization start in all the areas you mention and still be informed of a "Babel" incident when they are not near the middle east?

Think about what you posted DaveCretin...

As to your claim that your daddy "saved" anyone...What was the name of the group/tribe? I have the entire HRAF files at my disposal, Dave. I don't believe you in the least, but I DO  believe it's quite possible that you're lying, as you have so many other times.

Date: 2006/06/05 09:23:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let me make clear your errors, Davecretin. I have read Morris. I have read the ICR crap. You mangle both of them when you say that civilizations begin in the areas you listed (Mexico, China, etc. ) **THEN** disperse FOLLOWING a Tower of Babel incident.

I thought you knew the Bible DaveTard? What does chapter 11 of Genesis say?

Oh, and DaveStupid? Note that the ICR says  here that
Quote
Biblical chronologies place the Babel incident at 4200 or so years ago. Many of the expelled groups took with them technological knowledge which they put to use in their new homelands. History documents the fact that several major cultures sprang into existence seemingly from nowhere at about the same time—the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Phoenicians, the Indians, as well as the Chinese


You can't even argue what you CLAIM to know in the Bible or from ICR or Morris correctly.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:04:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
Y'know, I'm pretty damned impressed with the thrashing AFarceDave is getting at every turn. His posts are getting more selective, more hysterical, more filled with his robot-like repetition.

Oh, Arden? I was going to post some links for you if you didn't already have them. There used to be two other really great online resources for Mesoamerican stuff, but I checked and they're now defunct. But these are still around:

here and here , with a language "overview " site  here

I did my grad work on the Aztec  Pochteca (trader-merchants) and the Chichimec "northern barbarians" of the Sonora. Any group that the Aztecs called "barbarians" had to be mean mofo's. Personally, I think they're the ones that ate the Anasazi at times. The Aztec traders got turquoise from Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado *through* those bad boys.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:20:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and to throw my two cents in on the "Foucault as an Icon of Liberals" nonsense--I'm a liberal  and I view Foucault as a prime example of post-modernist tripe couched in deliberately obscurantist, contradictory language. See Gross and Levitt's (1994) "Higher Superstition," Johns Hopkins U. Press.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:28:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Maybe this one, then for a general language overview.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:59:13, Link
Author: deadman_932
GoP says
Quote
Obviously, they felt that Foucault, Derrida, et al had some influence on liberal humanists (in both senses of the term).


Your point? I mean, other than the one under your hat? If I say I am liberal and I only know of two liberals --out of the thousands of people I've ever met-- who take *Foucault* seriously, then what?

Derrida is even more obscurantist and unappealing to me. Post-modernism in general irks me, although they have had a few interesting things to say, in my view. Intellectual fads sweep through every socio-political division. Big deal. In my field of archaeology, it was termed "post-processualism" and derived from structuralism and the half-baked ideas of literary critics, as Gross and Levitt nicely note. It made some very minor "contributions" and is not really imporant except to a few people scattered through academia.

Now, don't you have a geocentric model to concoct, GoP?  I realize you have some deep need for attention/approval but this is not a thread about you, GoP. And no, given your rantings on epistemology, logic, language, and the mutilation of known science I saw here and in your thread...you don't impress me. I know you're fairly bright, but I've met really bright people. Murray Gell-Mann comes to mind..and you're not that level. But, ####, you do feel this deep-seated need for trying to pretend to be.

Now, shoo. Go figure out how to deal with stellar abberational displacement.

Date: 2006/06/05 11:31:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
As a relative newbie, I was initially amused by your trolling, GoP. But you contine on like a weird retarded toy poodle, jumping up and down for attention. And no, I don't give a crap about Freud either.

Date: 2006/06/05 15:08:10, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear DumbassDaveTard2: Just to remind you that you never actually answered what I asked, I am going to repost my statements here (slightly condensed) because I want to catch up to Occam and others who have asked you the same things far more times . Maybe you can clarify now...but I doubt it.
 
Quote
AFarceDave: you didn't answer what I asked.

You claimed that amerinds in both North and South america had written language and lost it, Dave.    
Quote
There is much evidence that the so called "Indians" of North and South America descended from advanced civilizations after those civilizations declined. Most of the ancient civilizations had writing ...so the most likely scenario is that your ancestors and the ancestors of my dad's jungle natives did have writing

I asked you to support that , Dave. -- 2) What is your evidence that Amerinds-- other than the Maya and Aztec-- had written languages precontact? Show me one example of a native culture that HAD written language and lost it as you claimed.
You want to use the Aztec and Maya as examples, though? Please show me that the Maya groups lost their writing ability, Dave. What they did was adopt European syllabaries as a substitute. Same with the  Nahua Aztecs, Dave. Same with the Zapotecs, Dave. Same with the descendants of the Mixtec, Dave...forcible replacement of one written language with another is not quite what you claimed , Dave.

To try to back your stupid claims, DaveTard2, you list the  Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Iran, and Mexico. You say that these groups appeared abruptly, recently and simultaneously.
No they didn't. They were thousands of years apart in the case of the Olmecs and Crete versus China and Egypt. Nor were they "abrupt" since each of those has known antecedent archaeology that lead up to state-level systems. Nor does the emergence of those state-level systems match your flood dates, Dave...or your Creation of the Earth dates, Dave.

Then, DaveTard, most amusingly of all, you stupidly say this:          
Quote
ALL civilizations **originated in the areas listed above** and the people spread out from there shortly after the Tower of Babel incident.
(my emphases)

Dave...stupid....The tower of BABEL was where? Where is Mexico? Where is China? How could civilization start in all the areas you mention and still be informed of a "Babel" incident when they are not near the middle east? Think about what you posted DaveCretin...As to your claim that your daddy "saved" anyone...What was the name of the group/tribe? I have the entire HRAF files at my disposal, Dave. I don't believe you in the least, but I DO  believe it's quite possible that you're lying, as you have so many other times.
Let me make clear your errors, Davecretin. I have read Morris. I have read the ICR crap. You mangle both of them when you say that civilizations begin in the areas you listed (Mexico, China, etc. ) **THEN** disperse FOLLOWING a Tower of Babel incident. ...I thought you knew the Bible DaveTard? What does chapter 11 of Genesis say? Oh, and DaveStupid? Note that the ICR says : here that    
Quote
Biblical chronologies place the Babel incident at 4200 or so years ago. Many of the expelled groups took with them technological knowledge which they put to use in their new homelands. History documents the fact that several major cultures sprang into existence seemingly from nowhere at about the same time—the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Phoenicians, the Indians, as well as the Chinese

You can't even argue what you CLAIM to know in the Bible or from ICR or Morris correctly.

Date: 2006/06/05 17:04:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
Nicely said, Crabby.

Date: 2006/06/05 17:14:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
I am taking the time to go back and look over all DaveTard2's claims and make a synopsis -- his comments and unanswered questions directed at him, etc., and I noticed this:  

DaveTard says on page one of this thread that he:  
Quote
was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot .., then a businessman. Having sold my second business, I am now what you might say "between businesses" and am spending a lot of time on non-profit endeavors. I do have an aircraft charter business (a single King Air to fuel my flying "habit") and I am into alternative motor vehicle fuels with the possibility of a future business venture, but I'm not currently doing anything big in business.


Call me cynical, but here's my biased translation of that:

DaveTard2 needs some quick dough and is looking at compiling what he selectively edits out of this and using it to scam some cash out of families by appealing to groups like ICR and AIG and their "built-in" audiences. Yes, I would bet on this.

Date: 2006/06/05 18:05:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Crabby: I think it's a given. Methane, hot air, and hand waving. Now that's some Bernoulli there.

Date: 2006/06/05 18:33:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
DaveTard2: I don't know that anyone hammered you on HERV's. You should look those up. It does just as much damage to your claims as fused chromosomes or vitamin C. (okay, actually, I think it does more damage, but I'm biased). I'm doing this because it helps me to understand people like you. People that say  
Quote
What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists.  
and claimed to have read up extensively on the subject matter, but didn't know about the issues raised here at all--in each of the areas you have brought up so far. You didn't know about the fallacies inherent in misapplying abduction, you didn't know about the fallacies in the "fine tuning" arguments (god of the gaps, tautology, post hoc ergo propter hoc), you didn't know about Behe's IC claims being dashed, you have no clue about the observed speciation work (there's more than those at TalkOrigins, baboo, much more), you didn't know about WHY the zircon crap was wrong/non-compelling/unreplicated, your claims on language were a real hoot, your venture into anthro/archaeo was dismal...you didn't know much about much at all--Including your own bible, as recently demonstrated. What you did do is read a few popular authors (Gould, Dawkins) and regurgitated a whole bunch of Henry Morris, ICR and AIG crap (*snort*).

But I bet you'll try to peddle it, punkin'.

Date: 2006/06/05 18:59:23, Link
Author: deadman_932
Holy Moly, it's not a competition, it's a greased bobsled shooting down K2 at breakneck speed!

Date: 2006/06/06 09:02:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
Little Virginia O'Hanlon just wrote me this plaintive, touching letter:

Dear Deadman—
I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no AirForceDave. Papa says, “If you see it in The Panda, it’s so.” Please tell me the truth, is there an AirForce Dave? ....Virginia O’Hanlon

To which I replied:

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little --and some are more microscopic than others. And that is where we find AirForceDave. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, there is an AirForceDave. He exists as certainly as fallacies and and avoidance and delusion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest amusement and reason to abhor ignorance. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no AirForceDaves!
No AirForceDave? Thanks to unreason he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, AirForceDaves will continue to try to twist your childhood....Sincerely, Deadman.

Date: 2006/06/06 09:19:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hmmm...a Mathematica model of a Klein bottle. Geocentric Universe. Color me CONVINCED!!! Signed, AirForceDave

Date: 2006/06/06 11:25:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
I actually think he's both. I went back over as many of his posts as I could, and he reminds me of DaveScot, personally. ID-ist, troll, weird libertarian/conservativism laced with heapin' helpin's of folksiness and pseudoscience...yet oddly seeming to be moderately well-read, which is where he gets into trouble.

Moderately informed won't cut it when you're making grandiose claims

Date: 2006/06/06 11:36:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
I have some stats on that from the Dept. of Justice (U.S.) and Canada, England, Wales. Atheists are statistically underrepresented in both arrests and convictions as a percentage of the population.

http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm (fbi, purportedly)
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e072/e072a.shtml (canada)
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html (england and wales)
http://www.bobkwebsite.com/prisoninmaterlgn.html
http://216.239.57.100/search?....e=UTF-8  (DOJ)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim01.pdf. ( dept of  justice)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/pub/bjs/pdf/pjimy96.pdf.

Date: 2006/06/06 11:51:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ah, dammit, I have to re-find those links, they're old, sorry

Date: 2006/06/06 16:02:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
We switched to things which do subtle, long-term damage to society, like Paley said.


Ah, yes, things like eroding the bill of rights, piling up the national debt and selling treasury bonds to China to pay for the interest, thereby undermining our trade position and allowing the neo-commies to sell underpriced goods and put American workers out of business, selling off national parklands, going on "fishing expeditions" of the public by using communications companies and the NSA, allowing the CIA to create clandestine prisons overseas where we can torture people, spreading propaganda about the environment's condition while we pocket the cash gained thereby, ignoring the increase in poverty and children born in poverty, profiteering from sweetheart defense deals, increasing the size of government even if excluding the armed services and "national security" concerns. Oh, yeah, and we started a war on false pretenses. Oh, wait...nevermind. Wrong group.

I forgot...I just worship pseudo-philosophers and am generally liberal and amoral.

Date: 2006/06/06 16:20:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, yeah, I forgot, I directed the fake moon landing in out geocentric solar system and planted fossils while simultaneously hiding all the Apatosaur saddles which would otherwise show that ancient man rode dinos to work at the Tower of Babel. Paley shrewdly spied me out , though.

Date: 2006/06/06 16:38:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
A McGuffin ( or maguffin, etc.) is used in writing. I first heard it in s-f to denote a kind of plot device used to propel a story. I think Alfred Hitchcock coined the term, though. Yeesh, I have also learned not to drink Bushmill's while posting. The "One Ring" in LoTR is a "mcguffin"...it's a foil that propels the plot forward.

Date: 2006/06/06 16:55:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
I voted for Paley as the current reigning mcguffin. AFDave only hit a few subjects that I had to do much research on. Paley is all over the place with bizarre ideas

Date: 2006/06/06 17:11:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
A person can be a Macguffin, like the one-armed man that "The Fugitive" is "chasing"..leading through a series of stories. Moriarty is often used as an off-story device in the Sherlock Holmes stories. He's the evil mastermind lurking behind some events that lead us through the mystery. A "thinking computer" can be a mcguffin in s-f, like the "evil" one in Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash" or the "nice" one in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
Ummm...in the case of evo. v. ID-creos any of the  "characters" serves to propel the "story" forward to various degrees of complexity and interest. WHO they are is not all that important, it's that they are creating  interest, research/thinking and conflict, I suppose --  which is the lifeblood of a good tale.
I hope that helps, but if not, blame it on the whiskey.

Date: 2006/06/06 17:25:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
I voted for gay marriage because I plan on proposing to Thordaddy. Can't wait to see him in skimpy lingerie.  ;)

Date: 2006/06/06 17:34:11, Link
Author: deadman_932


I was touched by his noodly appendage.

Date: 2006/06/06 17:39:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
Irish whiskey. A good scotch. Vodka. Mescal. Absinthe. I'm amazed AFDave doesn't make more sense to me, given the neurons I've killed.

Date: 2006/06/06 17:47:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
He's currently on the "active user " list, so his cat apparently DIDN'T bury him in the litterbox.

Date: 2006/06/06 20:24:06, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear DumbassDave: Contrary to your claim about " people here not understanding the issues," I think you are projecting, DaveTard2. I have read the same papers that you have, and more. Fenton Hill is geothermically active http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988JGR....93.6041G. I know that helium is found nearby and that it is very likely to move through fractures in such areas. Humphreys says insufficient amounts of helium are found NOW, and that no current partial pressures are significant enough to cause infiltration of helium through openings caused by uranium decay, but DaveTard...Hydrothermal fluid circulation, complex groundwater flow, and reblocking of fractures by mineral precipitation is part of the Fenton Hill geology.This is also seen in Hawaii, Yellowstone and New Zealand.

Here's some questions and a clue for you, DaveTARD... helium doesn't move from low to high pressure . Okay, good. How about high to low?. How deep can helium be found in the Fenton Hill area? In what amounts? Were 3He/4He ratios measured? If not, why not?  Remember that Robert Gentry ( a creationist, DaveTard), who gathered a lot of this data in 1982 even admitted  
Quote
We are not certain whether the minute amounts of Helium recorded from the deepest zircons ... are actually residual Helium in the zircons or derived from some other source.


I am not going to feed you information until you start dealing with questions asked you directly, DaveTard. Such as the ones I asked in the last 5 pages.

Even if I leave the zircon subject alone and you never answer my questions, the bottom line will be that no replication of this work was ever done, it can be shown that the data was MANIPULATED and the alternative explanations of Henke and others (helium infiltration, excess uranium, etc.) were never eliminated as possible sources

Date: 2006/06/06 20:57:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh, and DaveTard? This comment of yours:
Quote
6) No one had measured He diffusion in zircons before (why? Afraid of the answrer maybe?)


Shows that you have not read the available work at all.

Measurements of helium diffusion in zircons predate the data-massaged RATE results by decades.

Date: 2006/06/07 08:29:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear AFreakin'LiarDave:  
Quote
Can you give me a paper that shows non-ambiguous data on He diffusion in zircons prior to Humphreys et al?

If you'd read even Humphrey's 2004 "paper" carefully, you'd note that they cite work done in 1967 on He/zircon diffusion rate problems that they had to take into account---the fact that they DID take them into account indicates that-- even to Humphreys-- those diffusion data were valid. Further work goes back to the 1950's. If you mean He diffusion CHRONOMETRY you are still wrong (read those papers, stupid).

Second, on Humphreys biotite/zircon He "ratios" Look up the data on biotite diffusion/infusion. Humphreys ( and your) claim that the lower amounts of He in surrounding biotite---mean NOTHING in regard to the possibility of He transport/infusion in solute or otherwise, AFarceDave.

Farley's ( the guy from Caltech that I live nearby, Dave?) work and even my own "unread" mind can show multiple (that means not just one, Dave) scenarios that Humphreys et al did not even try to eliminate. This is precisely why I say Humphreys' data-massaging claims mean nothing, Dave. No, I won't give you that information either, AFDave. You don't like answering my questions, thus I feel no need to feed you data. But here's a clue, AFarceDaveTard2: read his work on biotite/titanite He diffusion. Look at my previous posts that you blithely excise bits of to make claims about.  

Prediction: The Fenton Hill's continued geotherm activity and its influences on the anomalous RATE results will NEVER, EVER be directly restudied  by Humphreys or Gentry to eliminate potential sources.

As to you not being a liar, AFarceDave...er, yes you are. Your insane and unsupported claims on Amerind written languages was more than enough to establish that, along with your continued refusal to deal directly with the subject.

Date: 2006/06/07 09:30:11, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh, yeah, the Portuguese lie. Dave claims that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French and  cites a word list showing it is in fact Latinate.

But Dave never shows specific examples of Portuguese words derived etymologically ...FROM FRENCH

and the pecentage of any such hypothetical terms in regard to the sum of the Portuguese language. :D

Date: 2006/06/07 09:44:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
He's a hard-drinking, hard-fighting, hard-lovin' man
and he chases the fellas whenever he can---
Thordaddy dances on tables wigglin' in panties
while posing as hetero and singing sea shanties
Hey, oh, hey oh, blow the man down!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13181735/   Gay marriage ban defeated in Senate vote

Date: 2006/06/07 11:11:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm grateful for the quality of responses given to AirHeadDaveTard2's claims. I ...I think I love you guys.  *cries into his beer sensitively, yet manfully*

Date: 2006/06/07 18:03:25, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hah, I hadn't been following the antics of D*mbski and Dumbo's Man lately but this episode is funnier than the Gay Marriage/Thordaddy projects his secret yearnings poll.

D*mbski reminds me of a wind-up toy at this point.

Date: 2006/06/07 18:24:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
The really bad part is that I gave AirHeadDaveTardSpringerSpaniel2 a big-ass post a while ago on the same subject, Crabby.:(

I think he keeps his Snoopy Flight Helmet on backwards

Date: 2006/06/07 18:41:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
I think Billy needs a sabbatical.

The crushing reality of having Behe place ID on a par with astrology seems to have unhinged the lad.  

Date: 2006/06/07 19:07:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ridicule, satire, sarcasm, irony, derision...it all works for me. These people we deal with desperately want to be taken seriously. AirHeadDave says he's whoopin' on the big mean sciemtishts while COMPARING himself to... Newton and Maxwell, I think it was-- Dembsky is the "Newton" of Information theory--Behe fancies himself to be slicker than whale poop and on and on.

Nothing works better for me than laying out the evidence to such egos and pointing a finger at them and laughing. I try not to bring in relatives, sexuality, race, educational level, status, etc, but everything else is fair game.

I DID taunt Thordaddy a bit with his gay obsession thing, but he just begs for that. Besides, he's so cute when he gets all red-faced-wound-up and clenches his tiny fists of rage.

Date: 2006/06/08 07:09:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
DearDumbassDaveTard2: I posted a reference previously showing that  
Quote
The Valles caldera hydrothermal plume is structurally dominated by lateral flow through a belt of vertical conduits (Jemez fault zone) that strike away from the source reservoir. Stratigraphically confined flow is present but dispersed over a wide area in relatively impermeable rocks.


The Valles Caldera is what is left of a volcano that was active recently. The crater has a geothermic plume that tends to run along fault zones. Fenton Hill is geothermically active due to the flow of heated fluids  "laterally" (see above...lateral means horizontally, DaveTard2, parallel to the surface) These fluids then emerge through the fractured rock. Even though Fenton Hill is CURRENTLY a "hot dry test site," the area has been hydrothermically active in the past.

Second, AFDaveTard2, you don't need fluids to transport He ---- it does it all on its own, or it can be carried by CO2. As Jon stated, the geology of the area reported by Sasada indicates that  Humphreys, with his "naked eye" assesment of granidiorite...is wrong. It IS gneiss. Also, that gneiss is fractured and considerably worked over due to varying levels of heat over the millenia.

Humphreys is smart enough to know that He transport and infiltration in the zircons would kill his claim, so he has to avoid presenting the notes and labwork that would support it. In other words, DaveTard, he is deliberately hiding.  

Prediction 1: Neither Humpherys or Gentry or any other member of RATE will ever, ever restudy the Fenton Hill zircons to eliminate external He sources

Prediction 2 (and remember this one, AFarceDave, you heard it here first): An enterprising graduate student from Caltech will be first to show that the excess He in the Fenton Hills zircons is due to transport of He from the Valles Caldera plume.

Prediction 3: Once this solution is offered, Humphreys, RATE and the ICR will move on to another in a long series of "God of the Gaps" argumentum ad ignoratium claims that will also be shown false.

And you can bank on all of those, AFarceDaveTard2

Date: 2006/06/08 07:31:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
AirHeadDaveTard2: Presenting a list showing that Portuguese is a Latinate language means nothing except that it shares roots with other Romance languages.

The **ONLY** way that you can prove your claim that "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French"  is to present a word list that shows a large number of Portuguese terms that etymologically derive from French, Stupid. And you ---let me emphasize this, since you seem unusually dense---CANNOT  show any such thing.

Date: 2006/06/08 07:51:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
The funny part is that I'd have a far easier time showing that Portuguese is " a mix of Spanish and Arabic" than AirHead is having with French and Spanish.

With his latinate word list, I like the suggestion that an equally credible hypothesis is that French is a mix of Spanish and Portuguese. The Spanish mingled with the French a lot over the centuries.

Date: 2006/06/08 08:30:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Faid: I was having lunch and glanced at your post and nearly lost my life due to a combination of  tuna fish sammitch and laughter at that little emoticon thing.  :D

Date: 2006/06/08 09:33:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank.


Ah, yes, the famed prognostications of DaveTard the Elder. Donned his plastic armor,  hitched his wagon to a broken-down horse and thinks he's Charlton Heston in Ben Hur. Too bad that horse can't trot, eh?

Date: 2006/06/08 09:50:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
AirHeadDaveTard2 says:
Quote
Yes, yes.  I understand.  I have a ways to go before I attain to the utopia of professional scholarship.  :-)


A first step might be actually backing your claims. Another would be not lying. Another would be not avoiding counterarguments that appear as a result of your claims. Another would be not using quote-mining. Another would be avoiding other known fallacies. Another would be acknowledging when you are caught lying and using fallacies.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step, LiarDave. We're just here to help you learn to walk.

Date: 2006/06/08 10:01:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let me add something to what I just posted, DaveTard. You had been given multiple examples of your lies. You selected out the Portuguese one because you thought you could bluff your way through it and because it was YOURS, as Rilke pointed out. Ego, Dave. The kind of ego that leads you to crow about your ability to fly a plane, the ego that led to you actually comparing yourself to Newton and Maxwell, the same ego that leads you to believe that you cannot be wrong.

You're not dealing with gullible kids that you can B-S...or your local yokel Churchgoers that you can try to hoodwink with crappy creationist claims. Nor does anyone show any amazment or awe at your accomplishments in your life. Maybe you know that and that's what drives you...I don't care, anyway.

What I care about is the quality of the data, the ability of evidence to support claims and the willingness of the individual to engage in honest debate. You lack what I care about, DaveTard, so you get spanked for pretending that you do possess these things.

Date: 2006/06/08 11:18:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
MarineTardDave ---gah, you beat me to it, Wonderpants. Nice catch. "But ID isn't about religion" (*snort*)

Date: 2006/06/08 20:37:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Fallacy. False dichotomy.

Date: 2006/06/08 20:46:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm hijacking this "poll." The new poll is this:

Given Thordaddy's obsession with homosexuality do you 1)think his boyfriend has stopped beating him --- or do you (2)believe that his boyfriend still beats him regularly?

I vote for  2

Date: 2006/06/09 05:36:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
stevestory has broken the law of atheist omerta. A meeting of the Godless Evilutionist Overlords has dispatched a squad of gay atheist ninjas to tease/hairgel him to death -- after they stop by Thordaddy's  

Date: 2006/06/09 07:09:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
The interesting part to me is that AFDave selectively, deliberately culls out the smallest bit of a response to then twist and claim victory.
Fenton Hill is geothermically active. Sasada notes evidence of HYDROthermic activity in the Fenton Hill  area. The heat source for Fenton Hill is the Valle Caldera. The heat from the Valle Caldera comes from far below the Fenton Hill sample depths, travels up along fractures and faults to...Fenton Hill

Humphreys throws up a red herring, claiming that any researcher would have to find basalt conduits. Wrong. Helium transport doesn't even need fluids. Outgassing of helium is common near volcanic plumes.  Excess helium is present in Valles Caldera (Goff and Gardner 1994) due to this. Outgassing can be massively episodic.

At a depth of 1,479 meters, pressures and heat are minor in comparison to the outgassing depths that helium emerges from. Thus,Pressure is not a problem.

Humphreys stupid claim that helium wouldn't be able to move through the rock layers is also negated, if nothing else by the large amount of fracturing and faulting in the area as well as Sesada's discovery of hydrothermic vents. Further, his claims on the permeability of the material are false. His partner Baumgardner admitted that the "granidiorite" sample core was interlaced with ...VEINS OF GNEISS. http://www.icr.org/pdf/rate/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf

Granodiorite is not encountered in the cores until depths of 2591 meters  (Laney et al., 1981 ; Laughlin et al., 1983 ; Burruss and Hollister, 1979 ; Sasada, 1989) Laughlin specifically notes that the cores of that 1500 meter depth are GNEISS .  Of course, Humphreys never tested IF it was granidiorite. Why? because ***they NEEDED to claim that it was more impermeable** than it would be as the GNEISS that it IS.

The evidence for large amounts of helium from volcanic areas is very old. Humpheys knew this, Humpheys selected zircon/Helium because it is clear that in any given volcanic area of sufficient complexity, you are going to find areas in that geology that have experienced differential heating/pressures/exposure to gasses and fluids

Humphreys knew from his creationist buddy Gentry that large amounts of Helium were found in the zircons. Humphreys tested the zircons, but deliberately avoided looking at He3/He4 ratios that would have eliminated NON-radiogenic Helium as a source. WHY, AFDave? It has long been known that by looking at helium isotopes, you can determine this. Humphreys knew this.....SO WHY DIDN'T HE TEST FOR IT? It's a simple procedure, you know. It wouldn't even take 2 days to find out.

But how can the specific samples that Humphreys cites...be tested if Humphreys won't release them?  

Furthermore, as Henke notes...He won't even submit his work to genuine peer review, which would require that he turn over said labwork, materials and notes.

The "mission" was accomplished here, AFarceDave...He hooked you like a stupid catfish on a mouthful of chicken guts.

Date: 2006/06/09 07:21:13, Link
Author: deadman_932
Think about this, AFarceDave...use what little brain you possess....Imagine that you're Humphreys and you want to PROVE that your samples are not from external Helium sources.

All you would have to do ....is have some zircons from the samples you have....tested for He3/He4 ratios. It wouldn't even cost much at all. Any good isotopic lab could do it. This stuff has been known about since 1934, DaveTard....BUT HUMPHREYS WON'T DO THIS?!?!?!?!?!   You're a freakin' idiot, DaveTard

Date: 2006/06/09 07:28:47, Link
Author: deadman_932
Nice post, Norm :)

Date: 2006/06/09 07:43:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
DaveTard...you won't find anything in Humphreys crap...so let me quote what Henke wrote :

"Instead of proposing superfluous field work, Dr. Humphreys should have listened to the advice in my original essay and simply analyzed his zircons for 3He and surrounding low-uranium quartz grains for 4He.  These analyses could quickly determine whether his samples contain extraneous helium." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Date: 2006/06/09 07:55:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm already stepping on someone's grad work, DaveTard,so I'm not going to spoon-feed you any details on data you could have gathered through an actual reading of Henke without your special creationist cognitive filters on.

Date: 2006/06/09 08:21:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Rilke's : I don't know if AirHead can be educated. What I do know is that on this subject, I've been nice in comparison to my old mentor on geology/paleo. HE would have read Dave's "reports and claims" and

1. Pointed out the errors and fraudulent behavior.
2. Laughed in AirHead's face and beaten him about the head and shoulders with said reports
3. Kicked Airhead in the ass as he launched him out the door on another flight to points unknown

Date: 2006/06/09 08:48:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Mmmmmm...irony. So delicious.

Date: 2006/06/09 09:40:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
: Dear AFarceDaveTard2: Go do your own research on He3/He4 ratios and what they mean, AirHead. I am not spoonfeeding you or answering your questions until you deal with the ones I asked weeks ago.



I also note that both Jon and eric mentioned He isotope ratios a week ago, Dumbass.

Date: 2006/06/09 10:01:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and as to the question about whether I have the "RATE" reports..which ones? I have everything that is available from ICR except their books, which I am not going to give them money for. They have no published data on He ratios

Date: 2006/06/09 10:07:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFarceDave stupidly says :
Quote
So basically Deadman has no idea how the 3He/4He ratio would rule out extraneous Helium, he was just parroting what Henke said.

That's what I thought.


Okay, Dave, I didn't want to have to spoon-feed your lazy ass. You have a computer. You have a world-class library near you. You just don't have the brains or balls to figure out how to use either?

I'll tell you what, AirHead...you said I was merely parroting Henke and didn't know about this. Yet I DO know about this and you don't. Now ...answer MY questions and I will answer yours

Date: 2006/06/09 10:32:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh. This is the same AirHeadDave that hubristically compared himself to Newton and Maxwell, to boot.

Yet he can't figure out that *IF* the ICR had isotope ratios backing their claims, they'd be shooting off fireworks and trumpeting it to the world.

Date: 2006/06/09 10:59:26, Link
Author: deadman_932
English, Spanish (fluent) French (pretty fluent)

Italian and German (based on the can you at least read it/translate it criteria)

I also speak Fundyese, Phlegmish and Drunk.

Date: 2006/06/09 11:11:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'd like to congratulate stevestory on his clever atheistic/evilutionist/gay/church-burning/ebola-spreading  ploy that removed "Thordaddy" from the forum. At least for the moment. I tip my feathered hat to you, sir! FAAAA-BULOUS!

Date: 2006/06/09 15:07:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
The tragic part is that he likely..more than likely.. uses those same childish "I'm an authority" tactics on his kids.
The good thing is that if he has five of them, the odds are one or more of them are going to see through this bluff pretty ####in' quick and realize he's just full of crap.

If you had been a consistently honest participant, DaveTard2, I would have cited the relevant work immediately. It's available all over the place, including in places within the very works you were supposed to have already "read." But you're lazy , so you want me to tell you and to get me to do that, you resort to this fake-ass little tactic of " well you don't really know"...hoping to psych me into giving you what you want, like a little kid. Norm basically gave you the answer, and I bet money you're STILL lost, you simpleton.

I told you long ago, I am not going to spoon-feed you information so that you can barf it up like a puking child. You start answering direct questions put to you by people and you get treated with civility. You refuse and ...well, you can go sit in the corner with your finger up your ass, same as you always have. Let me quote what I posted to your fat-headed little ego yesterday, AIR FORCE ("Don't I look good on my Blog pic, ladies?") DAVE

Quote
DaveTard. You had been given multiple examples of your lies. You selected out the Portuguese one because you thought you could bluff your way through it and because it was YOURS, as Rilke pointed out. Ego, Dave. The kind of ego that leads you to crow about your ability to fly a plane, the ego that led to you actually comparing yourself to Newton and Maxwell, the same ego that leads you to believe that you cannot be wrong.

You're not dealing with gullible kids that you can B-S...or your local yokel Churchgoers that you can try to hoodwink with crappy creationist claims. Nor does anyone show any amazment or awe at your accomplishments in your life. Maybe you know that and that's what drives you...I don't care, anyway.

What I care about is the quality of the data, the ability of evidence to support claims and the willingness of the individual to engage in honest debate. You lack what I care about, DaveTard, so you get spanked for pretending that you do possess these things.

Date: 2006/06/09 16:46:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
hmmm, IIRC when i was taking physics in college, we were spending time trying to calculate the rate N2O diffuses from rubber balloons...


And Dave can't figure out why performing tests on zircon diffusion rates in vacuum is different from pressurized diffusion rates.

Get a can of 20-year old tennis balls,AirHead. Take them out of the *pressurized* can. See how bouncy-bouncy they are? Now leave them out a few years. Not so bouncy-bouncy, eh? Why? You get bonus points if you can figure out why a vacuum would make a difference.

Date: 2006/06/09 16:50:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
And before you get Dembski to ban me, steve...I said TENNIS balls. Thilly Thnake

Date: 2006/06/09 17:00:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Right, Dave, it has nothing at all to do with an illustration of how pressure affects differential diffusion rates of gasses through materials

Date: 2006/06/09 18:29:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
How can you turn down Eternal Salvation or TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK? Why won't you LISTEN?
I'm here to remind you of the emptiness and futility of existence without the Word of "Bob" permanently installed in your cranial soft drive.


I find your views persuasive and intriguing, Sir. Tell me MORE!!!
(Prepares a noodly web of entrapment)

Date: 2006/06/10 07:30:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
Interesting that AFDave has chosen to cite the " Julian Huxley Lie." Dave...look at the  alleged Title of the "Julian Huxley" book cited. Now find that "book" listed anywhere online or otherwise. You won't find it.

As to the canard (this also means "lie," AirHead) about Julian Huxley and any claims of a "new humanist theology"...please show me those quotes. The ones you cited are faked....lies, in a word, AirHead.  http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html  has a good description of trying to seek out the sources of these Creationist lies, and having Christians like you, AirHeadDave...pile lies upon lies in an effort to avoid responsibility.

Date: 2006/06/10 07:47:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
And I leave you with this nugget from Deadman ...      
Quote
You start answering direct questions put to you by people and you get treated with civility.

A YEC treated with civility?  Ever? At ATBC?  You DO think I'm gullible, don't you!


I've looked over this thread from beginning to end, AirHead, and I've read your other crap. YOU CAME INTO THIS FORUM INSULTING. Now you want to play martyr? The same passive-aggressive mind games that you tried to apply throughout your posts? I was not initially insulting to you, AirHead, but you saw fit to insult everyone who disagreed with your ridiculous claims...now you want to pretend that it could not have been avoided. You're a real piece of work. You're supposed to be a grown man, AirHead.

The attempt to imply that I disagree with Jon on the temperature/data claims of Humphrey is another one. What possible good do these childish manipulation games do you, AirHead?

Date: 2006/06/10 08:52:58, Link
Author: deadman_932
Thanks Norm! I sure couldn't find that one, but since one of my hobbies is tracing quote-mining/ fake quote sources, I'll trace this. The habit of creationists in not supplying publishing companies is annoying.

Date: 2006/06/10 09:48:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote from The Ghost of Paley Posted: June 07 2006,13:51
Quote
Dave, you are doing a great job kicking their butts all by yourself...I will no longer post on this thread.


Yeah, that lasted all of 3 days

Date: 2006/06/10 10:36:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Steve: It's possible that he thinks he's not *deliberately* lying, but then the evidence weighs against that. For instance, his claims here that he avoids supporting, but still claims are valid after he's been refuted. This avoidance is due knowing at some level that he's using false claims about relativity proving god, etc.

On a far neater note, the latest issue of   Nature included a CD of the complete set of published papers on human chromosomes. The downside is they want me to install some kind of newsreader. Maybe I can extract the papers from the CD without this.

Date: 2006/06/10 12:00:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
MMMMmmmm..ice cores. That show no increase in CO2 or the accelerated alpha/beta decay that the RATE knuckleheads need.

Date: 2006/06/10 12:16:36, Link
Author: deadman_932
Stephen Elliot: people did call it a while back in this thread, and a new thread was made to discuss it. I stayed out of the use of it because I view it as analogous to telling kids stories about Santa Claus writ large (In AFDave's case). The "is it abuse?" thread is  here

Date: 2006/06/10 12:28:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's some old stuff I had on CD from before I wiped out my comp.

A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles. This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes. (Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990). .........."Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches", by Carolyn Holderread Heggen, Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993 p. 73 (my emphasis)

In the book, "The Battered Child", physician Ray E. Helfer cites, "the assault rate on on children of parents who subscribe to the christian fundamentalist belief in male dominance, is 136% percent higher than for parents who do not have this belief system."

http://www.robinsharpe.ca/essay-fund-abuse.htm
http://www.atoday.com/magazin....t.shtml
Philip R. Shaver, Gall S. Goodman, Jiangjin Qin In the Name of God: A Profile of Religion-related Child Abuse (Journal of Social Issues 1995, Vol. 51, No. 2)

I added this not to agree that AFDave actively engages in child abuse, but to note that it really is an issue of power and control, and that recent events in the Mormon community suggest the same. If you can brainwash kids that god wants things to be a certain way...then you can control them

Date: 2006/06/10 14:08:20, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Have you been to Larry's blog lately. He's nucking futs


Hah, he is. But oddly,  I have a soft spot for the old coot ( and don't you start calling in Dumbski or his boy to ban me AGAIN, steve). Larry's old, he lives in kind of a bad part of town, he needed a hobby before he kicks off. He's just nuts. John Davison, on the other hand, should just get a lobotomy.

Date: 2006/06/10 15:37:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Arden, I take it back, he's not in a very bad area at all, he's near Culver City, south of the 10 frwy. I thought he was closer to Inglewood, but he's  here

Date: 2006/06/10 15:43:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ichthyic: It was correlative, and dates from quite a while ago. Yeah, the TLE and "god module" stuff is interesting in regard to propensity of absolutist belief systems, but..fuzzy

Date: 2006/06/10 15:47:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
Poor old nutty Larry :( . But it could be worse. I could easily see John Davison or DaveTard1 strapping a bomb to a dachshund and sending it after an "enemy."

Date: 2006/06/10 15:53:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Did Paley fail so badly in modeling a geocentric universe that he suicided his thread?

Date: 2006/06/10 21:57:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave: Given that you've indicated that you *can* be civil, let's see how it works out. Regarding your comment on Farley's use of vacuum to gather gas measurements. This is standard procedure, for Farley and Reiners, yes. However, it doesn't comprise the main argument of Henke. Farley is using the equipment he has. He doesn't have a high-pressure press. Their calibrations are based on methods and data largely derived from previous dating/diffusion work including apatite, titanite and other minerals. See Farley's work in Geochim Cosmochim Acta.

Also, since you mentioned Reiner's paper on the Fish Canyon and Gold Butte Tuff, you should know that was from 2002.

Look at what Reiners says in 2005:

Other important **unresolved** questions include ....the possible role of pressure in He diffusion and He solubility in zircon (my emphases, of course)

This is precisely why baseline studies on diffusivity in zircon at pressure **should** be done...the questions of diffusivity are UNRESOLVED.

M. Kunz (Laboratory of Crystallography, ETH Zurich, Switzerland) presented studies on titanite and zircon under high P-T ( pressure and temperature) conditions and reported ... The PV-relation of U-bearing partially metamict zircon measured during increasing pressure was anomalous (meaning it didn't match Farley's calibration work)** This was in 2000 at the Crystallography at High Pressure and High Temperature using X-rays and Neutrons meeting in Hyogo, Japan.

Date: 2006/06/10 22:34:20, Link
Author: deadman_932
The Reiners quote is from:  Reiners, P.W., 2005, Zircon (U-Th)/He Thermochronometry, in Reiners, P.W. and Ehlers, T.A. (Eds.), Thermochronology, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, v. 58, p. 151-176.

If you'll do a search on virtually any engine, you'll find almost no references to work done on zircon under pressure, especially He diffusion work.

Farley warned in his 2002, "(U-Th)/He Dating: Techniques, Calibrations, and Applications," Rev. Min. Geochem., v. 47, p. 819-844. paper that zircon diffusion rates from " laboratory measurements may not apply under natural conditions." for a good reason--neither he nor anyone else I can find have done work under the many mega-pascals (if I recall right, one atmosphere  = 100k pascals or so)  needed to simulate the depths that the Fenton Hill zircons were taken from. Henke said that the depths cited would range from  200 to 1,200 bars of pressure. That's a lot. Do your own conversions. It's late and I'm tired after a hard night of ..er, doing things  

This is why Reiners says ..**last year**...that the effects of pressure on diffusion are unresolved.

Date: 2006/06/11 06:29:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I would complain about the off-topicness, but you know, arguing over South Pacific is more constructive and informative than talking to AFDave


Gather yer purses on the way out the door, you show-tune singin' homos. Yer banned!- dt

Date: 2006/06/12 07:55:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
It's hard for me to know where to begin with your claims, AFDave. First, on a side note. I gave you citations showing that antibacterial resistance did not do what you claimed. Your response was to say that you were not qualified to deal with the studies. But you continue to claim that you are right. If you are not qualified to assess the studies, and the studies argue against your claim ( in fact, shooting it down completely) then you cannot honestly claim to be right. This is disingenous at best, lying at worst.

Second, I note that you are in fact in contact with ICR, and I'm curious, Dave...is that where you're getting your guidance from in your arguments? Because Henke has said he won't continue to engage Humphreys --  you're using this forum as a proxy?  

I'll leave your other  multiple unsupported claims aside, since they are being handled at the moment. But I will say this, Dave: I am not going to offer you any more detail than is neccessary in my view. I believe that you will use your experience here as a means of gaining the attention and approval of ICR/AIG so you  can sell  your kiddy-brainwash materials.

As to the Fenton Hill Zircons:

(1.) You say that 3He/4He ratios have been done. Great, I hope they include those done on surrounding materials as well. But since the ICR has not trumpeted it, I doubt it.

(2) In your comparison of Zircon to steel in terms of He diffusion, you say :
 
Quote
Humphreys goes on to object to Henke's unfair tactics: i.e. his attempt to compare Helium diffusion in hot, dry zircons to Argon diffusion in soft mica, and comparing wet conditions vs. dry conditions. He misleads his readers to think that this is a fair comparison by pointing out the 3-6 orders of magnitude difference in the results.

And I say Humphreys misleads his supporters in this  comparison between zircon and steel. On the mohs Biotite is 2.5 to3  Apatite is 5  Titanite is 5.5 Pyrex Glass is 5.5   Zircon is 6.5 to 7.5 A steel file is 6.5. Did you know that Helium diffuses in pyrex rather easily at pressure and concentration and temp levels comparable to the Fenton Hill samples? In fact, Helium diffuses through Pyrex at a higher rate than any other gas. Helium diffusion also tends to be highest in defect areas, Dave. These studies have been known since the 30's ( Taylor and Rast: The Journal of Chemical Physics -- October 1938 -- Volume 6, Issue 10, pp. 612-619).
Helium diffusion also causes embrittlement in stainless steel itself ( a problem of some concern in places  with radiation like oh, nuclear facilities) again, concentrations are highest in areas of "defects." Now...what would this mean for Zircons, Dave?

Zircons are metamict...They have major defects and damage due to internal radiation sources, which increases the likelihood of He diffusion as shown in various crystalline structures. Alpha radiation degrades the hardness of minerals like zircon, Dave...did you know that? The crystal lattices get all banged up, and in fact, it can punch holes right through the surface of the zircon (or Titanite). External radiation can of course also cause damage. Heat cycles cause damage. Fluid flows cause damage. Acids can cause damage.

Couple these factors with the thermo-history problems of the Fenton Hill samples that you seem to dismiss as negligible, as well as things like the High concentrations of He nearby, the fact that Salsada shows Hydrothermic activity, and the fact that even the samples that were used show "gneiss" veins ...it would mean that He diffusion events would be highly likely to occur as well as multiple annealing events. There's also the problem of Zircon zoning that Humphreys doesn't even begin to address. Read Farley's work on Titanite and He diffusivity rates, then talk to me about how He diffusion is not likely to occur.

Jon is quite correct when he says that Humphreys uses hand-waving in response to Henke's objections. I am not going to do your homework for you, although others here have given you answers on 3He/4He ratio questions as well as other topics.

Date: 2006/06/12 08:23:27, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, to expand on the Pyrex glass/zircon thing, AFDave: Helium's diffusivity through Pyrex is 20 times greater than any other gas --hydrogen is the closest competitor. This has led to the suggestion that pyrex be used to filter out helium from natural gas. Pyrex is all of one point lower on the Mohs as Zircon's lower undamaged bound. High metamict Zircon has a much lower hardness value. Now go look at Titanite.

Date: 2006/06/12 09:01:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Additional note: I should have included  "fissioning" in the things that do damage to zircon and which punch holes in it.

Date: 2006/06/12 09:17:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
In looking over the creationist claims, it's amusing to me how often the idea of "accelerated decay " is invoked, then rapidly discarded when they look at other aspects of their own claims.

They don't even try to fake "calculations" of how this might occur/rates, etc., they just offer it up as an excuse, then discard it when its inconvenient to their other claims.

It's an interesting case of " God made radiation decay faster all over the world, but I won't mention it here because it interferes with my current claims"

Date: 2006/06/12 23:54:47, Link
Author: deadman_932
Because helicopters are flying around (probably to rescue someone off the nearby mountain) I woke up and decided to post this rough guide to Dave's nonsense so far, just in case :

Dave's outline and thread page numbers:

1.) Abductive reasoning (pp1-2)

2.)  Fine Tuning and "bio machines" (pp.3-13)
   Brings up SETI (p.8)

3.)  C.S Lewis (pp.14-16)
   Discusses evil (pp.14-16)
   First Portuguese mention (p.14)
   Henry was dead already (p.16)

4.)  Dave returns to fine tuning arguments using Denton (p.18)
   Argues GULO is due to similarity of chimps and man (p.20)
   Ladlergo predicts that Dave will claim any genetic differences between man and chimp is
  meaningless-- Which dave does on page 22, while ericmurphy points out this "half a lousy
  percent" is something like twenty million base pairs, then on page 24, Dave says "the actual
  number of nucleotides don't matter. "            
   
  Dave says "Remember, to establish Common Descent  for Apes and Humans still requires an  
  explanation for what I call The Big Three: Absence of Hominid Civilizations living today,
  enormous non-biological differences, and the unconvincing fossil record." (p.22)

5.)  Dave brings in antibiotic resistance claims (p.22) Dave is refuted on the next two pages (pp.2 2-24). Dave says he's not qualified to judge the papers cited, but continues to claim antibiotic resistance as being in his favor.

6.)  Dave claims history of civilizations and written languages both appear at 5,500 years ago. (p.29-31)
Dave says scribes followed Adam around (p.31) Dave claims that Amerinds had writing, but "devolved"

7.)  (p.35)Dave Brings up RATE and zircons for the first time. It continues still.

Date: 2006/06/13 08:42:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
Okay, I'll walk you through this since you seem confused, AFDave.
1.) I argued that pressure is an unresolved problem in regard to helium diffusion rates in zircon. Both Farley and Reiners acknowledge this (yes, both). This combined with the other objections raised in Henke and by Jon...give unreliable methods and results for the Fenton Hill Zircon.

2)  You posted Humphreys' objections to the idea of pressure being a major factor in regard to He diffusion. Humphreys states (in the very section you posted) that:    
Quote
However, I gave up on that idea when I found that for hard materials, pressure has very little effect on diffusion rates.  Hardness relates to incompressibility, which hinders pressure from diminishing the space between atoms and thereby slowing diffusion
 He goes on to say that :  
Quote
Glasses should be more compressible than crystals of the same composition; glasses are generally not as hard because of weaker chemical bonds between parts.  So our crystals of very hard zircon should suffer less from pressure than glasses that are softer than quartz.


I posted information on relative hardness because that is what Humphreys claims is important. (Never mind that he doesn't deal with other factors that are important as well). He compares zircon diffusion characteristics to a steel ball bearing and obsidian (obsidian is "volcanic glass"). Obsidian is 5 on the Mohs.  Steel is 6.5, Quartz is 7 and Zircon ranges from 6.5-7.5, and metamict-damaged zircon falls below 6.5, depending on the severity of damage.

Humphreys is essentially claiming two things, AFDave:  that "pressure doesn't matter, because zircon is hard and pressure wouldn't affect it" ( I am paraphrasing), and that studies on obsidian (softer than zircon) show that helium under pressure and temperature...doesn't diffuse through glasses softer than zircon...at a rate that would explain his results. Both of these claims are essentially false.

I noted that metamict zircon (all zircons are metamict to some degree) gets damaged, thus decreasing hardness. I mentioned other factors which reduce hardness and increase permeability. I mentioned in a previous post that Farley and Reiners (yes, both) note that pressure issues are unresolved in  regard to how it might affect diffusion in zircon. I post how Humphreys is wrong about glasses softer than quartz by pointing to Pyrite and how easily helium passes through it.

I say that the comparison between steel ball bearings and zircons is an inapt (read "wrong") comparison in regard to pressure. Humphreys was wrong in claiming pressure doesn't count. Humphreys is wrong in saying hardness of zircon offsets pressure. Humphreys is wrong in saying that the thermal histories don't count.

Let me explain the last point slowly. Humphreys says a couple of things in ways that make it hard for you to see how he is weaseling, I think. Zircon, when heated...is "open" to helium moving OUT...but also IN. Humphreys downplays this, saying "there's not enough partial pressures OR helium to make this important." (my paraphrase, but accurate).

First, Humphreys is wrong about there not being enough helium nearby...there is. Outgassing of massive amounts of helium is common in volcanic plumes. There are cracks, fissures and faults that lead directly to Fenton Hill (look at the survey maps). Fenton Hill is HOT due to these transport "routes." Salsada finds evidence of hydrothermic activity and "conduits" that could transport hot water that bears He, but this  is irrelevant, as I noted. Helium can move all on its own or be carried by other gasses like CO2, also common in plumes. Volcanic areas like Fenton Hill are subject to various kinds of events that release heat and helium. If you don't KNOW THE THERMAL HISTORY of the zircon-bearing GNEISS, then you cannot accurately extrapolate dates from them. Hot gasses can cause this. Hot fluids can cause this. Heat exchange through strata can cause this, ####, large amounts of radioactivity from uranium can heat an area. Lots of things cause heat.

As to pressure not being a factor, Humphreys is wrong, as I showed with my example of  pyrite ( very close to the lower bound of zircon in hardness and within the bounds of high-metamict damaged zircon). I should also mention that quartz, WHICH IS HARDER THAN STEEL on the mohs , shows a diffusivity for He that is higher than zircon. See http://www.bgc.org/shuster/ShusterFarley(2005).pdf and http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0022-3727/36/10A/304/d310A04.pdf

Date: 2006/06/13 09:36:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave: not only do you suffer from a crappy attitude that is a cover for your massive ignorance, but you also have deep misconceptions about academic freedom. You assume, falsely, that there is some kind of conspiracy to deny the validity of YEC claims. This is just wrong. The YEC claims are shown false, as was just done with Humphreys..by simply looking at the quality of the data and the lact of proper methodology.

In academia, you are free to discuss nutty ideas. We discuss them here , we discussed them IN universities. People in academia are free to discuss nutty ideas,even if they bend Feynman's dictum that whatever we imagine IN science should be compatible with or subsumible BY what we already KNOW is part of science. To quote my old grad committee head "I'd have to practically rape the head cheerleader during the halftime of a Bruins game to lose tenure."

Now, given that academia DOES allow discussions of nutty ideas, that science allows discussions of outlandish claims, and that academic freedom is not exclusively determined by job safety..what does that mean for your claims that people are afraid to buck the systems, that peer pressure keeps them silent, that we all move like Disney-style lemmings? Well, it means you're wrong. The reason that more tenured profs don't accept your kind of crap is that it IS crap.

YEC-ers propagate conspiracy-style myths to the public, you buy it, dave, largely because you have never been anything other than an undergrad student. Look at the parallels between the "conspiracy" theories of YECs and the conspiracy theories of "UFOlogists " or the nuts that claim the Mossad brought down the twin towers...the patterns are the same. They select out bits of dubious data, make outlandish claims, then try to wave away the mountains of data showing they are wrong, then they attack the messenger.

Hah, I just got the latest issue of    Science (yes, I actually get Nature and Science delivered and read them weekly, Dave)and guess what Dave? It has a little article on the 10,000-year old history of civilization in the Syrian northern mesopotamian region. More propaganda from those atheist scientists that are out to get you Dave. Your ignorance is your shield, Dave. You use it as the invincible defense that allows you to play games with the data. You use every fallacy and rhetorical ploy, you will even lie for your faith, which is really what I find reprehensible in folks like you.

Let me quote Feynman again:    
Quote
" it always seems that they were times in which there were people who believed with absolute faith and absolute dogmatism in something. And they were so serious in this matter that they insisted that the rest of the world agree with them. And then they would do things that were directly inconsistent with their own beliefs in order to maintain that what they said was true."


And lest you say that I have not considered the data, Dave: remember who you CAME TO in order to GET a skeptical view of it.

Date: 2006/06/13 09:40:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ah, he11, I mis-paraphrased Feynman...it should be something like

"whatever we imagine IN science should be compatible with or  capable of subsuming  what we already KNOW is part of science."

Date: 2006/06/13 10:28:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
stephen wells said something that runs totally contrary to AFDave's caricature cartoon version of science:
Quote
Science proceeds by constant arguments which are eventually resolved by comparison to observed reality.


Right now, I'm deep off into a "controversial" debate about the nature of the Homo floresiensis "hobbit" fossils, Dave. One side says they're microcephalic H. sapiens. Another side says they're not. I agree with the latter, based on osteal morphology and what I could deduce from dentition. Dean Falk (pronounced "Dee-ann") points to endocast imaging showing the brains are not compatible with microcephalics. I say the morphology is not, either. DEBATE..debate over the quality of the data, the interpretation, the value of evidence and criteria by which the evidence is judged. ONGOING DEBATE that will get mean and nasty and tempers will flare and more work will be done until a consensus is reached. and THEN there will still be people saying "bullshite, that's not what the data show."

Ask yourself why Denton has reversed himself on on evolution, AFDave. Creationists always cite his "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," but they avoid his claims in 1998's "Nature's Destiny " where he says that his views are :  
Quote
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii).
 See here  and here

Ask yourself why Debsky and Behe and so many others REFUSE to put forward the kind of quality work that would GET published in  peer-reviewed journals...Dembsky has said explicitly that he gets money out of it, a big audience and he doesn't have to be subject to the same scrutiny that academia would impose. These guys have a nice little scam going that is compatible with their deeply held beliefs or other motives. Some of them appear to be sincere in their views, others are common con artists, like Dembsky.

Your job is not to act like a con artist. While you think that you're slick in using "psychological warfare" as you called it here, Dave...The fact is that it's failed miserably. You will continue to do so as long as you view it as a valid tactic. Let me repeat what I said long ago, Dave: I don't care if you're an academic...I've gotten good ideas off (literally) bums on the street.I don't care about your sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, "race" nationality, political views, hair style or if you dress up in cute little frilly frocks on weekends.
Quote
What I care about is the quality of the data, the ability of evidence to support claims and the willingness of the individual to engage in honest debate. You lack what I care about, DaveTard, so you get spanked for pretending that you do possess these things.


How about trying for honesty and genuinely rational skepticism all around, Dave?

Date: 2006/06/13 10:49:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
In the memorable emoticonographic "words" of Faid:

Date: 2006/06/13 12:03:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
StephenWells: No, I'm not working with the actual material, I'm operating off of photos (having casts would be er...bad at this time..unauthorized), like most everyone. There's that big fight over who gets to handle the LB1 type fossil and related material, etc., so that's going to take a while to sort out. I'm basically on the erectus side, since I got intro'd to a bunch of grad students and profs through Gail Kennedy, who specializes in erectus. And yes, it really is just a sort of "cover" for the multiregional v. out-of-africa debate for some folks, and I'm an OoA kinda guy. I'd love to look at the dentition directly "shovel-shaped" incisors, triple-rooted molars , larger M1 than other molars, thick cingulum, and crenulation are markers to look for in erectus-type material.  Some fair links are :
http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/flores/
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/homo_floresiensis/
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/flores/index.html
http://loom.corante.com/archive....cks.php

The last one is kinda cute, as I told Ladergo

Date: 2006/06/13 12:36:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ichthyic: Jeez, yeah, people have suggested australopiths, habilines, erectus, pathological humans, everything but goblins and trolls. I know the microcephalic arguments real well, but I'm a starry-eyed optimist hoping for erectus material that has DNA frags to study

Date: 2006/06/13 13:11:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ichthyic: Yep, it's all basically based on preliminary work and conjecture and general morphology, with a few details tossed in here and there. Frustrating, actually. I want a detailed report yesterday, dammit. Here's another site, though: http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/~mshank....=search  and the Nature article for those that are really interested: http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/nature02999.pdf

Date: 2006/06/14 06:55:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
---Deleted, the board "said" it was having server probs...obviously not---

Date: 2006/06/14 07:05:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Silly me, I thought you were interested in honest debate and discussion, AFDave. I mention that pressure is an unresolved factor, and you say    
Quote
1) They say nothing of the magnitude of the effect. It likely is very small.
2) Why would they use vacuum testing on zircons themselves if it was a problem?  I understand that Farley does not have a pressure testing apparatus, but surely he could come up with one if it was important, no?


No one knows what the effects of pressure on zircon/He diffusion are. You cannot say they are small, or large--because YOU don't know, nor do you know how to calculate the effects. Farley doesn't have a 200-ton press because they are large and expensive and he's a freakin' geologist. It costs MONEY to even get time on a press, and in the case of the Fenton Hill samples, he's thinking that he's just doing a mining company a small job, not needing to perform intense experimentation on zircons/He/temps and pressure.

I mention the studies on pyrite glass done UNDER PRESSURE AND HEAT...and you say that I have "misread"  humphreys...no, I haven't. You admit:  
Quote
His logic then is that if something softer than zircon is not substantially affected by pressure, then zircon likely should be affected even less. He also points out that the study on obsidian was done with argon which, of course, is a larger atom than Helium.  This should result in an even lower change in diffusivity.



And I point out that PYRITE is 1) harder than obsidian and Helium diffuses faster through it at temps and pressures in the ranges of the Fenton Hill samples... I GO ON TO POINT OUT THAT HELIUM ACTUALLY  DIFFUSES THROUGH QUARTZ, (HARDER THAN STEEL OR ZIRCON  ON THE MOHS ) FASTER THAN  ZIRCON , AT THE SAME TEMP RANGES....and you wave your hands and say it doesn't MATTER to Humphreys ratty results? It sure does, baboo. His claim was that hardness offsets pressures, remember? Well, it doesn't . READ THE QUARTZ PAPERS. STUDIES OF SUBSTANCES SUCH AS TITANITE ALSO SHOW THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESSURE/TEMP/HARDNESS IN DIFFERENT MINERALS IS NOT LINEAR, NOT "PREDICTABLE" UNDER ANY CURRENT MODEL. It **HAS** to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the zircon work has NOT been done. In the Pyrite and quartz examples, you get HUGE spikes of activity in diffusion at temp/pressure variables that DO suggest that Fenton Hill zircons were infiltrated.

As for me not knowing precisely the metamict nature of the Fenton Hill samples, yeah, NO ONE DOES, since Humphreys, that good trustworthy guy...won't release any. The same guy that DIDN'T AND NEVER WILL do 3He/4He ratio work that would more than substantially CONFIRM OR DISCONFIRM his CLAIMS

Unlike you, I am not on a crusade, I get bored with answering the same questions and I don't like copy-pasting as you do. I make errors like

Quote
doesn't diffuse through glasses softer than zircon...at a rate that would explain his results?
 When what I meant was "at a rate that would damage his results"

This is incredibly minor grammatical/ word choice "error" in comparison to the fact that pyrite and titanite, harder than obsidian--- and quartz, harder than steel, are affected by temperature and pressure in ways that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT HUMPHREYS

Look at how you repeat your same claims about Helium :
Quote
1) Helium concentration in basaltic magmatic fluids is much too small by a factor of 40 or so.
2) Helium traveling through a conduit on its own or with CO2 could easily escape into the atmosphere
3) You have to account for the fact that the surrounding biotite contains very close to the amount of Helium produced by the calculated U-decay Helium.  Just a coincidence?
4) How do you keep the Helium in the zircons when the temperature is elevated for so long?  
5) Let's say you can keep the Helium in.  The zircon is 'open' at high temperature, right?  Why wouldn't the concentrations of Helium in the zircon and the surrounding biotite equalize?

Your point (1) is utter nonsense, there are far more mechanisms than just that one (2) Is hand-waving...the issue is "could He get to Fenton Hill in large concentrations sufficient to affect "open" Zircon ?" The answer is a definitive , resounding YES. I know for a fact that you have not read available material on helium geology, or you'd never say what you claimed.
(3-5) As to Biotite containing He in "complimentary" amounts...bullshit. Remember Henke talking about mica He diffusion under pressure/heat? BIOTITE IS MICA. LOOK AT THE RESULTS AND DO YOUR OWN WORK. He DIFFUSES FASTER OUT OF BIOTITE AT TEMP/PRESSURE. HUMPHREYS SIMPLY SKEWED IT.  I am not going to do your mathwork  for you, AFDave, you have to get off your ass and do it.  You have contact with Humphreys' lab...get the data. Show it.
   
The fact remains: Humphreys is making huge, grandiose claims about this material, and ALL of these issues COULD BE RESOLVED by testing the remaining core material. Cores generally come in at least meter-lengths. WHY DOESN'T HE ALLOW TESTING? WHY WON'T HE ALLOW SAMPLES TO BE TAKEN FROM THE SAME CORES? ...These kinds of "extraordinary claims"  require extraordinary evidence, and Humphreys is behaving just like a con artist. IN fact, I say he IS one and I'd love to have him or anyone else take me to court on libel. I say flat out he's a fraud and a con artist and that he is deliberately duping idiots in order to get money out of them--because , oh, I COULD prove that to within any reasonable doubt in court.

Date: 2006/06/14 07:24:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
1. Humphreys  calculations show he fudged ( read skewed) the data. (fact)
2) Humphreys will not release his lab notes or other relevant sample data (fact)
3.) Humphreys claims about helium transport routes/modes are false (fact)
4.) Humphreys claims about "hardness" offsetting pressure are false (fact)
5.) Humphreys has not and will not do He isotope ratio testing despite knowing it will confirm/disconfirm his claims to an enormous degree.(fact)
6.) Humphreys claims about the Fenton Hills zircons ages are questionable and most certainly wrong
I could add more, but frankly, I'm more than satisfied and bored by this. Humphreys claims are based on deliberate manipulation and false claims. I can definitely "prove" this to any board of geologists, which is why Humphreys will never face such scrutiny openly and honestly. He has no choice but to hide

Date: 2006/06/14 07:45:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and happy b-day, Argy, and my best wishes on continued solar circumnavigations for you and your argyclan.

Date: 2006/06/14 08:36:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave, I gave you the citations. It is not up to me to spoon-feed you. Quartz, Pyrite and Titanite studies all show that the hardness of a material does not in fact offset pressure in relation to He diffusion. Helium passes through pyrite easily UNDER pressure/temps comparable to the ranges given in the Fenton Hill samples.

Quartz (harder than steel, Dave), ---contrary to Humphreys ---( as shown in the Farley paper I CITED and gave to you...) shows much the same properties, AFDave. Saying that I have not given you the references is a hoot.

As to the Titanite, I told you to go do your homework, Dave. I am not giving you any more than I have to. Go ahead and use Humphreys, it's not hard to show he's a liar. And a fraud. And a con artist.

His response to Henke does not clear Humphreys of faking his data calculations...he did. And no, I'm not giving him money for his "books" Dave. YOU should be able to back your claims by citing him, since you say you have them.  

Humphrey focuses on ONLY magmatic conduits for HE transport. That Helium can be transported via other means is easily available in all the literature on He geology. That remains fact. For Humphreys to ignore that shows he is false in his claims. That also remains a fact.

The FACT that Humphreys knew years ago about He ratios ...shows he's hiding. He's not gaining steam, he's broken down by the side of the road.

As to you asking if I am part of some secret anti-christian agenda at NCSE...no. I just despise liars like Humphreys. The Christians I know are content in their faith and unwilling to be liars for god. Humphreys and others...like you, Dave...are willing to lie for your faith. And don't say you haven't lied, Dave. Remember your claim that my ancestors "devolved" and lost written languages? The last time you attempted to mess with that, you showed you didn't even know the bible.

Date: 2006/06/14 09:20:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's another amusing "fudge" from Humphreys, AFDave--The e-mail you cited and Humphrey's response as to why he had NOT done the He isotope ratio testing that would substantially confirm/disconfirm his claims:  

 
Quote
From: Russ Humphreys
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:14 PM
To: Dave Hawkins
Subject: Re: 3He/4He in Zircons?

Hi Mr. Hawkins:

No we didn't think to ask the lab to look for 3He in the zircons because it wasn't the usual practice among helium/zircon researchers then (or at least I'd never heard of the practice then).


Now, the fact is that 3He/4He ratios were long known to be of EXTREME value in dating minerals and looking for non-uranium/thorium-series sources. LONG before Humphreys did his "study" in which he deliberately skewed the data.

Now, even if you say " well, it wasn't done on *ZIRCONS*...uh. really, Dave?

How do you explain this: Hurley, PM, 1952. Alpha ionization damage as a cause of low helium ratios. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 33: 174-183. ?


Now, even if Humphreys now claims he was "unaware" of this...he WAS aware of it years ago. Henke told him to do the ratio studies years ago. He never did...and never will...why?

You got CONNED again, AFDave...this time by Russ Humphreys himself!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and Dave,that's not the ONLY citation dealing with zircon He ratios from the 50's or onwards. People were LOOKING for helium sources/natural gas and were VERY interested in He ratios up to today and beyond. The fact that the isotopes show differing origins was of paramount importance to gashounds sourcing the gasses themselves.

Date: 2006/06/14 09:36:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'll be sending that Humphreys e-mail off to Henke, along with the other updates I got off of this, Dave...thanks!!!!! :) Quite a hoot.

Date: 2006/06/14 11:59:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
Jeannot: Yes, you're right on the subjects of zircons and Portuguese being essentially over and done. Dave is toast on these topics ( American slang meaning he's finished, defeated, done for).

His own boy, Humphreys...lied to him on the topic. His blatant quote-mining of a Portuguese citation as well as his inability to provide a worldlist of Portuguese terms derived FROM French...yeah, it's over. He can move on to Polonium halos or whatever he wants. He'll still get slaughtered.

Date: 2006/06/14 12:14:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
That's the interesting thing: ICR has to rely on claims of miraculous ( but unexplained ) "accelerated decay" that "explains" EVERYTHING that we know in geology as false. Dave BUYS this hook line and sinker, like the catfish on a mouthfull of chicken guts that I compared him to.

It's amazing that his standards for evidence are so low for his "view" and yet he wants absolute perfection from all the non-yec christian geologists that disagree with him and hold quite comfortably to a 4.5 BYA Earth . And he still has to invoke "miracles" to keep his view. Amazing

Date: 2006/06/14 12:26:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh, DaveScot and Dembski are so much more fun--
You get two, two, two 'tards in one.

Date: 2006/06/14 12:57:22, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Oh, come on.  And you guys call ME the conspiracy theorist?  So you guys think Humphreys is just out there padding his pockets with Creo propaganda?


Nope, just like with others of his ilk, I think that the extra cash is just a bonus. Sure, he might be sincere about his YEC views.

But his willingness to lie to you, AFDave, suggests otherwise. He knows he is running a con. You bought his books, didn't you, Dave?

Date: 2006/06/14 13:10:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
You said here that you were told...explicitly...that his books would cover He isotope ratios. Odd that it didn't happen. At some level, Humphreys firmly believes what he promotes. At another level, he feels he has to B_S to support that which he believes in so deeply.

This is "cognitive dissonance."

Date: 2006/06/14 13:23:04, Link
Author: deadman_932

Date: 2006/06/15 06:54:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
He makes no statements about the COMPARATIVE diffusivities of different materials, which is what you keep bringing up.  This is completely irrelevant.


FROM HUMPHREYS

Quote
As far as I know, nobody has measured the effect of pressure on helium diffusion in zircon.  However I have at hand a paper[6] that gives, among other data, the pressure effect on argon diffusion in glasses, such as rhyolite obsidian.  At the highest temperature to which our helium-in-zircon experiment went, 500 degrees C, the pressure effect on the glasses was almost imperceptible, a few percent per kilobar.  A few hundred degrees higher than our experiment, 600 to 700°C, the pressure effect was up to only a few dozen percent per kilobar.

Several factors combine to say that the pressure effect on helium diffusion in our zircon experiments was much less than the above few percent per kilobar:

The cooler the mineral, the less the effect, and the critical part of our data was much cooler than the above, only 100 to 300 °C.
Glasses should be more compressible than crystals of the same composition; glasses are generally not as hard because of weaker chemical bonds between parts.  So our crystals of very hard zircon should suffer less from pressure than glasses that are softer than quartz.
In a given mineral, helium diffusion is less affected by pressure than argon, because a helium atom is smaller than an argon atom.  The smaller the atom, the less the effect on its diffusion for a given amount of pressure-induced reduction of the space between atoms.
All these factors strongly suggest that the diffusion rates in our zircons were influenced far less than one percent by removing them from underground pressures to a vacuum chamber.


Humphreys compares the rates of diffusion in zircon...to that in "rhyolite obsidian" Liar.

In Pyrite and quartz, in the papers I gave you...Helium diffuses faster in materials almost as hard....and harder than steel. He also compared Steel to zircon in terms of pressure affect on diffusion. (remember those steel ball bearings? That's not about diffusion?)

Date: 2006/06/18 10:34:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
I see AFDave is still running his dishonest "Gish Gallop." Cute.

Good thing it doesn't hold up in a court of law, where creationists go to see their claims die.

Date: 2006/06/18 10:50:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave seems to be under the misconception that --if you lie loud enough and long enough and avoid topics, while redefining terms and using every fallacy and rhetorical ploy known to man....that THAT kind of behavior = "I win."

I particularly like the pretense at being a victim, Dave.
You began your threads by insulting, you get smeared on your claims and now all you can do is the Gish Gallop to save face. Why is honest, direct give-and-take debate beyond you ?  Simple--you have to use these tatics to continue making more false claims.

Even when you have been shown wrong, as in the obvious Portuguese lies that you maintained, you have to pretend that you "won."

The bad part is you're obsessive-compulsive and a liar. The good part is that people around you are bound to notice your insane monomania.

Date: 2006/06/18 11:02:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Well, I think it's pretty obvious what he's doing...everyone sees his tactics, dishonest as they are: redefinition, avoidance, pretense, red herrings, straw men, claims of victimhood, things that would get him tossed out of a debate or courtroom, or any peer-reviewed journal.

Dave's nutty claim that Portuguese is a mix of French and Spanish is a perfect example. No article/book I have ever seen so far agrees with him, but he claims victory based on latin cognates...and avoids presenting a list of loanwords derived from French. His view is that science works somehow by lying the loudest and longest. He's simply mental.

Date: 2006/06/18 11:56:20, Link
Author: deadman_932
I thought I had seen most of GoP's arguments before: he's cribbing from Humphrey's nonsense at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

Date: 2006/06/18 14:13:06, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave:
(1) use your computer to look up "Gish Gallop."  
(2) Notice how you haven't answered Occam's questions?
(3) Notice how you ignored ericmurphy on C14 and diamonds?
(4) Notice how you avoid the simple fact that you cannot and have not shown any word list of Portuguese terms derived directly from French?

So, Dave, why is it that you avoided all those things and then fill up pages with other material without answering what is asked you?

Date: 2006/06/18 19:15:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave ----

1.) If you know what the Gish Gallop is, then why ask me about it?

2.) You lost your claim on Portuguese for the very reason that I stated: the ONLY way that you can win that claim is to show that French plays any major influence in ***words*** used in the Portuguese language itself.

SHOW a WORDLIST of terms IN Portuguese derived from French

The "phonetics" of Portuguese can be called "similar" ...but you have not shown it is derived from French at all, nor will you.  

3.) Occam's questions pertained directly to your claims, Dave. You just avoid them, as you always do when cornered. Just as you did on your claim that Amerinds all lost their written languages, Dave. That's when you switched your claim, Dave. to " well, the Aztec and Maya" And when I pointed out that the Maya and Aztec never lost a written language but adopted another...you ran from your re-statement of your claim.

4.) Yes, you ignored ericmurphy for the same reason you ignored what I posted on zircons and how Humphreys himself lied to you----- along with your false claim that "Humphreys was not comparing materials" about how pressure affected diffusion between GLASSES like rhyolite obsidian and how it likely affects zircon, which he didn't test under pressure. You say :
 
Quote
 HUMPHREYS COMPARES THE HARDNESS OF VARIOUS MINERALS ONLY TO SHOW THAT PRESSURE HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON DIFFUSIVITIES OF OTHER HARD MATERIALS...He makes no statements about the COMPARATIVE diffusivities of different materials, which is what you keep bringing up. This is completely irrelevant.



and yet Humphreys does in fact compare pressure and diffusivity rates of zircon, rhyolite and later, steel ball bearings, saying pressure would have no real effect...but as I showed, it does. Humphreys says straight out:

 
Quote
As far as I know, nobody has measured the effect of pressure on helium diffusion in zircon. ....However I have at hand a paper[6] that gives,
among other data, ****the pressure effect on argon diffusion in glasses****, such as rhyolite obsidian.
At the highest temperature to which our helium-in-zircon experiment went, 500 degrees C, the pressure effect on the glasses (rhyolite, Dave)  was almost imperceptible...Glasses should be more compressible than crystals of the same composition; glasses are generally not as hard because of weaker chemical bonds between parts. So our crystals of very hard zircon should suffer less from pressure than glasses that are softer than quartz.


He goes on to discuss why zircon, " harder than steel" would not be affected by pressure, Dave...in terms of diffusion, and he compares zircon to steel ball bearings...

But you insist on trying to pretend words mean what YOU want them to mean, like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, you think that you can change the very definitions of words to suit your delusions.
Quote
"When I use a word," Humpty Dave Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."


Nah, it doesn't work that way, Baboo.

Oh, and (5) No you don't really know the Bible, Dave. I pointed out where your claim about.. Civilizations centers existing , THEN the tower of Babel happening...runs exactly contrary to Genesis. If this discussion were just on the errors and lies and contradictions of the Bible, you'd be toast there, too.

Date: 2006/06/18 19:58:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
Something struck me while I was noting your lies on Amerind languages, Dave---I was thinking of all the Aztecan (Nahua)-derived terms in Spanish that show the direct relationship of one language to the other...and sure enough...

Nahuatl has been an exceedingly rich source of words for the Spanish language as the following examples show. Some of them are restricted to Mexico or Mesoamerica, but others are common to all the Spanish-speaking regions in the world and a number of them have made their way into many other languages via Spanish.
achiote, acocil, aguacate, ajolote, amate, atole, axolotl, ayate, cacahuate, camote, capulín, chamagoso, chapopote, chayote, chicle, chile, chipotle, chocolate, cuate, comal, copal, coyote, ejote, elote, epazote, escuincle, guacamole, guachinango, guajolote, huipil, huitlacoche, hule, jacal, jícama, jícara, jitomate, malacate, mecate, metate, metlapil, mezcal, mezquite, milpa, mitote, molcajete, mole, nopal, ocelote, ocote, olote, paliacate, papalote, pepenar, petaca, petate, peyote, pinole, piocha, popote, pozole, pulque, quetzal, tamal, tianguis, tiza, tomate, tule, zacate, zapote, zopilote.
(The persistent -te or -le endings on these words are Spanish reflexes of the Nahuatl 'absolutive' ending -tl, -tli, or -li, which appears on (most) nouns when they have no other affixes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl_language

See, DaveTard? that's how real linguists show relationships of one language to another in terms of loanword lists. The same can be done with Arabic and Spanish...

But Dave...YOU can't show the same thing with French and Portuguese... not even to the degree that Nahua influenced Spanish. You're not even vaguely honest, Dave

Date: 2006/06/19 09:55:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm not surprised by your aphasia in regard to what Humphreys said about zircon, pressure, hardness of materials and temperatures, Dave. Aphasia affects people with brain disorders of various sorts, including mental illness.

Again, here is what Humphreys says:
Quote
Zircon, on the other hand, is among the hardest of minerals, 7.5 on the Mohs scale. That is harder than the best steel (6.5), and even harder than quartz (7.0)...
   Zircon, being harder than steel, would be much less compressible than lead. So pressure should affect diffusion rates much less than in lead... In 1996, those considerations made me think that the pressure effect on hard minerals is negligible...
  As far as I know, nobody has measured the effect of pressure on helium diffusion in zircon. However I have at hand a paper that gives, among other data, the pressure effect on argon diffusion in glasses, such as rhyolite obsidian. At the highest temperature to which our helium-in-zircon experiment went, 500 degrees C, the pressure effect on the glasses was almost imperceptible, a few percent per kilobar. A few hundred degrees higher than our experiment, 600 to 700°C, the pressure effect was up to only a few dozen percent per kilobar...Glasses should be more compressible than crystals of the same composition; glasses are generally not as hard because of weaker chemical bonds between parts. So our crystals of very hard zircon should suffer less from pressure than glasses that are softer than quartz.


IN regard to this, you earlier said on this thread:
Quote
My understanding is that damaged or not damaged, zircons are extremely hard, making Helium diffusion rates quite independent of pressure.


But, Dave... you then say:  
Quote
He absolutely DOES NOT compares pressure and diffusivity rates.  He compares the EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON DIFFUSIVITY with other materials.



But there Humphreys is...comparing pressure and diffusivity rates in obsidian glass...and zircon. BUT DAVE, he is using the argument that pressure should not affect diffusion in ZIRCON as much as it does glasses like obsidian.. put on your special AirTard Snoopy  "thinking" helmet now...

He brought up Obsidian because he wanted to compare pressure effects on diffusion in "soft" obsidian glass....to zircon... which is harder, and should, in his words, "suffer less" from the effects of pressure on diffusion rates.

I showed this was a false assumption in regard to hardness offsetting the effects of pressure on diffusion rates, since Pyrex and quartz both show comparable hardnesses to zircon...yet diffuse He more quickly than zircon. Pyrex in particular under pressure and heat diffuses MORE. Pyrex is a glass, Dave.

Another point, Dave, You mentioned on p. 61 of this thread that you "had heard" that the Harrison and Sasada temperature data would be "integrated over time and modeled" in the RATE II book...was it, Dave?

Or were you lied to again by those mean nasty RATE mens, like they did about He ratios being done?

Or Humphreys lying to you about He Isotope ratios not being done " because no one did them at that time" Despite the fact that people did do them to determine the sources of He concentrations? ...Humphreys still won't do those simple isotope tests...and never will, because it keeps simpletons like you buying his books.

Now, as far as 14C in diamonds...I'd dearly love to see those calculations of Humphreys showing that cosmic rays and uranium cannot account for it. You say the RATE book has those calculations, so...whip 'em out.

As far as why you were wrong about the bible earlier in this thread, Dave... you said that civilizations*** begin***.. in the areas you listed (Mexico, China, etc. )... **THEN** disperse FOLLOWING a Tower of Babel incident...What does chapter 11 of Genesis say? Exactly the opposite.

Making things up about what the bible says , like your claim that scribes followed adam around carving things in stone..prior to the appearance of metallurgy, even in your scheme...is called fantasy. Nowhere in the Bible can you support this, so you make it up. Like most of your claims, or the ones you steal from ICR and AIG and Henry Morris...fantasy.

Date: 2006/06/19 13:36:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's my contribution to the humor section of today's thread---"AFDave's Song" ..sung to the tune of "Rawhide" (see the movie "The Blues Brothers" with John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd for reference.)

Trollin', trollin' , trollin'  
See those fundies trollin'
Watch their lies a-growin',  
in size!  
He11-bent for leather
Condemn in any weather
Claiming that god is on their side--

Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, spur, and brand 'em
They'll still be acting smug and snide

Ride 'em in, let 'em out,
Ride 'em in, cut 'em out,
Ride 'em in Rawhide!
---------------------------------------------

TY, TY, TY *Bows*

Date: 2006/06/21 13:13:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
"And God said,'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yeilding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind.... And the evening and the morning were the third day" (Gen. 1:11-13)

"And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.... And the evening and morning were the fourth day" (Gen. 1:14-19).

So, god makes plants on the third day and the sun and moon on the fourth. Photosynthesis couldn't happen-- but I bet god "majicked" that one, too, eh? And warmed the earth so that they wouldn't freeze, too.

And by the way, on the flood bit, you do have to account for all seeds that would not be able to live in water for a year. And the insects. And the fish who can't live in turbid, saline environments, and everything else mentioned.

Here's a particular favorite of mine, Dave: There are numerous bacterial and viral diseases that cannot live outside the human body...

Who on the ark had syphilis, Dave? Gonnorhea?

Are you related to them? Is that what happened to your brain?

I love how you came into this forum insisting that you were "not religious" but were instead "scientific and skeptical" and when it comes down to it, you knew all along that you had your religious-based "majick" claims about god souping up not just decay rates, but creating the stars for entertainment...despite the fact that we see protostars forming today. Science says that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before life appeared on land. Genesis gives the opposite order. But I bet you'll mealy-mouth your way around that, too.

In any instance where facts have contradicted your biblically-based claims , you have opted for the inerrancy of the bible, dave, which is what i said you would do long ago. Your whole house of cards rests on that. You're not close to being a skeptic, you're an absolutist that can't even back his claims and instead relies on lying and avoiding--to try to maintain the claim of biblical inerrancy that you have. You're a joke, sonny boy.

Date: 2006/06/21 13:56:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
Your problem here,Dave, is the same problem that the Creationist nutcases have always faced: you are trying to negate millions of hours of science with nothing more than your opinion. When shown the data that contradicts you, you reject it on the basis of.....your *opinion*. If only your incredulity & opinion were empirical evidence, you might have a case, huh?

There are muslim apologists that do the very same thing as the fundamentalist literalist christian apologists. But you'd ultimately reject their claims because they're not biblically-based. I reject both of those camps not because I am anti-religion per se, but because I view it as dishonest to try to force-fit data by lying and avoiding.
I have friends with strong Christian religious views that are quite content with a "prime mover" god  and don't have to lie about literal floods and acellerated decay rates and god creating stars with built-in age and redshifts and other nonsense that you feel you must take literally because you're an absolutist in terms of inerrancy. Your god is essentially toxic.

Your god is the god of punishment and damnation for mere disbelief, the god that slaughters amalekite and amorite babies by the sword and can't manage to save them, but can magic up the fake appearance of age in the universe. Your god apparently divides its attentions between overseeing the entire universe at all times in all dimensions for every living creature everywhere, and giving a crap about whiny fundamentalist christian zealots and their poisonous power-mongering ideas. Your god takes sides.  Your god favors ass-sucking sycophantic idiots that bleat their love while cursing anyone that doesn't think JUST like them.

Believing in God should not make you dumb. believing in divine power should not make you a blind lockstep zealot drone, bowing and kneeling and feeling unworthy and sinful and dirty. Belief should not make you need to lie, twist, conceal and pervert what decent humans have done, or know in sciences, arts, the humanities.

Your god is the god of lies, and bears no resemblance to an honorable Christian god.

Date: 2006/06/21 14:20:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
Argument from Rational Christian Dave:

1) Hi there; I'm a rational christian; I'm here to discuss any questions you might have.
2) Uh...well, the bible doesn't quite say *that*; I think--
3) Where? Where in the bible do you see--oh. Well, that's out of context.
4) Yes it is.
5) Look, that's not a fair question. So...maybe you can tell me how we got here. You don't believe you came from monkeys, do you?
6) I already told you why that was out of context; don't change the subject.
7) Yes I did; scroll up.
8) Why can't you just believe in God?
9) John 3.16 says Jesus died for your sins, you selfish sinful unworthy atheist/agnostic/unbeliever/Darwinist/materialist
10)  believe me or burn in he11 for ever and ever.
11) Yeah, whatever, Fools; I'll laugh at you from heaven while you burn in he11 with your monkey parents LOL!
12) Therefore, science is wrong.

Date: 2006/06/21 15:32:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
Pretty pictures of what buries YEC nonsense:

Dendrochronology:

Stalactites/stalagmites:

Lake Varves:

Ice cores:

Date: 2006/06/21 20:28:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
Notta:  I have world cup fever and I'm giddy? Okay, I like learning and this forces me to hone whatever skills I have in debate, even if it's one-sided. I don't think AirHead there will change his views, he's shown a remarkable range of mental issues. Still, it's worthwhile to show him that there's a lot of data against YECzoids and now much that he can hang his hat on-- other than to cover his pointy little head.

Other times, I'm bored of listening to show tunes or discussing the minutiae of Gilbert and Sullivan with stevestory, OA, Ichthyic and others, so I need a diversion. Oh, he11, I shouldn't have said that. Please erase this from your memory.

We will now return to our regular programming.

Date: 2006/06/21 23:24:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
Bah, I think this one is about as specified as it gets:  

Date: 2006/06/22 09:52:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave: nice to see you can write a minor novel on topics unrelated to the questions that were asked you, but fail miserably even in the contents of that novel.

You're in my ballpark now...even though I dislike historical/ classical archaeology in the middle east and mediterranean. Turns out I have met Ira (Israel)  Finkelstein at one of the AIA meetings, just didn't know who he was. Finkelstein is basically one of the top dogs in biblical archaeology...he's one of the people that raised so many doubts about the alleged "James Ossuary" that it led to the current trials for forgery underway now in Israel...

I recommend you read his " Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2002). The Bible Unearthed." And learn about how wrong you really are about the archaeology of the region and your YEC claims.

You see, Dave, your recital of P.J. Wiseman's claims stems from ...1936... later updated by his son "D.J." in 1985 or so. You might want to update. As far as the "documentary hypothesis " being dead in the water, well, perhaps, but that's not of any real interest to me, despite the fact that vatican scholars estimate that SOME FORM of the hypothesis is accepted by 90% of current researchers...others seem to reject it entirely like Cassuto. Irrelevant to me.  

The reason I mentioned Finkelstein was in regard to your claim that the Archaeology of the region lacks sites predating civilization. Let's take one example: Jericho.

Preceding the bronze-age "biblical" jericho, we find the Natufians, AFDave. early proto agriculturalists. Certainly they herded animals and evidence is that they began the first domestication of grains. Dates on the culture go back to 12,000 BCE and generally extend to about 8,500 BCE in most areas. See "The Natufian Culture in the Levant:
Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture."
Ofer Bar-Yosef Evolutionary Anthropology
Volume 6 : Pages 159 - 177 (1998)http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdf

So, what does this mean for your "24 points?"

Well it means that this site and many, many others in the near east negate your claims. This site alone, and Catal Huyuk, and hundreds of others show that your literalist, fanatic interpretation is ...wrong. The age obviously runs against your dates for the emergence of civilizations ,your claims that no predecessors to state-level systems are found, your claims that writing is found  in all complex societies, etc. etc.  Sumerian culture likewise is preceded by known archaeological sites and remains. Same with Egyptian. Same with Mycenean and Minoan, same with every other state-level system that we know of.


The interesting thing for me is that Biblical Archaeology, as a weird little sub-field of "classical" (historical) archaeology ...is largely populated by "believers"...Christians and Jews interested in the record of the region...and you would say that they are all wrong. All the state-level systems in the middle east  are preceded by known archaeological phases that you have to say are simply wrong. But those claims are not just from atheist/darwinian /materialist scientists, they are also from honestly religious folks working in the middle east that simply don't take the bible literally in all aspects. You don't actually know about the archaeology TODAY, but because you have a predetermined absolutist claim to uphold, regardless of the evidence, you are now libelling all of them, too ( bearing false witness is supposed to be a sin, jackass). Again, showing how you would rather lie than deal with reality.

Date: 2006/06/22 10:17:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave says
Quote
Archaeology and the Bible agree in every detail!  


Erm, no. No evidence of a global flood wiping out the civilizations I just mentioned, and many others known to have existed. No evidence of an "Egyptian Captivity/Exodus," no evidence of the plagues in Egypt, The story of Joshua and the walls of Jericho didn't happen , despite Bryan Wood's attempt at redating. Solomon is not known at all in the archaeology, despite the biblical claim that he ruled from the Euphrates to the Red Sea. Zilch. Read Finkelstein and Silber's (2001) "The Bible Unearthed : Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts "

This is not to say that the historical aspects of the bible are not supported in various ways by archaeology---but it IS to say that your view is not, Dave. No global flood, no YEC pipe-dreams.

Date: 2006/06/22 10:35:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
To reinforce what Occam's just posted, Dave, let me offer what I posted to you wayyyyyyyy back on page 12 of this thread in regard to the "global flood.":

Quote
But there's a problem, Dave: Your whole edifice of cards balances on this one point: that the Bible is absolutely true. Yet you admit that the Global flood, wiping out all things on the face of the Earth...happened at between 2000-3000 BCE. Let's look at why you are wrong:

During this period that the BIBLE says the "global flood " happened, the records of various groups continue uninterrupted: By 2375 BC, most of Sumer was united under one king, Lugalzaggisi of Umma, Sumerian records continue on.Uninterrupted by any mention of global flooding . The earliest surviving inscriptions in Akkadian go back to 2500 B.C. and are the oldest known written records in a Semitic tongue. They continue in an unbroken record.

Egyptian history during the Old Kingdom (2700-2200 BC) continues unbroken by global flooding . 2200 bc is the date of oldest existing document written on papyrus, prior to that, we have inscriptions and incised clay tablets as well.  The Chinese had settled in the Huang He (or "Ho" in some translations) , or Yellow River, valley of northern China by 3000 BC. In the Indus Vallley, we have  the  Early Harappa Phase C, 2550 BC  which continues unbroken to c.1900 BC . We also have the early minoan and mycenean groups in the mediterranean, and as for the new world, Researchers publishing in the Dec. 23 edition of the scientific journal Nature date the  first complex society of the Americas, from roughly 3000 to 1800 B.C. NONE of these groups were destroyed by any "global flood" NONE.

But you'll say it's all a lie, Dave, because the "dates" must be wrong, or some other similarly dishonest shit. But there's a problem with that, too, Dave.

We have to either :
(1) reject the factual historicity of the Flood account;  
(2)accept the historicity of the Flood account, but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event, showing the Bible is in error; or
(3) accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the massive amount of written and archaological evidence establishing the chronology of history in the near East. This chronolgy is not just supported by radiometric dating methods (C-14, etc.), but other absolute NON-radiometric methods as well: dendrochronology, corals, varves, ice cores, stalagmite/stalactites and more. Now, how could it be that ALL of those dating methods agree that no global flood happened and that the archaeology and other sources are correct?"

Date: 2006/06/22 12:27:22, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave says  
Quote
I understand that there may be some names left out of Biblical genealogical tables and some other issues.


Yeah, Dave, there's a lot of issues there. You see, the Bible's internal dating does in fact give the date range of 2250-2500 BCE for the flood. Not 5000 BCE. Since you used AIG, this is how they calculated the date they use, Dave: "The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years. " http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp


You are left with the same choices I gave you, Dave:

We have to either :
(1) reject the factual historicity of the Flood account;  
(2)accept the historicity of the Flood account, but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event, showing the Bible is in error; or
(3) accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the massive amount of written and archaeological evidence establishing the chronology of history in the near East. This chronology is not just supported by radiometric dating methods (C-14, etc.), but other absolute NON-radiometric methods as well: dendrochronology, corals, varves, ice cores, stalagmite/stalactites and more.

My choice is #1...how about you, Dave? And can you back it?

Date: 2006/06/22 12:49:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ah, I love this thread. There's got to be a way to market the sheer inane mindless humor of DaveTard1 and Billy Dembski. Whenever I'm a little blue or feeling bad about world events, all I have to do is turn to the brain trust at UD for a hearty belly laugh at their expense.

Date: 2006/06/22 13:10:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave: AIG gives the standard derivation of the "Flood Year" which was not new to Ussher, nor is Ussher's the final word on the matter. So, Dave, if you want to show how the bible supports a deeper date, show me. Don't use absent (non-existent)  "evidence"  as "proof" dave, show me how you arrive at your date using the bible.

You make the claim, Dave, you back it up, kid. Don't try to avoid, don't try to deflect, don't try to dance around it or place some fantasy burden of proof on me, jackoff. Back your claims

Date: 2006/06/22 13:40:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
By the way, Dave, nowhere on the AIG link that I gave you does the author refer to Ussher in any manner.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp

"The Date of Noah’s Flood by Dr J. Osgood".... "The art of the Biblical chronologist or Date-finder is a mystery to most, so let me explain how such a date can be found. Firstly, I will take a brief look at the assumptions or starting points which I will use....The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years. "

Date: 2006/06/22 15:23:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFarceDave writes:
Quote
The real problem for you, Deadman, is twofold ...

1)  You have to close your eyes and your ears to dismiss the evidence of the Global Flood
2)  Your millions of years is a fairy tale


As Mr. Murphy succinctly points out, Dave...you haven't given any "evidence" for me to close my eyes to. Not that I would, if it were valid and not just hand-waving. If you want to try your skills at dealing with "flood" claims, feel free to try, my boy.

But you may as well stuff a few magazines in your drawers, since you're going to be spanked again--which you appear to enjoy, by the way. Not that that's a bad thing, it's just that you should acknowledge your true nature more openly, Daveykins. Step out of the closet and breathe the fresh, clean air of unashamed masochism, pookie. Tell you what -- I'll let you lick the hairbrush after I'm done ;)

Date: 2006/06/22 15:30:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
(with apologies to the Rolling Stones)

Well,when you're sitting back
In your rose-pink Cadillac
Making bets on Kentucky Derby Day...

I'll be in my basement room
With Hume and Howard Bloom
another tome to take my pain away.

Date: 2006/06/22 20:32:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
This is the kind of redundant animal experimentation that gives science a bad name.

We already have DaveTards 1 and 2 , flinging poo wildly.

Date: 2006/06/22 20:40:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (Crabby Appleton @ June 22 2006,23:33)
Deadman, don't forget sites like Meadowcroft Rock Shelter (PA) or Monte Verde (Chile)


I admire Tom Dillehay's work at Monte Verde. I was real skeptical at first, looking for organic detergents in the water that might have skewed the dates there (from samples sent to our labs) , etc., but...uh, it's the real deal. He had two plane loads of people flown down to check it out. Great work, even if Stuart Feidel, who I used to respect, is giving Tom some shit:  http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/clovis/

Date: 2006/06/22 21:24:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
BWE: I don't KNOW!!!. I grabbed that off a Russian server about 4 years ago just because it was weird..but I *THINK* it might be the Turkish coast for some reason.

By the way, I used to live in Mosier, Oregon -- not too far from The Dalles/Mt. Hood. Of course, that was eons ago.

Date: 2006/06/23 03:45:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
YEC Discussion and Debate Rules

1. "I'm right and you are wrong". Faith and a personal relationship with the God of your choice ensures this.
2. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults-- but don't curse. Remember, you are superior by virtue of saying "stuff it" rather than "stick it up your ass." If others respond with standard anglo-saxon epithets, note it as a sign of  their evil.
3. Regard and portray your own violent reactions -- whether physical, psychological, or verbal -- as defensive. Remember, YOU are a victim of ungodly secularists, liberals, and demons in human form.
4. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans for the world. Recognise that you are part of Gods will for the betterment of mankind.
5. Be prepared at all times to avoid and bluster, particularly when backed into a corner in an argument
6. If you do err, remember, that's part of God's personal plan for you , not something for which you should apologise, retract or make amends for, except secretly to your God--unless you forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you don't have that right anyhow
7.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
8.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and oppose all such information in simple ways (e.g. by viewing it as atheistic propaganda). Knowledge is bad, remember Adam and Eve!
9.Refuse to accept that reality is complex, and not merely black and white.
10. Remember that while others may have their personal beliefs, yours are infinitely superior because God says so

Date: 2006/06/23 06:50:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
You asked if I had objections to genesis being accurate history, yes, I gave them to you already, and you refused to deal with them. As to your claim that you "answered" my questions about Amerinds losing written languages, you didn't do that either. Making a claim based on no evidence at all is not an "answer."  

Let's use an example: if I said that your ancestors originated in Antarctica and I pointed to the popol vuh and said, "see, it says you emerged from a cold cave"...that doesn't ANSWER any questions you may have asked me about EVIDENCE, it merely points to an unsubstantiated assertion.

Your "response" to my question about showing me evidence that MY ancestors HAD writing and lost it...is " look at Genesis" Well, as I pointed out, I don't consider the mythos of Bronze Age goatherders to be a reliable guide to human history PRIOR to other verifiable points in time-- like the period of the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian/Egyptian king/ruler lists.

I gave you substantive arguments about the "order" of creation in genesis...like plants before the sun, land organisms before those in the seas/oceans, and you never responded. I mentioned the lack of evidence for the "global flood, " the exodus tales, the plagues
of egypt, the lack of any evidence for Solomon, who allegedly " ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt" yet was not mentioned by ANYONE in any king/ruler lists, nor is there any archaeological evidence of this alleged empire. Nor is there any archaeological evidence to support your claims of a mythical Tower of Babel near which all humans resided. In fact, all available data says your claim is so laughably false as to be ludicrous.

I gave you data on the Natufians that predate your extended date of the creation of the earth, and by the way, dave? I asked you to BACK YOUR CLAIM about YOUR dating of the flood, biblically. SHOW me how you arrived at your date. Because you are either contradicting the bible or the bible is in error. One or the other. As to your false claim that Ussher is "implicitly" used in deriving the date year of the flood by AIG's "Dr. Osgood", that's b-s, too...as I said, Ussher was not the first or the last to look at dates and lifespans and genealogies to derive a date of the "flood" year. Now, back your claims, Dave.

I don't view the book of genesis as a reliable historical record of anything , dave, least of all your claims...if you have ANY evidence to support the claims you made, present it, you sure as shit haven't given ANY evidence at all on the validity of your claims about babel, or the flood, or anything really, in genesis.Back your claims, baby boy.

Date: 2006/06/23 07:54:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh

Looks like Dave did another hit-and-run.

He's gone back to his tactic of:  "wait until the page fills up with questions/assertions/statements of various kinds, then cherry-pick ones you want to respond to"

Also , re his claim of being a "Pavarotti"...this isn't the first time gasbag dave has compared himself to others who he apparently admires...his comparing himself to Newton, Maxwell, and recently, Galileo come to mind...and what is this deal with referring to yourself in the third person, Dave?

Date: 2006/06/23 08:15:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave: if you call anyone here a "scientific teeny-bopper" then I can justly call you a scientific zygote. Your ability to handle science is virtually nil.

Your claim about China from wikipedia is a point in case, Dave. Dynasty =/= first evidence of chinese civilization, dolt.

You claim
Quote
Of course the Bible COULD be in error, but no one has yet shown me one. Maybe you could be the first?



Sure, Dave, I just gave you some. And the fact is that you have never shown how you arrived at you r new dates for the flood, biblically. The bible GIVES a specific date range that is false, baby boy. This alone shows error in the bible.

As to your claim that you have already somehow shown 14C dating to be "false" that's another pile of Dave. You've made an assertion about large amounts of organic material , pointed to chalk bed and organics that accumulated over millions of years, then say " there's my proof" well, that's not good enough, baby boy. Besides which, you were given dating on the Catal Huyuk site that's from dendro, and there are multiple other sites in the region dated by non-radiometric methods, or directly tied to non-radiometric methods, such as corals, varves, stalactites/stalagmites/flowstone/ice cores. Which you avoided like the plague.

As to your claim ( again) that you actually answered what I asked about EVIDENCE that amerinds had written languages and lost them, you continue to point to genesis as if that proves anything. No, it doesn't...and you earlier wanted to make a bet with someone about your knowledge of the bible? well, back your claims with that, baby. Show me your evidence about your date for the flood, or your claims about Babel being verified, or your claim that the bible is inerrant in terms of what I listed earlier. ####, I KNOW you can't come close to doing that. I'll take your bet, Dave, you're just a windbag...DEAL WITH SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIMS...not JUST by pointing to the bible  but showing how the bible is supported IN SPECIFIC to the QUESTIONS RAISED . When I say that I am not impressed with the mythos of bronze-age goatherders, I can back what I say, Dave...try backing your claims

Date: 2006/06/23 08:37:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
I particularly loved this quote from you , Dave:    
Quote
Thou shalt not kill never applied to God ... people are owned by Him ... He can do as He pleases with them. He has reasons for what He does which we do not understand.


I suppose for you this "explains" why an ALL-LOVING, ALL-GOOD omnipotent, omniscient god...ordered the deaths of little babies in the Old Testament?

When I brought that up earlier in this thread, you invoked predestination, saying the babies were GOING to be so evil that god just ordered them to die by the sword.

By the way, Dave, is causing pain to a child by stabbing them to death with a sword...bad?

Is this why the bible says in at least 3 places that god creates evil?  

The Bible says in another three places that the son shall not suffer for the evil of the father, Dave...yet you conveniently overlook that when you explain away the violent deaths of babes in arms--deaths ordered by God, Dave, if the bible is "all-true"

So let's recap...An all-good god orders the painful violent deaths of babies that have themselves done no wrong, and cannot be held responsible for the sins of the fathers and unless you invoke the claim of PREDESTINATION ( which is antithetical to Christian precepts) .... your only explanation is to shrug and say " well, the bible must be right?"  No wonder you refer to yourself in the third person and compare yourself insanely to Newton and Maxwell and Galileo, then claim that everyone around you is wrong and you're capable of overturning all of science by pointing to the bible and saying " the book, the book!!"...

Well, there's a story about another guy that did that..FitzRoy, who was captain of the ship that Darwin sailed on...The Beagle...he appeared during the Huxley-Wilberforce debates, marching up and down the aisles holding up the bible and shouting " the book, the book!!"

Later, this man who defended slavery ( against Darwin)  and all manner of evil in the bible, this "good christian" ...went home and cut his own throat.

Date: 2006/06/23 10:26:58, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear f-ed up DaveTard2:  " You're  going to die and MY  god is going to torture for eternity for DOUBT " makes your god look insane, evil, selfish, childish, insecure and petty.

You think an all-loving god thinks as evilly as you?
I prefer to think that the Bible is completely wrong than to believe the existence of such an ugly little god.

The part that disgusts me at your true nature is this:  
I'd bet a great deal of money you direct this same nasty little strongarm blackmail tactic... towards tiny kids that can't defend themselves against your terroristic shit.

Much like in the instance where you called my relatives "devolved," Dave -- be glad you're not in my arm's reach. Sanctimonious hypocritical lying power-mongering egotistic scumbag.

Date: 2006/06/23 15:50:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear F-ed up DaveTard2: I want you to watch carefully---this is how it's done. You asked me one question in your little evasion tactic there, DaveTard:  
Quote
Here's the deal, Deadman ... And it's in my best interest to find out as much as possible about what that is. It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists...  So you are concerned about kids? Tell me ... what do you do for kids now to prove to me that you care for them? Or are you just pretending to care about them because you don't like my beliefs? Don't get mad at me. It's just historical fact.


THere's two parts to that, so I'll actually do what you can't and won't do, DaveLiar: I'll answer you directly.
I donate money, time and my own labor each and every year, as I have each and every year of my life since I was 24. That was many years ago, DaveTard.

Now I'll respond to your bullshit about "you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.." Really, Dave? So point to where I said that here. Show me you have ANY honor at all, scumbag.

Show where I unequivocally rejected all concepts of god.

You can't-- you hypocritical , lying, false accuser.

I specifically rejected your cartoon version of god, Dave, and I am not like YOU. I don't have to wear God like a status symbol, I don't have to threaten people with a sick nasty little god like the one you have , Dave. And don't try to say that's "my" god, too---no it's not. Your god is solely a product of your f-ed up mind, DaveScum

Now, why didn't you answer what I asked you directly, DaveHypocrite? HOW did you claim to calculate that the Flood occurred 5000 years ago, DaveLiar? Why aren't you breaking out all that evidence to support your claims of that and your inerrant Bible claims, DaveTard? Why didn't you respond to all the points I raised in my last 3 posts?

Date: 2006/06/23 16:51:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Yes, Dave, there is archaeology that directly refutes and shows the bible false. Now answer what I asked you about HOW you claim to have calculated the date of 5000 BCE for the flood, DaveLiar. Since you're back to your defensive mode of never responding directly, we'll apparently have to treat you like the child you are, again.
Answer my questions as I answered yours, DaveLiar. Hypocrite. False accuser.

Date: 2006/06/23 17:00:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Don't keep dancing around the questions and data I point at you directly, DaveCoward. I asked you many times to back your claims on things you say and you always avoid directly answering. When I asked you about American Indians losing their written languages, you pointed to the Maya and Aztec, but that was NOT what you first claimed, DaveLiar. You made and continue to make sweeping statements about ALL Amerinds having and losing written language. SHOW HOW YOU DETERMINE THIS.

Again, as I pointed out in your earlier claims...simply pointing to the Popol Vuh would not convince any rational human that their ancestors emerged from primordial caves in an origin myth, so you can't RATIONALLY expect me to accept your claims when you just point to a book like the Bible that is demonstrably filled with false statements and contradictions.

Show me HOW you calculated that 5000-year-old flood FROM THE BIBLE, Dave. I'll take you up anyday on your "bet" that you "know" the bible better than others here, Dave...You're a total f-ing liar.

Date: 2006/06/23 18:02:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
Yes, I did look up your "dad's Tribe" and I'm sure you'd be able and willing to answer questions on that, but you can't and won't on your own lying claims here.

I gave you evidence for the falsity of the accounts in genesis, you just keep refusing to deal with them, as you just said  
Quote
" I answered all your questions that I am going to now. "


As far as my great love for anyone...that is irrelevant. My point was that you use the threats of your cartoon  version of god to afflict and control children, which is far more immoral than any atheist statements I have seen here. Threatening children with fear of your petty god is pretty low, but that's what I would expect out of the son of a man who lied about the Wai-Wai "becoming extinct" Your dad was in one minor village that was eroding due to other white people using poisons and guns to terrify the inhabitants, big deal. He exaggerated the effect of his conversions to make a buck out of the suffering of others. Other villages along the Essequibo river and elsewhere  were not in the same condition, according to both the Danish, Smithsonian and UN studies of the 50's and 60's. And I bet you'll have a lot to say about that, but little to say about anything relevant to what you claimed earlier.

Date: 2006/06/23 18:07:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Your own false claims about me show the manner of person you are, DaveScum, and I have come to expect little out of you but avoidance and fallacies. Of course you have no way to back your allegations---you're a liar. This is demonstrable as well.

Date: 2006/06/23 18:25:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh, I really like your delusional lying claim on this page, AFDave:  
Quote
I'm glad to know that you don't have any refutation of my evidence for the historicity of Genesis.


Let's see...way back on PAGE 12 of this thread, I posted this;
Quote
Dave: Your whole edifice of cards balances on this one point: that the Bible is absolutely true. Yet you admit that the Global flood, wiping out all things on the face of the Earth...happened at between 2000-3000 BCE. Let's look at why you are wrong:

During this period that the BIBLE says the "global flood " happened, the records of various groups continue uninterrupted: By 2375 BC, most of Sumer was united under one king, Lugalzaggisi of Umma, Sumerian records continue on.Uninterrupted by any mention of global flooding . The earliest surviving inscriptions in Akkadian go back to 2500 B.C. and are the oldest known written records in a Semitic tongue. They continue in an unbroken record.

Egyptian history during the Old Kingdom (2700-2200 BC) continues unbroken by global flooding . 2200 bc is the date of oldest existing document written on papyrus, prior to that, we have inscriptions and incised clay tablets as well. The Chinese had settled in the Huang He (or "Ho" in some translations) , or Yellow River, valley of northern China by 3000 BC. In the Indus Vallley, we have the Early Harappa Phase C, 2550 BC which continues unbroken to c.1900 BC . We also have the early minoan and mycenean groups in the mediterranean, and as for the new world, Researchers publishing in the Dec. 23 edition of the scientific journal Nature date the first complex society of the Americas, from roughly 3000 to 1800 B.C. NONE of these groups were destroyed by any "global flood" NONE.

But you'll say it's all a lie, Dave, because the "dates" must be wrong, or some other similarly dishonest shit. But there's a problem with that, too, Dave.

We have to either :
(1) reject the factual historicity of the Flood account;
(2)accept the historicity of the Flood account, but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event, showing the Bible is in error; or
(3) accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the massive amount of written and archaological evidence establishing the chronology of history in the near East. This chronolgy is not just supported by radiometric dating methods (C-14, etc.), but other absolute NON-radiometric methods as well: dendrochronology, corals, varves, ice cores, stalagmite/stalactites and more. Now, how could it be that ALL of those dating methods agree that no global flood happened and that the archaeology and other sources are correct?"


Two days ago (p.83, this thread), I posted this concerning the "historicity" of genesis:
Quote
No evidence of a global flood wiping out the civilizations I just mentioned, and many others known to have existed. No evidence of an "Egyptian Captivity/Exodus," no evidence of the plagues in Egypt, The story of Joshua and the walls of Jericho didn't happen , despite Bryan Wood's attempt at redating. Solomon is not known at all in the archaeology, despite the biblical claim that he ruled from the Euphrates to the Red Sea. Zilch. Read Finkelstein and Silber's (2001) "The Bible Unearthed : Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts "

This is not to say that the historical aspects of the bible are not supported in various ways by archaeology---but it IS to say that your view is not, Dave. No global flood, no YEC pipe-dreams.


On page 85 of this thread, I posted this:
Quote
I gave you substantive arguments about the "order" of creation in genesis...like plants before the sun, land organisms before those in the seas/oceans, and you never responded. I mentioned the lack of evidence for the "global flood, " the exodus tales, the plagues
of egypt, the lack of any evidence for Solomon, who allegedly " ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt" yet was not mentioned by ANYONE in any king/ruler lists, nor is there any archaeological evidence of this alleged empire. Nor is there any archaeological evidence to support your claims of a mythical Tower of Babel near which all humans resided. In fact, all available data says your claim is so laughably false as to be ludicrous. I gave you data on the Natufians that predate your extended date of the creation of the earth, and by the way, dave? I asked you to BACK YOUR CLAIM about YOUR dating of the flood, biblically. SHOW me how you arrived at your date. Because you are either contradicting the bible or the bible is in error.


But you still lyingly claim I have not raised those points and data? You're not very honest at all, DaveLiar.

Date: 2006/06/24 08:46:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
Straining a bit for support, eh, Dave?

I termed your terrorizing children with threats of god immoral based on my OWN views, not universal views.

The fact that you are still likely terrorizing them says you don't hold my views, nor I yours. So much for universal. The fact that the Wai-wai and many other groups engage in infanticide commonly shows that false "reverence" for children is not universal either. I could give you hundreds of examples of cultures that have done this in the past or up to this day. So much for universal.

As far as the Wai-wai are concerned, everything I wrote was accurate. And no, I can't go "ask" their chief at that time (Elka),he's dead. Died in '95 or so. Other Wai-Wai that did NOT experience the interference of your father did just fine and are also experiencing explosive population growth since the Guyana, Brazilian and Venezuelan governments started protecting their lands (somewhat) during the 60's onwards. No magic needed--as I said a long time ago, they needed to be left alone by every outsider, including your meddling father.

Faid brings up a good point about the bible using 3 as Pi, and the flat earth it describes. and yes, exodus is in exodus, duh. You asked for anything that contradicted the bible since it was inerrant . I gave you those and I included those finds that would still contnue to show that your CURRENT claim of a 5000-year-old flood is a lie.

And no, you didn't SHOW how you got that 5000-year date for the flood, Dave: You keep avoiding showing how it would be calculated from the bible. Because you can't show it  without INTERPOLATING your own claims. You would have to make claims based on what is NOT there in the bible, Dave.  

China, India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Mesoamerica, The Andes, Australia, Africa and Europe all had cultures that SHOULD have been wiped out by your "extended age" flood, Dave....but they were not.

Nor have you shown how you arrived at your date for that mystery flood. Try working on that and keeping your Dad from meddling with the lives of others, K? Thnx.

Date: 2006/06/24 09:18:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave says:
Quote
You make things up to try to justify your skepticism and you are obviously miserable in doing so because you blow up and shoot your mouth off a lot.  You even wanted to hit me yesterday!  Why don't you start being honest about the truth for a change and embrace the life-changing truth of God's Word like the Wai-wais did?


Hah, that's cute, Dave. First you lie about my theistic views, now you want to lie about my emotional/psychological state? I'm happy as a clam ( a known mirthful mollusk) and engaged in moving to New Zealand with Fractatious, who is beautiful and brilliant ( eidetic memory) and the daughter of a chief in her own right. (Tuhoe, the only non-treaty Maori group).

Yep, I said you should be glad you're not in my arm's reach, Dave, when you talk about things you have to lie about, like my ancestors being "devolved" If your faith leads you to lying as you do, using fallacies and avoidance as you do,  twisting reality and the words of others as you do...nah, I'll pass. As I said, I know the Bible very well, and I view it as a veneer of history on a core of myth, with heaping helpings of magic and politics thrown in.

The errors and outright falsehoods in the bible and other religious works don't bother me, though, Dave...but they bother you. In the immortal words of Ian Anderson ( Jethro Tull) "He's not the kind of god you have to wind up on Sundays" You have a toy, cartoon god with the (non-universal) morals of a mafia thug, as others have noted.   I don't remotely need to accept that kind of god, Dave.

Now, How about that Catal Huyuk archaeology? How about the pre-dynastic Egyptian and Chinese? How about the Sumerian? The sheer mass of sites related to cultures beyond 10K YA is ..staggering. Hundreds of thousands of sites and references ...but for you, they're all imaginary. Ah, if nothing else, YOU make me laugh, Dave

I gave you references for the Americas, too...predating your flood and running right through it with no sign of the genocidal god you love so much. Tsk.

Date: 2006/06/24 10:48:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
No, I don't buy your revisionist history, Dave. So? As I said, the Wai-Wai that lived elsewhere did just fine. You might try reading a history of the region to find out WHY the Wai-Wai your daddy encountered were so screwed up-- It wasn't due to anything else but Christians like you who decided to decimate them. If they had been left alone from the beginning, without people feeding them alcohol ( they had none before white people, stupid) and taking their economic base from them, they'd have been fine, just as other non-missionary-influenced groups became.

Your claim that CHRISTIANITY alone or even remotely led to freedon TODAY in america is amusing. Tell that to american blacks who were enslaved by...christians. Look at the constitution and bill of rights for references to non-europeans, Dave--tell me what it says about freedom and democracy for them there. Tell that to amerinds who were subjected to genocide by ....christians. Trying to play the "patriotic" card in the name of religion is typical of your ploys, Davey. And just as transparent.

Your claim that the Wai-wai infanticide practices were due to fear is amusing, showing you have no grasp of the Ethnology of the group. Try reading the CIIPR work from 1985-86 on Ethnology, ethno-astronomy and ethno-archaeology as well as documenting the significant cultural changes that had happened during the past 30 years -- Right during that period your Daddy was busy meddling with people that needed ONLY a return to their economic base and protection from other meddling christian savages.

Again, as you lied about my theistic views and my emotional state, you now try to lie about my view of Amerinds as being some naive, pollyannaish one? Shit, my ancestors would have given your daddy to the women so they could amuse themselves (and not by sex, Baboo) . I have no illusions about how brutal any group can be, mine included, or even the Christians that you seem to virtually deify. I LIKE the fact that my ancestors would fight assholes like your "good christians" to the death.

Your father seems to have been a decent enough guy, but wayyyyy back when I first brought this up, I said what I did now--if all you Christians would have kept out of their lives, they'd be fine and this is shown by the fact that the outlying Wai-Wai, the ones smart enough to avoid Europeans...did fine, and continue to do fine. Your Daddy's meddling destroyed their culture, finishing what other Christians started. Look at global Christian history-- they come with whiskey and guns, then they steal the land, then they steal the ideology of groups. Is this ALWAYS? No, but it has happened so many times that it IS a pattern observable in history. By the way, I say the same thing about Islam too...the amount of Islamic slave trade/cultural destruction in Africa and elsewhere is also staggering.

Look at the history of Europe and you'll see Celtic/Scythian/Pictish/Germanic/Mediterranean/Slavic  cannibalism and head-hunting, infanticide and warfare galore...just as we see elsewhere. The issue is not Nationality, Race, or anything else, it is about POWER, the ability to get others to do what one wants them to do---If I give you 20 atomic bombs and 20 tons of gold and isolate you on..say Mars, just as a thought experiment.. alone...you have no power.

On the other hand, put people around you, and you will always have competition ...competition that includes ideological power-based views that are literally designed to control others. You seem to view Christianity as the "designed" culmination of theistic development, but the Muslims see it otherwise. They and you Christians are going to kill each other in the name of your respective gods, just as you killed others in the name of your gods. All about power, baby.

Now...no, you have not shown how you derived that 5000 year date for the "new flood of Dave" in the Bible. Do so. I'd be curious how you want to now twist the bible, as you have so many other things, in your egocentric little view.

And, as I mentioned..EVERY site (I'll exclude carbon-dated sites) that extends beyond your dating , or runs THROUGH your claims about a 5kya flood...contradicts Genesis. You were offered many. IN anatolia, Catal Huyuk, In China, the Hongshan, Yangshao, Liangzhu, and Taosi Longshan cultures, In the americas, The Peruvian Coastal cultures, the proto-Olmec, the mound cultures ( for example, Eva in Tennessee, Indian Knoll in kentucky, etc.) The Southwest American sites and materials aren't JUST dated by radiocarbon, they are supported by DENDROCHRONOLOGY, the very thing you...avoid, as well as things like amino acid racemization, faunal analysis , obsidian hydration, thermoluminescence . etc. etc. Humboldt cave, Lovelock cave, gatecliff shelter, the C.W. Harris site, Clear Lake Basin, THERE ARE THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF SITES THAT YOU HAVE TO CLAIM ARE **ALL** FALSELY dated. EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT DATED BY 14C!!!

I could list sites for weeks on end in Africa, Europe, Australia, all of which would NOT be based on C14 exclusively, that you would avoid just in the same way you avoid Catal Huyuk...because it contradicts genesis and your "revised AFDave Flood date" that you can't even support

Date: 2006/06/24 11:11:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave,Dave, Dave---why is it that everytime you type your ignorance onto the board here, that you NEVER seem to bother to check your mosquito brain? You say:
 
Quote
Do you like America?  Do you like the freedoms we enjoy? Deadman, I see you are moving to NZ.  Everything I said about America applies to NZ as well b/c of its English roots. PS:  I'm still waiting for you to prove to me with the testimony of your actions how much you love kids.


1.) The Maori HAD freedom and liberty PRIOR to the European invasion. Did they fight with each other, sure just as Americans fight and kill each other.
Your suggestion that freedom and liberty was ONLY to be had by Christians imposing it...goes against everything we know in history and archaeology and anthro. American Indians had freedom and liberty and representative "democractic" systems before the arrival of europeans, dumbshit. You think that "Christians" invented it? That's like saying "europeans invented the bow and arrow"

2) I volunteer time, money and effort at the local,national and global level. In los angeles, for the AIDS Project Los Angeles, because a young friend died of it. At a National level, The American Indian Education Foundation, at a global level, UNICEF.  And yeah, I donate money for other things in regard to the environment and political activism that directly or indirectly benefits kids.

Date: 2006/06/24 11:23:58, Link
Author: deadman_932
Notice how every time you ask me a direct question, I will either answer it directly or tell you to start answering mine in return, Dave?

Why is it that you can't manage that?

Date: 2006/06/24 13:52:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let's see...Over 3 DOZEN different verified radiometric methods used to date archaeological materials, and Dave says that they're all false because god souped up the decay rate...despite the fact that such an event would literally convert water to scalding killing steam and melt the Earth. So Dave needs another miracle on top of that to save life from his killer god.

Dating methods Dave ignores (among others) include
Archaeomagnetic Dating                              Coral sequences
Deep Sea cores                                          Dendrochronology
Electron Spin Resonance                             Faunal Analysis
Fission-track Dating                                    Obsidian Hydration  
Optically Stimulated Luminescence                Palynology
Stalactites/Stalagmites/Flowstone                Thermoluminscence
Typology                                                   Varves

Dave also refuses to show his dating of the "global flood," to show PRECISELY defined evidence for his creation story and flood, or to even discuss sites that are not dated by 14 C exclusively.

Dave repeatedly lies not merely about his quote-mining and failure to support his claims, but also trivial things like my "religious" views.  More importantly...his refusal to directly answer questions allows Dave to "cherry-pick" his way through things, pretending that he's "covered" topics which he has not. Lies upon lies are not very convincing, Davey--I bet your daddy hasn't read through this thread, eh? Too embarassed, I bet.

Date: 2006/06/25 06:38:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
Davey-Child, your lies are getting more frequent, more shrill, more desperate You say
Lie#1
 
Quote
You don't care 2 hoots for kids.  You were just pretending that you did.  Are you and Fractatious going to have some kids when you get to NZ?  Or adopt some?  I doubt it.

Yes, Dave, as a matter of fact, that is part of the plan.

Lie#2
 
Quote
When I ask you to demonstrate your great love for kids, you just say you give money to people with AIDS.

Ahem, Dave...what I said was "I volunteer time, money and effort at the local,national and global level. In los angeles, for the AIDS Project Los Angeles, because a young friend died of it. At a National level, The American Indian Education Foundation, at a global level, UNICEF.  And yeah, I donate money for other things in regard to the environment and political activism that directly or indirectly benefits kids."...See the part about "time and effort?" Meaning I work at the regional level FOR the American Indian Education Foundation, liar :)

Lie#3
Quote
You have ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe  

Now, short of knowing my life, Dave, how can you say this? I worked IN Belize with the Quiche Maya, who hunt, gather and farm and are the poorest of the Maya groups and still live in ordinary huts.

By pretending to "know" my life, my religious views, my emotional state, you wound up lying about all of those, Dave. Does the term "hubris" mean anything to you? Here's a hint, Davey-child...try ASKING about a person's life before you start pretending to KNOW it.

Lie#4
Quote
You talk all this academic nonsense about the CIIPR work from 1985-86 on Ethnology, ethno-astronomy and ethno-archaeology, but you haven't a clue because you were not there.  Neither was the anthropologist for long

Ther were a total of five anthropologists and archaeologists working there from 1985 to 1986. Not one.

Lie#5
 
Quote
They had NO contact with white people prior to my dad, by the way, at least not in the 20th century.  Their economic base was hunting and gathering and very limited farming.  Had been that way for many, many years.  They weren't dying out because of their loss of economic base

Uh, Dave, this is an utter lie. Anyone can read the CIIPR/Danish/Smithsonian/United Nations reports. The group your father contacted is at Kanashen. Don't lie so blatantly, boy. I also doubt that your father contacted the group in the highland reaches of the Essequibo river who didn't contact anyone until 1990. You might ask if your Daddy also went into Brazil (which I sincerely doubt, looking at the map and knowing how hard travel there would be) -- The WaiWai live there, too, you know.

The rest of your drivel is just more tedious piles of steaming Dave. Your claim that dendrochronology is "flawed" somehow is amusing, though, Dave...so discuss it. Show you know what you're talking about instead of copy-pasting some crank from AIG. You won't, because you're dishonest.

As for telling me to "go live like " the Maori or " If you think the American Indians had it so great, why don't you go live like them. " Nah, I don't have to please you. It's not hypocritical to point out inconvenient facts like I did, and still live the life I choose. What IS hypocritical is you pretending to be a Christian while spewing lies and falsely accusing others...hypocrite ;)

Date: 2006/06/25 07:16:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hah, I just noticed that DaveyDullard relies on ...PIAZZI SMYTH for his claims on the Egyptian pyramids!!! Read Martin Gardener's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" DaveyDolt. You could also look at http://www.greatdreams.com/pyramid.htm , http://www.catchpenny.org/pyramid.html
and http://www.americanscientist.org/templat....int=yes

Smyth simply manipulated a large amount of numbers he had by making a very large number of measurements of stones, angles, heights, etc. of the pyramids...he then manipulated those same measurement results by adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing in the same way that numerologists do.

Piazzi Smyth wrote, "I have never accused, and do not propose to tax, those profane Egyptians with having had anything to do with the design of the Great pyramid." (p. 90) He held them in contempt, writing of "Egyptian idolaters," their "peculiar and alas! degrading religion," and their "vile hieratic system." (p. 6). He goes on to say the pyramids were "designed by God"

It figures that you wouldn't deal with the archhaeology honestly, Dave. Like the mastabas and step pyramids ( like that of Djoser, zoser or d'zoser) which show the gradual development of the pyramid form through time...by the ordinary egyptians. Try reading "How the Great Pyramid Was Built" by Craig B. Smith and Zahi Hawass, the current director of Egyptian archaeology.

Date: 2006/06/25 08:07:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
Okay, Dave, Let's look at your "unbiased expert" Don Batten, who says  
Quote
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
 Unbiased? Uh, yeah, right.

Let's review "Dr." Don's claims

1. He claims that specific species of pine, like Pinus radiata...produce multiple rings per year. But the interesting thing is that your expert offers no citations at all.  This is from New Zealand work that is discussed at  http://www.nzes.org.nz/nzje/free_issues/NZJEcol10_77.pdf  . The data is from FARMED trees in an artificial setting and a non-seasonal environment.    

2. Dendro and 14C are used in a "circular " way to confirm each other. False. Multiple non-radiometric methods are used to check dendro records. They include the dating methods I have listed previously

3. In all the hundreds of thousands of  tree ring studies ever performed, Don Batten finds a total of TWO that were questioned : one was re-measured, the other was withdrawn due to procedural/methodological  problems

Now, dendrochronologists are well aware that you can get "false" rings and occasional multiple rings in specific species. Which is why they don't rely on one sample to date sites or compile chronologies. These issues and more are discussed and dealt with http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/ ,http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/dendrochronology.html , and http://www.dendrochronology.com/

An extensive bibliography on the subjects above are found at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration site at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html

To conclude, Dave: your "expert" is both biased and wrong in the thrust of his arguments, which he attempts to present as being a grand indictment of dendrochronology as a whole. His examples were cherry-picked and weak, much like yours...using the same techniques people have come to expect from creationists.

Date: 2006/06/25 14:28:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
As a friend of mine who used to work for NASA once said:
Quote
Hmm..... talking donkey, talking snake, 900 year old man, sun stopping in sky, 6000 year old universe, slavery is ok, pi equals three, unicorns exist , flood which never happened, insects have 4 legs, children should be bashed against rocks, men live in giant sea creatures,...... hmm, nah,  sounds like  bullshit  to me. "Salient," Jan.12, 2004

Date: 2006/06/26 10:05:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Tsk, Tsk, Dave...more b-s to pile on your lies about me? What you just posted about me said this, Dave:    
Quote
So immediately his mind goes to work and conjures up images of my dad as a rich plantation owner in a remote jungle, using and abusing the natives to do all his dirty work for him. He imagines that these natives were happy, prosperous, "beautiful savages" living in bliss in their native culture, at peace with nature and surrounding tribes, until the evil white man came along and disrupted the serenity.

No, Dave, despite your shrill screams of me defaming your "Daddy" I didn't conjure up any of the things you imagine. I didn't imagine your daddy living the rich life in Guyana, because that's not possible among a marginalized group. I didn't imagine the WaiWai as "beautiful savages" either...as I have already said, I have no illusions about how brutal ( or wonderful) any group of people can be. Please cite ANY "lie" that you can find in what I wrote, Dave. He11, I even said your Daddy seemed like a decent enough guy, but your fevered little brain ran right past that.

What I **DID** say was that you lied about me, Dave. You lied about my theistic views, you lied about my charity and social work, you lied about me "never dealing with a jungle tribe"  you lied about your father contacting every WaiWai village--How do I know your Dad did NOT contact them? because they were NOT contacted until the 80's-90's, Dave-- You lied about the numbers of CIIPR researchers,  you lied about him being the ONLY white person they'd seen " in the 20th century."  The last point would be a surprise indeed to the American Museum of Natural History, Dave, but you chose to lie about it to create some kind of myth about your father.

What I did say was  that the WaiWai that were NOT contacted by your father managed to make their way throug the 50's and 60's until they started getting help from the Guyanese and Brazilian governments in the 70's and onwards. This enabled them to overcome the diseases, alcohol, outsider-imposed cultural change and violence and land-theft that had disrupted their lives

So you say this, Dave:
 
Quote
They weren't dying out because of their loss of economic base. They were dying out because they were killing each other and their own babies.


Ahem...here, you are simply skewing the facts to fit your idealized vision of your saintly father. What the WaiWai did was kill...female babies, Dave...or, in far smaller numbers, males deemed incapable of working hard enough to make it through that period of WaiWai history. This kind of infanticide is found in hundreds of cultures around the world. Solomon Islands, East and West Africa, North and South America, Europe and Asia. The Greeks and Romans practiced this form of infanticide, as do Asian Indians and Chinese to this day. In fact, The United States has one of the highest murder rate for children in the world, too. Where is that Universal Morality, when people across the world saw it as a good thing to kill off children selectively? Oh, and by the way, for the WaiWai, killing babies under the age of three was not "evil" because for them, the "human soul" is not permanently linked to the body during the first three years of life. This is similar to many, many groups who don't consider babies "human" until after a specified age. It is likely that this mechanism arises due to high natural infant mortality--to "lessen" the shock of losing a child.

They were using infanticide because they had an eroded economic base, Dave...And it was eroded because "good christians" decided to encroach on WaiWai lands. The destruction of the WaiWai economic base is well-described in A.T. Campbell's 1995 " Getting to know Waiwai: an Amazonian Ethnography." Routledge. New York, NY.

So, to summarize..despite your cartoon version of what I thought and said ( again!;) no, I had no such illusions as you claimed. Furthermore, you cannot find me saying a "lie" in anything I wrote. Your father did not contact every WaiWai group...he could not have. He was not the first white man there in the 20th century, you lied about the CIIPR researchers. Other WaiWai are doing fine without your daddy's help, and in fact your daddy's group would have made it through, too...probably by moving to the highlands as other groups did, from Shefarimo and Masemakari I. The only cause of disruption to their lives was due to white people bearing guns...germs and alcohol, while simultaneously stealing Indian land and taking out protein sources bigger than iguanas. Peccary sometimes manage to hold on longer because they're mean and they breed fast.

In short, once again, you're full of crap, Dave. You said that
 
Quote
Deadman has proven his lack of interest in the truth so you should know by now where his sources will lead you.

So I'll challenge you for the third time in this post, Dave...show where I lied at all. Post it. Just like you couldn't post about my theistic views (after you claimed to know them) you will fail there, too. Because you're f-ed up in the head, baby boy

Date: 2006/06/26 10:19:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Tyre was originally on a small rocky island near the coast. In the 10th century BC, King Kiram of Tyre constructed  ports, temple, and industries on the mainland sector of the city. This was where Phoenician glass and purple dyeworks were developed.

Date: 2006/06/26 10:37:03, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ezekiel "predicted" Tyre would be a bare rock forever...forever means forever...and it is not a bare rock, in fact, it has been continuously inhabited from 1600 BCE onwards. Habitation sites means it cannot be "bare rock"

Date: 2006/06/26 11:14:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
Speaking of Ezekiel, there's another prophecy there where ol' Zeke predicts that Nebuchadrezzar will conquer all of Egypt. Ez. 29:19 "Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army."

That never happened, either. Nebuchadrezzar never made it happen. Tsk

Date: 2006/06/27 08:00:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
1. Tyre was not a bare rock, nor is it today. It has been continuously inhabited ( as shown by archaeology) since 1600 BCE.
2. Nebuchadrezzar did not conquer Egypt. The heart of Egypt is and always has been the fertile regions along the banks of the Nile that are subject to annual flooding and replenishment. Nebuchadrezzar never took that, nor was it laid waste for 40 years, nor were the Egyptians scattered among all nations. Calling some outlying lands near the RED SEA  "Egypt " is like saying Alaska is the whole United States.
3. You have offered no credible evidence for this global flood of yours, DaveLiar.
4. Lying about my views on theology, lying about my experience in anthro/archaeo field work, lying about my emotions, lying about knowing anything about me-- hardly serves your purpose, MendaciousDave.
5. The fact remains that other villages, uncontacted by your father...survived. You may idolize your father to the point of being willing to lie and exaggerate, Dave, but that won't change the facts there. Your father was not in fact the first white man they had seen in the 20th century. The American Museum of Natural History has collections of WaiWai featherwork and weaving collected in the 1920's from that very village. I'm glad that he tried to help. I am not glad that he completed the destruction of their original belief system for that group. Fortunately, other WaiWai held on to theirs. Your father was simply misguided, as you are, Dave. I doubt that you'd show him these pages of your insane lying, though.

Date: 2006/06/27 09:08:58, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ezekiel tells us that Tyre will come to a dreadful end, that it will be no more forever, never to be rebuilt. Tyre will be sunk into the primeval ocean, never to be found again.

None of this ever happened. The "rock" that was Tyre is now connected to the mainland, forming an isthmus that is chock-full of rubble and debris of thousands of years

It is not underwater at all. It has been continuously inhabited since 1600 BCE. After his conquest of 322, Alexander in fact rebuilt Tyre. Thus,  McDowell (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol. I) has to claim that 1291 AD then becomes the "real" destruction of Tyre, when the Mamluks conquer it...yet it remained and remains inhabited today.  
Joukowsky, Martha Sharp, ed. (1992). The Heritage of Tyre: Essays on the History, Archaeology, and Preservation of Tyre. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Aubet, Maria Eugenia.(1997). The Phoenicians and the West : politics, colonies, and trade. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Lipinski, E., ed. Phoenicia and the Bible (1991) : Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990. Leuven : Departement Orientalistiek : Peeters.

Date: 2006/06/27 09:34:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave now says

Quote
I used a little bit of hyperbole to make the point that Deadman is off his rocker


The only one that's off his rocker here is you, Dave. You lied about me for no reason other than sheer hubris, as I said. You came into this thread preening about yourself, you continuously degraded others and then cried foul when people returned it. You then proceeded to lie utterly about me and others.

I challenged you to cite any place that I lied, Dave, and you rightly ignored that because you can't find any such place. You deliberately falsely claimed that you knew about me, my views on theology, my work, my life, my emotions, even --as if your belief system makes you some kind of prophet or psychic.

Your alligator ego writes checks your mosquito brain can't cash, Dave, so I advise that you get yourself some genuine professional help.

Date: 2006/06/27 10:58:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
First it was show tunes, now it's blatantly salacious talk about bums and winkies.
Yer ALL BANNED, you pizzle-waggin' DarWEENIANS.-dt
Medea, I just met a girl named Medea...and suddenly the name will never sound the same to meeee...

Date: 2006/06/27 11:08:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 27 2006,16:00)
Dave tells us something:

 
Quote
I’d rather see ...thouands of ads for viagra


why doesn't that surprise me that he would need to be on the hunt for Viagra?

Maybe DaveTard1 might want to talk to Limbaugh: Rush Limbaugh, sex tourist?
"He was reportedly returning from the Dominican Republic at the time ...What was Rush doing in the Dominican Republic? Why was he returning from a country known for its thriving sex trade, with a bottle of Viagra that didn’t have his name on it? "

Date: 2006/06/27 12:17:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Argy: Yup. Notice that the noun used in the translation is "circle" ...a flat 2 dimensional object, rather than a sphere.

Isaiah 40:18-23 To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg or khug ) of the earth   Strong's Concordance (no. 2328 & 2329), Holladay’s A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (p97) and Brown Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p295) gives the verbal form of the word as "to draw a circle". The noun is translated as either "circle" or "vault". Young's Literal Translation  Isa 40:22   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....sion=15 also gives "He who is sitting on the circle of the earth."

Compare the Isaiah 40 verse to  Isaiah 22:18 " He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house."

If Isaiah meant to tell us the earth was a globe, he would have used another word (duwr, or possibly duwd [a round pot or basket] or maybe even gulgoleth [skull, roundish object] ). A circle is not a ball, nor is a ball a circle. Everyone knew what a "circle" was in those times; it meant the same then as it means today--a flat 2-dimensional object. This is also why Daniel and Matthew talk about seeing the Earth's farthest bounds and "all the kingdoms of the Earth" from a single vantage point...a feat that would be manifestly impossible from a point on a globe-- but possible on a flat circle.

Date: 2006/06/27 12:22:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
OH, he11, I forgot to add these:
Church Father Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius  (c. 250 -c. 325) found the notion of a round earth  absolutely absurd  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07013.htm#24  " How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps?...is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? or that the things ... hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? (Divine Institutes 3:24)
As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian Cosmas Indicopleustes http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/awiesner/cosmas.html was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book "Christian Topography." Book four is Cosmas' description of the figure of the world, and his refutation of the Pagan (hoi ekso) doctrine of the sphere.

Date: 2006/06/27 15:50:25, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Yes, I plan to show how the forces come together Tuesday.....gotta run.


####, and here I thought GoP would produce a GUT, not just a belly-laugh. (no offense, creeky...and are you the bellah I know? If so, HOWDY, and arrrrrr!!!;)

Date: 2006/06/27 16:00:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let's see...Ezekiel on Tyre..check...Flat Earth...check...Ezekiel on Nebuchadrezzar/Egypt...check.

Yeah, that's some right purty infallibility there.

Date: 2006/06/27 18:48:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
This thread is where AFDave acts retarded, but I haven't seen people address what makes him so much dumber than the others.


  Personally, I think mainly a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," combined with an ego that masks a deep underlying insecurity. Alexander Pope said ""A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
  In other words, Dave's tiny brain is drunk on the commensurately small amount of information it does have, and like a lot of drunks, it tries to pick fights that it can't win, gets beat up and starts fixating again on how much *better it is* than others and how it should be kicking ass, so it gets all wasted again , goes out and gets slapped around over and over.
  To combat that, it excuses itself of any wrongdoing and begins to employ tactics that are flat-out dishonest so it MIGHT "win"
  He practices hard against the local yokels at his church group and figures he can be like the 97-lb weakling that returns to win the girl and kick the big boy's asses--he comes up and poses as a martial artist of the mind, forgetting that the guy with the most scars on his knuckles  and actual *experience*is usually way more dangerous.
  He gets his ass handed to him again and again, but he's too deep in it, so to save face, he's pretending that his busted nose and beaten body = "victory!!!"

That's my view of the boy. Of course, he could be just a lying f-in' idiot

Date: 2006/06/27 19:11:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
The suggestive pictures of rock formations were bad enough.


But, but...NOW what will I do to amuse myself? I thought the phallic rock I posted here was quite demure,almost shy, if I may anthropomorphize.

Oh, and as a relative newbie, I too, welcome wheatdogg and Lenny, not to mention our insect overlords.

wheatdogg: yeah, I think ds was in engineering, probably a BSc, got hired up early on by Dell, got some stock options that made him feel all gnarly and superior, then realized he wasn't really educated. Glen Davidson has a little analysis on this thread that pretty much sums up ol' DaveScot...in fact, it takes in both our little DaveTards.

Date: 2006/06/27 19:43:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'll second Rilke's view that it's arrogance AND stupidity. Ignorance can be cured -- willful stupidity seems to only try to justify itself.
    It's the kind of arrogance that builds on itself in a feedback loop, eventually bringing about people like Pat Robertson or our own C-in-C, these guys step on their own dicks all the time and stumble on, heedless of fixing the problem, if I may be so bold. And I may -- the holy insect overlords granted me permission!!

Date: 2006/06/27 20:17:13, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'll go along with parallel, although the naked mole rats are much more sexah. That is, if you can get them to brush their teeth after all that feces-eating.

I love that article, though. Makes me almost wish I didn't get rid of my ScienceNews subscription. I recall seeing an exhibit of mole rats here at the Los Angeles Zoo a while back, but I was kind of toasted due to escorting a visiting friend around, plus they weren't really active. But here's a treat: The National Zoo has a Naked Mole Rat cam here , the only problem is it requires Windows Media Player. Oops, found another mole rat cam at the Knoxville Zoo : here --also needs WMP

Date: 2006/06/28 08:36:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
DaveTard2, I called you a liar because you are a liar. In the space of one week, you lied multiple times.
 
Quote
1)It's no use debating theological ideas with you because you are not even to first base, i.e. you don't even believe that the God of the Bible exists.
(2)DEADMAN MAKES UP LIES BECAUSE HE CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE SELFLESSNESS OF MISSIONARIES You just have no idea what you are talking about, Deadman. You make things up to try to justify your skepticism and you are obviously miserable in doing so because you blow up and shoot your mouth off a lot.
THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS ACADEMIC MORALIZER
(3)Deadman, I'm talking about you.....You have ZERO firsthand experience with a real jungle tribe  (4)They had NO contact with white people prior to my dad, by the way, at least not in the 20th century.
You lied about every one of those things, Dave.And your best response is  
Quote
So I was almost right. There you go calling me a liar for making a generalization. What's with you people on that?

Well, for one--you didn't make a generalization...you made a specific, falsifiable claim that was shown to be a lie.

You even emphasized your words, saying the WaiWai had  " NO contact with white people prior to my dad...at least not in the 20th century"

Well, that was a lie. You claimed to know something that you did not and could not know. It is not a "generalization," it is a specific claim. Now you say  
Quote
So 30 years before my dad, some white people conatacted them. So I was almost right. There you go calling me a liar for making a generalization. What's with you people on that?
Just as you specifically claimed that I had no actual experience with jungle tribes...Just as you claimed that you KNEW about my theistic views and emotions...but didn't. Just as you claimed that no one had offered you archaeological sites that contradicted the flood and thus, Genesis.

What this means is that it was not just one incident, Dave...in fact, when I went over the pages in this thread, I was counting where you use false claims, deception, lies, shifting goalposts, etc.--and I counted over 15 of those in the first 15 pages. This is a pattern of deliberate deception, Dave.

There is no doubt in my mind that you are quite aware that in order to say you "know" something, you have to show that you DO "know" that thing...and there is no way on Earth you could "know" about my experience with the Maya. Just as you could NOT know about whites contacting the WaiWai...but in both cases, you made flat assertions, claims that were based on ...what? Nothing, and you KNEW it... These are examples of knowing lies.

As far as your claims on Tyre: Tyre never vanished beneath the waves, as required. The city was rebuilt after Alexander razed it's defensive walls and sacked it. It was still Tyre. It was not a bare rock forever, as required.

As for your claims on Nebuchadrezzar: Nebuchadrezzar kept records of his conquests, and there is no mention of his conquering the valley of Egypt. The wikipedia article you mention says this:  
Quote
Having completed the subjugation of Phoenicia, and inflicted chastisement on Egypt, Nebuchadrezzar ...set himself to rebuild and adorn the city of Babylon
Note that Phoenicia is "conquered" and Egypt is "chastised" ...two different things. This was in 568-567 BCE, during the reign of Amasis II. The Babylonian empire under Nebuchadrezzar extended only to the Egyptian border. "Chastise" is not "conquer'

Ezekiel says that Egypt would become a wasteland, its cities destroyed and inhabitants killed, filling the land with the slain. This didn't happen at all, there is no 40-year break in the Egyptian records as demanded by Ezekiel.  

Amasis II ruled over Egypt for another generation-- a very  prosperous Egypt-- and lived to see Nebuchadrezzar die in 562 BCE. No Egyptians were scattered or dispersed. Aahmes (Amasis II) went on to conquer Cyprus and make an alliance with Cyrene, marrying Ladice. He was allies with Croesus of Lydia and his friendship with Polycrates of Samos is the subject of the well-known "story of the ring" told by Herodotus

Your own source only mentions a small outlying bit of land near the Red Sea being taken. More importantly, any conquest of the valley of Egypt would show up in the records, just as we know that the Hyksos, Persians  and the Nubians actually DID take the valley at different times.

As to the flat earth of the bible, I gave references, complete with proper translations from 3 different dictionaries.

As to your claim that I support C.S. Lewis' "universal morals" nonsense. You want to claim that because I personally sympathize with children, that this means universal? Wrong. I am in favor of legalized first trimester abortion and recognize it as killing cells--I recognize that other people see that as "wrong." I also recognize that hundreds of cultures around the world do not see killing children as wrong, while others DO see it as "wrong". As I mentioned, the WaiWai don't believe children HAVE a permanent soul until they are three years old. "This kind of infanticide is found in hundreds of cultures around the world. Solomon Islands, East and West Africa, North and South America, Europe and Asia. The Greeks and Romans practiced this form of infanticide, as do Asian Indians and Chinese to this day. In fact, The United States has one of the highest murder rate for children in the world, too. Where is that Universal Morality, when people across the world saw it as a good thing to kill off children selectively?"

Date: 2006/06/28 08:49:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
But, but, but, informational entities form molecular bonds in information space, and planets...  combine just like hydrogen atoms to form an analogue to the hydrogen molecule, with the 2 "S subshells" making a bonding orbital. This is gravity, and it comes from the informational bonding blueprint. The antibonding orbital stays trapped in information space, but the bonding orbital exists as gravity in realspace. I'll try to explain this later.


Uh, no you won't. You can't even formalize this coherently. "Information space, informational bonding, informational entities" are all undefined and imaginary, without any validity even theoretically by you. You might as well jump to the part where you say " Goddidit"

Date: 2006/06/28 09:28:22, Link
Author: deadman_932
I want to clarify Dave's tactics on C.S. Lewis' claims of "universal morality" as he presented it originally on pages 14-16 of this thread.
    Basically, Dave is attempting to say " heads I win, tails you lose." If I say that I think Dave is reprehensible for terrorizing kids with threats of he11 and eternal damnation, he seizes on that as a "universal moral" precept...but when I point out that Dave himself doesn't follow that precept ( instead, he continues to terrorize kids)...he shifts the argument to claims about "killing kids" --bait and switch.
    Now, in the last few pages here, Dave has said that he would in fact kill children if commanded to, and this was not wrong in his eyes. I disagree and would in fact prevent this from happening if I saw it--if neccessary,  by sending Dave to the bosom of his evil god. Note also that I don't believe that all Christians think as evilly as Dave, nor do I claim Dave's god is the same as the God of others. Dave's god is more a reflection of his own screwed up mind.
    At any rate, Dave wants to have his cake and eat it too, he wants to pretend that there is in fact a universal moral "code" concerning the treatment of children/infants, etc., while simultaneously *denying* that others simply don't practice the same treatment of children-- as I noted, there are multitudes of groups/cultures that have and do practice infanticide willingly, without viewing it as "evil."  
    C.S. Lewis knew he was wrong in this claim and stopped making it after J.R.R. Tolkein and others pointed out the flaws in his reasoning and how he was glossing over the data contained in the work of people like Sir James Frazier. But Dave thinks he can play both sides of the net in this game. Again, symptomatic of Dave's innate dishonesty.

Date: 2006/06/28 10:33:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
Eric, Cory: Yeah, I think in most ways, Dave's arguments and vaccillation between points reflect the cognitive dissonance brought on by Epicurus' trilemma :
(1) Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot or;
(2) he can, but does not want to or;
(3) he cannot, and does not want to.
If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is both powerless and wicked. But if an *all-loving* God can abolish "evil," and God really wants to do it, Why is there "evil" in the world?

    Dembski, in a PDF he posted about this "problem of evil" basically said that evil pre-existed mankind, but Man brought evil ONTO this existence by disobeying god in "the garden." He views evil as "good" because suffering is the only way to *really* show love...The only way to really let a person know you love them is be willing to suffer for them, and it brings you closer to God by showing you what not to do.
    I replied to Dembski, in a post that was not allowed...that a valid analogy to his argument would be : The belt preceded the birth of children, but because the first child born in a family disobeyed his Daddy -- that Daddy took out the belt and is now beating his other 6 children daily for the disobedience of the firstborn--sometimes beating them to death.
    But this is *good* because the daily beatings really show how much the kids love Daddy and it teaches them what not to do, even though they did no wrong in the first place.
    Utter insanity.

Date: 2006/06/28 18:21:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
It's not just dense, it's depleted Uranium Dense

Date: 2006/06/28 19:04:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
Imagine a group of frozen embryos on an interstellar ship are sent to an Earthlike planet--there they are  brought to term and "born" with the aid of some non-speaking robots that then re-enter the ship and leave once the children are old enough to feed themselves.

Which book would serve best to inform the children and ensure their survival--the Bible or a single-volume encyclopedia of sciences?  Explain your choice. This essay question is worth 1/3 your grade total.

Date: 2006/06/29 02:50:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
Laser: yeah, there was one thread here just for Larry, but he really has slowed down. It IS still amusing reading the guy, along with DaveScotTard et al.

Date: 2006/06/29 10:26:41, Link
Author: deadman_932
I doubt you'll actually read this, Dave--anymore than you actually read the "article" that you posted, showing the exact opposite of what you claimed it said. Personally, I view that little episode as symptomatic of your entire view of the world and history and science, Dave.

Think about what it took for you to post that article --
(1) You see the article and grasp on to it in a fit of excitement, and manage to overlook what it actually says in that self-congratulatory egotistic ecstasy of yours.
(2) You copy and paste it , probably onto notepad..again, not really reading it
(3) You re-paste it here, complete with bold caps proclaiming " ONLY ONE STUDENT IN TEN BELIEVES THE 'EVO-MALARKEY.' "  You move to the bottom of the pasted material and add a "kicker" saying : "Students are smart enough to decide for themselves if it's true or not.  Just the exposure will go a LONG ways toward ridding the Planet of Evo-Nonsense!!! I love it!!!!!!!!! "
(4) You hit "add reply" and sit back, preening about how this will really "get" those nasty evil people that pointed out how much you lie...And you get slapped with your own stupidity again.

This kind of willful blindness, this cognitive filtering, this aphasia...shows the depths to which you are willing to skew reality...to yourself... and it is a defensive mechanism.

Earlier, stevestory was ruminating on what made you the way you are, Dave, so I asked a friend of mine that's a psychologist (doctorate from Stanford) to look over your posts here and she's reasonably sure that you have mild dyslexia and you're likely bipolar, with deep insecurities masked by delusions of grandeur. She ran down a list of traits that you exhibit:
(1) Compartmentalization--You repeatedly lie, twist, and "cheat" while posting in multiple places how religion changed you and made you a person that rises above such things. When you are shown to be a liar, you excuse yourself and wall off these things, maintaining your views while remaining unconscious of the cognitive dissonance
(2) Compensation -- counterbalancing perceived weaknesses by emphasizing strength in other arenas. Your science is weak at best, so you retreat to claims of religious superiority, and when you are shown wrong (As in the case of Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar, your claims on Babel and the flood)...you jump back to other defenses like;
(3) Denial-- refusing to accept reality and to act as if a painful event, idea or emotion-- did not exist. This is considered one of the most primitive of the defense mechanisms and is characteristic of early childhood disturbances.
(4) Projection --attributing your undesired impulses/behaviors/ideas onto others.
I could go on...Fantasy ( your fanciful claims about what I thought of your father), Rationalization (your claims about Tyre and Nebuchadrezzar aren't really wrong, they'll be proved right in the future), "Undoing"  --attempting to take back behavior or thoughts that are unacceptable..such as lies or insults which you rationalize away. It goes on and on.

Personally, I don't really care if YOU get help, Dave, but I do pity your family and those people that have to directly deal with your problems. Will you take this seriously? Probably not, but eventually disaster will strike and you'll be forced to deal with yourself. Or maybe not, and you can go on to screw over a new generation of kids with claims that are demonstrably false and will retard their growth emotionally and intellectually...passing on the torch, as it were. Demon-haunted world , indeed

Date: 2006/06/29 11:00:11, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ah, well, I'm sure you'll try to fob off what I wrote, Dave. You'll make what you think is a witty remark and overlook that the proof is in the pudding.

Go back 10 pages ( never mind the preceding 80+) and look at how many times you were shown to be utterly wrong, Dave. Look at your most recent claims...things that are demonstrably false like :    
Quote
Never mind also that archaeology, which is a highly regarded method of verifying historical events, is mute on events before about 5500 BC
This despite your inability to deal with the sites you were offered, sites that are not dated radiometrically, sites that are not shown false by the highly selective dendrology claims of the "expert" you posted.  

Things like :

 
Quote
The Tyre prophecy admittedly has some points that can be construed one way or the other, and the Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt prophecy does not have much in the way of historical verification. But it should be noted that at many times in recent history, skeptics have argued that Bible prophecy is false...simply because archaeology was silent at that time
When the reality is that nothing in archaeology will overturn the facts about Tyre *not* sinking beneath the sea and that Amasis II continued to rule Egypt when the bible said it was supposed to be a deserted wasteland for 40 years.

Things like:  
Quote
I claim that we examine as much evidence as we can for the historicity of the Bible... Then we examine the prophecy and find amazing accuracy as well
See above

Things like  
Quote
So here are the rules He made, and we have to live with, like it or not ...
* Murdering children is immoral for individuals, as is murdering any human 3) The Universal Moral Code exists and is evident in many ways, including the fact that all people everywhere view the killing of children as a horrible thing
Aztec, Incan, Phoenician, Chinese, Greek, Celtic, Minoan Crete all sacrificed children. They did not view it as "evil," they saw it as good, and in fact the Aztec sacrifices were treated with reverence and often went willingly and joyfully to their deaths. I also gave you information on infanticide, particularly among those cultures that don't view children as being human until they are past a specific age...like the WaiWai, many cultures don't believe that children have souls or spirits that MAKE them human until they are two, three or more years old. Furthermore, "murder" (as opposed to mere killing) is a legal-political term referring to unlawful killing. The sheer fact that many non-christian cultures viewed killing children as murder...shows that legal systems can arise without the word of your god, it also shows that human groups don't like behaviors that fracture their own groups and leave them vulnerable.

Here, we arrive at the crux of the matter concerning C.S. Lewis' frankly ignorant claims...claims that he stopped using after his fellows pointed out how wrong and deliberately blind he was, Dave...unlike you, Lewis seems to have had some sense of honor in that respect.
The fact is that IN-GROUP lying, being traitorous, random murder...cause the destruction of the social systems in a culture...thus, they disintegrate and don't ENTER into history. Lewis initially claimed that this could not arise "naturally," that it had to be supernatural...yet it is not, as the examples given show.

Let me give you one small example, Dave. The Ik tribe. Go look them up. Granted, when Colin Turnbull first described the Ik, they were undergoing famine and stress, much like the WaiWai were undergoing stress...but the fact remains that the Ik, AFTER the famine, continued to cast out their children that are three years old. This behavior also PRECEDED the famine/drought. Those children are left to fend for themselves and form age-groups for defense. Lying to OUTSIDERS is quite often a good thing within groups...consider the Khoi-San, or the dozens of Amerind tribes whose most common term for "stranger" also means "enemy." You simply don't know what you're talking about in any of the instances above, Dave, But you'll shrug that off and pretend that you're right, anyway---using one or more of the defensive mechanisms you've cultivated so carefully.

Date: 2006/06/30 07:10:11, Link
Author: deadman_932
AFDave: your interest here is not merely    
Quote
IS THERE  ... or ... ISN'T THERE ... a Creator God?
your interest is also in attempting to twist known science or negate it in favor of your hypothesis.

My interest, and I suspect it is true of others who do so well in showing you wrong--is to prevent you from perverting science.

As to lying. You gave a definition that includes "intent to deceive." Well, you did intend to deceive at many points, and as I stated, this pattern of deception is evident throughout this thread.

Specific examples of your intent to deceive include:  

(1) Deliberately, intentionally constructing false quotes ( quote mining).

(2) Making deliberate claims with the intent to assert things that are not true -- and could not **POSSIBLY** be known to be true by you -- your claims about my religious views, work and your claim that the waiwai were not visited by Europeans in the 20th c. prior to your father.

(3) Your continued use of "prophecies" that are demonstrably false like that of Nebuchadnezzar and Egypt are also intended to deceive. The intent is to assert the infallibility of the bible, and the deception is in saying that known facts will be subverted or overturned by future possible finds. There is no way for archaeology to show that Tyre really IS under the ocean...it ISN'T....there is no way for archaeology to show that Amasis II did NOT continue to rule...when he did, and others wrote about his marriage and his alliances and his conquests and the fact that he outlived Nebuchadrezzar.

We have written records of Herodotus and others saying ..Amasis II continued to rule in Egypt, Dave...but  your criteria on written records suddenly change there?

The archaeology supports only that view and none is found contradicting it, but you continue to assert this as a fulfilled prophecy. This is indeed deliberate intentional deception.

As the lawyers like to say:  "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnes." I don't particularly enjoy using that one, so--

I'll settle for "once a liar, always a suspected liar."

Date: 2006/06/30 07:27:47, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
But not so with the Bible.  Many an archaeologist would have loved for the Bible to be proven false, but it has been proven accurate instead.


All that is needed to disprove the contention that all geese are white...is to show one black goose. Uncontrovertible examples of false claims in the bible have already been given. The flood will be another.

And by the way, why haven't you shown how YOU constructed your "5000-year-old flood" chronology, Dave? Don't tell me to look at some website...it doesn't show the method of construction. Try explaining it yourself, here.

Date: 2006/06/30 07:51:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
Your original claim was :  "The Universal Moral Code exists and is evident in many ways, including the fact that all people everywhere view the killing of children as a horrible thing"
I gave you information on how the Aztec, Incan, Phoenician, Chinese, Greek, Celtic, Minoan Crete cultures all sacrificed children. They did not view it as "evil," they saw it as good, I could list hundreds that engage in infanticide of various kinds, from every continent except Antarctica.
So you switched your claim  to  
Quote
"My whole point is that while some cultures exalted the sacrifice of children, there was some overriding reason for doing so. It was not a natural thing for them..No human being naturally kills children without some huge, overriding reason for doing so. And it is this instinct that I am speaking of when I talk about Universal Moral Codes. Something was dreadfully wrong with those cultures for them to become so hardened that they would voluntarily kill their children."

Each of those cultures I initially listed either sacrificed to the gods or they wanted better lives for their other children, or they didn't view infants as fully human. The list of other primates that engage in infanticide besides human is extensive as well...baboons, langurs, howlers, chimps, etc. etc. And humans. I see people killing children in various ways every day, Dave. Religious nuts like you help in the process, too.
Harris, Marvin ( 1999) Our Kind: Who We Are, Where We Came From, and Where We Are Going. New York: Harper Collins.
Barlett, TQ, Sussman RW, and Cheverud JM (1993) Infant killing in primates: A review of observed cases with specific reference to the sexual selection hypothesis. American Anthropologist, 95:958-990
Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (1999)  Mother Nature A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection. Pantheon, New York
Hausfater, G. and S. Hrdy, eds (1984). Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives. New York: Aldine Publishing Co
Boone, James L. (1992) Competition, conflict, and the development of hierarchies. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, ed. E. A. Smith and B. Winterhalder, pp. 301-337. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter

Date: 2006/06/30 08:02:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hmmm..once again Dave is gone from the user list...no doubt hoping that the page will fill up and he won't have to respond to the questions and observations posted.

Date: 2006/06/30 08:46:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
What I want to know is why you DarWEENIANS are disparaging Denyse O'Leary--she's HAWT.

I'd like a bite of that tart, plz.

Date: 2006/06/30 08:59:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
Gribbin and Cherfas = " The First Chimpanzee" (Barnes and Nobel Books, 2003)  

Jared Diamond = " The Third Chimpanzee" (Harpercollins; 1st ed 1992)

I just mixed those up last month ???

Oh, and bonobos? HAWT!

Date: 2006/06/30 09:38:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
Why aren't you responding to my comments on your lying, your demonstrably false prophecies and my question on how you constructed your 5000-year-old flood chronology, Dave?

And again, don't try to point me to some website that doesn't have precise methods by which the chronology was constructed.

Date: 2006/06/30 09:52:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
In the Egyptian inscriptions the Hittites, who had apparently conquered Syria, first appear in the reign of Thothmes III. (1503-1449), when they received their first decisive reverse. Mentions of the Hittites continue to the period of Ramses III.
There is a gap of almost a century in the history of the Hittites after their defeat by Rameses III. About 1100, however, they became the enemies of the Assyrians. The first expedition of Tiglathpileser I. was undertaken against them. He forced his way through Kummukh, or Commagene, as far as Malatiyeh, and penetrated to Carchemish.
The inscriptions of Van, dating from the ninth and eighth centuries B.C., contain several allusions to expeditions against the Hittites. In the ninth century the Vannic king Menuas plundered the Hittite cities Surisilis and Tarkhi-gamas, and later forced his way to Malatiyeh, setting up a triumphal inscription at Palu on the northern bank of the Euphrates, the eastern boundary of the Hittite territory
The Hittites are mentioned by Herodotus (who speaks of them as "Syrians"), Strabo  (who calls them "White Syrians" [AËåõêüóõñïé], localizing them about Mount Taurus and the Black Sea)
http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Hittites

The point being that even if the bible never existed, there would be other records for archaeologists to work from...contradicting your claim that it is only the bible that mentions Hittites as a people.

Date: 2006/06/30 10:39:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Explain to me the valence band of a planet. Show me the Van der Waals interactions of a pile of rocks.


Why, it's all contained in the magic information space, or maybe it's that the "Kleinjunction fractures and reconfigures some of the traditional Quantum properties"
:O

Date: 2006/06/30 12:45:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dear Dumbass Dave:
First you say :
   
Quote
Wow ... you're a tough one to make happy. What criteria? Let's see ... how about whether the data are consistent with what I read in my history book - the Bible? How do you argue with that? Examples: the Bible talks about Hittites.

Then you say :
   
Quote
My examples were not previously known OUTSIDE the Bible and there are many, many more.


Now you say :

   
Quote
Deadman thinks I said the Bible is the only source that mentions the Hittites ...


More Importantly, DaveTard2:    
Quote
Why aren't you responding to my comments on your lying, your demonstrably false prophecies and my question on how you constructed your 5000-year-old flood chronology, Dave?

And again, don't try to point me to some website that doesn't have precise methods by which the chronology was constructed.

Date: 2006/06/30 12:59:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (Shirley Knott @ June 30 2006,17:15)
Well, Dave, thanks for explaining why you are here.
Scepticism about the real world is typically considered nihilism; imagine my surprise to find you a nihilist.
Ha.



Or a solipsist that has created his own little god in his own f_ed-up image. Hugs to you, Shirl

Date: 2006/06/30 13:43:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Yes, I read it way back when it first came out. It's bunk. The book appeared about the same time that Sibley and Ahlquist [1984] analyzed the DNA of humans, chimps , gorillas and orangutans using hybridization.

Schwartz basically puts all his money on morphology and his ..."unique" interpretations of australopiths and ramapiths/sivapiths among others. Look at his "chart" on the link you posted and he cherry-picks a bunch of osteomorphic, dental, and other characters and ..blah

He's simply wrong. He might buy his own crap, but I can't think of anyone else that does at this point.

Date: 2006/06/30 15:30:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I just wish I could quit seeing all these Planet of the Apes images.
"Oh, Ardennnnn.....Hi there, Big boy, is that a banana in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"              

Date: 2006/06/30 16:50:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
HAWT!
.

Date: 2006/06/30 17:40:11, Link
Author: deadman_932
Salvador Cordova seems engaged in a large-scale propaganda campaign over at MacNeill's Cornell U. Evo./ID class  blog site. I'll take a chance and say it takes a month of his preachy attempts at "authority" before he irritates even the ID-ers.

Date: 2006/06/30 20:53:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
You seem to view this as some sort of game, Dave. I don't. If I am wrong, I say so. If you are wrong, as you were with so many things that I have mentioned...you fail to address it, pretend not to understand, or otherwise engage in avoidance.

I'll walk you through this slowly, Dave, since you seem to need that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Part I.
Dave makes a claim, repeatedly:      
Quote
Wow ... you're a tough one to make happy. What criteria? Let's see ... how about whether the data are consistent with what I read in my history book - the Bible? How do you argue with that? We go out and do some digging and see if we can find Hittites.  Voila!  There they are.

My examples were not previously known OUTSIDE the Bible and there are many, many more.

Look at what you said, Dave..."My examples were not previously known outside the Bible."

Okay, Dave, Let's see what I said in response:    
Quote
The point being that even if the bible never existed, there would be other records for archaeologists to work from...contradicting your claim that it is only the bible that mentions Hittites as a people.

Now, why do you have a problem with that, Dave? The Egyptian inscriptions predate any known Old Testament Translations that were in the west or anywhere outside the Levant. Herodotus, too wrote of them as "Syrians" at the correct time frame when the Hittites ( they called them selves  "Neshili" ) occupied that region. The Assyrians wrote of them prior to any wide distribution of the OT as well. So why do you say that they were unknown outside the Bible?

The only reason I can think of is that you claim "Europeans " did not know of them prior to Sayce linking together relevant data from PREVIOUS discoveries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Part II
1)  The first archaeological evidence for the Hittites appeared in tablets found at the Assyrian colony of Kültepe in east-central modern Turkey, containing records of trade between Assyrian merchants and a certain "land of Hatti". These Tablets were found by locals and taken to various markets to be sold to Orientalists during the mid-1800's. The mounds themselves were not excavated by archaeologists until the 1890's by Ernst Chantre. Kultepe has been shown to be a major trade center from the Bronze age on (2500-2100, Levels III-IV) BCE.

2)  Next comes the discovery of an inscription at Boðazköy  Turkey by a "People of Hattusas" discovered by William Wright in 1874. This was found to match inscriptions from Aleppo and Hamath in Northern Syria -- previously described as well, by Sir Richard Burton and others.

3)  In 1887, excavations at Tell El-Amarna in Egypt uncovered "letters" between two Egyptian rulers (Pharaoh Amenhotep III  and his son Akhenaton) and "The Kingdom of Kheta"  that was apparently located in the same region as the "land of Hatti"

4)  THEN, in  1880,  Rev. Archibald "Archie" Sayce began to try to decipher the hieroglyphic scripts found at Aleppo and Hamath in northern Syria that matched the script on a monument at Boghazkoy. In 1882, in a lecture to the Society of Biblical Archaeology in London, he announced that the Hittites, far from being a small Canaanite tribe who dealt with the kings of the northern kingdom of Israel, were the people of a "lost Hittite empire," which previously known Egyptian texts were then bringing to light.

Okay...that's how the EUROPEAN timeline goes...but the fact is that Herodotus, the Egyptians and Assyrians all knew of the Hittites. So how can they be "unknown" outside the Bible?

Also, you say      
Quote
This has nothing to do with additional, later discovered references to the Hittites, and I never said that there were no subsequently discovered references, did I now?

Dave, the references I gave PREDATE Sayce, both chronologically in History and in academia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1)Yes, Sayce linked them together...but please name 2 scholars of that time prior to Sayce that disbelieved that the Hittites ever existed?
 
2) Look at what the bible says about the Hittites. They are mentioned a total of 48 times and called the "Children of Heth" in translation. They are said to dwell in the mountains in the heart of Palestine (Num. 13:29), or In Josh. 1:4 the Hittite territory stretches from Lebanon and the wilderness to the Euphrates. Despite this discrepancy between the heart of the Hittite empire in Turkey and the furthest extent of the "Neo-Hittites" (Luwians) to the BORDER of "Canaan" I know of NO 19th-century "scholars" PRIOR to Sayce's work that said they believed the "Hethians" did not exist. You said otherwise, Dave..      
Quote
The whole point is ... skeptics of the 19th century thought the Bible was in error about the Hittite nation.

3) Finally, there is indeed dispute TODAY about whether the Hittites of Anatolia are the "HRY" of the OT. Some people have conjectured that the Biblical Hittites could actually be Hurrian tribes living in Palestine, and that the Hebrew word for the Hurrians (HRY in consonant-only script) became the name of the Hittites (HTY) due to a scribal error.      
Quote
Biblical scholars before the age of archaeology traditionally regarded them as a smaller tribe, living in the hills of Canaan during the era of the Patriarchs. This picture was completely changed by the archaeological finds that placed the center of the Hatti/Hattusas civilization far to the north, in modern-day Turkey. Because of this perceived discrepancy and other reasons, some Biblical scholars reject Sayce's identification of the two people, and believe that the similarity in names is only a coincidence. In order to stress this distinction, E. A. Speiser called the Biblical "Hittites" Hethites in his translation of the Book of Genesis for the Anchor Bible Series.


The Hittite kingdom is conventionally divided into three periods, the Old Hittite Kingdom (ca. 1750–1500 BC), the Middle Hittite Kingdom (ca. 1500–1430 BC) and the New Hittite Kingdom (the Hittite Empire proper, ca. 1430–1180 BC).

Date: 2006/07/01 03:00:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
As I said, they were known outside the bible. You merely choose to claim that only europeans counted, I suppose. This is not MY fault that you make silly claims, Dave..it is yours. "My examples were not previously known OUTSIDE the Bible ." is something I chose to take literally. I cannot read minds. You say "Of course, nations contemporary with the Hittites heard of them, fought with them, traded with them, etc. and I'm sure their memory lasted for many centuries after they fell from greatness." My point was other WRITTEN records existed, Dave, look at what I posted  
Quote
The point being that even if the bible never existed, there would be other records for archaeologists to work from...contradicting your claim that it is only the bible that mentions Hittites as a people.



Furthermore,Wrights work predates Sayce's and in fact HE was the first to link The Anatolian finds to the Hethians of the bible.He had discussed the inscriptions found on the Hamath stones he helped recover, in an article in the "British and Foreign Evangelical Review," published in 1874.

Sayce merely got credit for it because he had credentials in Assyriology. And you're simply wrong again when you say that Sayce "couldn't get published" He didn't TRY TO. He gave oral presentations FIRST, as was the custom. His work led to wide acceptance almost immediately. Your claim that
Quote
These scholars didn't believe him.  Why do you think Sayce's two papers didn't get published?

Is blatantly false...name ANYONE FROM THAT TIME WHO SAID THE HITTITES DID NOT EXIST AS YOU CLAIMED, DAVE.

And I cannot find ANYONE of **that*** time period OR BEFORE...that didn't "believe" the "Hittites" existed. You name people from the TWENTIETH century, not the 1800's, as you initially said:  
Quote
The whole point is ... skeptics of the 19th century thought the Bible was in error about the Hittite nation.


WELL? NAME A SCHOLAR OF THE 1880's or previous that said what you claimed, Dave.

You made several claims, Dave...one was that the Hittites were unknown outside the bible...this is false both from the point of view of non-europeans AND europeans...HERODOTUS was already translated. Your claims about scholars disputing the HIttites at the time of Sayce is also false.

There are no disputes until the turn of the century as people begin working on the LANGUAGES of the peoples involved...the Hittites in Anatolia and the Hethians of the later "Luwian" Neo-hittites.

You can try and be as smug as you wish, Dave, but the fact is that you are wrong about your claims here. The bible was NOT the only written work to mention the Hittites.

Date: 2006/07/01 03:09:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
This is also a false claim, Dave:

Quote
How did Sayce and Wright even KNOW about the Hittites to go search for them?


They didn't go "search " for them...they were led to UNKNOWN inscriptions that they LATER CONNECTED to the Hethians of the Bible...not the other way around as you imply (wrongly , again)

Quote
I showed you the reluctance of scholars at Oxford to accept Sayce's papers.


Uh, no you didn't...you just asserted it falsely. Again, name one scholar who disagreed at that time. And show that Sayce "could not" get published as you claimed. This is simply more "embellishment" on your part.

The disagreements don't arise until far later, Dave. The Initial presentations by Sayce were VERY well recieved and he had no problem publishing.

Date: 2006/07/01 03:16:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
This is the sort of claim that shows how truly dishonest you are, Dave:
Quote
1) Tyre and 2) Nebuchadnezzar and Egypt.  I showed you on both of them how they were in fact fulfilled, though I admitted their is some room for different interpretation.  But there is no way you can say, 'Look these two prophecies never came true.  The Bible is wrong.


Anyone can look back on the last three pages and see me asking you to address this specifically. Tyre did not vanish beneath the sea, and it was never a bare rock. Nebuchadrezzar did not take the Nile valley. Period. It was not a wasteland for 40 years...the Egyptians just kept right on going, Dave...

See, Dave, I don't mince words and say silly crap like the Hittites were "not known outside the bible"  then turn around and say " oh, I meant by EUROPEANS" while still forgetting that Herodotus was ...er...Greek...which I assume still counts as European.

Date: 2006/07/01 03:31:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
OH, and on your claim about Jericho, Dave? You should know that it was KENYON who said the walls didn't exist, and by the way, you DO have the dates wrong for Kenyon's work and chronology. It wasn't " the Italians" who made the claim, idiot.

And again, just to drive home the point about Sayce's publications in the 1880's, Dave:

Monuments of the Hittites (1881)
Herodotus i-ui. (1883) << pay attention to that one, stupid
Ancient Empires of the East (1884)
Introduction to Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (1885)
Assyria (1885)
Hibbert Lectures on Babylonian Religion (1887)
The Hittites (1889)

Date: 2006/07/01 04:01:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
Show  how you arrived at your date for the global flood, Dave. Be precise

Don't point me to a web site that doesn't show precisely how the chronology was constructed. Do it here in your own words.

Date: 2006/07/01 04:06:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Okay, Dave, what did the scholars of the 1880's believe the Bible was in error about concerning the Hittites? And yeah, I'd like at least ONE name from that period. Got one? NO

So you say I was wrong about this, Dave? What was I wrong about? BE PRECISE.

Was it that I should have read your mind to "know" that you were talking ONLY about europeans when you said that the Hittites were not known outside the Bible?

Was it that I was wrong about Scholars of the 1880's NOT disputing that the Hittites existed?

What EXACTLY was I wrong about?

Date: 2006/07/01 04:13:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and this is just for you, on Jericho and Kathleen Kenyon, Dumbass Dave:

Kathleen Kenyon undertook the decisive work of clarifying Jericho’s history from the Neolithic age on. In several painstaking campaigns she lifted one veil after another from the city of legend and history. She was not led by any theory about the time. She  noted 15 different destructive episodes in the Bronze Age remains.She disagreed with Garstang's dating, and dated the destruction he had found close on 1000 years earlier. She did find a much later destruction but concluded it was circa 1550. From 1550 to about 1200 the site was virtually a ghost town and even after 1200 it was inhabited for some time on a modest scale. Kenyon's conclusions while by no means undisputed are the current orthodoxy among archeologists. “It is a sad fact”, wrote Miss Kenyon, “that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains. . . . As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C.” Professor Martin Noth pointed to the Jericho discrepancy as the best and most decisive proof of the unreliable character of the historical parts of the Old Testament. It became a major issue for Old Testament studies. When Professor Wright of Harvard expressed himself as trusting the historical truth of Old Testament records, he was accosted by Professor Finkelstein of Los Angeles University with reference to the walls of Jericho that were in ruins long before the Israelites reached them.  Indeed some archeologists such as Bill Dever are scathing about the historicity of Joshua's capture: "...if you want a miracle, here's your miracle: Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there". See:  Kathleen Kenyon (1957). Digging Up Jericho.


NOW I'LL ASK AGAIN, DAVE...HOW DID YOU ARRIVE AT A 5000 BCE-YEAR- OLD FLOOD DATE? BE PRECISE AND DON'T POINT ME TO ANY WEB SITE THAT DOES NOT HAVE PRECISE METHODS BY WHICH SUCH A CHRONOLOGY WAS CONSTRUCTED

Date: 2006/07/01 05:11:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
1) How did you construct your 5000 BCE-year-old flood chronology, DumbassDave? Don't point me to a website that doesn't have precise methods showing this.

2) You put up a pretty picture of the Grand Canyon, Dave. If all the strata were layed down at once, why do we find animal tracks in the Coconino sandstone?

3) That li'l kid's painting of the Ark is hilarious. Perfectly suited to you, Dave.

4) What EXACTLY was I wrong about concerning the Hittites, Dave? You have yet to mention any one "disputing" anything about the Hittites prior to the 1880's or during that time. Your "reference" is for the 1900's.

5) You must be really mad about me proving your intentional lies here, Dave, if you have to strain so hard to try to discredit me. Seriously...claiming the hittites were unknown outside the bible,...then claiming you ONLY meant "by Europeans?"  and ignoring that herodotus and strabo are greek, hence not asian or african? Will your next modification of your claim be "I meant only Europeans after 1500 years CE? "(CE= common era, stupid)

6) HOW DID you construct that flood chronology, Dave? Pulled it out of your ass, huh?

You are trying to avoid citing your methods  because the reason you CHOSE that date...was to try avoid archaeology and say the only thing that counts is written records. You MADE UP that date, disregarding the Bible , Dave:) :D  :)

Date: 2006/07/01 05:38:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Animal tracks in the coconino sandstone, tsk... How many layers were deposited by " the flood of 5000 BCE" Dave? How could there be animal tracks ...if it was all under water? And by the way, Dave...how DID you construct that chronology?

Date: 2006/07/01 08:55:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave Says:
Quote
There may be some missing generations which would stretch the chronology.  No one can be sure how many, but there is an upper limit.  Bottom line?  Whether it occurred in 6000 or 5000 or 4000 or 3000 BC is of no consequence to the Biblical record.  


Oh, but it is of consequence, Dave. You see, the reason you extended that "chronology" was because people pointed out that known groups lived through that. So you chose to "extend" that chronology out to 5000 BCE, dave...arbitrarily.

There is nothing in the Bible that supports your claim of missing generations, dave, certainly not on the order of DOUBLING the standard date of the flood from 2350 to 5000 BCE or more.

What this means is you're ignoring what the Bible DOES say to try and claim ..that "missing" generations count more, even though you cannot show them "missing" at all. In short, you are doing precisely what you told others not to do, Dave---you are IMPOSING your unsupported view...on the Bible itself. Hypocrite.

Beyond MERELY being a liar ( Yes, I demonstrated that you are a DELIBERATE liar) now you're playing fast and loose with the Bible itself, trying to INSERT your chronology into a bible in which it won't fit.

This is why you can't even TRY to say "HOW" you "created " your chronology...you're making it up out of thin air without support FROM the bible. This is the equivalent of someone saying "adam and eve were Martians" and when you open the bible in outrage to refute it, the person says "I don't care what's IN the bible, I know that this information was LEFT OUT."

Your weaseling and lying is hilarious, Dave. Much
as is any claim you have left to honesty. Scumbag.
This is a fallacy of the highest order, worthy of the lowest scum such as yourself, Dave.

Date: 2006/07/01 09:24:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Again, Dave, Let me be quite clear -- I asked you this on page 11 of this thread:  
Quote
AFDave: I asked a very simple question yesterday. I will ask it again. When did this global flood described in genesis happen? What date BCE? Don't avoid this simple question, dave, just deal with it.


That was the same page that you compared yourself to Newton and Maxwell, Dave...and YOU answered on page 12:  
Quote
A good guess for the Flood of Noah is probably somewhere between 2000 and 3000 BC

It was at that point that *I* said this:
Quote
I'm glad you said that, Dave,because that agrees with what the Bible says, when one works backwards ( or forwards) using the dates and lifespans given. But there's a problem, Dave: Your whole edifice of cards balances on this one point: that the Bible is absolutely true. Yet you admit that the Global flood, wiping out all things on the face of the Earth...happened at between 2000-3000 BCE.

And I proceeded to list civilizations...with written records...that lived through that date, Dave.

That is what caused you to alter your claim, Davey-hypocrite..

When you saw that, and other people pounded it home to you, Davey, you *invented a new chronology*...based on WHAT in the bible? ....why, NOTHING...you invent "missing generations" that have NO basis in any Biblical statements...2700 YEARS of generations, DOUBLING your original claim.

You did that SOLELY because you wanted to make this ridiculous claim about all archaeology prior to your arbitrary date being invalid, and only written works count.

So you had to push the FLOOD back to 5000 BCE and your pushed your "creation of the world" back ...to 10,000 BCE. Any honest Christian reading this knows what a scumbag you are to to this fallacy, Dave, but you don't care, because it's not about the Bible for you, really...it's about your EGO. You got STOMPED on here and you don't like it, so you avoid, lie, twist, change your claims left and right, you use ANY ploy and then try to pretend you're honest? Show this thread to your dear old daddy, Davey. let him see what a liar you are...I bet you won't   :D  :) Oh, and Davey...like Carlsonjok pointed out, you didn't answer ( again) what I asked. How is it that animals laid tracks during a raging flood with billions of tons of sediments being laid down...UNDERWATER? WITH SEDIMENTS ABOVE THEM? HAHAHAHAHAHA.  Dance, monkey, dance!!!!

Date: 2006/07/01 09:37:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
Welcome to the island, Jim_Wynne. Pull up a chair and grab yourself a frosty coconut brewski. *gack*

Date: 2006/07/01 10:23:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (afdave @ July 01 2006,09:01)
DEADMAN CANNOT EVEN KEEP HIS MISQUOTES OF ME STRAIGHT
You're pathetic, Deadman.  You think I said scholars said the Hittites didn't exist.  Where did I say that? You quoted me yourself 3 lines down!!!!  There it is ... I said ...        
Quote
The whole point is ... skeptics of the 19th century thought the Bible was in error about the Hittite nation.


 
Quote (afdave @ June 30 2006,22:38)
Until Sayce of Oxford discovered the Hittites in 1876, many critics believed they did not exist.  But thanks to Sayce and others, now everyone believes the Hittites were real.  


You seem very delusional, Dave...you can't even remember what you wrote in the course of a day. Yes, you said what I claimed you said. See?

Date: 2006/07/01 11:37:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
About your dad, dave...look at what I said...I said I doubted it. Not that I "knew" such a thing. See p. 89 ,this thread. More importantly, he didn't visit the villages in the Highlands, since they were not contacted until long after your Daddy left the area, by all accounts.

Notice how different my statement is, Dave...I used a "qualifier" ("I doubt" is not the same as "I know"). YOu might want to learn about those when you make claims about "knowing"  people's religious views, charitable activites and archaeological field experience among "jungle" groups. Your record there is as dismal as your honesty earlier today, Dave.

As to your Chronology...I stated clearly why you immediately changed your "dates" for the flood, dave...to try to protect your claim about "writing" having primacy over archaeology.

You asked about why the Bible is not a good history book..and the answers were already given you ...Genesis has two different scenarios. The sun being created AFTER plants is not exactly "good history" your made-up stories about scribes following Adam around is equally stupid, reflecting the poverty of the OT as a historical guide in particulars. Again,  prophecies about Tyre and Egypt failed miserably. No archaeological finds can overturn the facts that Tyre is not sunken, and The valley of egypt was never taken, nor was it an abandoned wasteland. Nor did the flood happen, as you are discovering...Awfully hard to deal with footprints laid by critters in the midst of a flood, underwater, eh?

Date: 2006/07/01 12:15:22, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Skeptics of the 19th century thought the Bible was in error about the Hittite nation on the authority of Albright...and they were proven wrong


Yet you can't name one of those people, Dave. Not ONE. Why do you think that is?

It's because of a couple of things, Dave:
(1) No one doubted the Hethians (Hittites) of the bible existed as a Canaanite group. I gave you a quote on that. I read extensively in the archaeology and science of that period. I like Victorian science-- this is how I know about people like Sir Richard Burton, etc, etc... You are simply wrong.
(2) When the evidence FOR the Hittites of Anatolia being the same as in Syria/North Canaan was shownduring the "meetings" they had in those days...they had "rubbings" and actual artifacts showing the scripts to be essentially the same. This left no room for doubt at that time.
(3) LATER, at the  turn of the century, when people had begun looking at the language differences between groups, THEN doubt began to arise and it continues to this day, as I posted, with references to modern historians/theologians and archaeologists. I could provide you with a full reading list and biblio, but you'd never read it. You're too stupid.

And that, my boy, is one of the things that  bother you so much, the fact that you are continually shown to be deliberately stupid here, day after day. Ignorance can be cured...deliberate, wanton, delusional stupidity such as yours...requires disaster to change, generally speaking. You're over 40 years old, Dave, and you have the emotional maturity of a pre-teen. This was shown long ago by your claims and attitude on starting this thread. Nothing's really changed since then-- except you're a lot more weasely now-- due to being spanked so often,figuratively speaking.

Date: 2006/07/02 03:01:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
As always,I'll answer your questions directly, AFarce. Unlike you, I don't have to use fallacies, lie, pretend "not to understand" or otherwise engage in avoidance.

Quote
2) Why does it matter if I use a long or short chronology?  It seems to me to make no difference to the Biblical model.

I've already answered this three times. I'll answer again. The only reason you adopted this "long chronology" is because you were shown the cultures that lived through the 2350 BCE chronology. You changed your claim at that time. And the point is that you have no biblical basis for changing it at all--instead what you are doing is avoiding, again. By doubling the time span, you are tacitly claiming that you have some valid TEXTUAL biblical evidence for your "new chronology" and  you don't. Again, showing you to be dishonest, per usual.

Quote
1) On what basis do you say those nations lived through the Flood period?
Well, dave, you've been given the answers to this , too. You were told about Catal Huyuk and the dendrochronological dating that you have not dealt with directly ( again, per usual) Additional examples can be given, but the fact remains that all I need is ONE example of a culture that lived through your flood. And there are many, dated not by radiometrics, but by other methods you haven't even TRIED to deal with. Because you're a fraud, and a demonstrated intentional liar.

Now try answering what I asked Dave. I can ask it as many times as need be. It's obvious to even the most casual reader of this thread that you're all f_ed up in the head, Dave...but ...

How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers, Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"

I find it amusing that you have to add to the bible...like with your scribes following adam, and this chronology of yours that relies on nothing but your deep insecurities and inability to be honest

Date: 2006/07/02 03:22:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
I enjoy your childlike repetitions of phrases that you think are big winning points, dave, like  
Quote
This little phrase is worth memorizing and it has a nice rhythm to it, so you should have no trouble ...
MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS LAID DOWN BY WATER ALL OVER THE EARTH
The interesting thing here is, by your reasoning,  these layers should have the animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. there should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Silurian amphibious Eryops...yet we don't see that. Nor do we find rabbits in the Permian layers, to quote a famous phrase.

Here's a phrase for you to remember, Dave: Those millions of dead things are buried in strata reflecting their differential ages with the dead things distributed in a sequence that we find across the globe...with no evidence of the jumbling that would occur during a single year of catastrophic flooding.

Oh, and as to your "waves" of flooding...nah. water finds it's own level, and if the globe itself is covered by water as specifically described in the bible...to a height of some 22 feet above the highest mountaintops ( the himalayas didn't spring up overnight) there is no time for "drying" and the additional layers on top of them laid down in a year would not allow for trace fossil formation. Besides, Dave, isn't there supposed to be a "water canopy" in the atmosphere...and wouldn't that block the sun, preventing solar drying?

So, Dave, how did you get another 2,650 years of generations out of the bible? That'sa lot of missing generations, Dave. Got any textual evidence for that ? Or are you again pulling things out of your well-worn rectum?

Date: 2006/07/02 03:42:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
Please describe exactly how you feel I was "being evasive" dave? I gave you the same reason that I have reiterated multiple times. It is a valid reason, backed by your immediate retraction of the standard Biblical chronology so that you could claim that all archaeology is invalid and only written works matter.

As to dendro being invalid, you sure haven't shown that. I demonstrated how your "expert" ( with exact references)  from ICR cherry-picked his data from a new zealand study on one species of pine grown on farms in a non-seasonal environment.

You have not shown that the species used in the Catal Huyuk sequence has any problems at all, liar.

Date: 2006/07/02 03:57:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ah, and as far as your claims on Albright are concerned-- This is how the questioning went here, dave:

You made a claim that  
Quote
Until Sayce of Oxford discovered the Hittites in 1876, many critics believed they did not exist. But thanks to Sayce and others, now everyone believes the Hittites were real.


And I asked you to name ONE during that period. What you then did was name two that come long after...E.A. Budge and Albright. Now, I explained to you that controversy only arose AFTER linguists began examining the Scripts/languages in depth, right about the turn of the century. This is also stated explicitly in the "Wikipedia" pages you seem to love so much. Look at the Hittite language citation on wikipedia, Davey-boy, and follow the links with Luwian and Lydian.

If you want further citations, I can definitely provide them, but the fact remains that you offered no scholars of the 1880's claiming the Hittites "never existed" --- and you can't, because they actually believed they did, as a Canaanite group. The inscriptions convinced everyone initially, then disputes arose, later, as I said. Thus you are wrong again. And by the way, notice that Albright doesn't mention what time period he is referring to at all. The only time period he *could* be referring to is the turn of the century and after, continuing to this day, in fact.

Date: 2006/07/02 04:52:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Read back over the posts I have made and you'll find lots of gaping holes in this much touted "model" of yours. Most that you have ignored. Any intelligent lurker/reader will note, as have I, that you have not even demonstrated ONE point in your mode


Yup...GoP is just a slightly more sophisticated version of AFDave, one that spouts more "mathy" things in slightly more erudite terms, but with the same null content.

Date: 2006/07/02 05:25:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
.
.
Wayyyyyyy back on page 83 of this thread, Dave, you said this about your "new chronology":      
Quote
The date of the Flood comes from doing some math on the numbers in the Biblical text. I may be off a few years. I'll try to fine tune it for you when we cover the Flood in detail.


Well, the time has come, Dave. I've been asking you about this for 20 pages or more. You are presenting your "evidence" for the flood, but you have to show me how you dated it first.

There's an interesting dilemma in this for you, Dave; 1.) On one hand, you say that the bible is the best guide to history the world has seen, filled with truthiness and verifiable facts, but...

2.) On the other, even **less** honest hand, you refuse to show how the Bible supports your date of 5000 BCE for the flood. Because you can't. It doesn't.


So, the greatest history book you know of, the one you claim has never been refuted...has huge gaping holes of 2650 years in it, dave? Representing more than 25% of history since you claim the world was "created?" Dance, monkey-boy, dance.

Two can play at that game, Dave: ever read  The second book of Chronicles?

2 Chronicles 9:29: "Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? "

How about if I tell you I have learned about the "Book of Nathan," Dave? I refuse to prove it to you, but I know that it says this:

"Beware of lying scum named Dave who lie concerning the age of the Earth,for they are a boil upon the anus of mankind. Verily, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is 13.7 billions of years old "

Now, following your example, I don't have to show that I *know * this in any way, or prove it exists. I can just claim it is true.

Try doing what you said you were going to do, and demonstrate **precisely**HOW you doubled the date of the flood, Dave--cite the Bible as to your reasoning. Quit playing little kid games. Grow up.

Date: 2006/07/02 13:53:36, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
My point to you, though, is that you will be wasting your time if you back and try to dredge up every little error I make...I am right about the big things and I don't care too much about the small stuff. Of course I try not to make any errors on even small stuff, but no one can be perfect.

I don't view the chronology of the flood as "small stuff." I don't view creationists providing detailed explanations of their extraordinary claims as "small stuff."

You wanted detailed responses from me and others, Dave, thus it is only fair that you provide the same. Except you can't. You were asked multiple questions regarding the flood and you failed to respond to those "small stuff" questions, yet you find time to make lengthy digressions on Albright, etc. rather than addressing the issues at hand.

You failed to address:

(1.) fossil animal tracks in the Coconino sandstone, given the claim of flood events, "water canopies" and water said to burst from the Earth at a rate that no one has ever seen or found reservoirs for. Such an environment would not allow for SANDSTONE ( or mud, for that matter) trace fossil formation.

(2) An explanation of why we don't find fossils from various species mixed together EVERYWHERE on Earth, since this was a global flood that wiped out all animals and plants. "There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Silurian amphibious Eryops...yet we don't see that. Nor do we find rabbits in the Permian layers, to quote a famous phrase." Or, as Occam's Aftershave put it:  
Quote
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?


(3) Precisely how meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed -- given that there is no evidence of massive underground reservoirs of the kind you imply created these features.

(4) How many layers in the Canyon were laid down by this flood?

(5) How much water was involved in this Global Flood?

(6) Plasmasnake asked you to "explain how a great flood depositing most of the world's sedimentary rock explains things like the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done."

(7) Precisely how the Catal Huyuk Dendrochronology is wrong.

And all of that was avoided by you in just in the span of 2 pages

Ah, dammit, and Artful Argy beat me to the Spanish correction.

Date: 2006/07/03 03:26:11, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave: The Coconino Trace fossils are filled with eolian deposits...wind-blown materials, not water-borne. This is because the region at that time was an erg...a sandy desert. DRY sand and dust is required to fill those trace fossils, Dave.  
Quote
" we should state clearly that the evidence for flooding is nonexistent. The protomammal tracks (in the Coconino formation) are often found in association with trackways of spiders, scorpions, and other desert arthropods that could not have been walking around underwater"
Lockley, M., and Hunt, A. (1996). Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States. p. 69.


If all deposition occured during a catastrophic flood, or even a "series" of floods during ONE YEAR, how were sediments ** perfectly*** sorted into discrete layers with sharp boundaries that cover thousands of square miles, and  which contain distinct minerological properties and distinctive fossil content? Why, for instance, are some formations almost pure carbonate  while an overlying layer might consists of almost pure quartz crystals, above which is a layer of pure salt? Why are  large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized? Why are some strata composed almost entirely of fossils and fossil fragments, while others contain no fossils at all?

And about those fossils, Dave...Why don't we see them all jumbled up?  Animal fossils...in the form of trilobites, sponges, and primitive molluscs, first appear in the Cambrian age Tonto Group. Tracks of small ***terrestrial*** animals appear first in the early Permian age Hermit Formation. By the time the later Paleozoic strata were deposited, trilobites and trilobite traces, conodonts, graptolites, corals, foraminifera, blastoids, acanthodians, placoderms, pelycosaurs, and other groups all vanish from the fossil record. WHY?

Dinosaurs make their first appearance in the early Mesozoic (early Triassic) Moenkopi and Chinle Formations, as do the tracks of "mammal-like" reptiles (cynodonts)...From late Triassic through Cretaceous strata, dinosaurs become increasingly abundant and diverse. Only in Jurassic-Cretaceous age strata do we find remains of the large dinosaurs, sauropods for example. The dinosaurs, like icthyosaurs, mosasaurs, pterosaurs, as well as numerous marine organisms, disappear from the geologic record after the Cretaceous - Tertiary boundary, both in the Colorado Plateau region and in the world at large. In early Tertiary and later strata, mammals diversify greatly, and it is only here that we begin to see the emergence of recognizable mammalian groups. WHY????

Date: 2006/07/03 03:39:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'd like to know how such claims are made about mammals being more "motile" than dinosaurs. Show how these conclusions are reached, Dave, and why there are NO exceptions in the Grand Canyonf formations. Wouldn't SOME bloated bodies of lizards or dinosaurs FLOAT long enough to be with the mammals? if not, why not? DETAILS, dave, not hand-waving

Date: 2006/07/03 03:44:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
Another point would be the amphibians that are "lighter" than armored fish and just as motile as mammals AND they can live IN water LONGER , Dave...why aren't there giant or SMALL mississipian amphibians mixed in with the mammals?

Date: 2006/07/03 03:50:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
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


If this is "on the average" why don't we find exceptions in the Grand Canyon formations?

Date: 2006/07/03 04:13:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
HEre's some other questions for you, Dave:  How did the half-mile thick coral formations of the Guadalupe Mountains in Texas grow during a single flood year?

How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them? This would be in violation of everything we know from hydrology, soil mechanics, and strength of materials. Some rock types,  become lithified soon after deposition, but most sandstones and shales require ****major**** loss of water, compaction, and/or chemical cement to become a strong rock, processes which involve significant amounts of time. This is especially true for very fine grained mud shales in which low permeability makes complete dewatering/dessication almost impossible in any short period of time, FURTHERMORE---loading of other materials on top will not  result in the required "de-watering"; trapped water in the muds would cause sudden liquifaction of the entire mass, a phenomenon known to hydraulic engineers as  'sudden draw down condition.'  

HOW COULD THIS BE ACCOMPLISHED IF THE DEPOSITION LASTS ONE YEAR WITH IMMEDIATE OROGENY AND CANYON-CUTTING FOLLOWING THAT?

Date: 2006/07/03 04:20:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
Uh, dave? How dull are you? I asked about the COCONINO trace fossils that are OVERLAIN by MORE SEDIMENTS, and you say :
Quote
Deadman ... think of the following order of events ...

1) Worldwide volcanoes, which released massive quantities of ash into the atmosphere, which in turn precipitated the "waters above" (I don't know the nature of this ... I am aware of the Dillow problems)
2) Breakup of the "fountains of the deep" including undersea volcanoes
3) Massive rainfall and widespread crustal folding
4) Massive flooding, sedimentation and runoff erosion
Etc. Etc.

Notice that one of the earliest events postulated by the Global Flood Theory is MASSIVE VOLCANIC ACTIVITY.

There's your possiblity for wind borne sediments PRIOR to rainfall.  Notice that under this scenario, massive flooding could have easily occured due to the breakup of the "fountains of the deep."


Uh, Dave..the coconino trace fossils are not filled with volcanic ash. MOre importantly, the coconinos had to be covered in ONE year with a few thousand feet of sediments...SEDIMENTS... and in your scenario , volcanic activity FOLLOWS sediment deposits...REMEMBER???? there's no way that your explanation suffices on ANY level

Date: 2006/07/03 04:30:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Wrong, dave, you have to have MASSIVE uplift, which is ONLY accomplished in short spans of time BY vulcanism and the coconino trace fossils are filled with fine-grained quartz from DESERT environments, not ASH.

Further, if you point to isolated deposits  ( the la BREA TAR PITS are TAR, not SEDIMENT) you have to show why this is not found EVERYWHERE.

Date: 2006/07/03 04:37:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
I, too would like to know how you can shape your lying lips to use the La Brea Tar pits or Agate Springs as evidence of fossils of all geologic ages being jumbled up, Dave, PLEASE go through that, considering that the Agate Springs formation is all Miocene mammals/critters and La Brea is all plio-pleistocene mammals and other critters. NO SILURIAN AMPHIBIANS, NO DINOSAURS...and I just looked up the Geiseltal and those are Eocene, no jumbling of dinos there

Date: 2006/07/03 05:17:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
Those are all Eocene, Dave. SO?

Date: 2006/07/03 05:37:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
I was very clear in what I asked, Dave: I asked about why we don't see ANY examples of Silurian/Devonian/Mississippian/Pennsylvanian/Jurrasic/Triassic/Cretaceous fossils in the

Paleocene/Eocene/Oligocene/Miocene/Pliocene/Pleistocene layers, Dave?

Why didn't the Mile-high cliffs of the grand canyon collapse if they were all laid in one year and cut immediately after??

Why do we see Coral formations that are a mile thick? corals can't LIVE during sedimentation.

You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?

Date: 2006/07/03 06:14:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
A LONG time ago in this thread, I asked one of my favorite questions, Dave...concerning syphilis and gonorrhea, which can only survive in human carriers. I'm still curious about who you think had syphilis on the ark?

And how they managed to do so much work 24 hours a day shlepping shite to the upper deck to toss it over, feeding those carnivores that need refrigeration for their meals, or live meals ---and those tons of plant materials like eucalyptus for the koalas and bamboo for the pandas and fresh greens for the dinosaurs  that need it. And don't tell me the carnivores became hay-eating herbivores. I'd love to see you try to feed a Tyrannosaur or Taipan or Boomslang or Fer-de-lance or Siberian Tiger a nice bit of hay, Dave. I suggest you volunteer in the name of creation science. Be bold and support the strength of your convictions.

Oh, and Dave,you're a real bright engineer, well-versed in mathiness, right?  if Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years? ?

Date: 2006/07/03 07:11:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
I just pity the poor l'il salamanders in Dave's scenario...struggling mightily during this maelstrom of water and sediments, it survives the deposition of
Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale, Muav limestone, Temple Butte Formation, Redwall Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Watahomigi Formation, Manakacha Formation, Wescogame Formation,
Esplanade Sandstone, and Hermit Shale ---thousands and thousands of feet of rock.

Then our intrepid little salamander crawls onto the (suddenly drying, despite the water canopy!!!;)
Coconino Sandstone and marches on, leaving his delicate imprint behind, squinting bravely in the cataclysm that god hath wrought, because ...well, because of people, but God is filled with anger and kills the little salamanders, too.

Still, this noble amphibian waddles on -- only to be hit with another terrifying wave of deposition  from an all-loving god that miraculously preserves it's little feetsie-prints for Dave to admire.

Of course, the salamander is then selectively deposited in a cunning arrangement of layers of fossils that miraculously doesn't mix up trilobites, groundhogs, Allosaurs and naked mole rats ( shout-out to Icthyic) God likes neatness, apparently. And lots of dead things. Lots and lots.

Date: 2006/07/04 07:26:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave says
Quote
Do you live in America?  If so, why don't you go someplace with fewer technically insane, neurotic, schizophrenic people?


Uh, how about not? Who was talking about anyone other than you? And why should anyone leave this country because it has nutcases like you in it? Are you all filled with patriotic fervor and christian zeal, so you feel you have the right to speak for *everyone* in the country? I mean, besides annoyingly REPOSTING the same thing 4 times? This is NOT *your* country alone, jerkoff, and the fact that some "founding fathers" said anything about christianity means little in a country founded on freedom OF  religion and FROM religious fanaticism that would pervert fundamental human rights.

In short, Dave, take your weird fundamentalist views and stick them right up that well-travelled rectum I mentioned not long ago. Those who live in the US don't need your advice, and those that don't are probably appalled at the prejudices you show.

Date: 2006/07/04 08:04:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Why aren't you answering the questions and issues raised here Dave, rather than trying to run off to another topic?

Date: 2006/07/04 08:12:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
Nonetheless,  Just in case you didn't know, Dave---
Separation of church and state is what the founding fathers wanted for the nation, and I prefer not to allow you or anyone to distort history to make it appear otherwise. Patriotism doesn't consist of wrapping oneself in the flag and pretending that is sufficient disguise for religious fanaticism.  
Thomas Jefferson: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
" Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth".... letter to William Short
"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."
-in his private journal, Feb. 1800
James Madison : "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
Thomas Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
John Adams: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."
Ethan Allen  said that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."
Benjamin Frankliin"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

Date: 2006/07/04 08:31:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Same species, different specimen.


Doppelganger!! (cue eerie music)

Date: 2006/07/05 11:19:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
.
.
Currently Unanswered Questions from the last 3 "Pages"

(1)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(2) Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(3) If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
(4) How much water was involved in the flood, Dave?  Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(5) How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(6) Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"--  this is utter nonsense. Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(7) Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(8) Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(9) Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(10) Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(11) How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(12) If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the Canyon stratigraphy?
(13) Explain PRECISELY  how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist & granite (obviously , that is not "soft ")    
(15) You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(16) Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?


IN regard to your "explanation" of the Grand Canyon meanders and comparing the mile-high cliffs of the Grand Canyon to the Toutle River, Dave. This is a contour map of the Toutle River :

In this image the countour lines represent 50 feet.

The image is at an angle of 33 degrees from horizontal, looking southeast toward Mt. Saint Helens, which is at the top right-center.

The Coldwater and Spirit lakes are at Top left-center

Volcanic ash, mudflows, and misc. debris associated with and following the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption have partially filled the valley of the North Toutle River.

The Toutle River runs from the left side of Mt. St. Helens (in the image) to the lower-center of the image. It is the Blue Line you see at the LOWER CENTER

If you look closely along and near the river, you will see a series of small "indentations" in the contour lines that represent more recent gully erosion in the ash/mudflows that have partially filled the valley of the North Toutle River. Creationists calll these "indentations" the "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River". Is a current photo of the "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River." THE RIVER HAS INCISED ABOUT 30 METERS OF SEDIMENT SINCE 1980  
Note that the Valley sides were NOT cut by any recent erosion, only the areas near the river itself. Those areas SLOPE at 45 degrees, except at the banks of the river, where they have a vertical height of several meters (depending on where you're at). The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, and mudflow (lahar) which is easily eroded.

The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed Vishnu schist, plus a touch of  basalt.

The Grand Canyon is near or at vertical for thousands of feet. Not mere meters. Kilometers.

Oh, and Dave, in regard to your "calculations" concerning how many kids an average woman has to have to explain the current population from a starting point at 4356 years ago...I noticed you left out infant mortality rates, mortality rates in general from war, disease, famine, etc. You assumed a perfect model without any deaths prior to reproduction? How cute. Try again. This time using standard demographic methods, not fake crap from Morris, kid.

Date: 2006/07/05 11:57:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
on corals  
Quote
Every one of the creationist claims on coral.... rely directly or indirectly, on two papers, one by Arthur Chadwick, and an Origins paper by A. A. Roth. These papers list various estimates of reef growth rates from a variety of methods. Most of the estimates cited by Chadwick and Roth give long ages for the growth of a 1,400m coral reef. However, both authors include a single anamalously high estimate rate of 414mm(!;)/yr. These estimates were based on "soundings" done in the early 1930's. They cite only a single source for this astounding rate, a 1932 paper by J. Verstelle, 'The Growth Rate at Various Depths of Coral Reefs in the Dutch East-Indian Archipelago', Treubia 14:117-126, 1932. [NINETEEN THIRTY TWO?!?!?!?] Virtually all of the other estimates in Chadwick's paper yielded rates of reef growth of 0.8-30mm or so, requiring many thousands or even millions of years to form a reef 1400m thick. For instance, Hubbard et al. (1990), estimated growth rates of 0.7 tp 3.3mm per year. Davies and Hopley (1983) estimated a *maximum* of 20mm/yr. Smith and Kinsey (1976) listed rates of 2-5mm/yr. Smith and Harrison (1977) listed rates of 0.8-1.1mm/yr, and so on. Many additional studies indicate Holocene reef growth histories on the order of 1-15mm/yr, with the upper range only being attained in reefs dominated by the fast-growing Acropora corals (e.g. Aronson et al., 1998; Hubbard, 2001). While Chadwick's paper included many reasonable estimates, his readers predictably siezed upon the one rate reported by Verstelle over 60(!;) years ago, ignoring a massive body of more recent research on the subject. Another odd thing is that both Roth and Chadwick's papers also included estimates of the growth rates of *individual corals,* and they showed that even most individual corals cannot grow nearly that fast (i.e. ~400mm/yr)! Most studies document maximum *coral* growth rates of only 10-50mm per year.

For references and more involved comments, see http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/reef.htm

Date: 2006/07/05 13:00:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
1) Why should I believe your source about this being wind-borne sand? He could be wrong about the sediment being wind borne. Why could it not be water-borne sand?
2) Let's say he's correct. Don't you think there would be lots of wind associated with all this cataclysmic action? Wind blows sand. Sand fills in footprints. Why is this not possible?


The Coconino sandstone reaches 315 feet in thickness, and covers an area of some 200,000 square miles. Footprints of small animals , including INSECTS are found in that sandstone.  The sheer size and volume of quartz Coconino sands require an extensive amount of weathering, mechanical breakdown and transport of prexisting rock, which would require far more time than the flood model allows. Now, on the fossil tracks themselves. The ***best*** argument  offered by the creationists for the formation of the tracks is in Brand, Leonard R., 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70(6): 1004-1011.
Note that in Brand's paper, he concludes :  "The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may have been produced in either subaqueous sand or ***subaerial damp sand****" more importantly,  his conclusions are for AMPHIBIANS...
Now, the question remains, how could INSECT tracks be found in submerged or damp sand, including those of lightweight spiders? Answer: They can't be explained by submerged sand or damp sand, which would not allow for these trace fossils. they can only be produced in dry sand that is then dampened by long diurnal successions of condensation. DUST that is carried by mild winds aids in the cementation, and the prints are then covered AFTER cementation by fine-grained eolian quartz that is frosted and pitted, just as we see only in desert sands. Water in a "flood" cannot do this. Even if we assume that the Coconino sands were transported by a succession of discrete current pulses, and that vertebrate trackways were made between pulses, it seems likely that each new set of tracks would be destroyed by each new pulse, with little or no net preservation, yet there are thousands upon thousands of such fossils in the Coconino sandstone.

See: Lockley, M. G., 1992. Comment and reply on "Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: Evidence for underwater origin" Geology 20(7): 666-667.  Lockley notes  that "a gentle and subtle mechanism is required, for heavy rains or catastrophic biblical floods would simply wash away delicate tracks of spiders and scorpions. One possibility is dew and the condensing of fog and mist onto track surfaces, as is common in coastal dunes in the present day Namib desert"
Lockley, M., and Hunt, A. (1996). Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of the Western United States  (p.76).

For YOU , Dave, to explain this by "wind" you have to show how it was possible to lay down the sand by water, then dry it (under your water canopy), then have spiders, millipedes, centipedes and scorpions appear..after a flood that deposits billions of tons of sediments neatly, in layers, then a "wind" blows in sand to fill the insect footprints, then it hardens fast enough not to be squashed by another set of layers weighing millions of  of tons   ALL IN ONE YEAR

Date: 2006/07/05 15:57:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
Noah: "Shem, you get the liver flukes, me, I'll take the intestinal parasites."
Japeth: " but Dad, what about my wife? she can handle some clap"
Ham: " Yeah, and my ol' lady already HAS gonorrhea, pops!!"
-------------------------------------------------------------
And since you used Baumgardner, Davey-dolt, you should know this: Baumgardner HAS to invoke miracles for his "runaway subduction model", because he estimates a release of 10^28 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner says that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood and *that* heat would have to go somewhere. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth, too, so...you basically have no water and no air.
Baumgardner has to invoke miracles, just like your miracle explanation of god creating the stars with built-in age, dave.
Baumgardener calls it "non-stationary natural law" also known as "leaping/jumping/lurching, dancing on air physical constants"  In short, it's about as credible as your explanations of "godiddit"  Baumgardner, John R., 1990b. The imperative of non-stationary natural law in relation to Noah's Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(3): 98-100.

Date: 2006/07/05 17:39:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
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 #### thing, liar. You brought up a guy named Don Batten who made **three** HIGHLY selective claims:

Let's review "Dr." Don's claims

1. He claims that specific species of pine, like Pinus radiata...produce multiple rings per year. But the interesting thing is that your expert offers no citations at all...I looked it up and found the "data" is from FARMED trees in an artificial setting and a non-seasonal environment.

2.  He claimed that dendro and 14C are used in a "circular " way to confirm each other. False. Multiple non-radiometric methods are used to check dendro records. They include the dating methods I have listed previously

3. In all the hundreds of thousands of tree ring studies ever performed, Don Batten finds a total of TWO that were questioned : one was re-measured, the other was withdrawn due to procedural/methodological problems.

That was the TOTAL of Don Batten's claims and YOU didn't "refute" squat, AirHead, you just copy-pasted his crap. TRY AGAIN

Date: 2006/07/05 18:17:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Deadman, why didn't you tell me about this study??!!  Come on, man ... I thought you were the expert on this stuff!  You're supposed to be teaching me, the layman


1. Wrong, jackass, this is YOUR HYPOTHESIS thread, YOU are supposed to KNOW this material.

2. YOU IDIOT, I QUOTED brand, thus I DID "tell you" you slimy liar.      
Quote
The ***best*** argument  offered by the creationists for the formation of the tracks is in Brand, Leonard R., 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from substrate differences. Journal of Paleontology 70(6): 1004-1011.
Note that in Brand's paper, he concludes :  "The data do suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil trackways may have been produced in either subaqueous sand or ***subaerial damp sand****" more importantly,  his conclusions are for AMPHIBIANS...


3. His conclusions are shown FALSE by
[A] the INSECT tracks THAT CANNOT FORM UNDERWATER,
[B]the fact that the "amphibian" ( they are actually reptile)  tracks show berms of sand ONLY on ONE side (and not the opposite of the forward thrust) , thus they cannot be made UNDERWATER...they were made on small dry INCLINES.
[C] Brand admits above that , taken at face value, his "study" does not necessarily indicate that the footprints were made underwater.

 
Quote
Careful examination of modern dunes indicates that climbing translatent strata, with coarsening-up laminae and rare foreset laminae, form only by the migration and accretion of low amplitude wind ripples in eolian environments (Hunter, 1977; Kocurek & Dott, 1981). Such strata and ripples are ubiquitous in the Navajo, Entrada, and similar sandstones (Kocurek & Dott, 1981), contradicting a subaqueous origin. Modern eolian sand dunes exhibit internal cross-bedding that is remarkably similar to that in the Colorado Plateau sandstones (Ahlbrandt & Fryberger, 1982, p. 19; McKee & Ward, 1983, p. 147; Collinson, 1986b, p. 104). Furthermore, we can observe the process of leeside grainfall forming eolian sand dunes in places like the Great Sand Dunes, White Sands (Collinson, 1986b), Monahans Sand Hills, Nebraska Sand Hills (Ahl brandt & Fryberger, 1982), or on Padre Island (Brookfield, 1984)."


Additionally, though these formations preserve the trackways of obviously terrestrial animals (spiders, various reptiles in the Coconino, dinosaurs, mammal-like reptiles, etc., in the Navajo), they are entirely lacking in marine fossils of any kind, even though each is bounded at top and bottom by densely fossiliferous, obviously marine strata. These formations are strong evidence against the theory that the strata of the Colorado Plateau were deposited by a single, year-long global flood. The most frequently cited "evidence" for the subaqeous origin of the Coconino, Brand et al.'s trackway morphology, is shown to be false.

YOUR source says that WATER created the ripples and waves in the sandstone, and cross laminae, by a rush of water that moved at 3.75 MPH. Guess what? such a force of water could not create layers over 300 feet thick in the required time, covering the 200,000 square miles of Coconino sandstone. AND if the force was greater, it would lay flat beds. AND if it was 3.75 MPH where are the other materials water would carry?  AND it would contradict Brand's "walking salamanders underwater" story, because that would cover UP any tracks found in the MIDDLE OF WET SAND LAYERS. Your source says :      
Quote
a tsunami provides the best modern analogy for understanding how large-scale cross beds such as those in the Coconino Sandstone could form.
Uh, look at any tsunami data and tell me how fast the water moves and what it carries with it. Tell me HOW anything is going to live in that to make tracks in the middle of sandstone layers, while a "TSUNAMI" is going on that makes a layers of sand 300 feet thick?  to say it ONLY "selectively " carries sand is beyond stupid, as are you, Dave.

Date: 2006/07/05 18:45:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
IN addition to the 16  UNANSWERED questions and comments on this "flood" that were posted earlier, let me add 4 more...
1. Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.
2. Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
3. Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
4. Why don't we see disruption of the varves?  

That's twenty unanswered questions so far, Dave. In just 4 pages. Anyone here could easily add 20 more that you couldn't answer, either.

Date: 2006/07/05 19:27:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
This is exactly what I mean when I say I don't think AFDave is lying. He simply can't believe anything which opposes his religious conviction. It simply must be false, somehow.

I go along with you almost completely on this, steve, but there's other areas and statements he's made that are outright lies. His claim about "knowing" that I'd *never* worked with any "jungle tribes" was just about as honest as me saying " steve, I know you've never, ever been to California"...while "knowing" nothing of the sort, or you, for that matter. I ...gah, I just can't see how anyone can say such things "believing" they are being "honest" Maybe it's just some sort of cognitive block on my part--I tend to really, really REALLY dislike liars.

People like him actually scare the crap out of me, and I don't get scared by much at all anymore. Like I told a friend of mine once: " the only "monsters" I know of walk on two legs and look just like you and me"

Date: 2006/07/05 19:40:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'd like to take this opportunity to retract my statements about Kevin Padian being a Ku Klux Klan member that  eats asian babies. I was misled by my informant who didn't actually see Kevin eating a Korean baby, but a plump Hoagie instead. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced that Padian might eat a baby sometime in the future.-- WmAD

Date: 2006/07/06 11:32:25, Link
Author: deadman_932
.
.
Currently Unanswered Questions from the last 5 "Pages"        

(1)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(2) Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(3) If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years?? Include infant mortality and other standard factors, Dave. People **DiD** die back then, didn't they?
(4) How much water was involved in the flood, Dave?  Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(5) How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(6) Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"--  this is utter nonsense. Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(7) Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(8) Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(9) Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(10) Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(11) How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(12) If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(13) Explain PRECISELY  how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous/metamorphic base schist,granite & basalt? (obviously , that is not "soft ")    
(15) You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(16) Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(17)Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR
(18)Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(19)Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(20)Why don't we see disruption of the varves?

Date: 2006/07/06 13:29:13, Link
Author: deadman_932
Beginning with the Laramide Orogeny 70 million years ago ( the Fallaron Plate subduction) to Mid Cenozoic 20 million years ago (uneven uplift and slight tilt of the Colorado Plateau region to the southwest ) and continuing down to 5 million years ago the entire Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau were uplifted 4,000 to 6,000 feet. This type of uplift which does not involve deformation and affects a large area is termed epeirogenic uplift. We see this in the Colorado Plateau, Britain, India, Central America, Florida, South Africa and many other regions.
King, P. B., 1977, The Evolution of North America: Princeton University Press.
Rigby, J. K., 1977, Southern Colorado Plateau: K/H Geology Field Guide Series,
Kendal Hunt Pub. Co., Dubuque IA
Foos, Annabelle: The Geology of the Colorado Plateau   [URL=http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs....ml]http
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/photo/hermit.jpg
The Hermit Formation is composed of siltstone or mudstone mixed with fine grained sandstone.  Hermit Formation fossils include invertebrate tracks and trails, insect impressions including a large dragonfly, and many types of worm burrows. There are also plant fossils in abundance, especially ferns and conifers. All these fossils and sediments paint a picture of a semi-arid region where meandering rivers ran between forested banks. The very top of the Hermit contains narrow desiccation mudcracks up to 20 feet deep. If these cracks had been openly exposed to the weather they would have filled with mud, ***but they are filled with Coconino Sandstone.*** This shows the cracks opened after the Coconino sands blew over the muds. Under the dry sands, the cracks in the Hermit Formation widened and admitted the sifting sand.
Note to AirHead:  If Water transported the Coconinos, why would there be dessication cracks in the Hermit? Would this be another drying episode in your "Year Long Flood?" How many were there in your model? Do you have any idea?
The Hermit Formation is a thick layer of sandy siltstones and silty sandstones that were most likely deposited by stream activity in an otherwise dry coastal-plain environment. Thus, the Supai and Hermit together record a slow sea regression, which left arid, desert landscape behind it. There's not much doubt in geologists' minds about the nature of the Coconino Sandstone: it's a massive layer of lithified sand dunes, deposited in an arid desert environment. The Coconino records a time when the Colorado Plateau region was the southern edge of a vast dune sea, (similar to the modern Rub' al Khali in Saudi Arabia), which reached as far north as Montana.
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/lexicon/coconino.htm
A basic aspect of geology is that water depth can be roughly estimated by the type of rock being formed: sandstone forms on land (ergs, deserts) or close to shore -- siltstone and mudstone farther out, and deep water is marked by organic limestone. Very deep water produces inorganic limestone.
Thus, if you see sandstone, then siltstone atop it, then limestone atop the siltstone, you know that the water was getting deeper as time went on.
If the rock sequence is reversed, from limestone to shales/siltstone to sandstone, as with the Supai to Hermit to Coconino, you know the water was getting shallower.
Beus, Stanley S., and Michael Morales, Eds. Grand Canyon Geology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990
Blakey, R.C., 1990, Stratigraphy and geologic history of Pennsylvanian and Permian rocks, Mogollon Rim region, central Arizona and vicinity: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 102, no. 9, p. 1189-1217.
Billingsley, G.H., 1997, The Permian clastic sedimentary rocks of northwestern Arizona, IN Maldonado, Florian, and Nealey, L.D., eds., Geologic studies in the Basin and Range-Colorado Plateau transition in southeastern Nevada, southwestern Utah, and northwestern Arizona, 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 2153, p. 106-124
Quote
Oh, one more thing ... how come there's no erosion in the top layer of the Hermit? 10 million years, right? Seems like long enough to allow for some pretty big erosion, dontcha think?
 Who said there's not? How would you tell if there were? If it's a shallow coastal wetlands/forest?
Quote
Oh, I keep thinking of things ... the Hermit Shale is dated at 280 million years by "index fossils" and the Coconino at 270 my, presumably by the same method. Has anyone dated this radiometrically? Does it agree? ... Bwahahahaha!

How would you radiometrically date the siltstone of the Hermit and the fine, rounded, pitted, frosted Quartz grains of the Coconino?

The difference between you and me, Dave, is that I don't have any problem in answering in detail. None. If there is not detail to be had, fine, I'll say ...much of the geology of the grand canyon is a mess and disputed.

However, you have not answered my questions to any depth at all.  

Here's a photo of some spider tracks, showing also the fine-grained nature of the quartz (notice 4 impressions on one side, 4 on the other):

Date: 2006/07/06 14:06:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
the good news is, it often turns their kids off christianity.


I think I mentioned that a while back. Given that he's got a few kids, odds are ONE of them has to be marginally smarter than him and see Dave for what he is. My friend that is a psychologist DID say that he's probably compensating for a few things, mild dyslexia among them ( this explains his spelling, his inability to read things like 9/10 students accept evolution). Also, he views his Dad as a great man and didn't like the idea of not living up to that.

He probably developed his manipulation games early on, discovered people were fairly easily coerced...but then he has to deal with the reality of not being that #### smart, innately. So he compensates big time.

Then again, maybe he's just a lying jerk. Or both.

Date: 2006/07/06 15:00:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's an experiment you can do, Dave, for the good of "Creation Science" (snort). Let's make spider tracks!

1) Go out and get yourself a big-ass bag of quartz sand. Make sure it's as fine of sand as possible. Grind it up a bit if you have to
2) you could buy or make a nice container for sand to lay in, perfectly flat. You could get all fancy and make a wood one, or just dig out an area in your backyard, say 4 feet wide x4 long x3 deep. make sure it's level. Feel free to include any other nice touches, like laying down mud/siltstone first to imitate the Hermit Formation, and covering the sides with (removable) perforated plastic so your spider doesn't get out so easy
3) Buy a nice tarantula, or find a nice fat spider somewhere.
Now, keeping in mind that your flood takes place in one year, let's see if we can make wet sand preserve spider tracks!!!!

Wet the sand, pour it in the test area. Let it sit for a while ( time it!! this is science!!;) when you figure it's dry enough to resemble your "flood" material, let the spider run around on it. make sure you have nice impressions ( in this experiment, EVERYTHING is "nice"). Okay, now retrieve your spider, remembering that tarantulas have irritating hairs on them and they DO bite sometimes.

Okay, now let the sand dry as long as you want, so long as it's under a year. Here, you might want to try different "sprays"  of mineral dusts to see if that helps. TRY LIMESTONE!!!CALCIUM!!!!( no cheating with actual CEMENT, though, Dave!!!;) GOD is watching you!! )

Now, the real test, Dave. **Wet a bunch MORE sand**(make sure it's REALLY WET, Dave--remember, this is the FLOOD! ), say TWO-THREE FEET of sand...and lay it on the dry spider tracks. Wait again, maybe another year...let's see if we've made FOSSIL SPIDER TRACKS IN A YEAR ..K?
MY hypothesis is you're going to get zilch, Dave, but hey, maybe God will answer your prayers and you can be a BIG NAME in creation science!!!! GOOD LUCK!!! (snort)

Date: 2006/07/07 06:24:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
Re:  
Quote
all the heavy bombardment
The barrage of laughs accompanying your posts is all I've noticed, and while it causes me to occasionally snort out my coffee in amusement, that's no real danger.

The layer looks like the Moenkopi (Triassic) sand and silt, near the top of the GC sequences. You also find it in Zion National park, overlain by the Chinle, Wingate, and Kayenta, etc. The problem is at least ten thousand feet of younger rocks were deposited above the Kaibab in the Mesozoic, and you find the differentially-eroded remnants of these layers scattered around. You might want to look at  http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/paleogeogwus.html   "Paleogeography of the Southwestern US" IN the meantime, here's a pretty picture of the geologic reconstruction of the coconino erg:

Date: 2006/07/07 07:49:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I read a very interesting article once--New Yorker? Atlantic Monthly? Haarpers?--detailing how the deBeers cartel incited such a demand for diamonds, over the course of the 20th century, that diamonds went from ordinary gemstone to extraordinarily valuable. Great PR campaign.

I think it was PBS' "Frontline" that had a program on that, too, and yeah, it's amazing from the standpoint of advertising, mass psych, and monopolies ( or near-monopolies, now. See the Economist article  here ) and a neat picture they had:

Date: 2006/07/07 11:54:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
edited. I had some comments on the janiebelle thing,  but screw it-- if she's not real, great, if real, I'm *still* amused

Date: 2006/07/07 13:15:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
"If they are not spawning one another, then something deeper is spawning them, and that is where we must look"

"We must look deeper, Avocationist?"

"Yes, deeper in time..all the way ---to the year 2000!!!"

Chorus: " In the year 2000....in the year 2000"

(note, for non-americans: it's a "talk show" reference, sorry)

Date: 2006/07/07 13:54:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
In the yearrr two thousandddd......

"An Alternate Universe will be discovered hidden in a tiny bubble, containing the brains of DaveScot and  the "Newton of Information Theory" -- They will call this universe "bizarro world."

Date: 2006/07/07 14:07:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
**Tugs frantically at Diogenes' face** WHY.. won't this ...MASK come...OFF!!!!?!?!?! I KNOW it's YOU, DAVE!!!!!

Date: 2006/07/07 19:30:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Louis: I'll generally agree that rote memorization and regurgitation aspect of the modern public school system ( at least in the U.S.)  is --well, I'll dust off the old distinction between "necessary " and "sufficient" and apply it here --it's a necessary condition for the widespread acceptance and propagation of "woolly thinking" among students, but it's not sufficient to explain the totality of it, which you'll agree with, given your statements.

Mark ( I think) is describing a kind of historical particularism in that distinct developed cultural institutions create the environment for the flourishing of squishy thinking and in the case of the US, there's so many factors that go into this that it's hard to get a "snapshot" of it.
To try to forward this discussion, I'll list a few things that come to mind, in no particular order:

(1) Cultural and epistemic (hyper-)relativism
(2) Downplaying critical thinking skills in favor of "quantifiable" standardized testing
(3) Lack of adequate funding for both student and good teachers
(4) Parents that are generally too busy making a living in any case to aid in the process, even if well-educated
(5)The general fact that-- to paraphrase Feynman-- science is hard while faith/belief is easy.
(6)The exponential increase of "knowledge" that makes it daunting to even dip into
(7)A general human propensity to seek "easy answers"  even in complex situations, while the complexity/rapidity of modern life leads to generalized anxiety and concurrent desire for "simple solutions"
(8)The best interests of the class structure is to have moderately educated specialists that function with minimal complaint/unrest and can be comparatively easily placated. This comes from both the "left and the right" nowadays.
(9) Schools emphasize rapid turnover in students and publish or perish at the faculty level.
(10) A tacit popularized tendency to view "smart" as a social negative probably because knowledge is the ultimate form of power (ack, let me explain that-- I tend to define power in terms of "getting others to do what you want them to do" i.e. if I give you gold and h-bombs and put you alone on Mars, you have no "power," really...and knowledge is the sine qua non of getting others to do what you want them to, I think..but if you have other ideas on this, let me know)

Whew. Okay there's a few things to chew on that *might* explain how I'm viewing this at the moment. A simple "agriculture"  analogy:
Humans = seeds, with varying propensities that can be encouraged. (Jane likes math while John likes art more..yeah, i know this is too simplistic)
Culture = the "soil" in which they settle
People like parents, teachers, and everyone else = cultivators

All of these things interact at specific moments in time and through time (synchronic v. diachronic) to produce surges/ebbs in "magical," uncritical  thinking or conversely, skeptical ( in the best sense of the word) rationalism.
Maybe that'll help generate more comments. Maybe. :p

Cheers, Joseph

Date: 2006/07/07 19:43:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
I should add (after I had a beer, I looked at this) I don't view Dembski as unintelligent, anyone with multiple degrees in psych, math, theology, philosophy isn't, but I also believe that he and Behe and a few others are interesting cases. It seems to me that the majority is dragged into the "future" ( or simply ideas) by a relatively small number of people and Dembski KNOWS what he's doing. The question of why he's doing it is interesting and of course hinges on his weird psych and personal history. Now I'll have some Bushmill's and ponder the whichness of the what a bit, I think.

Date: 2006/07/07 19:48:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ah, scheisse. Okay, question 14 is buried under the Coconinos for future generations to discover and wonder at.  :p

And by the way, the correct AirHead answer to #(7) "Where did all that sediment come from?"  is --
The same place socks go to.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. D@mn Darweenians.

Date: 2006/07/08 17:55:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
Perhaps it's my exposure to real-time online debates in chatrooms that is swaying me, but I do think education is very important here. The vast majority of creationists/fundamentalists have poor-middling educations, I think I can safely say that, given the stats on this. For instance, in the Spring 1986 edition of Free Inquiry, Burnham Beckwith compiled a list of studies examining IQ and strength of religious attitudes. 13 studies found that students with higher IQ's and academic test scores tend to be less religious/fundamentalist. Most of the "studies" however were old, some dating back to the 1920's, some in the 1980's
However, Goode, Erich. 2002. "Education, scientific knowledge, and belief in the paranormal." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 26(1): 24-27. says that while degree of fundamentalist religiosity influences susceptibility to Biblical creationism, most American researchers also contine to find that those less educated are more traditionally religious. The net effects of degree level, controlling study year, age, gender, number of science courses, college major, basic science knowledge, and attitudes... continued to predict rejection/acceptance of fundamentalist and creationist views.
A 2005 Harris Poll exploring the beliefs of American adults about evolution, creationism and Intelligent Design theory (cf. Skeptical Inquirer, 29(6), 2005, pp. 56-60 & the poll itself @http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 ) reveals
64% of American adults believe 'human beings were created directly by God' ("Creationist")
22% believe that 'human beings evolved from earlier species' ("Evolutionist)
10% believe that 'human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.' (Intelligent Design) --------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Skeptical Inquirer noted that there is a strong correlation between age, geography, politics and education and beliefs about evolution: Those with college educations, independents, liberals, adults aged 18 to 54, and those from the Northeast and West support the belief in evolution in large numbers.

The typical American Creationist is Midwestern or Southern resident who lacks higher education, judging by this data .

Date: 2006/07/08 18:50:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
The DNA...well, it was agreed that Yale, UC Davis and Michigan would try to see if they could get any DNA from the bones, but no samples were found that could be amplified or otherwise analyzed.  http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/tuross_kolman.htm

The remains are still at the Burke Museum in Washington, the Umatilla still want to press for reburial, but they're not exactly rich -- so the 4 tribes involved  declined a SCOTUS appeal.... and so far, I don't think anyone's tried to get DNA from the dental material. It's as bad as the Floresensis stuff  ???

Date: 2006/07/08 21:55:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
current teaching of evolutionary theory at the high school and early college level is expected to be accepted, memorized and regurgitated.  No original ideas are tolerated and there are "Right" and "Wrong" answers... I accept that this could be the product of the current debate where the ID argument is attempted to be displayed as a valid scientific argument.


I frankly overlooked this. I find it ironic, given  that Skeptic (1) Thinks ID is invalid and (2) hasn't been able to come up with any valid "original ideas" concerning evolution as it is. We don't teach creationism/ID in public schools because it is scarcely-disguised religion. Nor do we teach numerology or phlogiston theory. That evolution IS taught as fact...is because evolution as defined in biology IS fact. This has nothing to do with any "current debates" with ID and predates it by far.

Date: 2006/07/13 10:59:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
After returning from a short hiatus, inquiring minds want to know:
Has ID published any, like, real science supporting their claims in the past week or so? Did Aliens or "Gods" pop in and say "Hi, guys, we heard you were looking for us?!" Has DaveTard1 reconciled his dissonant "agnosticism" with his fervent faith in creationi...er...ID? Has JanieBelle revealed her adam's apple and firm manly thighs to her  admirers at UD? Wait, let me guess..."no."

Date: 2006/07/13 11:20:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hah, this is hilarious. I crack open my weekly issues of Science and Nature and see articles a-plenty based on standard evolutionary theory. None on ID, oddly enough. Yet I look at Dembski's board and I see silly videos and a fantasy by Salty Cordova where he wants to turn a  tasmanian wolf into a dingo and DaveTard proclaiming the death of "Darwinism."

Ah, nice to see the pointy-headed 'tards in action again.

Date: 2006/07/13 11:39:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Investigation into ID will be considered scientific if and only if ID starts to produce scientific research, and ‘Darwinism’ will die if ID proves it can produce better results. --- "Chris Hyland"


And what I see instead is Ma and Pa Kettle clips while Dimski preens about the mathiness that gets him slapped around. Oh, the irony is palpable.

Date: 2006/07/13 19:20:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
Save me from Bubba, DaveScot!!!


*well-deserved credit to Derek Rodgers at Pharyngula

Date: 2006/07/16 12:13:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
On p.108, AirHead Dave says/asks:
 
Quote
I thought sedimentary rocks could not be dated radiometrically ... Deadman told me that this is true of the GC layers that contain fossils. But this article says you CAN date sedimentary layers radiometrically. What's up with that?

AirHead, you're an adult, allegedly. Your claim above implies I said you couldn't date *any* sedimentary layers.
The context of my statement was on the Coconino quartz and the Hermit mudstones/shale. You asked on p.106 of this thread:    
Quote
the Hermit Shale is dated at 280 million years by "index fossils" and the Coconino at 270 my, presumably by the same method. Has anyone dated this radiometrically? Does it agree? ... Bwahahahaha!

And I responded by asking (p.107) you how you would radiometrically date the Hermit and Coconino layers :
" How would you radiometrically date the siltstone of the Hermit and the fine, rounded, pitted, frosted Quartz grains of the Coconino?"
If a layer of shale/mudstone contains ilite, or bentonite or other minerals, it's possible to date it. If it has feldspars, great. I specifically asked YOU how you would date the layers mentioned, idiot---I didn't say you could *never* date sediments. Get your lies straight.

Oh and as to Walt Brown's nonsense. On p. 108, you say:    
Quote
I KNEW THERE HAD TO BE SOMEBODY OUT THERE WHO HAD A NICE FLOOD MODEL ...HERE HE IS --  DR. WALT BROWN
THEN you go on to say... "So now you have an overview of what I believed occurred during the Flood "

So, Dave...you didn't know about Walt Brown, but you had a general belief that the flood *must* have occurred, so as soon as you find his crap, it is now "what you believe?" In other words, you leap on a crappy theory merely because it coincides with your presuppositions ...WITHOUT SEEING IF THE MODEL IS VALID?!?!?! And you *call* yourself "skeptical" and "scientific?"

You're older than I am, AirHead, but you're a joke in terms of any kind of emotional or cognitive maturity.

Date: 2006/07/17 13:15:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (jujuquisp @ July 17 2006,14:58)
I wonder if DaveTard has figured out Janiebelle's true identity yet.  I love the way he/she is toying with DaveTard and allowed to post on UD when others would be banned immediately.  If only he knew the truth.....  lol.

No one ever said DaveTard1 was very bright. It's not like there's just no CLUES he could see. I had posted a list of "pointers" but removed them -- I didn't want to step on  "JanieBelle's" dainty tootsies ;)

Date: 2006/07/18 05:48:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
Why are you ignoring the questions that were posted for you, Dave? Oh, and by the way, the Baja outlet for the Colorado River in fact has just the right amount of sediment to explain where the material went.

The walls of the Grand Canyon still are vertical or near-vertical Dave. There is no place on the Toutle that is vertical. Some areas on the GC simly eroded after formation, others didn't. Big deal. Now show me a vertical wall on the Toutle  

As for your "test" on layered material...is that supposed to mean something special to you? The layer in the GC is not the same as that of Mt. St. Helens geologically...but things in photos can look alike...so? How is that supposed to help you when such layers can be differentiated by anyone not using a photograph to "analyze" them?

Now try answering the questions that were asked of you, Dave.

Date: 2006/07/18 06:00:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
Just to remind you again, AirHead:

.
.
Currently Unanswered Questions from the last 5 "Pages"        

(1)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(2) Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(3) If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
(4) How much water was involved in the flood, Dave?  Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(5) How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(6) Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"--  this is utter nonsense. Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(7) Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(8) Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(9) Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(10) Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(11) How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(12) If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(13) Explain PRECISELY  how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist & granite (obviously , that is not "soft ")    
(14) You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(15) Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(16)Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR
(17)Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(18)Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(19)Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
(20) Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"

Date: 2006/07/18 06:19:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
"looking alike" in a photograph doesn't mean geologically alike in analysis, Dave. I realize that may be too difficult for your tiny brain to grasp, but it remains a fact.

Date: 2006/07/18 06:56:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
In regard to the Colorado River Delta, DaveTard2, you might want to do a little reading on it. The delta was once 1,930,000 acres (7,810 km²),  2.3 kilometers thick and extended an estimated 40 km into the northern Gulf of California. More than enough debris there, baboo.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:11:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Deadman ... I know you have a lot of questions ... the Creation/Flood Model does not answer every question, but the main point is that it answers THE BIG QUESTIONS in a much more satisfactory manner than the Long Age Model.


No, it doesn't, AirHead. And in fact, you have not answered one of the major questions posed.

As for oil and gas companies...ever hear of conodonts? Or are they like your imaginary dinos on the ark? And why didn't you answer the question about YEC-oriented oil companies?

Date: 2006/07/18 07:15:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
If you ask me a question, AirHead, you get a direct response. I don't run away from your blithering. So...if your model is more robust in the "big questions", why can't you answer what is asked of you?

Date: 2006/07/18 07:26:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
No ... tell me all about conodonts ...


I asked you several questions, AirHead. Deal with mine and I will answer yours. Or you might decide to utilize whatever little brain you have functioning to do some actual work on your own. Not that I hold much hope for that.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:43:27, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Meanwhile, there sure is a strange silence about my picture that shows 45 degree sloped walls all through the Grand Canyon ...
....
So you're saying there are no 90-degree walls on the canyon, Dave? I mean you said "all through"... please back your claims.


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 ...


The only joke here is you, AirFarceDave. I just mentioned conodonts. I could have cited microfossils of many sorts that are used in oil and gas exploration. The remains of microfossils in petroleum-bearing rocks undergo changes in color due to heat and pressure. When these fossilised microorganisms are pale or orange the sediment is "immature," when they are brown the rocks are mature, indicating oil, and when the fossils are black, they indicate gas.

Date: 2006/07/18 07:58:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hard to get more vertical than this:  that's the Vishnu Schist.  

Talus slopes on the base of 90-degree walls are not found on the Toutle, dave. Nor have you shown any 90-degree walls of any significance at all on the Toutle. why?

Selective culling of photographs isn't impressive AirHead ...and as i mentioned long ago...all that is needed to show that you are wrong is to show the exceptions to your absolutist claims. the Grand Canyon has vertical cliffs that are many thousands of meters in height. The Toutle has? That's right, none of those.

Date: 2006/07/18 08:10:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
The Supai Cliffs (Pennsylvanian) in the Grand Canyon
Quote
So what does this have to do with "Long Age Philosophy" ??

Look up conodonts and when they went extinct, stupid

Date: 2006/07/18 08:24:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Lots of 45 degree slopes there, buddy boy!!


So? Erosion happens, stupid. Talus builds up. More importantly, even in that photo, there are verticals that, judging by the scale, measure hundreds of meters in height...so show me one of those on the Toutle, AirHead.

Date: 2006/07/18 08:38:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Another "reminder"        

(1)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong? (2) Who do you think had syphilis on the ark? (3) If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years?? (4) How much water was involved in the flood, Dave?  Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs? (5) How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year" (6) Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"--  this is utter nonsense. Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters? (7) Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go? (8) Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to? (9) Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done. (10) Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized? (11) How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them? (12) If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(13) Explain PRECISELY  how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist & granite (obviously , that is not "soft ")  (14) You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans? (15) Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out? (16)Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR. (17)Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores? (18)Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores? (19)Why don't we see disruption of the varves? (20) Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"

Date: 2006/07/18 09:04:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dealing with you is a bit like dealing with a weird little hydrocephalic chihuahua, AirHead. You're being hand-fed information but you keep yipping and shaking and pissing all over yourself.
The point is that you can't show ONE comparable vertical on the Toutle, can you, AirHead?

How would any verticals form that were hundreds of meters high if the Grand Canyon were deposited, then cut in one year, Dave? You're violating the very laws of physics, geology and hydraulic engineering by suggesting this, stupid.

Or how about the The Redwall Limestone? It's  500-800ft thick, and is chemically near-pure CaCo3, with almost no other types of sediment mixed in , except in miniscule amounts. ( less than 1% )  How do you rapidly deposit a chemically pure limestone, over an area of thousands of square kilometers, in the middle of a turbulent global flood, in a period of a year? Magic? Miracles? And you're claiming your theory "explains the big things better?" Or that you're a "skeptical science" type? Why can't you answer direct questions, AirHead?

Date: 2006/07/18 09:09:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
No, Dave, I sure can't see that photo and it better be one that is actually IN the Mt. St. Helens material, and not in the older surrounding valley materials, because that would sure screw up your claim, wouldn't it?

Date: 2006/07/18 09:27:36, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Matthew 7:7 ¶ "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

I was knocking on your pointy little skull and all I got was a dull hollow thud, AirHead

Hah, I went ahead and pasted it in my browser and it's not even close to 80, from what I can see, although the angle is deceiving. And it sure isn't "comparable" to hundreds of meters. ####, I have no real idea of where that is, anyway...it looks oddly tampered with if you look at the right side of the photo :    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4692/1143/1600/toutle_90deg.jpg

Date: 2006/07/18 09:46:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
That's about a 60-degree slope at its sharpest, and if you look at the base of the area where the woman is standing, part of that has already slumped off and the rest of it is going to slide away, thereby creating a 45, which it probably already is by now. Unless that was taken a week or two ago. And why is the right side of the photo overlain by another shot?

Date: 2006/07/18 10:18:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
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.

Date: 2006/07/18 18:56:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
Alas, poor DaveTard, we hardly knew ye. Where will I get my daily dose of coffee-snortin'-out-my-nose guffaws other than reading your utterly dense yet suspiciously homoerotic commentary? In memoriam, I'll post a photo of those things you'll have to capture your time and imagination even more now :  
It's kind of telling that you chose mushrooms to "raise," DaveTard1. Thick, meaty mushrooms with a base of fine silky rootlets that you can brush along your cheek prior to sliding it in your mouth...Not that there's anything wrong with that. Semper Fi, Dave, and don't be glancing too obviously at the boys in speedos at the lake ;)

Date: 2006/07/18 19:00:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and as far as Denyse O'Leary is concerned, I'd still like a bite of that tart, plz.  (***edited out of jealousy and love)

Date: 2006/07/18 19:25:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
I weep for the Ann Coulters and Kent Hovinds of the world that no longer have a champion for their cause. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. But surely, Dave the computer expert and autodidactic 180-IQ Scientific American Marine Agnostic that believes god created all animals equally...will stand up to the occasion like the  mushrooms he raises so lovingly.

Date: 2006/07/19 02:57:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Oh and Deadman ... this was scanned from a book ... you know ... one of those things you guys tell me I never read?  That explains the funny reflection on the right ...But you can go ahead and think it's fraud if you like :-)Just file that with all your other erroneous thinking!


I have answered each and every question you have asked of me directly, AirHead. You run from my questions.

The photograph shows 90-degree angles where, Air head? The woman is perpendicular to the ground, this much is obvious...so show me where the photo, labelled "90-degrees"...shows any appreciable angles of that nature in the layers. The problem with even that claim is that the photo you have LABELLED "90-degrees" doesn't even show that it has a single 90-degree angle in the layers. you'd think that the photographer could have found ONE 10-foot span showing a vertical of 90-degrees,dave, but ...nah. Why would that be? Because ash simply can't do that, that's why. Which is why the photographer took a near-frontal and not a side view. he DID have the WOMAN TURN away to give the IMPRESSION of a side view, though.  

The BEST you can do is try to say this photo shows what, Dave? ASH can be cut by water?

Unconsolidated Ash and mud in the Toutle is not the  basalt, schist, limestone, sandstone, gneiss, slate, shale,dolomite of the Grand Canyon. You can't cut 30 meters of ANY of those materials in the time the Toutle cut through ash and mud...

What you are doing is essentially  analogous to saying that a cut-glass diamond is *just the same* as a carbon diamond, dave...you're saying photographs can make layers of gray material look like gray material in layers...but ...on in-person inspection, they are NOT in fact alike...so how does this make your case stronger?

If your "theory" is *better*  than any other, why can't you answer the simple questions others ask you?

Date: 2006/07/19 03:18:47, Link
Author: deadman_932


KF = Kaibab Formation. TF = Toroweap Formation. CS = Coconino Sandstone. HS = Hermit Shale. Supai Group: ES = Esplanade Sandstone, Wes = Wescogame Formation, Man = Manakacha Formation, Wat = Watahomigi Formation. SCF = Surprise Canyon Formation. RF = Redwall Formation. TBF = Temple Butte Formation Tonto Group: ML = Muav Limestone, BAS = Bright Angel Shale, TS = Tapeats Sandstone VG = Vishnu Group Schist

Toutle = 30-meter cut in loose ash and mud, no 90-degree walls, no honest comparison to the Grand Canyon can ever be made in any real way.

Date: 2006/07/19 03:47:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Deadman you pussy, that WAS a great post.

Why, thank you, k.e. -- I've always enjoyed your posts, too: sometimes they're filled with allusions and references that are like a little puzzle to be solved, but almost invariably fun and incisive. Now kiss me, you fool.

Date: 2006/07/19 06:24:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Could it have happened in a very short time period?  <3 years?  Definitely!


Prove it AirTard. Seriously, I'd like you to show your willingness to prove what you think is true. Get a hold of some coconino sandstone. Turn your water hose on it full blast, use a high-pressure garden nozzle. Wait three years. Tell me how much is eroded off that sandstone slab. You have no idea of what that material even looks like, do you? You operate off of sheer ignorance, DaveTard, and it's evident in virtually every post you make. You claim that 60-degree slopes are 90, you think schist and sandstone and any other material can be cut by water in 3 years, to the tune of thousands of feet. You're beyond stupid, Dave. Even the photos you post don't back your stupid-ass claims. Did you ever try doing that test to MAKE spider track trace fossils? No. Why not? because you know #### well you can't do it.

This is why all you're left with is avoiding direct questions put to you, DaveTard2, along with claiming that photos of objects that appear alike -- mean that the subjects are the same.
ASH is NOT schist, stupid. Cutting powdered concrete mix with a garden hose is easy. Now try it with basalt. Dumb shit.
Before you left, you said you were going to be answering the questions I asked, Stupid. I guess your personal knowledge of this  "theory that is better than any other" renders you incapable of even **trying** to respond to  simple questions, eh?

Date: 2006/07/19 07:27:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
1) I will propose that Hegel's historical dialecticism (which was just a sour flatulence of half-digested Plato) provided the pool that nourished ur-liberalism...
2) I will then trace how Erasmus Darwin created a crisis in evolutionary thinking that Bergson and Nietzsche exploited, leading to a New Ethics


Since Hegel didn't publish anything until 1807 and since Erasmus Darwin died in 1802, you're going to have a hard time connecting those two, stupid.

As for Erasmus' ideas on evolution, they were only published in "Zoonomia: Or, The Laws of Organic Life" from 1794-96. This publication was largely based on the previous work of Buffon and Monboddo, and in fact was not original in the least...see John C. Greene "The Death of Adam" (1959) Iowa U. Press. or  Ernst Mayr's "The Growth of Biological Thought" (1982) where the author writes that while Darwin engaged in some "casual evolutionary speculations" " they had remarkably little impact on subsequent developments" Indeed, Charles "Darwin explicitly denied any such influence by his grandfather" Erasmus was not original in his thinking and was a mere synthesizer of ideas that are traceable to previous authors. In short, you know as much about this as you do physics or epistemology, GoP. Idiot

Date: 2006/07/19 08:08:27, Link
Author: deadman_932
Sandstone from the Kaibab and Coconino were used as building materials for thousands of years in the area, AirHead. It was used because it is durable and resistant to wear. We find such sandstone being used by the the Anasazi, the Hopi and the Paiute in Utah. it is used to form walls, floors and benches in Kivas and as roof covering. You are truly stupid if you think a river is  going to cut through those layers in 3 years. You can buy it:  

Date: 2006/07/19 08:36:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
A rinky dink river (the Colorado River) cannot form the features of the Grand Canyon even if given millions of years


Again, you're operating directly from ignorance, DaveStupid. What is the flow of the river? What amount of particulates does it carry? Why does the material from the  Delta region of the Colorado match the debris from the Grand Canyon? Why do we find the same chemical and lithic compositions in both? Why can't you say how sandstone forms FOSSIL TRACKS AND IS STILL SOFT ENOUGH TO BE ERODED IN A YEAR? OR THREE? OR TEN THOUSAND? You're both stupid and dishonest and you have to rely on crap speculation in your "theory that is better than any other" I have not relied on that ONCE. You can't offer up anything BUT that, scumbag.

Date: 2006/07/19 09:03:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
In the channeled scabland area exist gorges that are said to have been made within a few hours, to at most a few days, in basalt, a hard volcanic rock.

Columnar basalt like in Oregon and Ireland ( giant's causeway) would have to be stripped away by torrents moving at 45-50 miles an hour. For the most part, what happens is the underlying materials that the basalt sits on becomes eroded, taking the "jointed" layers of  basalt with it, rather than the basalts being worn away of themselves. You find huge sections of basalt that are carried away by the torrent , but not "eroded." in the sense of having a river cut THROUGH the actual basalt columns, but at the joints. The currents were so  so powerful that they were able to pluck out and transport blocks of basalt, some measuring more than thirty feet across. When ancient Lake Missoula let go, that's what happened.

In the case of the Grand Canyon, the basalt I was thinking of is more like the thicker pahoehoe of Hawaii.

Date: 2006/07/19 09:34:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and Dave: the  Precambrian Cardenas basalt in the east grand canyon is dated at about 780 to 810 million years: E.H. McKee and D.C. Noble, "Age of the Cardenas Lavas, Grand Canyon, Arizona," Geological Society of America Bulletin, 87 (Aug. 1976): 1188-1190.
which agrees with paleomagnetic data presented by:  
Elston, D.P., 1989, Grand Canyon Supergroup, northern Arizona; stratigraphic summary and preliminary paleomagnetic correlations with parts of other North American Proterozoic successions, IN Jenney, J.P., and Reynolds, S.J., eds., Geologic evolution of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest, v. 17, p. 259-272.  See also: Elston, D.P. and Scott, G.R., 1976, Unconformity at the Cardenas-Nankoweap contact (Precambrian), Grand Canyon Supergroup, northern Arizona: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 87, no. 12, p. 1763-1772.
Radiometric dating of the underlying Vishnu Group places its metamorphosis at about 1750 million years ago. GSA Bulletin: Vol. 108, No. 9, (pp. 1167–1181).

Date: 2006/07/19 09:49:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
I was just thinking that the paleomag sequence would have to be disrupted worldwide by heat-filled cataclysmic events like you claimed, DaveStupid...why don't we see that?
Or in the deep sea cores?
Or in the ice cores?
Or in the varves?
Or in the dendrochonology?
Or in the obsidian dating?  
Or in the Thermoluminescence dates?
Or the Radioluminescence dates?

Date: 2006/07/19 10:10:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
Glen: I was thinking only of the Cardenas basalt, which is about 300 meters thick max, in the GC. I'm not sure what basalts other than columns were eroded up there (in the NW), even though i lived on the Willamette for a while. There's lots of different kinds of "basalt" flows, some are airy and easily eroded, others are pretty tough.

Date: 2006/07/19 10:56:41, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
apparent narcissists like Dave never trouble to find out what evidence floods really leave behind.  Instead they insist that everything is compatible with Noah's Flood, and work everything out from that infallible "god-given" statement

While ignoring and failing to deal with any other data that is incompatible. Which amounts to the greatest measure of data.
How one can say they have the "best" theory-- while it fails to explain the preponderance of data is beyond me, literally. I am baffled by this need  to force-fit/retrofit/ignore the data/. I fail to see how falsehoods --that can be easily discerned -- serve any religious view while they make god smaller.

When geocentrism was refuted, it led to the reduction of "god"...when similar lies are shown false, it will be the same. It's stupid for any theist to engage in demonstrable lies, but Dave is a bit more than stupid, it seems.

Date: 2006/07/19 12:09:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Ernst Mayr? That's a hoot. Wasn't he the guy who, in What Evolution is, used Haeckel's embryos as evidence of evolution? This after evos told us that Darwinists had known for a while that these drawings were inaccurate, and didn't need Wells's help on the matter. So was Mayr ignorant or deceptive when he presented those drawings in his book?


Oddly enough, this has nothing to do with the validity of Mayr's statement about the influence of Erasmus. Which is typical of your inability to deal with issues at hand, stupid. I can cite Charles Darwin or any number of authors who say precisely what I stated. What you are avoiding arethe obvious errors in your claims.  
Quote
And what happened to your rigorous moral code, Nine? I thought those gun totin' kids raised you better.


Yes, I have ethics enough and morals enough not to make the sort of stupid claims you do. While you fail in every area you attempt..philosophy, physics, history, biology, political commentary  etc....others manage to not take the easy way out by lying and instead absorb and organize the actual data into coherent and supportable wholes. You, however, are merely a slightly more glib version of AFDave...you are, in short, unskilled and unaware  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract

Your biggest issue appears to be that you don't have the mettle or brains to complete the kind of educational goals that would gain you entrance to academia, so instead you prefer to troll your betters. Awfully sad for one who pretends towards so much, but utterly typical, as shown in DaveTard1 and 2, and far too many others.

Date: 2006/07/20 07:02:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I try very hard not to ignore DATA ... I do not have comprehensive explanations for all data, but I think the Catastrophic Models explain the data better than the Uniformitarian Model.


You say the "catastrophic" model supports and explains the data better...but you can't answer a single question posed on it?

When you have the ability to respond to questions, let me know, AirHead. In the meantime, I'll simply continue to point out where you are wrong.

There are hundreds of steep-sided canyons in the world. There are hundreds of u-shaped canyons in the world.
There are hundreds of river cuts in alluvial plains in the world.
What do the categories above tell us, AirHead?  Not all valleys are created equally, not all valleys are explained the same way, because they are composed of different materials formed by different forces at different times. Your model proposes that they were all shaped by the same forces at the same time, but you can't even say what those forces were.
It would be funny if it weren't so childish in an adult. Magical thinking has never impressed me.

Date: 2006/07/20 07:18:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
No, Dave, we're getting to the heart of the matter by calling out your game.  Your game consists of grasping at anything that might possibly help support your interpretation of the Bible, and rejecting anything that might contradict it.

Which is why, a long time ago (p.14 on this thread!;) I wanted to simply get to his flood dates. The flood dates that he moved from the Biblically-derived 2300-2500 BC to 5000+ BC, then back, because he realized he couldn't support it in the bible. But Dave says  
Quote
My discussion has nothing to do with religion and I do not consider myself to be religious. I am trying to explain the phenomena in the universe by the most sensible explanations (p.6)  
 
Quote
I do not engage in wild speculation. I have the mind of an engineer and a scientist. I, like you, am a healthy skeptic." (p.3)


While he still can't answer a single question posed about the flood or the Grand Canyon. It's pretty sad, really.

Date: 2006/07/20 07:35:27, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
good work, Dave on trapping the evos on their "catastrophically-formed canyons don't have 90 degree faces" angle.


Yet I had already shown why that area DOES have steep sides and you can see the basaltic columns in the photos posted. You are no more informed in this than you are on physics, epistemology, history or biology, GoP. Not all valleys are the same, not all cuts by floods or rivers are the same. The Grand Canyon doesn't match the palouse in the least. Nor do either of those match the Toutle, stupid. Different materials, different conditions, different times.

Oh, and you'll also notice that no one, to my knowledge, made the claim you posted, GoP.

Date: 2006/07/20 08:00:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Since evolutionists deny the reality of consciousness in order to deny moral responsibility, they completely erase the distinction between the animate and inanimate.


I suppose you can give an example of this claim? Specifically, I'd like to see anyone denying that conciousness exists while saying that rocks and man are exactly alike in cognitive processes. Or will this be another of your multiple claims that you can't support directly, GoP?

Date: 2006/07/20 08:19:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
She has written for newspapers, magazines, book publishers, and trade journals, including the Globe & Mail, the Toronto Star, and Canadian Living.


One wonders how many of those were op-ed pieces that anyone can write.

Date: 2006/07/20 08:35:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hmm..on a total aside here, the reason GoP has even posted is because Louis and creekybelly have essentially dismantled his bullshite "geocentric" model. In a word, he matches what I said in the thread here "I have ethics enough and morals enough not to make the sort of stupid claims you do. While you fail in every area you attempt..philosophy, physics, history, biology, political commentary etc....others manage to not take the easy way out by lying and instead absorb and organize the actual data into coherent and supportable wholes. You, however, are merely a slightly more glib version of AFDave...you are, in short, unskilled and unaware Your biggest issue appears to be that you don't have the mettle or brains to complete the kind of educational goals that would gain you entrance to academia, so instead you prefer to troll your betters. Awfully sad for one who pretends towards so much, but utterly typical, as shown in DaveTard1 and 2, and far too many others."

Date: 2006/07/20 08:44:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
It's probably better to avoid lying alltogether (unless it helps converts an unbeliever, you can always atone afterwords for that).

Yeah, Martin Luther :
Quote
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." ...Martin Luther cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol.1

Date: 2006/07/20 08:52:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I am not qualified to evaluate hypotheses in mathematics, biochemistry, or exobiology. But I am well qualified to study public issues and attempt to pull a discussion back from the abyss.

Oh, this should be fun. I plan on joining up in my own name ASAP. Dumbski will last about a month, then ban wildly. His kind of crap can't bear scrutiny. The "best" mind over there is Cordova, fer chrissakes.

Date: 2006/07/20 09:09:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
Arden: look back on this thread and you'll see at least two big-ass clues on janie. Start from when she first appeared

Date: 2006/07/20 09:36:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
"Your biggest issue appears to be that you don't have the mettle or brains to complete the kind of educational goals that would gain you entrance to academia, so instead you prefer to troll your betters. Awfully sad for one who pretends towards so much, but utterly typical, as shown in DaveTard1 and 2, and far too many others. "

notice that all that you claimed afterwards has nothing to do with what you initially claimed, and you want soooooooo desperately to be acknowledged

Date: 2006/07/20 09:45:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
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 such as ourselves.

So, rather than address the issues at hand,now you're stuck with " they can't take a joke?" Despite the fact that I find your inanity cosmically amusing?

Date: 2006/07/20 10:07:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
original claim :  
Quote
Western Civilisation is in deep trouble. In addition to an aging population, we are experiencing historically low reproduction rates - below replacement level, in fact. What to do? Most governments turn to immigration for an answer. The immigrants, they reason, provide the cheap labor that allows for economic expansion, while their consumption fuels the growth of service-sector industries. The enriched tax base allows us to maintain the social services and trust funds that cushion retirement accounts. And this does not even account for the cultural enrichment the newcomers also provide. There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done. But if they bring a diseased culture along with their possessions, everyone suffers. The immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old.


His claim of " the immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old" has been supported by what?

Date: 2006/07/20 14:16:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
speaking of best hitters --what happened to you on physics, history, epistemology, politics, biology and anthro? Ah, yes...you ran

Date: 2006/07/20 14:20:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Now I don't flinch from Messiah (the author, not the Author). I'm currently looking at periodic perturbations and band energy gaps. What I've seen so far underlines the wisdom of ditching Planck's constant. The energy transition from intelligence space to real space is too large. I need to incorporate the transition probability formula


intelligence space = if I can't manage to baffle with BS, I'll make terms up entirely

Date: 2006/07/20 14:24:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Something can be neutral or even good in itself, and yet lead to evil things. An even better example is Halloween. Good movie, but look what it led to....


Halloween "led " to something? can we show a direct connection ?

Date: 2006/07/20 14:28:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Number Nine, feel free to comment on my philosophy installments. You seem pretty knowlegeable about the discipline. Or the science thread.

What I care about is your ability to back your claims honestly and with supporting evidence, GoP. Both of which you seem unable to do

Date: 2006/07/20 23:53:09, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Get on with your geocentrism, you did PROMISE after all!
The real issue is, as with your inability to proffer that long-awaited  geocentric model, is that you can't back a fucking thing you say, GoP. Why is that not odd to you?

Date: 2006/07/22 15:36:10, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oddly enough, you're becoming repetitive and boring, AirHead. You claim to have a theory to explain the GC, but can't answer a single question. While the uniformitarian view answers each one raised.

So of course all you have left is evasion and trite attempts at obfuscating.

Like I said previously, AirHead, when you can actually answer a question based on the data, you let me know.

Until then you have a muddled concatenation of mutually contradictory models that explains nothing, not even the Palouse.

Date: 2006/07/22 15:59:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
When you read a lot of these as I have, you come to a point where you say "Wow ... this is uncanny ... this Book really is Supernatural!!"


And yet when you are shown examples of false claims  like Tyre not sinking under the sea and Nebuchadrezzar-invading- Egypt-making-it-a-wasteland prophecies...which are shown false to you directly, you merely run from that. As you ran from supporting your claims about Catal Huyuk and many other large-scale systems that didn't get wiped out by any flood, Dave. So ...where does this leave you, other than in your current state of frantic avoidance?

Date: 2006/07/22 16:13:20, Link
Author: deadman_932
Yet you haven't answered one yet

Monday will not be any different than last Monday , or the month before in regard to your inability to answer questions directly, Dave.

If you had any, you'd have tried to use them. But you have none. Nothing odd there, in my view of you.

Date: 2006/07/23 01:01:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
I just noticed this little tidbit from the previous page:

 
Quote
Is all this intellectual posturing based on the disdain that hard scientists have for your discipline? I mean, only some people can master physics or chemistry, but any bright fifth grader can memorise geological or anthropological jargon. As for evolution itself, Behe had it right when he compared his specialty to neuroscience, and Darwinism to podiatry. It's all just stamp-collecting, with molecular biology providing the veneer of sophistication that Darwinism craves. Too bad you can't get your trees to match up.


But you haven't mastered any of that, Stupid, which leaves me far ahead of you. Nor -- by your own admission-- do you have the credentials to make any claims about specific sciences, given that you have conquered...none, to my knowledge. Archaeology has multiple sub-fields that deal directly with the hard sciences, again subjects you have yet to show proficiency in :)  

And yet you manage to whine:    
Quote
The amusing thing about all this is I don't care about this one-upmanship...Layered on top, of course, is your decaying and increasingly falsified world view. It must be sad to be a liberal, to see the utter failure of every one of your goals. The world is a much scarier place because of you, and you know it. The only hope is to wreck the West before you die, so that your legacy won't perish with your genes.


But you don't care about me shooting down your claims, eh? I appear to have struck a nerve when I pointed out that you don't have the brains or mettle to complete the kind of education that would allow you to sniff the ass of an actual scientist. Sounds to me like you need to preen that ego again, kid...make some **more** unsupported assertions, chuckles. And pretend you don't "care" about one-upmanship as you strive so petulantly to do so.

Date: 2006/07/23 14:44:47, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, my...not only are you a bulletin board "tough guy" but now you've been handing people their asses? Where was this, exactly?
Quote
I'm more interested in who can best support their arguments.


Was it in connecting Erasmus Darwin to Hegel? Or was it in claiming that Erasmus Darwin created a crisis in evolutionary thinking, by some means you can't even describe? Was it perhaps when you were making epistemic claims that you couldn't support? Was it in your failure to produce a geocentric model? Inquiring minds want to know, GoP

Date: 2006/07/23 14:53:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Accept it or reject it, the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative
Quote
By the way, Louis, if you're wondering if I back up my tough talk, the answer is yes

Oh, noes, a bulletin-board tuffy.
As a successful conservative thinker awash in testosterone and bluster, I can see why you'd be using a library computer and chasing away big mean mens with cell phones. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If you need more quarters to put in the pay-as-you-go computers there, you let me know, and I'll send you a few. I'm nothing if not helpful to my less-fortunate fellow citizens, GoP. Heck, if I saw you pushing around your supermarket cart, I might even wave hi.
On, the other hand, yeah, I think you got some issues if you propose on beating up the mentally ill on a train. Overcompensating is my guess.

Date: 2006/07/24 08:09:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Nine's background has bred an active dislike for the homeless and working poor.

Well, gosh, color me surprised. Not only are you a bulletin board tuffy, but you want to pose as a psychic, too.
Let me make this quite clear: if I insult you directly, this has no bearing on my feelings about poor people or the homeless in general -- I have a great deal of sympathy for the less fortunate -- however I have little tolerance for irritants like you, GoP.
This has nothing to do with job or class or homelessness, it has to do with your patently bizarre claims, your willingness to offer up general insults, your obvious need for attention and your lack of intellectual depth or rigor while you pose and preen about your political/philosophical/religious views.
If you are indeed part of the homeless working poor, GoP, I find it inexplicable why you would support the neocon policies that have led to the current economic state of affairs here in the U.S. Today, for instance, the Los Angeles Times reported that inflation-adjusted wages for the 30 million americans with a bachelor's-level college degree were flat for the years 2000-2004, the last year available for analysis.
Let's put that in perspective, Dipshit. Gross Domestic Product has increased the last three years at an average of 3.8 %...Unemployment remains low, at 4.6%...but who is getting the money from the current economy?

Well, let's look at the unemployment rates: Of the 6.5 million jobs created since 2001, half of those were "contingent" positions composed of part-time and freelance positions without benefits. Jobs continue to be siphoned overseas or to a large number of illegal immigrant workers here in the US, keeping that Bush in fact favors amnesty for the 12 million illegal workers currently in the US. Furthermore the current unemployment figures fail to represent the numbers of chronic unemployed who have ceased even looking for jobs.

Last August the Census Bureau reported that real median family income — the purchasing power of the typical family — actually fell. Meanwhile, poverty increased, as did the number children in poverty and the number of  Americans without health insurance. So where did the growth go? Well, if you *exclude* capital gains from a rising stock market, in 2004 the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans surged by almost 12.5 percent. Meanwhile, the average real income of the bottom 99 percent of the population rose only 1.5 percent. In other words, a relative handful of people received most of the benefits of growth. Growth didn’t just bypass the poor and the lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution — that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — gained only **modestly**. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic 1%, while the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004. In short, it’s a great economy if you’re a high-level corporate executive or someone who owns a lot of stock.

Date: 2006/07/24 08:49:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Yeah, the water "shot out into space," uh-huh. The problems with your little scenario are that there is no evidence that it ever happened, period.

A global increase in sea level with the concordant flooding and turbidity demanded would create a global stratum, AirHead. Where is it? Why didn't the fish and insects die? Other invertebrates? Plants? don't try to tell me all plants survived on "mats" of vegetation, Airhead, this is not possible , given what we know of the ability of plants to survive in such conditions.

Why didn't the known cultures of that period you have once again returned to ...2300-2500 BC...vanish under this deluge? Why do they keep right on going archaeologically?

Why can't you actually answer a question directly, without relying on magical suppositions that have no evidential basis?

Date: 2006/07/24 09:00:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
edited

Date: 2006/07/24 09:06:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
Uh, and where did you get those figures for land and sea area, Davey-goober? You're using 69.6 million square miles for the TOTAL land area of the world? Last I heard, it was about 197 million sq mi total, 57.5 million sq mi of land  (I'll correct the double post later)

Date: 2006/07/24 10:05:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Then why bring up my income? If you don't look down on poor people, then why frame an insult around my economic status? Especially when it has nothing to do with my ability to support my arguments?


Probably because it simply is just as insulting to you as your snide little digs at me in absentia were in this thread. Like your caricatures of my views? Your posturing as a tough-guy that is going to beat up some old nutcase on a train? The fact that you are operating out of a library? What's good for you to use is also good for me to use, GoP, correct? And it continues on in your last post, GoP... claiming that I only have sympathy for the poor that agree with me? Or that I tossed in some paternalism? Or that you can say you know my economic class?

You're awfully thin-skinned for one that painted me as:  
 
Quote
That's why Number Nine gets pi$$y at Dave's childhood stories; he sees Dave as belonging to a race of colonisers and exploiters, not as a fellow white man.
Considering that I am not " a fellow white man" to AirHead , nope I don't. Has no semblance in reality, although you will note that I told Dave his dad seemed like a nice guy before he (AirHead) launched into his plantation spiel.

Oh, and your guesswork about my being "rich" is also wrong. Not that being wrong is unfamiliar to you. You can untwist your knickers now, GoP.

Date: 2006/07/24 20:24:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Deadman ... yes, I think your number is right ... I was punching numbers into my calculator too fast ... you sure are good on details ... too bad you've got the big picture wrong ... you'd make a great Christian apologist ...


The truth of the matter is that if I wanted to do that, yes, I could be very good. But alas, I have a conscience --based on my own moral and ethical concepts-- that won't allow me to engage in the sort of deception and trickery that apologists engage in. I much prefer the straightforwardness of people like former Scientific American writer Martin Gardner who embraces his Spinozan-pantheist views without soiling them with the dirty laundry of apologetics.

As to your "model" (a mutant concatenation of three models, really) I can see why you'd have problems finding any evidence to support the claims in it. Fortunately, models such as yours --which present no evidential support or greater explanatory value -- are easily enough disposed of.

The primary point with new theories is that they are required to subsume/supercede previous ones. They are supposed to explain and clarify issues to a greater degree than previous theories/models.

Your model can't answer any of the questions you have been asked. The "standard uniformitarian" model does answer each one.

Yours loses due to being of lesser value and being supported by *no* evidence that you have supplied. QED.

Date: 2006/07/25 09:12:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
LONG-AGER VIEW OF SEDIMENTATION IS WRONG


Really, Dave. I've read the article. I've read what AIG says about Berthault's experiment and how they want it to apply to the Grand Canyon.

What I would like to know is ...have you read it? Since you didn't cite where it is actually located, it is http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/sand.asp Now, I would like you to tell me how this experiment that involves fine grades of sand and charcoal and limestone powder applies when the experiments are **not** conducted under water? Answer : It doesn't since you say the deposition was by water.

Now look at the experiments done with all three materials under water. Show me one instance where all three materials together form laminations.  Answer: none.

Now show me how this paper applies to the Grand Canyon, Dave. Use your own words. Don't try to merely pass it off by saying " read the paper you found" I am asking YOU to tell me how it applies in regard to the different materials we see in the GC **under the conditions you require in YOUR model**

In particular, I'd like you to tell me how it can be that the Bright Angel Shale contains a number of thin, but coarse-grained, conglomerates. While such features could periodically develop over geologic time, how could these gravelly layers form in the MIDDLE of Berthault's rapid "Flood-based sediment sorting process"? Furthermore, the Bright Angel Shale has materials becoming coarser rather than finer moving UPWARD in the formation. How is this consistent with Berthault's claims? Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Group. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments? Also, if "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels? (courtesy of Kevin Henke)

As to your other claims so far today,  only two count in regard to " the flood" you claim: First, you mention the Mid-Oceanic ridges as if this were something not contained in any elementary schoolbook physical science text. Nothing new. Second, you claim that all fossils are  due to catastrophism? explain the brachiopods I just mentioned. You know nothing about that topic either (paleontology) do you?

As to walt brown's claims and you deriding Glenn Morton as "only" having a BS in physics...you better check your alligator mouth before your mosquito brain fails to provide the detail. Just for your information, your " Guy Berthault is only listed at AIG as "a keen student of geology " with no degrees at all.

Date: 2006/07/25 09:34:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Currently Unanswered Questions. Please feel free to add to this list, folks, since it's a record of Dave's ineptitude, really        

(1)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(2) Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(3) If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
(4) How much water was involved in the flood, Dave?  Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(5) How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(6) Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"--  this is utter nonsense. Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(7) Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(8) Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(9) Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(10) Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(11) How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(12) If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(13) Explain PRECISELY  how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist & granite (obviously , that is not "soft ")    
(14) You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(15) Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(16)Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR
(17)Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(18)Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(19)Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
(20) Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"

Date: 2006/07/25 10:29:36, Link
Author: deadman_932
nice double entendre, jeannot:) And I'll add your question to the list. Thanks!

Date: 2006/07/25 10:42:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Just think of it as a term of endearment, Daave, like "AirHead," or "AssHatDave" or "Our *Special* Little Man."

Now try answering what was asked of you.

Date: 2006/07/25 19:04:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Your problem is that you cannot admit a Perfect God. If you could, you would have no problem with inerrancy. You have a perfect God who can do no wrong ... He superintends the writing of Scripture and ensures there are no errors.


Nonsense. This sort of thing is simply stupid to claim. If the Bible were perfect, from the mind of a perfect God, then revelation would be error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true in all things. The Bible is neither error-free, unambiguously clear, nor objectively verifiable in all things. In fact, as has been shown here, the only way you can make claims about the Bible *being* "perfect" is by avoidance.

Like you avoiding showing how the dendrochronology of ancient cultures that predate your flood period is "wrong." Like you avoid the varves, ice cores and sea floor cores , the corals, the multiple other dating methods mentioned. Like you avoided the issue of Tyre, the "propecy " of Nebuchadrezzar conquering Egypt and making it a wasteland, Like you avoided the lack of any evidence of an Egyptian captivity, like you will avoid any other evidence that the Bible IS wrong in ANYTHING.

This means that you have to indulge in the kind of dishonest ugliness that has been all too evident in each day that you post, AirHead and most people that have a conscience find it disgusting, but you simply make up excuses for yourself by pretending that YOU cannot be wrong about the Bible being Perfectly right.

Another point to be made here would be this, AirHead: An VERY good case can be made that a God whose existence is not possible to doubt is greater than a God whose existence IS possible to doubt... So, IF a greatest conceivable being existed, that being would be IMPOSSIBLE to doubt. Your God has a Bible that allows for multiple interpretations, has errors , has lies in it, has claims that God lies, has claims that god creates evil itself ( not "Satan"), has claims in it that are mutually contradictory so that ONE of the claims involved MUST logically BE wrong. It has claims that are contrary to what we know of the world today, such as "men can live in the stomachs of sea beasts and emerge alive days later." or "rabbits chew the cud."  

How about simple things like This:
2 Chron. 9:25 says, "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen..." while 1 Kings 4:26 says, "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." I know you'll say " but that's just a copyists error" but the point is it REMAINS an error TODAY, present in each translation. Or how about Acts 13:17-22, 1 Chron. 29:27-28 and 1 Kings 6:1. The first two state that Solomon's reign began at least 530 years after the Hebrews left Egypt. But 1 Kings 6:1 claims that Solomon's reign began 476 years after the Hebrews left Egypt - a discrepancy of at least 54 years
When was Jesus born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these two rulers  because Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. I could go on and on, listing literally dozens of things that are NOT "explained" by apologetics, but rather they are simply ignored or lied about by apologists.

It is a basic rule of logic that a "thing" cannot be BOTH "x" and "NOT X" simultaneously, but you care nothing about that. The fact is that the Bible ccannot be BOTH "perfect" and have errors...and it HAS errors of multiple kinds, AirHead. Little things like this force people like you, Dave, into the kind of mental contortions that have essentially made you impossibly ILLOGICAL and the OPPOSITE  of  logical, rational or "scientific" or "skeptical"

Date: 2006/07/26 12:32:47, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
there are many other evidences which counter this and support our belief in God, i.e. the necessity of Intelligent Design, the Universal Moral Code (the conscience that Deadman refers to), the accuracy of depiction of the human state, the unity of theme despite hugely varying authorship, the life changing power, etc., etc.I'd be interested to hear what YOU would consider to be evidence of (a) God's existence and (b) authenticity of His message to mankind

What would it take for you?


Dave, I'd like you to actually READ this, slowly, for comprehension
1. There are many people at Panda's Thumb that *ARE* religious. They DO believe.
2. These people are not ostracized/rejected by all others here.
3. The mere fact that i reject your ideas on evolution and a young earth has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs in God.
Let me repeat that slowly...my rejection of your YEC position has nothing to do with my faith in God. NONE.
It IS a rejection of **your** claims about Young Earth Creationism -- because you have not provided any evidence to support it.
Instead what you have done is to use every ploy, including outright lies and every logical fallacy in the book...to try to bullshi+ me. I take that personally, because I view it as an insult when a person thinks that they can threaten or "fool" me into doing what they want me to do. I am not a coward, to be coerced by threats (of he11 and damnation), and I am not a child or an idiot, to merely be swayed by what are demonstrable falsehoods.
In short, Dave, it is not *God* that is being rejected by ME. It is YOU and your patently stupid AND ignorant claims about Young Earth Creationism.
Like Puck and eric and MANY others have said -- your basic error is tying your faith in God to YEC-ism. This leads you to make claims that you cannot provide evidence for. So when your claims get rejected, you automatically think that the listener is rejecting God. This is a fundamental error in both logic and your inability to accept reality.

Date: 2006/07/26 13:55:26, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
On the other hand, if you are a YEC, life is easy and explanations are easy ...


Yes, so long as you are able to make unsupported claims and present no evidence while simultaneously avoiding any critical arguments or questions aimed at you. It's easier still when you exaggerate, twist, lie and embrace the use of fallacies and childish rhetorical ploys.

Let me point out the obvious, Dave: You are here to support your "hypothesis."
And the MOMENT you began to use the childish "hee-hee's" and use the tactics I described above--you began to be rejected. Eventually you got to the point where many people, like me, believe that you are simply screwed up in the head and a born liar. And I have stated multiple times in this thread WHERE you have lied, so don't pretend that I haven't.

Date: 2006/07/26 14:57:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
Since you posted the photo of folded mountains, Dave, I'd like you to answer me one question. I will preface this with some details drawn from here (I'm lazy), then a brief version of your explanation, then the question. An online dictionary of geologic terms is provided here          
Metamorphic rocks come in many types. They include Gneiss, Schist (like the Vishnu Schist in the Grand Canyon), and Marble
Metamorphism begins to occur at temperatures and pressures higher than 200oC and 300 MPa.(3Kilobars) This comes in two ranges:
1. Low-grade metamorphism takes place at temperatures between about 200 to 320oC. This is *generally* shown by the presence of hydrous minerals.
2. High-grade metamorphism temperatures greater than 320oC and relatively higher pressure. Hydrous minerals  lose H2O, and non-hydrous minerals become more common.

Okay, now. Let's look at HOW metamorphism occurs. This can be divided into 6 general categories:[/B]
1. Contact Metamorphism -- occurs adjacent to igneous intrusions and results from high temperatures associated with the igneous intrusion. Characterized by "contact aureoles."
2. Regional Metamorphism -- occurs over large areas and generally does not show any relationship to igneous bodies.  Most regional metamorphism is accompanied by deformation under non-hydrostatic or differential stress conditions.  Regional metamorphism usually results in  metamorphic rocks that are strongly foliated, such as slates, schists, and gniesses. Thus, regionally metamorphosed rocks occur in the cores of fold/thrust mountain belts or in eroded mountain ranges.  Compressive stresses result in folding of  rock and thickening of the crust, which tends to push rocks to deeper levels where they are subjected to higher temperatures and pressures.
3. Cataclastic Metamorphism -- occurs as a result of mechanical deformation, like when two bodies of rock slide past one another along a fault zone.  Heat is generated by the friction of sliding along such a shear zone, and the rocks tend to be mechanically deformed, crushed and pulverized.
4. Hydrothermal Metamorphism -- Rocks that are altered at high temperatures and moderate pressures by hydrothermal fluids. This is common in basaltic rocks that generally lack hydrous minerals.
5. Burial Metamorphism -- When sedimentary rocks are buried to depths of several hundred meters, temperatures greater than 300oC may develop in the absence of differential stress. New minerals grow, but the rock does not appear to be metamorphosed. The main minerals produced are often the Zeolites. Burial metamorphism overlaps, to some extent, with diagenesis, and grades into regional metamorphism as temperature and pressure increase.
6. Shock Metamorphism (Impact Metamorphism) -- When an extraterrestrial body, such as a meteorite or comet impacts with the Earth or if there is a very large volcanic explosion, ultrahigh pressures can be generated in the impacted rock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Dave, now , let's look at your picture again and your scenario for how they were formed. You say they were deposited then deformed while "still wet." I presume they were then uplifted by the Cataclysmic forces of your "Deluge." You have a very few means by which the mountains you showed ---thousands upon thousands of feet hight-- were metamorphosed.

My question is: HOW (PRECISELY!;) )..were the mountains in your photograph ..metamorphosed?

Given the limited range of possibilities and the fact that there are thousands of such mountains on the earth, composed of various kinds of minerals, I want you to give me details on how that ONE range was formed. My money says you can't even begin to say HOW it metamorphosed, except by waving your hands and proposing magic.. Show me I'm wrong

Date: 2006/07/26 16:26:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
If you don't mind, Deadman, I'd like Dave to work on my question first

Not at all, eric. Dave -- being comparable to Newton and Maxwell, etc. (so he says, p. 6 this thread) -- will be capable of disposing of these minor quibbles POSTHASTE, I'm sure.

Date: 2006/07/27 02:55:54, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
After reading Dawkins and reflecting upon the Religion Poll post I'm realizing that many people defend evolution not based upon the facts but upon the fact that they need it to be true to support their philosophy.

Did you enjoy your little stay here posing as a biochemist "proposing a theory" that you never outlined or supported in the least? Good to see you've dropped the charade, however.
Quote
Random mutation must be defended for two reasons. 1) It reinforces an atheist philosophy, and 2) It is the very concept that is attacked by creationists so it must be opposed.

By the way, dolt, not all folks that accept evolution are atheists or even agnostics, though you'd like to pretend that. Fraud.

Date: 2006/07/27 11:17:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
You're avoiding again, Dave

I asked you how the mountains in your photo got METAMORPHISED, Dave, not "did they dry out" Metamorphosis , as I explained, requires lots and lots of heat and pressure. your answer was only :
Quote
They were SOFT when bent and they hardened later.  Remember?  Massive quantities of layered sediments were deposited during the Flood and continents were shifted.  There was an immense amount of sliding and pushing and shifting which inevitably caused FOLDING OF SOFT STRATA.


SO HOW DID THE LAYERS ALL GET METAMORPHISED, IDIOT? that mountain is well above 10000 feet tall, Dave. I know where it's located. If the layers got all bent up, then the mountain was raised...IT STILL HAS TO HAVE PRESSURE AND HEAT to metamorphise the SEDIMENT to METAMORPHIC ROCK, and it IS metamorphic. SO where did the pressure and heat COME FROM, AirHead? There's no overlying monster igneous layer, you say it CAN'T be that it was SUBDUCTED in that amount of time, so...HOW DID IT HAPPEN????????

Date: 2006/07/27 11:42:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
The mountain range in your photo is called "vetebrae ridge,"  Dave, and it's located near Golden, British Columbia. It is high-grade metamorphic rock. YOU say it was sedimentary rock, bent while soft, then raised to a mountain.
HOW DID IT GET METAMORPHISED????
That rock needs to be raised to a temperature of above 320oC and ABOVE 3 kilobars of pressure to form. There are no monster igneous layers above it..so HOW did it become metamorphic?

All YOU said was " it dried out"...well, that alone won't make it metamorphic, stupid. SO, HOW was it metamorphised PRECISELY?

Date: 2006/07/27 12:56:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's the photo you posted, AirHead
You say it cannot be formed by "millionsofyearianism" uniform geologic processes that are known and studied both in the lab and in situ, AirHead.
I asked you , then, given your "theory that is better than any other" -- HOW WAS THIS ROCK METAMORPHISED?

I **didn't** ask about it "drying out,"  I asked specifically about METAMORPHOSIS...YOU say you have a better theory than any other, Dave. Show me, punkin'--as I said, my bet is you can't even BEGIN to tell me how those mountains metamorphosed and so far, I am quite correct in that. What that gneiss requires is OVER 320oC and OVER 3 kilobars of pressure, AirHead. Get to work on avoiding, Dave

Date: 2006/07/27 13:05:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and hey, Jon, here's a nice pic to add to your references on neat metamorphic folds, if you don't already have it:
The caption is: " Intense folding in high grade metamorphic rocks on the Connemara Peninsula of western Ireland."

Date: 2006/07/27 17:04:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
One advantage of pounding stupid old Dave here is that some of these photos are actually quite beautiful...
I know! I wanted to add on my post : " I'd love to have a table made of a slab of that" (if it were possible)

Date: 2006/07/27 19:09:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
  Then as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span.  These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario.

HAHAHAHAHA...you say that the GNEISSES of that range can be FOLDED, HEATED (((HOW?!?!?!?!?!?!;))) and THEN UPLIFTED in a SHORT time span, but NOT a LONG ONE?????
IF IT IS A "WELL-UNDERSTOOD" PROCESS BY WHICH THIS CAN OCCUR AND CREATE GNEISS IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME, SHOW ME THE REFERENCES FOR GNEISS , DAVELIAR
You KNOW damm  well you can't show me how it formed DaveLiar, if it is not SUBDUCTED.
How could it be subducted in 4000 years, dave?
If it is NOT subducted, WHAT HEATED IT?
WHAT MADE THE PRESSURE SO GREAT ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH? 3KILOBARS ?!?!?!?!?! THAT'S A MOUNTAIN, YOU IDIOT...NO KNOW PROCESS CAN CREATE IT IN THE TIME SPAN YOU WANT...NONE!!!!!

SHOW ME YOUR REFERENCES FOR SUCH AN EVENT OCCURING --NONE!!!!!
SHOW ME THE STUDIES SHOWING HOW GNEISS CAN BE FORMED IN THAT AMOUNT OF TIME WITHOUT SUBDUCTION --NONE!!!

SHOW ME HOW FAST THE FASTEST RATES OF SUBDUCTION ARE. HAHAHAHA.
YOU JUST AVOIDED GIVING ANY DETAIL, BUT YOU SAY YOU HAVE THE "BEST" THEORY ON HOW THIS OCCURED?  

HAHAHAHAHA ....YOU DID MAKE IT UP, JUST AS I PREDICTED. WOTTA SCUMBAG

Date: 2006/07/27 23:30:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
It's sort of funny to me that DaveTard2 --( is he now the no.#1 DaveTard, now that Dave"shmucky"Scot was killed in action?) -- anyway, it's funny that AirHead started this thread full of vim and vigor, proudly boasting about his "jet pilot" status and his mental abilities...and he's now reduced to this beppo the clown pinata figure. You can actually SEE him trying out various approaches as you look through the 125 pages of the thread.
The cocksure "hero" ready to take on the heathens became the teacher and the sober scientist and the outraged citizen and the witty guy and then the  righteous holyman and then the purveyor of radical truths, etc. etc...as he sought out approaches that "worked."  
The problem remained the same, though--that in order to succeed, he had to back up his "god hypothesis" claims better than any other competing claims, and with each approach, he failed...so now what is our pinheaded little palm pilot left with?
All he has left is " the trickster"  and " the hit-and-run insult comic "  trying to be buddies with the enemy,  alternating with "righteous teacher" as he lies his ass off daily.
It's sort of like watching Reagan deteriorate from a pretty effective figurehead to "the great babbler"  --mumbling about film scenes and plot points as though they were real.
Dave came in with SUCH hope and fire in his eyes..and is now just content with his role as class clown. I imagine this is a pattern that he's followed much of his life...
I think most people in academia recognized *brilliant* fellow students when they saw them, and they saw the above-average ones that didn't have to work very hard to make the grade...and they saw the middle-range students that knew they were less skilled, so they worked their asses off to get by. Then you have the odd types like Dave. Inferior in all respects, but possessed of an almost obsessive-compulsive ego-enhanced drive to try to succeed..while ultimately barely scraping by.

So, on this 125th page, I'll raise my glass of fine Irish whiskey to DaveDumbass, provider of amusement and a caution to parents everywhere: treat your kids better or they'll wind up like Dave Hawkins--as stevestory once  called him -- "unskilled and unaware"

Date: 2006/07/28 06:20:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
I was just cruising by after a night of dousing my brain cells in ethanol and was idly looking at the thread titles, deciding if anything might be amusing, when it struck me that "Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis" is much like AFarceDave the Palm Pilot himself--a fraud.

I mean, seriously, it's such a reflection of who DaveTard2 *IS*

He tossed out this thread, complete with a makeshift outline and loads of bravado....but none of the parts are HIS. He has shown consistently that he knows shit-for-shingles about the subject points, and they're all cobbled together from ICR, AIG and standard creationist con-job sites. NONE of it is original, none of it required any *real* thought, none of it shows any real time or effort expended in "learning" the arguments--it's just cut-and-paste regurgitation of the "work"  ( such as it is) of others. And the really funny part is that he mangles even the parts that he's cobbling together.

I think it was Rilke's GrandDaughter that mentioned whenever he's left to his own devices and tries to put forward ideas that *might* be "original" to Dave--they're even more stupid than the creationist stuff he's stealing from others, like his portuguese nonsense, or his claim    
Quote
I can show how the Laws of Relativity make it conceivable that someone could "live outside of space and time" (P.6)
or  
Quote
P. 24: "'Homonoid' (there, is that better?) civilizations SHOULD BE a prediction of ToE and they were early on."  "My statement says that there should be LIVING hominid (OK ... homonoid) civilizations.

Following the "portuguese affair" he's given up on even *trying* to offer up what might be his own ideas and now it's pretty much just a rehash of crap we've all heard and seen before.

I submit that the thread title should actually be: " Palm Pilot Productions Presents: The Creationist Arguments of Others"

Date: 2006/07/28 16:51:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
While they were all needling me, they forgot that it was *I* that first noticed that the thread running throughout the warp and weft of this Darweenian tapestry was the lie of Mutation. While I basted them, weavin' and bobbin',  I left them in stiches until they had to fabricate-out of whole cloth- charges that I was fraying at the edges. They wanted me to button my lip, but I hemmed and hawed and said they hadn't a thimble'sful of evidence against me, and so they spun this yarn of madness against me, forcing me to retire.

I love to sew!!...
JAD

Date: 2006/07/30 22:11:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
In 21 pages of this thread, "Skeptic" has managed to say 4 things:
1. He likes parallel evolution.
2. He likes "directed" mutation
3. He doesn't like "random" mutation
4. He doesn't like Dawkins.
Other than this, in what he's forwarded--from "big" concepts like  "Reinventing the Evolution Debate" to relatively simple ones like "recovering DNA from fossils," (despite the fact that a biochem guy should KNOW how DNA degrades over time) he seems utterly uninformed and frankly, suspiciously ignorant of even the basics.

So, I'd like to ask you what you've been asked twice previously, skeptic: what area of biochemistry do you work in?

Date: 2006/08/01 04:29:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
Very nice "cartoon," AirHead. Suitable for your ideas, doggerel and cheesy flash sans content. The only questions I had were why you didn't include your discussions here and the reasons why Paley's watchmaker is a fallacy.

By the way, you might want to look into compressing .swf files

Date: 2006/08/01 07:34:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
Way back on page 36 of this thread , I told Dave this:  
Quote
I believe what you want most is the imprimatur of groups like ICR. So you come here, spew your claims, get responses that you can re-package and show to ...oh, ICR members...so you can get their "approval" and access to their built-in audience. That is the real reason you are here, I would wager...You want to make money off kids and their parents. You need the backing of Christian groups and their audiences.

On page 60 of this thread, I reiterated:  
Quote
I believe that you will use your experience here as a means of gaining the attention and approval of ICR/AIG so you can sell your kiddy-brainwash materials.


Dave responded (p.61) by saying: ""I have no plans to make any money from anything I write about Origins."

Notice the weasel-room he left himself. I trust that Dave, as the Treasurer of a tax-exempt non-profit organization, Kids 4 Truth, Int'l....isn't drawing a salary from the sales of this material.

Date: 2006/08/02 00:25:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Conservative Christians interpret the Bible to support their conservative, selfish individualistic ideology. They ignore Jesus. If questioned,  the Conservative Christians will tell you that it is good to do as Jesus taught, but they certainly don't live it. If helping the poor helps spread the Gospel, then the poor dig themselves out of the gutter and become useful to society. Like most Conservative Christian ideas, the facts don’t always match the preaching --instead, what walking sphincters like Paley want is isolationism and to refuse the less-fortunate, only accepting those that Paley believes will benefit his country and himself, and not the Christian faith.
Jesus said, "Either you are with me or you are against me."
Remember that Jesus said, "Take all that you own and sell it, then give your money to the poor and follow me." Liberal or Conservative? This is consistent with many of Jesus' other sayings and with his lifestyle: "Blessed are the poor, but woe to the rich." (Luke 6). Also remember what Jesus instructed the religious man: "Sell all that you own and give the money to the poor." (Luke 18).
How about Jesus' personal lifestyle? "The church of believers were of one heart and soul, and none claimed anything as belonging to himself, all property was common property. ... There was not one needy among them, because those who owned land or houses sold them and brought the monies to the apostles, and they would distribute it to whoever had a need." (Acts 4: 32-37).  Liberal or Conservative? Jesus sought to overturn the "old ways" and bring about a new way of looking at both religious concepts and the dominant social hierarchy...liberal or conservative?
Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25 both give the same story : Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me...Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
In the Gospel of Luke(1:52-53), Mary delivered the following description of the works of God:  "He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away."
Mark 12: 30-31: thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these
Matthew 25: 40-46 Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me...Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;  For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink;  I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not... Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.

Paley meets all the requirements of being termed a hypocrite, period. He will try to worm his way out of it by saying that somehow supporting an elitist society that refuses the MOST needy and LEAST powerful will be "best" for all, but that is entirely antithetical to the very religion he professes to follow. Hypocrites like Paley **love** to bemoan the wrongs of others while extolling the "virtue" of their own selfish ideas. My view is that Jesus would have spit on hypocrites like Paley.

In the words of a great man that Paley would today turn away: "True compassion is more than flinging a coin at a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." – Martin Luther King

Jesus preferred death in upholding liberal, humanistic ideals -- to the living death of the hypocrites like Paley who seek to toady to Caesar.  :)  ;)

Date: 2006/08/02 05:58:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
OOOOHHH, Nine whips out the Bible. Three indications that you've got a liberal cornered:
1)They call you a wacist.  <check!>
2)They try to change the subject. <check>
3)They quote from a book they don't believe. <check check check!!!>


1. I didn't call you a racist. I merely call you a fool trying hard to impress his betters.
2. The subject remains the same, as you can see from what I stated in my comments. I referred specifically to your "immigration" proposal.
3. I have never stated what I believe in, Paley, thus proving you a liar as well as a fool and a hypocrite.
Now what, beeyotch? Ah, yes, you'll weasel once again--the last refuge of the truly impotent

Date: 2006/08/02 06:11:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
No, NO, eric!! You see, you have to BUY THE BOOK so that Waltzy will then disclose the secrets of his whizzing hydroplates that zoom around the earth at 1 km/hr...kind of like how AirHead was told that **if he bought the books,** "Dr." Humphreys of ICR would disclose his helium ratios for the Fenton Hill zircons...except..well, he didn't.

Date: 2006/08/02 06:24:04, Link
Author: deadman_932

.
You evilutionists are just begging for a firm scolding!

Date: 2006/08/02 10:46:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
Interesting that you quote Paul and Jesus on subjects irrelevant to your position. Jesus is talking about **what **that has to do with immigration? Nothing. Paul's claims on anything are irrelevant, since I specifically noted that conservative hypocrites turn to him. Oh, and your tiny dictum on who "wins" using ebonic insults is also irrelevant.

It's interesting that in a hundred or so points in your threads, Paley, you use the same tactic: when you are found to be wrong and shown so, you throw up a barrage of irrelevant posts like a smokescreen, as if you're "convincing" the "lurkers" that you said something meaningful in response.

Tell you what, Paley -- show me how your passages from Luke accredited to Jesus have anything whatsoever to do with your ideas on immigration OR anything I posted regarding your "conservative" view on who we should let IN the U.S.

It DOES have to do with Jesus sending out his "seventy" , but that says nothing about your desire to separate out entire groups -- favoring some while rejecting others--all based NOT on "sin" but on greed and Earthly reward.

I also note that you didn't exactly respond to me pointing out that you lied concerning what I do and do not believe, Paley. I *DO* believe you owe me an apology, stupid.  

And, yes, you are stupid-- which I have already mentioned three times in separate posts, Paley, while describing WHY and HOW you are stupid.

Not that THAT is any great news to anyone here, particularly those that have seen you bumble your way through phony "physics" and mathematica, fake biology claims, fake history claims, fake claims on a slew of other subjects, while you sit in a library hoping that SOMEONE on the other side of your computer terminal thinks you're "bright."

Date: 2006/08/02 11:25:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I think the word you're looking for is race. Goodness, so much nervous doubletalk to obscure a relatively easy concept.


"Race" is an *easy* topic, Shitforbrains? Really? What race is a San tribesman? How about a typical Madagascar native resident? How about Suomi? At what point do we term a person African, European or "mixed race?" Are the Lemba Semitic Caucasians, African or both? The Beta Israel of Ethiopia were termed "official" Jews by Israel yet the genetics shows that the Lemba, deep in South Africa have a greater degree of relatedness to the Kohanim. What are they, then? If  Maori males show genetic relatedness to southeast asia, what "race" are they? Dravidians? Most residents of Bahia, in South America? Pakistanis? Cossacks of Zaporizhia?

Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot.

Date: 2006/08/03 03:24:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here , Dim-boy is requesting that his toadies post up names of "past scientists who thought Darwinism was B.S. along with evidence showing that they did indeed think this."  

The church lady chimes in with the name of David Raup
Quote
David Raup, who wrote the most useful book on extinction I have ever encountered. From what I can gather, he was interested in ID theory, but (probably) did not want to waste his time on useless controversy with Darwinoids or, worse, Darwinbots*...cheers, Denyse (O'Leary)


Raup was quote-mined a few times by the creationuts, but I've certainly never heard of him claiming "Darwinism" was "B.S." I know he's retired but doing some work with the Santa Fe Institute and his last publications certainly don't mention any antagonism or doubt regarding neo-darwinian theory, so...anyone got any info on this that I'm unaware of, or is it simply that the church lady is giddy from sniffing too many muffins ?

Date: 2006/08/03 03:54:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Since I don't see that you've contributed anything to this point, I don't care which you choose but for the sake of your own blood pressure, please choose something.


Your selective view of what constitutes "contributions" is on a par with your mind-reading abilities, skeptic. Pretending you can determine emotional states and blood pressure from a post on a bulletin board is about as funny as your grasp of "randomness" in probability/stats/bio.

You might want to read this blog piece a few times, given your lack of comprehension: http://evolgen.blogspot.com/2005....omments

Date: 2006/08/03 11:00:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
Gop--I asked this:  
Quote
Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot.


Notice that I asked you to be specific. You reply:  
Quote
might I suggest comparing phylogenetic trees derived from whole mtDNA (or at least a random sample of sequences from different regions), and then compare it to trees derived from y-chromosome haplogroups. I predict that the trees will match with a high level of significance (p<.001, both for the classic and Bayesian posterior probability). What is your prediction, Nine?


Since you asked what my prediction is, I'll tell you straightaway-- My predictions are these:
1. You're going to have to work much harder than this, GoP. I realize that you have a great deal of time on your hands and that you have a computer at your local library that you can use, but in order to do what I asked, you're going to have to be capable of a bit more than spewing out jargon like an glossolalic idiot savant.

2. I predict that if I hand **you** a vial of blood from three of the subjects I mentioned (Cossack, Pakistani, and Bahian) you will not be able to tell me anything, personally, about the "race" of the subjects in a double-blind test.

This would be for several reasons, chief among them (A)that you, personally, would be absolutely lost as to the details of extraction, amplification and comparison, etc.
(B) The groups I mentioned don't classify as easily as you blithely assume, O Google scholar. As you described above, in your google-derived delusion, you assume that you're going to be able to take the entire MtDna sequence from each sample, "construct a phylogenetic tree" from that sample..(details?) and then compare that to a database of Y-chromosome haplogroups and arrive at a match that fits to within p<.001...

What exactly will this tell me about race? It will match for continent-wide geographic origins, as Louis noted earlier. It is also in fact, a forced-fit comparison, since you are suggesting only that I look for the best match between Mt-Dna and YCh Trees (using what programs and markers? Specifics!!;). Let's take the Cossack case..I will be able to tell *what* about the "race" of the individual?  

Now, O Google Scholar, I want you to use the very best Mt and Y databases available and tell me...what are the probabilities that you will be wrong in your phylogenetic matches concerning the "Race" of each of the three subjects I mentioned? Be specific and cite how you are calculating these probabilities. Cite all relevant details, GoP, don't just google and give me broad generalities. I predicted you'd have to work harder than you have, GoP, and I also predict that you will fail in being specific about those three particular groups and hypothetical blind samples.

Date: 2006/08/03 11:18:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
GoP says :
Quote
I despise any form of "race law".


But you just suggested, not long ago, laws determining who should be allowed in the US based on "race" and geographic origins, GoP...which is it?

Is it that you prescribe racial profiling for *entrance * and US citizenship?...why, yes, you did.

But once IN, they should be exempt from "race law?"

Ah, the scent of "conservative" hypocrisy once again wafts from the malodorous GoP

Date: 2006/08/03 12:36:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 03 2006,10:42)
The first step is admitting you have a problem...

Sidles up to Arden " Psst. The first hit is free..."
Lissen here, church-burnin' ebola boy -- you're history!...ds
"Next time, it'll cost -- YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL!! BWAHAHAHA" **disappears in a puff of smoke**

Date: 2006/08/03 13:12:13, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
is it time to disband the CBEBs?


Nevah! We shall go on to the end, we shall flick Bics in the South, we shall cough on the seas and oceans, we shall kindle with growing confidence and growing strength --we shall burn on the beaches, we shall torch in the fields and in the streets, we shall spread pestilence in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if -- which I do not for a moment believe -- we were subjugated and starving, then our Ebola Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the Fiery Fleet would carry on the struggle!!! (apologies to Winston)

Date: 2006/08/04 06:18:10, Link
Author: deadman_932
Order of occurence:
1. Louis states clearly: "Race is a very loose and imprecise term in either sociology or anthropology/human biology." and "Black people and white people (for instance) have genetic and phenotypic differences that can be broadly catagorised based on geographical population distribution."  

2. GoP says " not according to the molecules" and "I think the word you're looking for is race. Goodness, so much nervous doubletalk to obscure a relatively easy concept." While mentioning FBI DNA profiles and epidemiologics, where "racial categories [are] useful"  


BECAUSE you claimed race was a simple concept, GoP, I asked some you simple questions about race :  
Quote
Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot


Your response was on phylogenies. Now..you're saying I conflated the concepts? Your reply was:
Quote
might I suggest comparing phylogenetic trees derived from whole mtDNA (or at least a random sample of sequences from different regions), and then compare it to trees derived from y-chromosome haplogroups. I predict that the trees will match with a high level of significance (p<.001, both for the classic and Bayesian posterior probability). What is your prediction, Nine?


Now...you're  saying that
Quote
Oh dear, you're confusing molecualr phylogenies with DNA profiling. And oh yeah, racial clines do not refute racial classification


Did I ask for a phylogeny, stupid? No. Human "races" are all human -- I asked about race...because you said race was a "simple concept." And it is not -- as you've discovered -- hence your diversion off to phylogenies that have nothing to do with your ORIGINAL CLAIM and MY original response. Your whole act is based on slightly more disguised versions of the diversion, distraction, shift-the-goalpost, avoid the topic tactics of AirHead.

Date: 2006/08/04 07:02:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
Yes, AirHead, your level of scientific expertise is quite evident in these pages. It's found in your claims about "existing outside of time and space," and "hominoid civilizations" and mile-high fresh flood deposits that can't slump, and stars "created" to give the illusion of distance and age -- for the purely esthetic pleasure of man... and a thousand different topics that you clearly showed your colors in. Bravo!
Dave, p.10, this thread:
Quote
Yes. I'm dangerous and so was Newton and Maxwell. Look out world!

Date: 2006/08/04 07:56:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Holy shit!  Dembski is St. Thomas Aquinas of Informational Type Structures reincarnated!  


About a month ago, I was looking at the philosopher George Berkeley, and I was thinking about the similarities between him and Dimsky. Berkeley despised materialism, had degrees in math, theology and phil., wrote diatribes using math-y claims ("The Analyst: A Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician") in which he attacked science and defended Christian dogma/doctrine. For Berkeley and Dembski, the true "cause" of any phenomenon is a spirit --- namely God. Etc., etc.
I'm pretty sure one could write up a moderately interesting piece on the Plato-Berkeley-Dembski commonalities, although I sure as #### won't.

Date: 2006/08/04 10:42:22, Link
Author: deadman_932
I am JanieBelle, and Corporal Kate was named after Corporal Klinger from MASH, and it's actor Jamie Farr, my gay lover, playing that role. In reality, I am actually the famed porn star, Ben Dover.

Date: 2006/08/04 18:55:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
Plate boundaries presently active have been mapped and their relative motions to each other resolved such that the absolute motion of the plates relative to the core of the Earth can be understood. Measurements by geostationary satellites have proved beyond any possible doubt that the continents and ocean floors are moving relative to each other. Seismic studies using P and S waves and High-resolution 3-D tomographic images of the crust and upper mantle show GREAT pictures of what IS underground, AIRHEAD, but you're citing crap from over a half-century ago, so you don't have a clue as to what *IS* known in geology and geomorphology today. Your ignorance is your shield, and frankly, I'm sick of dealing with your childish shit.
Studies have been performed on all types of minerals and rocks showing how they are changed by heat and pressure, we SEE subduction occuring and mountains being raised today,  so that I or anyone willing to do the work of studying can actually answer the questions you ask.
On the other hand, AirHead, you can't answer any of the questions I ask except to say " I don't know" or to make up stories that have no evidence to back them in the least. This makes a great deal of difference in why your "theory" simply doesn't hold up and doesn't have the same value. DETAILS, Dave, EVIDENCE, shit that you DON'T HAVE, but which allows me or , again, ANYONE willing to READ --the ability to answer your questions in excruciating detail that you can't begin to match with your silly fucking "hydroplate" theory -- that doesn't even hold up THEORETICALLY without evoking miracles to prevent the oceans from boiling off completely. You've offered NO "explanation" of where the water came from except to say " well it was underground" WHERE? SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF THIS...and don't dare point to boreholes because the fact is that for any borehole you point to I can point to five that DON'T show underground water, but molten sulfur or simply hot earth. NO SEISMIC studies done show the evidence you claim about huge underground reservoirs, so shitheads like your hydroplate buddy have to say " well, they collapsed and the water flew off into space after the flood" which is just the same as saying "elves made the water, then stole the water back"  
The bottom line for me is not JUST that you're stupid, dave, you're DELIBERATELY stupid, because you have a computer that could lead you to hundreds of sites and references on geology, you have a world-class library near you that you  could check books out from that wouldn't be a HALF-CENTURY old or more, like the ones you cite. You have Universities near you that you COULD learn from, but the fact of the matter is that you have such low ethics and morals that you won't DO that, you'd rather leech off of children like the parasite you are.

Date: 2006/08/04 19:29:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and here's another bottom-line fairy-tale killer for you, AirHead. You are on the record for accepting the 2300-2500 BCE dates for the flood. You TRIED to push the "flood" dates back to 5000 BCE or more, but when I asked you to support that biblically, you couldn't, so you went back to the original dates you agreed to, Dave...and the problem remains the same as I mentioned on page TWELVE of this thread...

During this period that the BIBLE says the "global flood " happened, the records of various groups continue uninterrupted: By 2375 BC, most of Sumer was united under one king, Lugalzaggisi of Umma, Sumerian records continue on.Uninterrupted by any mention of global flooding . The earliest surviving inscriptions in Akkadian go back to 2500 B.C. and are the oldest known written records in a Semitic tongue. They continue in an unbroken record.

Egyptian history during the Old Kingdom (2700-2200 BC) continues unbroken by global flooding . 2200 bc is the date of oldest existing document written on papyrus, prior to that, we have inscriptions and incised clay tablets as well. The Chinese had settled in the Huang He (or "Ho" in some translations) , or Yellow River, valley of northern China by 3000 BC. In the Indus Vallley, we have the Early Harappa Phase C, 2550 BC which continues unbroken to c.1900 BC . We also have the early minoan and mycenean groups in the mediterranean, and as for the new world, Researchers publishing in the Dec. 23 edition of the scientific journal Nature date the first complex society of the Americas, from roughly 3000 to 1800 B.C. NONE of these groups were destroyed by any "global flood" NONE. This KILLS all your mindless speculation and claims of hydroplates and everything else, jackoff, because the fact is that the dates you agree to don't SHOW what you want..and there's both written and archaeological evidence showing this. So when you're taking money from the parents of those kids, have the decency to remember that, scumbag  

Date: 2006/08/04 22:52:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Show Me DDTTD, who or WHAT was tailgating you, ran up your tailpipe


Hey Crabby! Your post got me thinking -- I wonder how DaveTard2 would explain the Coastal Mountain Ranges here in Calif...which run east to west.

Wait, my psychic powers say: "Dave pulls out the 'Miracle Card' again."

Date: 2006/08/05 01:46:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
Is it my fate to wander the earth unbelieved, a male Cassandra? I admitted that it was I, famed pron star Ben Dover, that created and controls the sock puppets Kate and Allie...er, Johnny and Kate, I mean ARDEN and Kate. Oh, &@%#!.

By the way, you should all know that Arden and stevestory are actually the same person, Burgoyne "Bunny" Wigglesworth, the nefarious British spy and raconteur.

On a far sexahyer note, I see the church lady is discussing poop and orifices at UD. She's earthy and hawt.

Date: 2006/08/05 05:53:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hah, you're a total idiot, Dave.

Quote
I've been over this before.  Two things.  First, it does no damage to Creationism to move the Flood back to 5000 BC and Creation back to 7 or 8000 BC.  If there were missing genealogies ... so be it ... no problem at all.  And no one I know of has any way of proving that those genealogies are not missing.  BUT ... your evidence for the groups you mentioned living during the dates you say they did is FLIMSY at best ... tree ring dating and God knows what else.  And Egyptian chronology?  There's been much revision of that ... it is anything but settled.

1. You have yet to show dendrochronology is wrong.
2. Please show me about revisions of Egyptian chronology during the relevant period, and how it shows the egyptians "died " during the flood, when in fact they kept right on writing.
3. I didn't JUST mention the Egyptians and Dendrology, I mentioned several cultures like the Sumerians and Harrapans who also didn't vanish at that time.
4. Finally and most hilariously, since you can't support a BIBLICALLY-based alternate chronology, you want me to prove a negative? ("And no one I know of has any way of proving that those genealogies are not missing. ") Could you GET more desperate?

Dave says about geology and geomorphology:
Quote
Actually I have a better understanding of what's there and how it got there than you do.  

Then why can't you answer my questions other than by special pleading or invoking miracles or avoiding entirely, DaveTard2?

Why don't all boreholes show saltwater if you are claiming 2 do? By the way, the German borehole water sources are not at the depths that your "hydroplate" buddy needs...don't assume that if a hole is 8,000 meters that the water IN it comes from that depth. And the "saltwater" from the Kola borehole is derived from being squeezed out of minerals by the pressure, not some global underground reservoir.

On the other hand, the Bertha Rogers well in Oklahoma, Texas, which is a 9,583 m (31,441 ft) deep gas well. This was the previous world record holder prior to the drilling in the Kola Peninsula. The well was started in 1974 and continued until it struck molten sulfur at its final depth. No water

Scientists, technicians, and drillers with the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program have recovered rocks from 1415.5 meters (>4644 feet) below the seafloor that will provide valuable information on the composition of the Earth. Scientists drilled to create the third deepest hole ever in the basement (area below the sediment cover) of the oceanic crust. no  water there, either.

Boreholes at the Oklahoma Geological Survey, Leonard Oklahoma--no water.

There are lists of thousands upon thousands of oil and natural gas wells drilled to various depths across the world, DaveTard2...why don't they show the same "fountains of the deep " as the TWO examples you gave? Why wouldn't Saudi Arabia, all of the middle east and the arid Asian countries drill for such reservoirs, Dave? Because it's not there. Such reservoirs would be shown by the thousands upon thousands of seismic studies done, too, AirHead, but no such data exists, nor does it show "collapsed" remnants of reservoirs held up by "pillars".  Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada

Now, about the Coastal ranges here in southern california, DaveTard2...the Transverse Ranges are called just that because they run east-west. They were created by one plate smacking into another and don't seem to fit your claims about north-south mountains. WHY ARE THEY THERE?  


If you say that ALL the ranges running down the americas are due to "stopping" of the plates' rapid movement, why aren't they running along the length...the FULL length of the coasts? The andes don't run up through central america, they veer off towards columbia. The rockies don't run down the west coast, they go through colorado. The Sierra Nevada aren't on the coast, either, they are inland, on the side of the California basin.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel....ms.html

Date: 2006/08/05 06:24:23, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Quite simple.  Anyone can quote a temperature and pressure requirement to form gniess, Eric.  It is quite another matter to propose a MECHANISM for how this pressure and temperature was achieved.


I gave you the mechanism, shitforbrains...subduction. Very, very well understood, and in fact captured in tomographic images while occuring. See here here and here for differing types of images.

It's not my fault that you still can't find an alternate means of getting the Vertebrae Range to the temps and then the pressures needed to create gneiss, Dave, and in fact you simply said you didn't KNOW "how" it happened. Well, That's why your theory and model fail.

Date: 2006/08/05 06:42:54, Link
Author: deadman_932
Another example would be the Himalayas, DumbassDave, running generally east-west, while the Urals don't. and why ARE the urals so far inland if mountains are due to plates whizzing around and stopping real fast? Why do the Atlas mountains run generally east-west while the mountains on the east coast of africa run north to south?

Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?

Date: 2006/08/05 13:08:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
" How dare you point out my intentional disregard of info posted by others, you mean, mean mans, you"

I speak fluent troll.

Date: 2006/08/05 13:53:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 05 2006,18:21)
those kinds of comments make my day, they don't ruin it.

Date: 2006/08/05 13:58:41, Link
Author: deadman_932
K.E.: Thanks for that fine biographic sketch of Burgoyne "Bunny" Wigglesworth's testosterone-drenched exploits...the man is a legend.

Date: 2006/08/05 15:28:36, Link
Author: deadman_932
The keen Dimsky-trained mind of Ann Coulter "detected the designs" of gayness in Bill Clinton because..well, because he's a womanizer. Does that count?

Date: 2006/08/05 16:51:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
AirHead says:
Quote
Too bad for you ...


Ahem. Why didn't you even pretend to answer the questions I asked you, stupid?

Ah, yes..."too bad for you" that you're dishonest and ignorant, Dave. Each post of yours seems to highlight that your "theory that is better than any other" has the explanatory ability and predictive power and evidence of a complete fabrication piggybacking on standard tectonics. How odd, eh?

Date: 2006/08/05 17:01:22, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here, Dave, I'll save time and respond for you:
1. I already answered that, even though I can't say precisely where.
2. I don't know and neither do you.
3. The Hydroplate movement caused massive changes that are complex and massive, causing large shifts in land and water until the water vanished in space and the massive land motion stopped.
4. I never said that
5. The flood water separated out minerals by layers because currents made deposits in various areas, but there's no global layers because the plates were moving, too. Real fast.

Date: 2006/08/05 17:23:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
You've still, after at least a month, never answered Deadman's question as to why you think dendrochronology is wrong.


Well, to be fair, AirHead DID say "Catastrophism, catastrophism, catastrophism" which is, in his mind, an excellent rebuttal and presentation of evidence.

Dave also mentioned AIG's "Dr." Don Batten who said  

1. Farmed Pinus radiata trees in New Zealand show multiple rings, even if they're in an artificial, non-seasonal environment.
2. He found two "bad" dendro studies out of hundreds of thousands. One was re-measured, the other was withdrawn due to procedural/methodological problems, but clearly this shows all dendro studies are wrong.
3. Dendro and radiometrics are used to circularly confirm each other as long as you overlook other confirming non-radiometric methods that we just won't mention.

Date: 2006/08/05 17:37:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
pass me that bottle, Steve.

Bushmill's for me, plz. Hold the glass.

Date: 2006/08/06 03:21:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hah, you remind me of an old toothless chihuahua simultaneously shivering and yapping "fiercely" Dave
LOOK DAVE, BOLD LETTERS, POODLE-BOY

1. You never "slammed" anyone on dendrochronology, Dave-tulip. You quoted a goober from AIG and his crap was as worthless as the Gladwin quote you whip out.

2. Just for the edification of the audience, I'd like to say WHY H.S. Gladwin was published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada back in 1976.

The reason that I'm recounting this is to illustrate how dishonest creationists can be

Gladwin was published in the Anth. Journal of Canada at  because the Assistant Editor of that Journal at the time was one Robert E. Lee.

Robert E. Lee was associated with the Creation Research Society and in fact, the Journal was "rescued" with money from creationists for the purpose of publishing creationist-oriented articles. Lee published regularly in the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Now, H.S. Gladwin was born in 1883. He lived until 1983. He was thus NINETY-THREE years old when he ALLEGEDLY wrote that article for the Anth. Journal of Canada. (oh, and incidentally, he "wrote" some pieces for...yep, the "Creation Research Society Quarterly" (e.g. Gladwin, H.S., 1978. Dendrochronology, radiocarbon and bristlecones. Creation Research Society Quarterly 15: 24-26 )

So, who was H.S. Gladwin? Well, he was a stockbroker that became fascinated with the archaeology of the Southwest and in 1922, sold his seat on the NY Stock Exchange and moved west, to eventually start and finance the "Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation" in 1928. In Arizona, he met archaeologists A.V. Kidder, Emil Haury and the founder of dendrochronology, Ellicott Douglass.

The story of how Douglass came to establish dendrochronology is an interesting one, so I'll digress a bit. Douglass was originally an astronomer who got fired because he disputed Percival Lowell's claims of canals on Mars. He was sent to Arizona to scout out a site for Lowell's observatory, but got fired because he essentially told Lowell he was full of crap.

Douglass moved to archaeology and climatology, becoming interested in sun spot cycles and if they could be discerned in tree growth, and joined the faculty of the U. of Arizona where Emil Haury became his assistant and they established the first dendro lab in 1930. Eventually this became the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.

Also, in 1930, Haury became head of Gladwin's "Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation" and left the tree-ring lab at the U. of Arizona because Gladwin had told him he'd pay for his PhD tuition at Harvard. Haury got his PhD in 1934 (on the classic Hohokam period,)  and returned to work for Gladwin. But rifts quickly developed. Gladwin had odd, if not bizarre ideas on the archaeology of the region. See references below. Eventually, Haury left to become head of the dept. of Archaeology  at U. of Arizona in 1937. Gladwin resented this and Haury's discovery of the Mogollon culture and in fact it was at that time that Gladwin's dislike of both Douglass and Haury came to a head.

Gladwin came to dislike Douglass because he (Douglass) worked with Haury on the Mogollon culture and developed the first chronology for that group and the entire southwest, eventually.

Gladwin, lacking an academic degree, used a series of "proxies" whom he funded, to attack dendro., but oddly decided to donate his entire collection to the U. of Arizona in 1950, when he lost interest in archaeology, largely due to the success of his imagined rivals and the acceptance of the dendrochronology of the region.

Cut to the end of Gladwin's life. He was still wealthy and as an old man facing death, began to fund the Creationists who were once again attacking dendrochronology unsuccessfully, ultimately. This is where Robert E. Lee comes in. Did Gladwin actually even WRITE the articles in question? Only Lee and Gladwin know, because Gladwin died alone, but still wealthy. And still without any real expertise in dendrochronology.

Gladwin's claims in the Journal AirHead cited...are worthless on several levels and is frankly wrong about both junipers and bristlecones and indeed, about deciduous trees in general, since Oak trees and many others have been and are continuing to be used successfully.


References:  Gladwin became best known for promoting such questionable theories as that of "multitudinous migrations" into the Americas. That included the certainty that the New World was inhabited by a succession of people. These people included the Pygmies from Africa, Australoids from Australia, and Greeks and Middle Easterners stranded on the Persian Gulf by Alexander the Great who later made their way to the Americas.
1. Haury, Emil. Emil W. Haury’s Prehistory of the American Southwest. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson: 1986, 194-200.
2. Martin, Paul. The Archaeology of Arizona. Double Day/Natural History Press, Garden City: 1973, 6.
McGregor, John. Southwestern Archaeology. 2nd Edition. University of Illinois Press, Chicago: 1982, 66-68
3. Reid, J. J. 1986. Emil Walter Haury: The archaeologist as humanist and scientist. In Emil W. Haury’s Prehistory of the American South- west, eds. J. J. Reid and D. E. Doyel, pp. 3-17. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
4. Willey, G. R. 1994. Emil Walter Haury (2 May 1904-5 December 1992). Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 138(3):426-30

Date: 2006/08/06 04:17:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 06 2006,06:14)
2) I thought sedimentary rocks could not be dated radiometrically ... Deadman told me that this is true of the GC layers that contain fossils.  But this article says  you CAN date sedimentary layers radiometrically.

Dave repeats another lie, again, that has been refuted.
.
.
. This is what I posted on Page 109 of this thread

Quote
On p.108, AirHead Dave says/asks:
   
Quote
I thought sedimentary rocks could not be dated radiometrically ... Deadman told me that this is true of the GC layers that contain fossils. But this article says you CAN date sedimentary layers radiometrically. What's up with that?

AirHead, you're an adult, allegedly. Your claim above implies I said you couldn't date *any* sedimentary layers.
The context of my statement was on the Coconino quartz and the Hermit mudstones/shale. You asked on p.106 of this thread:      
Quote
the Hermit Shale is dated at 280 million years by "index fossils" and the Coconino at 270 my, presumably by the same method. Has anyone dated this radiometrically? Does it agree? ... Bwahahahaha!

And I responded by asking (p.107) you how you would radiometrically date the Hermit and Coconino layers :
" How would you radiometrically date the siltstone of the Hermit and the fine, rounded, pitted, frosted Quartz grains of the Coconino?"
If a layer of shale/mudstone contains ilite, or bentonite or other minerals, it's possible to date it. If it has feldspars, great. I specifically asked YOU how you would date the layers mentioned, idiot---I didn't say you could *never* date sediments. Get your lies straight.

You're older than I am, AirHead, but you're a joke in terms of any kind of emotional or cognitive maturity.


So, Dave, why are you once again repeating an utter lie, which you have been reminded of twice?

Date: 2006/08/06 04:45:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
And finally, on the varve "refutations" you posted , AirHead...
1. Why is "varve" deposition in a flood-control reservoir important, Dave? There is a DAM on that reservoir, with gates that open and close, bringing in debris. So during any given period, you can have multiple "layers"...SO? It's not a natural environment, stupid.  

2. "Guy Berthault's" alleged studies have already been discussed, AirHead. Remember, he's the guy in France that has no degrees at all? Not that this alone would negate his claims, but when you look AT the claims themselves, they show he has no standing at all. More importantly, his studies on rocking sluice deposition bears no resemblance to actual natural conditions.

3. You cite a claim from a book  “Weather Cycles: Real Or Imaginary” by W.J. Burroughs. Your quote-mining reference is at : http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=244&ItemId=807 Interestingly, the author offers no references to the source claim. And more importantly, the reference is for tidal depositions that were erroneously identified by an unknown and unnamed person. So?

4. You quote a 1949 article by Ray Lewis in which he cites a Danish article from 1940 by Sigurd Hansen where he disputes De Geer's interpretations of annual varves. (By the way, De Geer is generally considered the "father" of varve studies) which were undertaken in the 1920's-1930's. I hate to tell you this, Dave, but one disputed claim doesn't negate the validity of varve studies TODAY.

To summarize: All of your last posts were largely composed of quote-mining taken from various creationist sites, Dave. Many of those quotes are from OVER a half-century or more ago.  No actual evidence was given by you disputing current standards and practices, methods or theory, except to post those quote-mined bits. Typical of your level of "scholarship" and "science"

Date: 2006/08/06 04:56:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Jon: sure, no problem. I'd like to find out more on the last years of Gladwin's life, though, and if he left ANY memoirs. I worked with Jim Hill (former head of the anth dept. at UCLA) on the Grasshopper Pueblo material for a while and that's where I first heard this story about "the rich stockbroker that thought he was an archaeologist and came to hate Douglass and Haury."

While it's *possible* Gladwin actually wrote the pieces (after all, Ernst Mayr kept on writing up to his death at what 100?) I sincerely doubt it, and more importantly, Gladwin hated dendro and how it "destroyed" his weird-ass claims, and knew almost nothing about it, as his quote indicates

Date: 2006/08/06 21:20:32, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
You (and JonF and Deadman) really have not figured me out yet, have you?  Good.  This serves my purpose very well.


You forgot to rub your hands together and mutter "Excellllllenttttt,"  then twirl your moustachio, Dave.

%#&@, you really ARE like a living cartoon.

Date: 2006/08/07 02:24:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
CREATIONIST LEANINGS ALWAYS DISQUALIFY A PERSON FROM MAKING SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS


False. What disqualifies a CLAIM is the evidence or lack thereof that they bring to the table, stupid. Merely being a creationist doesn't inevitably or invariably "disqualify" the claims of that person. But in the case Gladwin, I cited what his motives were, his lack of expertise and his incorrect statements, such as his claim on deciduous trees, junipers and bristlecones. THOSE FACTORS are what show he was wrong and his claims wrong.

In other instances, creationists show high levels of duplicity, or "research" that is inapplicable or inappropriate or otherwise flawed. This is why they don't like peer-review: they have an ideological axe to grind that shows up as bias in their work. Christians, Muslims and Hindus and any other proponents of religion or lack thereof are all free to publish, but it is the QUALITY of the work and the conclusions reached or not reached ...that count.
In short, if you want to complain about me or anyone rejecting creationist claims...look at the specific claim I am rejecting and if the creationist has supported their case or not.

Using 94-year-old NON-ARCHAEOLOGISTS with NO expertise in dendrochronology, and in fact, a known bias against it...using THAT "data" as SOURCE information...as REFERENCE material ...shows how low creationists are. :) And I hope you don't like it, AssHatDave.

Date: 2006/08/07 02:38:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let's look at another example of the poor quality of the "research" done to support overreaching claims by creationists, DaveStupid: Your last citation on AIG's claims about Varves, specifically the Green River Varves.

Look at the article, Dave. Show me what RESEARCH THEY DID. The extent of the article is : "Well, ONE reference cited says something about alkali environments"

Okay, so what? The article then goes on to say that "well-preserved" green river fossils couldn't be possible because alkali dissolves...what? fats? So?

Then the leap to the statement that NO fossils could be formed over years ...despite this being shown in such environments and in anoxic environments and in slow-deposition environments like the deep sea TODAY, and Lake beds TODAY?

And what do they use to back up that claim? NOTHING. No references at all. No discription of what constitutes a "well-preserved " fossil at all. Green River fossils are all over the market today, you can BUY them ONLINE. LOOK  at them, tell me how "well-preserved" they are...do you see organs? Do you see minute features? To you see other soft tissues?

So what does this "article " about varves have? it has a long argument from incredulity with no original research or experiment by the creationists. It says "well-preserved " fossils like the green river MUST be rapidly covered...because alkali dissolves fats...SO FUCKING WHAT? IT wouldn't DISSOLVE BONE, it wouldn't affect gradual fossilization, it wouldn't affect anoxic preservation there or elsewhere, it has NO BEARING except to convince credulous idiots like you , Dave , that won't even do BASIC research on the subject before immediately swallowing their shit hook,line and sinker.  AND THAT is why their "articles" are NEVER presented in peer-reviewed journals not owned by creationists...because they know it won't stand up to scrutiny by people that WON'T be so stupid and easily led as you, DumbassDave.

Date: 2006/08/07 03:39:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'd be glad to have a nice long debate on the Green River evidence, Dave, but the fact is that you won't do that, since you've learned from the Zircon-helium creationist claims you made...that it becomes very easy to show that creationists use the deceptive, false or irrelevant and unsupported tactics I described above.

I was going to cite a bunch of material on the Green River Varves, but instead, I'll let Glenn Morton take center stage. Morton, citing references at  http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm

"Every feature of the Green River formation points to long periods of deposition. The coprolites of fish and birds, algal encrusting of logs, footprints, variations in laminae thickness consistent with known weather patterns, sunspots, and Earth orbital parameters.  Radioactive dating confirms the depositional rates which indicate yearly varves.  The young-earth creationist, like Garner, can sit on the fence and throw rocks at the geological explanation, but he can't explain any of these features. The young-earth creationist must ask himself the following set of questions if he is to be rational."

1. Why were the flood waters on layer after layer the depth of a bird leg as indicated by [shorebird] footprints?
2. How were catfish able to leave so many coprolites on the layers if this is a rapidly deposited formation?
3. Why would God imprint orbital parameters and sunspot cycles on the thicknesses of the laminae?
4. Why do the radiometric dates seem to verify the slow depositional rates?
5. How could a bird take the time to nibble the lake floor during a global flood?
6. How are raindrop impressions preserved under the waters of a global flood?
7. Why did God produce a flood deposit which exactly matches the areal distribution seen in lakes? Did God deceive us?
8. Why do the oxygen-18 values decrease around the edges of Fossil Lake as would be expected of a modern lake?

Date: 2006/08/07 23:56:25, Link
Author: deadman_932
So, Dave..back to dendrochronology. I asked you specifically to show me how it is wrong and flawed, and you offered up two whole citations.
Your first citation is a short article at AIG, where "dr." Don Batten made three claims: 1. He claims that specific species of pine, like Pinus radiata...produce multiple rings per year. But the interesting thing is that your expert offers no citations at all. This is from New Zealand work that is discussed at http://www.nzes.org.nz/nzje/free_issues/NZJEcol10_77.pdf . The data is from FARMED trees in an artificial setting and a non-seasonal environment.

2.  Batten claimed Dendro and 14C are used in a "circular " way to confirm each other. False. Multiple non-radiometric methods are used to check dendro records. They include the dating methods I have listed previously

3. In all the hundreds of thousands of tree ring studies ever performed, Don Batten finds a total of TWO that were questioned : one was re-measured, the other was withdrawn due to procedural/methodological problems

That was what you claimed you "slammed" me with on dendro ( !!!! )

Your next "big gun" was H.S. Gladwin, a former stockbroker who is not an archaeologist, not a dendro expert, but had a long history of being a crank that thought african PYGMIES populated the Americas,  despised dendro in general and was NINETY THREE when he wrote the cited article in which he claims three things: (1)bristlecone and (2)juniper dendrochronology is unreliable and (3)deciduous trees can't be used for dendro.

To examine that last claim by Gladwin on deciduous trees not being useful ( I could have done the same on all of his claims), I did a brief search in a couple of databases, and got well over 200 hits on journal articles for oak alone since 1980. Here's a VERY FEW on deciduous trees:

Friedrich, M., Remmelel, S., Kromer, B., Hofmann, J., Spurk, M., Kaiser, K.F., Orcel, C., Kuppers, M. 2004. The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from central Europe - A unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and paleoenvironment reconstructions. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1111-1122.

Blasing, T.J. 1980. How climatologists use tree ring data. In: P.P. Feret and T.L. Sharik, eds., Dendrology in the Eastern Deciduous Biome. School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources. School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Publication FWS-2-80: 108-109
Cleaveland, M.K. 1980. Dating tree rings in the eastern United States. In: P.P. Feret and T.L. Sharik, eds., Dendrology in the Eastern Deciduous Biome. School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources. School of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Publication FWS-2-80: 110-124
Leak, W.B. 1987. Comparison of standard and actual tree-growth trends for deciduous and coniferous species in New Hampshire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17: 1297-1300.
Pilcher, J.R. 1996. Dendrochronological insights into past oak growth. In: E. Dreyer and G. Aussenac, eds., Ecology and Physiology of Oaks in a Changing Environment. Annales des Sciences forestières 53(2-3): 663-670
Tessier, L., Nola, P., Serre-Bachet, F. 1994. Deciduous Quercus in the Mediterranean region: tree-ring/climate relationships. New Phytologist 126(2): 355-367.
Yin, X., Foster, N.W., Morrison, I.K., Arp, P.A. 1994. Tree-ring-based growth analysis for a sugar maple stand: relations to local climate and transient soil properties. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24: 1567-1574
Tabuchi, R., Takahashi, K. 1998. The development of a new dendrometer and its application to deciduous broadleaf tree species in Hokkaido, northern Japan. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 6(1-2): 23-34
Worbes, M. 1999. Annual growth rings, rainfall-dependent growth and long-term growth patterns of tropical trees from the Caparo Forest Reserve in Venezuela. Journal of Ecology 87(3): 391-403.
Abrams, M.D., Orwig, D.A., Dockry, M.J. 1997. Dendroecology and successional status of two contrasting old-growth oak forests in the Blue Ridge Mountains, U.S.A.. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 27: 994-1002.
Babos, K. 1987/1988. Atmeneti kkorb¢l sz rmaz¢ Quercus robur L. toerzs evgyuerueszelessegenek oesszehasonl¡t sa a napfolttevekenyseg ciklus val. Botanikai Koezlemenyek 74/75(1-2): 219-233.  English title: Comparison of annual ring width in the stem of Quercus robur L. originating from the transitional Stone Age with the sunspot activity cycle
Akkemik, U., Dagdeviren, N., Aras, A. 2005. A preliminary reconstruction (AD 1635-2000) of spring precipitation using oak tree rings in the western Black Sea region of Turkey. International Journal of Biometeorology 49(5): 297-302.
Shapley, M.D., Johnson, W.C., Engstrom, D.R., Osterkamp, W.R. 2005. Late-Holocene flooding and drought in the Northern Great Plains, USA, reconstructed from tree rings, lake sediments and ancient shorelines . The Holocene 15(1): 29-41.
Soucy, R., Heitzman, E., Spetich, M.A. 2005. The establishment and development of oak forests in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35(8): 1790-1797.
Rozas, V. 2005. Dendrochronology of pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) in an old-growth pollarded woodland in northern Spain: tree-ring growth responses to climate. Annals of Forest Science 62(3): 209-218.
Haneca, K., Van Acker, J., Beeckman, H. 2005. Growth trends reveal the forest structure during Roman and Medieval times in Western Europe: a comparison between archaeological and actual oak ring series (Quercus robur and Quercus petraea). Annals of Forest Science 62(8): 797-805.
Cater, M., Levanic, T. 2004. Increment and environmental conditions in two Slovenian pedunculate-oak forest complexes. Ekologia-Bratislava 23(4): 353-365.
Lyubenova, M., Asenova, A. 2003. Indicatory significance of the early and late wood of Quercus rubra L. in dendrological research in Sofia region. Phytologia Balcanica 9(1): 53-58

Date: 2006/08/08 00:25:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and AirFraudDave: On your question about radiometric dating of the upper layers of the Grand Canyon, I already told you that the Coconino, Hermit Shale and Kaibab Limestone are not radiometrically dated directly. So what? How does this show circularity? It doesn't and you didn't even read the articles on this subject provided for you.

So I'll ask you once again, Dave: why did you repeat your lie about me saying NO sedimentary layers could be dated? --- When I pointed out twice previously that I said no such thing?

See, Dave, I'll answer your questions directly. Other people here answer your questions directly. You can look back on the 130 + pages of this thread and show that there are only a handful of questions that **you** asked that were left unanswered.

I'm telling you flat-out that **IF** you ask me a question directly, I'll answer you directly.

On the other hand, I went back and looked at how many questions you refused to answer, Dave. I had to stop at 234 unanswered questions.

You cannot claim to answer questions directly, Dave, not in the least,  YOU CAN'T And WON'T...because you don't view this as a "search for truth," you view it as a game to be played on as dishonest a level as you can manage -- to avoid dealing with the data as it is.

Now, you might not find that significant, but it certainly indicates the utter disregard you have for direct debate and logic,  the dishonesty of your claims and the depth of your ignorance on the very subjects you brought up.
Have a nice day, liar.

Date: 2006/08/08 02:05:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Eric and Flint: congratulations on spinning the most interesting (in my humble opinion) discussion on the board out of the dross of Paley's blather.

I'm sadly ill-informed when it comes to econ -- though I'm attempting to learn, since it's obviously critical to the vast majority of problems we face globally -- so, if you folks could toss in further reading recommendations, that'd be nice (if you get the chance).  Cheers.

Date: 2006/08/08 11:33:15, Link
Author: deadman_932
I thought the following "quote" looked familiar, so I looked around. Guess what I discovered, Dave?

Yet another example of Creationist Quote-mining
   
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 06 2006,06:45)
HERE'S ANOTHER REALLY GOOD ONE FOR YOU TO CHEW ON DURING YOUR SUNDAY AFTERNOON SIESTA!

R. H. Rastall, “Geology,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 10, 1954, p. 168.
       
Quote
“It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.”

Okay, let's set the stage.  RH (Robert Heron) Rastall lived from 1871-1950. He was thus dead for years before the Encyclopaedia Brittanica published this.

Now let's look at the original source for the quote, "The Testimony of Geologic History" in Henry Morris' book The Twilight of Evolution, (Baker: Grand Rapids) 1963, pp. 47-64. The excerpt can be seen at
http://www.the-highway.com/geologic-history_Morris.html

First, notice that Morris gives the Encyclopedia date as 1956.

AirHeadDave's citation says 1954.  Now, who else uses that date? Why, Walt Brown at  http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes64.html
(amusingly, Kent Hovind gives the date as 1949, cited  
here )

Now why is this citation "quote mining?" Talk Origins' Quote-mining Project gives the full reason and you can read it at  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part5.html

First, the author of the article [Rastall]gives background as to stratigraphical geology, leading up to the quote mined section. Then the quote follows:
   
Quote
It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle(...etc., from Ratsall)


BUT, as the TalkOrigins Quote-Mine page notes:      
Quote
However, immediately following on that sentence, Rastall continues the paragraph:

"Nevertheless the arguments are perfectly conclusive. This apparent paradox will disappear in the light of a little further consideration, when the necessary limitations have been introduced... (read the rest of it at Talk Origins)


The authors of the Talk Origin Quote-Mine Project article on this conclude:      
Quote
There is no credible scenario by which the quote miner could have plucked this sentence out of this article, separating it from the rest of that paragraph, without the deliberate intent of misrepresenting what the author was saying. Rastall states clearly that the seemingly circular reasoning is merely an "apparent paradox" that is not only resolved but is rendered "perfectly conclusive" by the interplay of the two laws he describes. Even if creationists wanted to quibble with Rastall's acceptance of the "Law of Uniformity" or the empiric evidence for certain strata always being associated with certain fossils, they cannot appeal to Rastall as an expert on the logic behind stratigraphical geology and then intentionally hide his explanation of that very logic. At least they can't and keep any pretense of personal integrity. - John (catshark) Pieret and R. Dunno

Busted again, AirChumpDave
.

Date: 2006/08/08 18:20:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's one you won't expect, DaveStupid --deal with this one first.  

Meteor Crater in Arizona penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion.

Nishiizumi et al. (Nishiizumi, K., Kohl, C.P., Shoemaker J.R., Arnold, J.R., Klein, J., Fink, D. and Middleton, R., 1991. In situ 10Be and 26Al exposure ages at Meteor Crater, Arizona. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55, pp. 2699-2703.) report a minimum age of 49.2±1.7ka, based on 10Be and 26Al analyses of samples from the crater walls and ejecta blocks at the crater rim.

Phillips et al. (Phillips, F.M., Zreda, M.G., Smith, S.S., Elmore, D., Kubik, P.W., Dorn, R.I. and Roddy, D.J., 1991. Age and geomorphic history of Meteor Crater, Arizona, from cosmogenic Cl-36 and C-14 in rock varnish. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55, pp. 2695-2698.) report a 36Cl exposure age of 49±0.7ka for dolomite ejecta on the crater rim.

Both sets of dates are in turn statistically identical to quartz thermoluminescence dates of 49±3ka reported by Sutton (Sutton, S.R., 1985. Thermoluminescence measurements on shock-metamorphosed sandstone and dolomite from Meteor Crater, Arizona. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(B5), pp. 3690-3700.)

See Also:
Kieffer, S.W., I. Shock Metamorphism of the Coconino Sandstone at Meteor Crater, Arizona: II. The Specific Heat of Solids of Geophysical Interest, Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, 1970.

Kieffer, S. W., Shock metamorphism of the Coconino Sandstone at Meteor Crater, Arizona, Journal of Geophysical Research, 76, 5449-5473, 1971.

Shoemaker, E. M. and Kieffer, S.W., Guidebook to the Geology of Meteor Crater, Arizona, printed by the Meteoritical Society and the U.S. Geological Survey for the 37th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society, August, 1974.

Date: 2006/08/08 18:44:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
Once you're finished with that little tidbit, I have some others for you, Dave, but I'd like you to notice that all the dates on the Meteor Crater converge at 49 KYA. That kinda puts the kibosh on your young earth claims for the region. Enjoy, stupid.

Date: 2006/08/08 19:15:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's a portent of things to come, AirHead (first deal with that Crater-you SAID you HAD to dissect this):

Date: 2006/08/08 23:40:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's more - on the Chinle - just because Crabby and I get along, and we both think you're pretty much a walking sphincter, Dave:

NEIL J. TABOR, CRAYTON J. YAPP, and ISABEL P. MONTANEZ (2004) Goethite, calcite, and organic matter from Permian and Triassic soils: Carbon isotopes and CO2 concentrations. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 68, No. 7, pp. 1503-1517

Shane J. Prochnow, Lee C. Nordt, Stacy C. Atchley and Michael R. Hudec (2006). 3-Multi-proxy paleosol evidence for middle and late Triassic climate trends in eastern Utah. Journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology Vol.232, No.1, pp.1-96 "temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels from stable oxygen and carbon isotopes of pedogenic carbonate,  and ecosystem reconstruction by a combination of climate indexes and paleosol characteristics."

Riggs, N. R., S. R. Ash, and J. M. Mattinson. 1994. Isotopic dating of a non-volcanic continental sequence, Chinle Formation, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 26(6):61

Bazard, D.R., Butler, R.F. Paleomagnetism of the Chinle and Kayenta Formations
Journal of Geophysical Research 1991 vol. v. 96, page 9847
I think I have lots left on other formations/layers/groups   ;)

Date: 2006/08/09 02:11:51, Link
Author: deadman_932


The last photo is a satellite shot, the crater is left-center. Notice that pretty brown exposed sandstone, where tiny spiders leave tracks in the layers and dance on Dave's pinheaded skull.

Date: 2006/08/09 02:30:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
he was thoughtful in his posts (he made several) and got discussions going-which I thought was the purpose of a blog: to host debate.  Apparently, William thought otherwise.  


I happen to believe that you're correct in that, Apollo: one purpose of a blog is to foster informed, civil debate using logic, reason and honorable ( non-fallacious) tactics.

However, I can speak from personal experience in saying that is not how Dembsky sees it. In another name, I was polite, concise and merely presented evidence that ran counter to two or three of Dembsky's claims. That was sufficient for banning. I also know that you can look through UD's archives and find many, many instances of this.

UD is not for debate, it is for mutual agreement and admiration, along with thinly-disguised indoctrination and sociopolitical manipulation.

Date: 2006/08/09 11:32:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Well. Isn't this amusing. Dave has a hypothesis.
Dave says his hypothesis contains a geologic sub-theory that is "better than all others."
Dave can't answer questions about his hypothesis.
Dave can't answer questions about his geologic sub-theory.
So...where is Dave's Hypothesis now? Reduced to trying to show that other theories are equally vapid?

Okay, Dave, what you appear to want to know is how does one do a regional geologic map. You started out wanting to examine the layers above the Great Unconformity of the Grand Canyon, but now you decided to narrow it down to the Kaibab Limestone.

Okay. You've already been told the Kaibab is not dated directly...it's mainly limestone. But the Kaibab formation (composed of the Fossil Mountain and Harrisburg members) extends from Colorado to New Mexico to Arizona and Utah. In each of those areas it is tied in to local geology.

For instance, in Utah, the Kaibab is part of the Park City Group, which ties into such areas as the Paradox Basin and Beaver Dam Mountains. The Park City Group in turn extends from Utah to Idaho and Wyoming and Montana.

Now, Dave. I'd like you to answer a simple question...would you like to know precisely how the Kaibab/Park City Formations are dated and how they are bracketed by verifiable absolute dates? Is THAT what you want? because I'm getting tired of having you shift the goalposts

I'm interested in having YOU SUPPORT YOUR THEORY. The one you can't SEEM TO MANAGE to answer a single question about.

But you want others to take the time to go into detail about  formations in the Grand Canyon while you shift the goalposts continuously?

I'll answer questions on the Kaibab/Park City...and I want you to answer what I asked on the Meteor Crater. For each question you ask me, I require that you answer ME as well. If you cannot, then why pretend you have a viable theory at all?

Date: 2006/08/09 13:30:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
What will I find if I go read those references?
I will most likely find ... The rocks are dated by the index fossils in them and ... The fossils are dated by the rocks which contain them ... CLASSIC CIRCULARITY


Really, DumbAssDave? Would you like to make a bet on that, a gentleman's agreement? One that involves you dropping (meaning never taking part in again) the children's "education program" you're treasurer of -- in exchange for an agreed-upon sacrifice on my part?

You say that the Kaibab, which extends over thousands of square kilometers, is only dated by index fossils and is not bracketed by absolute dates?  

You seem to have a great deal of faith that you're "right" AssHatDave...so show me the strength of your convictions, coward. YOU selected out the Kaibab because YOU thought YOU could impress the lurkers here. So, now that you have your target, show me how courageous you are, Dave Hawkins. Stand up for once in your life.

Date: 2006/08/10 05:44:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
Things you won't find mentioned on creationist websites (wonder why?)

Reynolds, S.J., Florence, F.P., Welty, J.W., Roddy, M.S., Currier, D.A., Anderson, A.V., and Keith, S.B., 1986, Compilation of radiometric Age Determinations in Arizona: Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, Geological Survey Branch, Bulletin 197, 258 p.  

(contains data on  Fission-Track, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb dates and correlations. 258 pages worth of it).

Or, another small example:

J. Palfy, P.L. Smith, and J.K. Mortensen (2000) A U-Pb and 40Ar/39Ar time scale for the Jurassic. Can. J. Earth Sci./Rev. can. sci. Terre 37(6): 923-944

"A radiometric age database consisting of fifty U-Pb and 40Ar/39Ar ages was compiled to construct a revised Jurassic time scale. Accepted ages have a precision of +/- 5 Ma...or better. The majority of these calibration points  [are from] the western North American Cordillera and have not been previously used in time scales."

Date: 2006/08/10 06:08:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 10 2006,10:56)
MY ASSERTION OF EVO-BOT CIRCULAR REASONING IS AS SOUND AS EVER

         But I'm not going to bet you.  

                     *Snort*

Date: 2006/08/10 07:28:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
.
.
Dave plays even dumber than he is:  
Quote
I have not understood anyone's point with the meteor crater.  To me it looks like a meteor happened to land on some stratified rock.  So?


A meteor hit the Earth 49,000 years ago (but you said the earth didn't exist then)...and went INTO the Coconino sandstone. This means the Coconino is **at least** that age, stupid.

Here's another small example of how you date one layer, look at the fossils and many other things and begin to come up with a local, regional, then a continental, then
maybe even a global geology.

This is the Morrison formation:  

The Morrison formation is Jurrasic. Everyone likes dinosaurs, right? The Morrison has been extensively studied by  regional tectonics, regional stratigraphic framework, radiometric and paleontologic dating, sedimentology, paleosols (fossil soils), dinosaur biostratigraphy, trace fossils, taphonomy, microfossils, invertebrates, smaller vertebrates, and isotopic analysis of teeth and paleosol nodules. See: http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology....son.htm for...Oh, about 100 or so references.

Allow me to digress for a moment, since you're particularly stupid, AssHatDave. Here's the Geologic order of things, oldest to youngest (North Amrerican version), starting in the
Paleozoic: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian, Permian.
Mesozoic: Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous.

Here's a simple mnemonic device for a simple guy like you to remember this, DaveStupid:
Can Oscar See Down My Pants Pocket? The Joker Can!

Now, StupidDave, the Kaibab is what period? Why, it's PERMIAN. The Morrison is Jurrasic (that means it's younger, less old)!! And if you'll take a look at any regional map, or the handy-dandy stratigraphic "Grand Staircase" here:


You'll notice a few things. First, the Kaibab is overlain by the Moenkopi...which extends into Utah, too. Those layers you see on the Utah stratigraphic columns USED to exist in the Grand Canyon, too. 5000 or so more feet of layers were washed away in the Grand Canyon, but not the Moenkopi...This is the extent of the Moenkopi during the Triassic:


Now remember, the Morrison sits on top of the Chinle (radiometrically dated, remember?) and the Moenkopi, and the Cutler formation, which is also tied to the...that's right, Kaibab. To the west of the Paradox basin, the White Rim Sandstone at the top of the Cutler is overlain by marine rocks of the Permian Kaibab Limestone ( see below, for instance: Molenaar, 1975 ; Baars, 1983 ; Huntoon and Chan, 1987 ).

Now, besides all the other methods I mentioned of dating the Morrison, there are radiometric dates for it, too...
Kowallis, B.J., Christiansen, E.H., Deino, A.L., Peterson, F., Turner, C.E., Kunk, M.J., and Obradovich, J.D., 1998, The age of the Morrison Formation: Modern Geology, v. 22, nos. 1-4, p. 235-260. 40Ar/39 Ar on sanidine in the Brushy Basin Member in Utah and Colorado yields ages of 148 to 150 million years old.

During the Triassic, marginal-marine to continental red beds and minor marine limestones of the Lower to Middle Triassic Moenkopi Formation, and variegated to red continental strata of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation filled the present "basin" of the southwest.

Now I realize, that's a lot for your tiny brain to hold, so I'll stop there and let you tell me two things:
(1)Why is this invalid? and  (2)If a meteor hits the Earth 49 thousand years ago and penetrated the coconino sandstone...why do you think that date is invalid, too?

Some references:
Molenaar, C.M., 1975, Stratigraphic correlation chart for Canyonlands country: in Fasset, J.E., and Wengred, S.A., eds., Canyonlands Country: Four Corners Geological Society, Eighth Field Conference Guidebook, p. 4
Baars, D.L., 1983, The geology in and near Canyonlands and Arches National Parks, Utah: in Gurgel, K.D., ed., Geologic excursions in Stratigraphy and Tectonics: From southeastern Idaho to the Southern Inyo Mountains, California, via Canyonlands and Arches National Parks, Utah: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Special Studies 60, GSA Rocky Mountain and Cordilleran Sections Meeting Fieldtrip Guidebook Part II, p. 75–92
Huntoon, J.E., and Chan, M.A., 1987, Marine origin of paleotopographic relief on the eolian White Rim Sandstone (Permian): Elaterite Basin, Utah. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 71, p. 1035–1045

Date: 2006/08/10 07:41:25, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Deadman ... you're just going to SNORT at my refusal to bet you?  OK.  Here's what I'll bet you on ... you show me a good comprehensive case that macroevolution has in fact happened


Let's make sure we have our terms in order, DaveShitBrain.

"Macroevolution" is speciation, Dave, yes or no?

Date: 2006/08/10 08:11:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Of course you're not interested in getting a geology degree, Dave. ####, you can't even grasp basic logic and physics.

Answer what I asked about that Arizona meteor crater, the Barringer. If it hit 49,000 years ago....AND the Coconino was UNDER it, meaning the METEOR HIT IT...therefore the Coconino IS at least that old, yes or no, Stupid?

Date: 2006/08/10 08:28:05, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Obviously, your question is nonsensical because nothing can be older than 8,000 years.

Yes nothing can be older than that, because the Bible says so and the Bible is true because God says so in the Bible and God is real because the Bible says so.

It's all so clear now...all I had to do was stick that blade in my eyesocket and wiggle it around until the frontal lobes detached.

Date: 2006/08/10 10:00:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
How do you know the meteor hit 49,000 years ago?


Every available dating method used...agrees. That is pretty good evidence, considering the dating metods used are quite different. Palynology is not thermoluminesence is not radiometric. Now, remember, ChumpDave, *IF* the dates derived for one of those methods were different, those people making that claim would get lots of money in funding and notoriety...but the dates all agree. Your stupid-ass claim would be " they're all in cahoots, trying to bring down the bible"...yet, the fact is that those people MIGHT be hindu, christian protestant, christian catholic, zen buddhist....but you would indict EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM AS BEING SOMEHOW DISHONEST OR DELUDED.

And WHY whould you do that? Because YOU cannot support your OWN theory well enough to answer a single question directly, like a man. SO you HAVE to blame others

Like people have pointed out MANY times here, Dave...your theory has to be capable of supporting itself with data. Your Theory has thus far proved itself incapable of answering the simplest questions.

What you have TRIED to do, and run into a brick wall with....is switch the tables and try to pretend the burden is on regular geologists to "prove" things while YOU do nothing.

Let's use an analogy. YOU come to me saying you are faster than me in running. I say fine, show me...and you ask me to run again and again to set a baseline...yet YOU ....never run.

I have BEEN showing how the standard model for geology WORKS and ANSWERS your questions...BUT....YOU REFUSE to answer even the LEAST question given you....but you say your "theory " is the BEST?

That's why you're a joke to anyone with a reasoning mind.

Date: 2006/08/10 10:11:27, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here's another example of how stupidly you think, Dave. You say this:
   
Quote
doesn't the meteor crater cut through several layers?  Was it a really slow meteor that took millions of years to land and lodge itself in multiple layers of strata?  Maybe it was equipped with a parachute?


Now look at the first sentence, stupid.

"doesn't the meteor cut through SEVERAL layers?" ( meaning: wasn't it REALLY powerful with lots of kinetic energy?")

Then you say: "Was it really SLOW?" (meaning with less kinetic energy by definition)

How can it be POWERFUL AND SLOW? POWERFUL WITH NO ABILITY TO IMPOSE IMPACT FEATURES?

That crater is over a kilometer wide...small in comparison to other impact craters we know of, but ...people HAVE conducted ballistic tests to determine what size of an object...and what speed ....it would take to create that impact crater, stupid. ....

So...why would you say it "Maybe it was equipped with a parachute?" if a small object at high velocity created that?

Again, I am reminding you that studies by the US military have been done on ballistic impacts on various kinds of target materials. You really are stupid.

NOTE* I wanted to add this, because earlier I said that you didn't grasp basic logic OR physics and you just proved it. KINETIC energy= 1/2 mV ^2.

I am saying this sincerely, if YOU are the caliber of human that is allowed to fly a fucking plane in the US Air Force..and you cannot grasp basic things like this...then it explains a great deal about current events.

Date: 2006/08/10 10:40:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I think it was supposed to be some sort of joke based on GC erosion.  In any case, it's just Dave trying to avoid learning anything. Remember, he's not here to learn.  He's here to argue.


I suppose it's possible that it was some lame attempt at a joke. The real problem is: how can you tell?

Date: 2006/08/10 13:37:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
Nishiizumi et al. (Nishiizumi, K., Kohl, C.P., Shoemaker J.R., Arnold, J.R., Klein, J., Fink, D. and Middleton, R., 1991. In situ 10Be and 26Al exposure ages at Meteor Crater, Arizona. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55, pp. 2699-2703.) report a minimum age of 49.2±1.7ka, based on 10Be and 26Al analyses of samples from the crater walls and ejecta blocks at the crater rim.

Phillips et al. (Phillips, F.M., Zreda, M.G., Smith, S.S., Elmore, D., Kubik, P.W., Dorn, R.I. and Roddy, D.J., 1991. Age and geomorphic history of Meteor Crater, Arizona, from cosmogenic Cl-36 and C-14 in rock varnish. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 55, pp. 2695-2698.) report a 36Cl exposure age of 49±0.7ka for dolomite ejecta on the crater rim.

Both sets of dates are in turn statistically identical to quartz thermoluminescence dates of 49±3ka reported by Sutton (Sutton, S.R., 1985. Thermoluminescence measurements on shock-metamorphosed sandstone and dolomite from Meteor Crater, Arizona. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(B5), pp. 3690-3700.)

See Also:
Kieffer, S.W., I. Shock Metamorphism of the Coconino Sandstone at Meteor Crater, Arizona: II. The Specific Heat of Solids of Geophysical Interest, Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, 1970.

Kieffer, S. W., Shock metamorphism of the Coconino Sandstone at Meteor Crater, Arizona, Journal of Geophysical Research, 76, 5449-5473, 1971.

Shoemaker, E. M. and Kieffer, S.W., Guidebook to the Geology of Meteor Crater, Arizona, printed by the Meteoritical Society and the U.S. Geological Survey for the 37th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society, August, 1974.


Are you mental in saying that I had not posted this before?

Date: 2006/08/10 13:47:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
seriously AssHatDave, what the F%@ck is wrong with you? I had posted that before...i can post 100 different things that all tie in with the  kaibab...but you're MENTAL , meaning you have some form of mental disease that keeps you from seeing what is put in front of your face....what IS wrong with you?

I have NO reason but to conclude at this point , that given what you have done...that you are mentally ill.

Date: 2006/08/10 13:54:41, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and for your information, ShitfaceDave, and including some things you won't find at TalkOrigins:

Example 1-Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. The citation is: Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
Example 2- Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. The citation is: Mosquin, T., 1967. “Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)”, Evolution 21:713-719
Example 3- A naturally occurring speciation of a plant species, Stephanomeria malheurensis, was observed in Burns County, Oregon. The citation is: Gottlieb, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeria. American Journal of Botany 60(6):545-553

Example 4 - Central American fish, Xiphoporus maculatus [Endler, J.A. (1977) Geographic Variation, Speciation, and Clines. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.], that lives in rivers up the east coast and exibits various stages of speciation, from simple diversity of a single population, to subspecies, to full isolated species. Mayr [ Mayr, E. (1963), Populations, Species, And Evolution Harvard University Press. p.281] points out "Here then we have a series of related, allopatric populations showing every stage from the local genetic race, to the ordinary subspecies, to the almost specifically distinct subspecies ([X.] xiphidium), to the full species (couchianus)."

Example 5- RAPID ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION IN LOGPERCH DARTERS Evolution: Vol. 58, No. 12, pp. 2798-2808. A resolved phylogeny was generated using mitochondrial DNA gene sequences for logperches, a monophyletic group of darters composed of 10 recognized species.

Example 6- the Australian mallee thickhead Pachycephala [.Keast, A. (1961) Bird Speciation on the Australian Continent, Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 123:305-495] In the first stage a wide ranging population became split into two due to changes in the vegetation of southern Australia. Eventually, the two populations were allowed to come into contact, but were reproductively isolated from each other --two new species.

Example 7 -  is the fruit fly Rhagoletis [Bush, G.L. (1975) "Sympatric Speciation in Phytophagous Parasitic Insects" in Evolutionary Strategies of Parasitic Insects and Mites, edited by Price, P.W., Plenum Press, N.Y.]

Example 8 - An example is the separation of marine creatures on either side of Central America when the Isthmus of Panama closed about 3 million years ago, creating a land bridge between North and South America. Nancy Knowlton of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama has been studying populations of snapping shrimp. She and her colleagues found that shrimp on one side of the isthmus appeared almost identical to those on the other side -- having once been members of the same population.They had become separate species, just as the theory would predict.

Nancy Knowlton;Lee A. Weigt. 1998. "New dates and new rates for divergence across the Isthmus of Panama". Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) B. 265: 2257-2263 . Nancy Knowlton;Lee A. Weigt 2001. Evidence for three major clades within the snapping shrimp genus Alpheus inferred from nuclear and mitochondiral gene sequence data., Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:375-389.
Nancy Knowlton and DeEtta K. Mills: “The Systematic Importance of Color and Color Pattern: Evidence for Complexes of Sibling Species of Snapping Shrimp (Caridea: Alpheidae: Alpheus) from the Caribbean and Pacific Coasts of Panama.” Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, No. 18, 1 November, 1992: 1-5.

Date: 2006/08/10 14:28:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
Kocher TD. 2003. Evolutionary biology: Fractious phylogenies (News and Views). Nature 423: 489 - 491

Albertson RC, Markert JA, Danley PD and Kocher TD. 1999. Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: the cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96(9): 5107-5110

Kocher TD, Conroy JA, McKaye KR, Stauffer JR and Lockwood SF. 1995. Evolution of the ND2 gene in East African cichlids. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 4:420-432.

Meyer A, Kocher TD and Wilson AC. 1992. African fishes. Nature 350:467-468.Meyer A, Kocher TD, Basaibwaki P and Wilson AC. 1990. Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences. Nature 347:550-553.

Kornfield I, McKaye K and Kocher T. 1985. Evidence for the immigration hypothesis in the endemic cichlid fauna of Lake Tanganyika. Isozyme Bulletin 18:76

Danley PD, Markert JA, Arnegard ME, and Kocher TD. 2000. Divergence with gene flow in the rock-dwelling cichlids of Lake Malawi. Evolution 54(5):1725-37.

Arnegard ME, Markert JA, Danley PD, Stauffer JR Jr., Ambali AJ and Kocher TD. 1999. Population structure and colour variation of the cichlid fish Labeotropheus fuelleborni Ahl along a recently formed achipelago of rocky habitat patches in southern Lake Malawi. Proceedings Royal Society London B 266: 119-130.

Markert, JA, Arnegard ME, Danley PD and Kocher TD. 1999. Biogeography and population genetics of the Lake Malawi cichlid Melanochromis auratus: habitat transience, philopatry and speciation. Mol. Ecol. 8(6): 1013-1026

Stauffer JR Jr, Bowers NJ, Kocher TD and McKaye KR. 1995. Hybridization between Cynotilapia afra and Pseudotropheus zebra (Teleostei: Cichlidae) following an intralacustrine introduction in Lake Malawi, Africa. Copeia 1996: 203-208.

Bowers N, Stauffer JR, and Kocher TD. 1994. Intra- and interspecific mitochondrial DNA sequence variation within two species of rock-dwelling cichlids (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from Lake Malawi, Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 3:75-82
.
McKaye KR, Kocher T, Reinthal P, Harrison R and Kornfield I. 1984. Genetic evidence of allopatric and sympatric differentiation among color morphs of a Lake Malawi cichlid fish. Evolution 38:215-219.

McKaye KR, Kocher T, Reinthal P, Harrison R and Kornfield I. 1982. A sympatric sibling species complex of Petrotilapia trewavas (Cichlidae) from Lake Malawi analyzed by enzyme electrophoresis. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 76:91-96.

Sabine Wilkins.(2001)  The Evolution of Cichlids. A talk presented at the June 2001 meeting of the Cichlid Society of NSW, Australia

Date: 2006/08/10 14:39:11, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
actually, this is one of Endler's more "tedious" papers; you should check out his work on selection that he did a little later.


As a lowly archaeologist, I'm happy to just be capable of looking at other things.

Date: 2006/08/10 21:53:23, Link
Author: deadman_932
1. you refused a gentleman's agreement on the dates for the Grand Canyon .


You desired to separate out one layer on the Grand canyon and even though I gave you multiple radiometric dates isolating and bracketing that that ONE layer, you insist that therefore the entire Grand Canyon is dated ONLY by those dates.

I gave you multiple dating methods on the Barringer Crater and your response was to call it wrong despite not knowing anything about the dating metods

I gave you those dates and you said you didn't see them, despite replying to other statements in those posts.

I have some empathy for your illness, Dave, but no tolerance.

For you, as an alleged adult...to immediately deny the validity of any dating method that places the earth older than 8000 BCE..shows how nuts you are. To deny that I had posted data... that was part of what you responded to ..shows how fucked-up you are.

these are also absolute dates (just a small sample--do your own work to support YOUR theory):

Two radiometric ages have been published for the the reworked tuff deposits found in the highest member of the Chinle, a K-Ar date of 239±9 Ma, and a U-Pb date of 207±2 Ma (Riggs, N. R., S. R. Ash, and J. M. Mattinson. 1994. Isotopic dating of a non-volcanic continental sequence, Chinle Formation, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 26(6):61).

Ash beds within the Carmel have yielded dates between 166.3 and 168.0 ± 0.5 Ma (Kowallis, et al. 2001. The record of Middle Jurassic volcanism in the Carmel and Temple Cap Formations of southwestern Utah. GSA Bulletin, Vol. 113, No. 3, pp. 373-387).

Tuff from the Jurassic Morrison Formation is dated to 155-148 mya (Peterson, F., and Turner, C.E., 1998. Stratigraphy of the Ralston Creek and Morrison Formations [Upper Jurassic] near Denver, Colorado: Modern Geology, v. 22, nos. 1-4, p. 3-38).

RICHARD L. REYNOLDS, MARK R. HUDSON, NEIL S. FISHMAN, and JOHN A. CAMPBELL. (1985) .  Paleomagnetic and petrologic evidence bearing on the age and origin of uranium deposits in the Permian Cutler Formation, Lisbon Valley, Utah Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 96, No. 6, pp. 719-730

Roberto S Molina Garza, John W Geissman, Spencer G Lucas (2000) Palaeomagnetism and magnetostratigraphy of uppermost Permian strata, southeast New Mexico, USA: correlation of the Permian-Triassic boundary in non-marine environments. Geophysical Journal International Volume 141, Issue 3, Page 778-786

Igneous sills on top of the Cretaceous Mancos Shale have been dated at 66 million years ago, and ash layers in the Green River Shale have been dated at 50.2 +/- 1.9 mya (Buchheim, H. P., and Eugster. 1998. The Green River Formation of Fossil Basin, southwestern Wyoming. In J. Pitman, and A. Carroll, (eds.), Modern and Ancient Lacustrine Depositional Systems: Utah Geological Association. )

The Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river: Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742.

Wendell Duffield, Nancy Riggs, Darrell Kaufman, Duane Champion, Cassandra Fenton, Steven Forman, William McIntosh, Richard Hereford, Jeffery Plescia and Michael Ort. 2006: Multiple constraints on the age of a Pleistocene lava dam across the Little Colorado River at Grand Falls, Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 421-429

Hamblin, W. Kenneth, (1994), “Late Cenezoic Cenezoic Lava Dams In The Lava Dams In The Western Grand Canyon”, Geological Society of America Memoir 183:139

Faulds, J. E., D. L. Feuerbach, C. F. Miller, and E. I Smith, Cenozoic evolution of the northern Colorado River extensional corridor, southern Nevada and northwest Arizona, in The Geologic Transition, High Plateaus to Great Basin-A Symposium and Field Guide, The Mackin Volume, M. C. Erskine, J. E. Faulds, J. M. Bartley, and P. D. Rowley (eds.), Utah Geol. Assoc. Publ., 30 [also Pacific Sec., Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Publ. GB78], 239-271, 2001.

Fenton, C. R., R. H. Webb, P. A. Pearthree, T. E. Cerling, and R. J. Poreda, Displacement rates on the Toroweap and Hurricane faults: Implications for Quaternary downcutting in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, Geology, 29, 1035-1038, 2001.

Foster, D. A., A. J. W. Gleadow, S. J. Reynolds, and P. G. Fitzgerald, Denudation of metamorphic core complexes and the reconstruction of the transition zone, west central Arizona; constraints from apatite fission track thermochronology, Journal of Geophysical Research, 98, (2), 2167-2185, 1993.

Fenton, Cassandra R., Poreda Poreda, Robert J., Nash, Barbara P., Webb, Robert H., and Cerling, Thure E., (2004), “Geochemical Discrimination of Five Pleistocene Lava Discrimination of Five Pleistocene Lava-Dam Outburst-Flood Deposits, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona”, The Journal of Geology, Vol. 112, pp. 91-110.

N.R. Riggs, S.R. Ash, A.P. Barth, G.E. Gehrels and J.L. Wooden. 2003: Isotopic age of the Black Forest Bed, Petrified Forest Member, Chinle Formation, Arizona: An example of dating a continental sandstone. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 115, No. 11, pp. 1315-1323

Galen P. Halverson, Paul F. Hoffman, Daniel P. Schrag, Adam C. Maloof and A. Hugh N. Rice. 2005: Toward a Neoproterozoic composite carbon-isotope record. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 117, No. 9, pp. 1181-1207.

C.M. Dehler, M. Elrick, J.D. Bloch, L.J. Crossey, K.E. Karlstrom and D.J. Des Marais. 2005: High-resolution d13C stratigraphy of the Chuar Group (ca. 770-742 Ma), Grand Canyon: Implications for mid-Neoproterozoic climate change. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 117, No. 1, pp. 32-45.

Ochs, S., 1988, Stratigraphy, depositional environments, and petrology of the lowermost Moenkopi Formation, southeastern Utah: Salt Lake City, M.S. Thesis, University of Utah.

Richard F. Holm. 2001: Cenozoic paleogeography of the central Mogollon Rim-southern Colorado Plateau region, Arizona, revealed by Tertiary gravel deposits, Oligocene to Pleistocene lava flows, and incised streams. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol.

J. Michael Timmons, Karl E. Karlstrom, Carol M. Dehler, John W. Geissman and Matthew T. Heizler. 2001: Proterozoic multistage (ca. 1.1 and 0.8 Ga) extension recorded in the Grand Canyon Supergroup and establishment of northwest- and north-trending tectonic grains in the southwestern United States. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 163-181.

Jacqueline E. Huntoon, Russell F. Dubiel, John D. Stanesco, Debra L. Mickelson and Steven M. Condon. 2002: Permian-Triassic depositional systems, paleogeography, paleoclimate, and hydrocarbon resources in Canyonlands and Monument Valley, Utah. GSA Field Guide 3: Science at the Highest Level: Vol. 3, No. 0, pp. 33-58.

Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742
" We hypothesize that this differential incision is due to west-down slip on the Toroweap fault of 94 ± 6 m/m.y. based on measured offset of the newly dated Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river."

Date: 2006/08/10 22:14:06, Link
Author: deadman_932
Kenneth L. Cole and Larry Mayer. 1982: Use of packrat middens to determine rates of cliff retreat in the eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona. Geology: Vol. 10, No. 11, pp. 597-599. "cliff retreat, which is comparable to other cliff-retreat rates reported from arid environments, implies that the Colorado River cut through the Redwall Limestone in the vicinity of Horseshoe Mesa about 3.7 m.y. B.P."

Wendell Duffield, Nancy Riggs, Darrell Kaufman, Duane Champion, Cassandra Fenton, Steven Forman, William McIntosh, Richard Hereford, Jeffery Plescia and Michael Ort. 2006: Multiple constraints on the age of a Pleistocene lava dam across the Little Colorado River at Grand Falls, Arizona. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 421-429

STEPHEN T. NELSON, JON P. DAVIDSON and KIM R. SULLIVAN. 1992: New age determinations of central Colorado Plateau laccoliths, Utah: Recognizing disturbed K-Ar systematics and re-evaluating tectonomagmatic relationships. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 104, No. 12, pp. 1547-1560. "incision of meanders on the Mogollon Slope occurred in the late Pliocene to Pleistocene Epochs as a result of integration of the Little Colorado River with the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon."

Marith C. Reheis, Richard L. Reynolds, Harland Goldstein, Helen M. Roberts, James C. Yount, Yarrow Axford, Linda Scott Cummings and Nancy Shearin. 2005: Late Quaternary eolian and alluvial response to paleoclimate, Canyonlands, southeastern Utah. Geological Society of America Bulletin: Vol. 117, No. 7, pp. 1051-1069

Baker, S.P., and Huntoon, J.E., 1996, Depositional analysis of the Black Dragon Member of the Triassic Moenkopi Formation, southeastern Utah: in, Huffman, A.C., Jr., Lund, W.R., and Godwin, L.H., eds., 1996, Geology and Resources of the Paradox Basin: Utah Geological Association Guidebook 25, p. 173-196

Date: 2006/08/10 22:27:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
You should note this, ShitHeadDave: the early western U.S. is marked by lots of marine-deposition layers, but when one starts moving out from the local Grand Canyon area...say to the Paradox Basin Area of Utah...the citations multiply by what I see as a factor of 5

Date: 2006/08/11 14:35:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
the turn of events in this thread ...dave claiming he can't "see" data posted to him...dave claiming that only one radiometric date was provided when I took the time to provide  multiple examples from the caltech library...that sort of thing....convinces me that Dave Hawkins is mentally ill and incapable of dealing with reality

Date: 2006/08/11 14:55:58, Link
Author: deadman_932
*note...you'll not find the data I provided on any "thread" on the internet, Dave Hawkins. I gathered that little bit by going to the library at Caltech...about 2 miles away from me. I did that to try to have you deal with reality, Dave, but your illness has stymied any attempts at getting you to deal with reality.

Let's recap a bit here, Dave:
1. You said the bible was immutable truth, and this is the basis for your claims...but "prophecies " in the bible were shown to be false

2. you continued to rely on sources (AIG and ICR) that had been shown to be false and proven wrong. In fact, you were lied to directly by ICR not once, but twice.

3. In this little conversation about the Grand Canyon, you have shifted your claim three times to avoid what was posted to you, but not once have you shown supporting evidence for your claims.

First your claim was about all the layers above the great unconformity, then it was about the kaibab...now you have shifted it again after being posted multiple absolute dates.

In order for AirHead to make his claims, he has to say that Physics is wrong, that decay is not statistically constant and has in fact accellerated , even though that would melt the planet.

Dave has to say Astronomy is wrong, and that the stars are actually young, because god made them with the appearance of age and distance, just for our aesthetic pleasure.

Biology is wrong, because there was accellerated speciation from "kinds" within the last 4000 years that suddenly stopped within the last 2000.

Paleontology is wrong, because fossils are really just variations on "kinds" and don't represent separate species.

History is wrong, Math is wrong, Chemistry is wrong, Geology is wrong, because tectonic plates flew across the globe at 1 km per hour. Hydrology is wrong, the oceans wouldn't boil off during those movements. Engineering is wrong, the sides of the grand canyon could stand up, even if  deposited and cut in one year. Archaeology is wrong, there were no cultures older than 2300 BCE...all to accomodate the bible, all this has to be wrong. There's not one major science that is not wrong.

All because a literal reading of religion has to be "right."

Sorry, Dave Hawkins, but you're fucked-up in the head and regardless of what you claim here, you will always be wrong...because you are a literalist.

Date: 2006/08/11 16:17:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Deadman was only able to provide ONE radiometric date for the entire staircase ... if he knew of others, I think he would have given them.  If it is so obvious what the dates are, why are the dating methods not more readily available?


Liar. You were given 26 absolute dates. All are tied to the Grand Canyon

Date: 2006/08/11 16:40:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
The Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river: Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742

Kowallis, B.J., Christiansen, E.H., Deino, A.L., Peterson, F., Turner, C.E., Kunk, M.J., and Obradovich, J.D., 1998, The age of the Morrison Formation: Modern Geology, v. 22, nos. 1-4, p. 235-260. 40Ar/39 Ar on sanidine in the Brushy Basin Member in Utah and Colorado yields ages of 148 to 150 million years old.

Liar

Date: 2006/08/12 13:37:27, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Joel Pederson, Karl Karlstrom, Warren Sharp and William McIntosh. 2002: Differential incision of the Grand Canyon related to Quaternary faulting-Constraints from U-series and Ar/Ar dating. Geology: Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 739-742
" We hypothesize that this differential incision is due to west-down slip on the Toroweap fault of 94 ± 6 m/m.y.HOW DATED ... ?? based on measured offset of the newly dated Upper Prospect basalt flow, which is the major middle-late Quaternary slip evident along the river."


Just to point out how nuts and willing to lie dave is...look at the above. He asks how the Toroweap fault was dated...and it says uranium series and argon/argon ...but he can't "see" it

Date: 2006/08/12 13:46:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave, thinking he was clever...wanted to know about dates above the great unconformity in the grand Canyon. Dave switched his claim to the KAibab and was given dates on that , now Dave switched  back to " well, I want all the layers dated absolutely. "

Dave was given a few dozen absolute dates. anyone here can look at them. Dave says he only "sees" one, then it's two, then suddenly he sees three, and five...but he's returned back to claiming that there are only two or maybe three.

Dave is simply mentally ill. When dave can support his own claims and answer questions, then I'll deal with dave. but remember, Dave, you refused a gentleman's argreement on the layers in question...because you have the honor and ethics of a mentally ill person.

Currently Unanswered Questions        

(1)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(2) Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(3) If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
(4) How much water was involved in the flood, Dave?  Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(5) How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(6) Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"--  this is utter nonsense. Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(7) Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(8) Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(9) Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(10) Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(11) How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(12) If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(13) Explain PRECISELY  how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist & granite (obviously , that is not "soft ")    
(14) You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(15) Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(16)Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR
(17)Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(18)Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(19)Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
(20) Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"

Date: 2006/08/12 14:05:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
If I wanted to bother, ShitHeadDave I could draw up an outline of some 200 questions that you have refused to answer.
Now...what questions have you asked that have been unanswered? I can't find any. Can you name a few?

Remember, AirHEad, this is your hypothesis...you are required to support it. What you have done is lie your way through it. Well, back your claims and answer questions about your hypothesis...otherwise, you lose.

You can start with telling me how a meteor penetrated the Coconino sandstone 49,000 years ago, when you said the Grand Canyon didn't exist.

Date: 2006/08/12 14:27:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood? Especially since it was deposited several times in the overall stratigraphy of the grand staircase? mixed in with eolian sandstones and evaporites?

These are the kinds of questions you have to answer...but you cannot....in order to make your hypothesis stand.

Date: 2006/08/12 15:07:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong.

Date: 2006/08/12 15:16:23, Link
Author: deadman_932
let me give you a clue, liar:

The Morrison Formation in Utah and Colorado contains many volcanic ash layers and ashy
beds, now altered mostly to bentonite, that have yielded isotopic ages.

The Brushy Basin Member, at the top of the formation, gives single-crystal, laser-fusion and step-heating, plateau- Ar/ Ar ages on sanidine that range systematically between 148.1 ±0.5 (1 std. error of
mean) at the top of the member to 150.3±0.3Ma near the bottom.

The Tidwell Member, at the base of the Morrison Formation, contains one ash bed about 3 m above the J-5 unconformity thai occurs in al least two widely separated sections.

This ash has been dated by
40 39 Ar/ Ar dating of sanidine and gives ages of 154.75 ±0.54 Ma (Deino NTM sample, laser-
fusion),

154.82±0.58Ma (Deino RAIN sample, laser-fusion),

154.87±0.52 (Kunk NTM sample, plateau), and

154.8±1.4Ma (Obradovich NTM sample, laser-fusion).

that's FIVE on one layer alone...two members of ONE layer

Date: 2006/08/12 15:39:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that?

Date: 2006/08/12 17:29:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
Accept my gentleman's agreement and you'll have a direct answer. Or you could go back and look over each of the dates I have given you as well as those given by others...and find out, cocksucker. I'm tired of your evasions, Dave. Be a man and stand up, or sit the fuck down

Date: 2006/08/12 17:48:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how  I was wrong...IF I am wrong.

In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here.

Date: 2006/08/13 22:28:41, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm not going to bother answering any of DumbAss Dave's claims or comments or requests for data.

I asked him three times to back his claims by entering into a gentleman's agreement...and he ran like the typical gutless wonders creationists are.

A long time ago in this thread, I said several times that he was going to use our responses to infect the minds of kids, after he had twisted them and them omitted the fact that he hadn't supported his claims at all. He said he had no plans to...then it turns out that's exactly what he's doing.

He's too lazy and stupid to gather his own data, but you can bet your last dollar that he will use the data others get FOR him..after he suitably perverts it.

Due to this, I won't allow him to have all the data that I can dig up, and he sure as #### better not use my screenname or any of my actual writing, other than references I provided.

You better starting supporting your own hypothesis with actual data, CowardlyDave.

Date: 2006/08/14 15:08:22, Link
Author: deadman_932
stevestory: prehistoric archaeology of the southwest U.S. and Sonoran Mexico, but I like geology. In field studies in archaeo, people try to get different skills...cartography, surveying, illustration, faunal analysis, whatever...I just liked geology and a few other things, so I picked them up. I also like pottery analysis, so that shows you how truly boring I am. Cheers!

As for you, DipshitDave:
Quote
You guys make me laugh!  Thanks for the entertainment!  More tomorrow!

The sentiment is mutual, except on this end, the amusement is at your lying, flailing and general lack of "Christian" ethics -- not to mention how truly dirt-stupid you are.

Date: 2006/08/15 09:29:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm busy today reinstalling Red Hat and rebuilding my system, but I wanted to say this:

For any lurkers curious about this...look back over the last 10 pages or so and you'll see a few things.

1. DumbAssDave ORIGINALLY WANTED DATES IN THE GRAND CANYON ABOVE THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY. This was later shifted to

2. DumbAssDave wants to know precisely how the Kaibab was dated. This is now shifted to

3. Dave says not enough dates were given for the entire Grand Staircase..a stratigraphy column that is a composite of sites seen in the illustrations given.

Dave is merely running a form of the "Gish Gallop," a technique used by the creationist named Gish which involves constantly shifting the target, back and forth. While never providing data or evidence supporting the creationist view.

Remember, this is DumbAssDave's hypothesis and he is supposed to support it. I have said I will refuse to continue giving him data, although I have supplied enough that is easily available.

I challenged little gutless FlyboyDave three times and he refused, thus I am under no obligation to feed him data until he begins to support his own claims.

Date: 2006/08/16 06:07:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
The sheer extent of ShitHeadDave's Fallacies here is hard to describe, but I'll try.
But first, Dave says this:
Quote
Be careful who you call a moron!

I *AM* careful about who I call a moron, Dave Hawkins, and I am careful about who I call a liar or a coward. You are demonstrably all three.
Dave's Fabric of lies has multiple parts here:
First, he claims that scientists use circular reasoning in determining the age of strata. This is false.
Second, He cites the Encyclopedia Britannica extensively to try to show that fossils are the "primary" way to date strata relatively. This is equivocation and false. Multiple data points are used and no one method has absolute primacy.  
Third, he tries to claim that he's concentrating on the "Grand Staircase" to show the circularity and flawed logic of modern geology.
Fourth, he fails to show how any of this is remotely relevant in supporting HIS model. Even if it could be shown that geology was fatally flawed, it doesn't make his claims the default answer.  
*********************************************************************************

Just as a small example of how he is lying, look at a history of science. Fossils were not "first" shown to be "millions of years old,"  it was that the Earth was shown by multiple methods to be old.  Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
ShitHeadDave says that Scientists use circular reasoning :
Quote
(Start of Circle) How do we know the rocks are old? Because of the fossils in them. Well, how do we know the fossil is old? Well because evolution over millions of years has occurred...How do you know millions of years is available? Well, look how old the rocks are. They are millions of years old. Oh really? (Circle begins again)

Now, the question becomes...is this true? Is this how science has reasoned these things out? No.
Notice that there are two primary parts to the claim of circularity: (1) The Earth is old and (2) Fossils are used to show rocks are old.
The fact of the matter is that these two claims were initially investigated separately, as is known to anyone who bothers to pick up a book on the History Of  Science.

500 BCE. Xenophanes discovered sea shells in a high cliff on the island of Malta, concluding perhaps the sea once covered land.
500 BCE Xanthos of Sardis believed fossils were remains from extinct animals entombed in rock.
490 BCE Herodotus noticed such remains and Aristotle (384 BCE) suggested fish fossils were remains of unkown sea animals that had swam into cracks of rocks and stranded.
50 BCE --  The Roman writer Lucretius explained that species could change and become extinct under a sort of natural selection-there was no other plausible way to interpret these "giants in the Earth."
83 CE -- A fossil skull from a "dragon" was found in digging a canal in North China and Warng Chung, in his "Balanced Discussions," ("Lun Heng", 83AD) claimed that such fossils were from creatures who no longer existed, but lived once in the region.
200 CE--Tertullian asserted that fossils resulted from the flood of Noah
In the 600's, Isidore thought that they resulted from the Flood of Noah. In the following century (700's) Bede developed the same orthodox tradition.
In 1020 CE Ibn Sina (Avicenna) publishes an important work on erosion and he rejects the explanation of fossils as organic remains and accounted for the fossils by suggesting a ``stone-making force.''
Albertus Magnus attributed them to a ``formative quality;'' in the following centuries some philosophers ventured the idea that they grew from seed; and the Aristotelian doctrine of spontaneous generation was constantly used to prove that these stony fossils possessed powers of reproduction like plants and animals.
About 1500 CE Leonardo da Vinci described fossil shells and put forward a theory that they were the remains of once-living organisms,  and that changes had occurred in the relationship between sea and land.
Quote
if you wish to say that it was the Deluge which carried these shells hundreds of miles from the sea, that cannot have happened, since the Deluge was caused by rain, and rain naturally urges rivers on towards the sea, together with everything carried by them, and does not bear dead objects from sea shores toward the mountains. And if you would say that the waters of the Deluge afterwards rose above the mountains, the movement of the sea against the course of the rivers must have been so slow that it could not have floated up anything heavier than itself." - Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1500


What you'll notice up to this point (and beyond) is that no one is claiming that fossils are millions of years old, and many people are claiming they're not even from organic creatures. It was not until later, when the Earth was determined to be older than the 4004 BCE dates of Ussher and John Lightfoot, etc., that people began thinking of fossils as being VERY old.

The reason for this is simple: no one knew how old the Earth was likely to be, so no one could claim the fossils were deeply old.

All they knew was that they MIGHT be from creatures that no longer lived in the areas they were found in. BUT, up to the 17th century and beyond,  Theologians, philosophers, and even some men of "science"  continued to insist upon such explanations as that fossils were the product of ``fatty matter set into a fermentation by heat''; or of a ``lapidific juice''; or of a ``seminal air''; or of a ``tumultuous movement of terrestrial exhalations''; and there was a prevailing belief that fossil remains, in general, might be brought under the head of ``sports of Nature,'' a pious turn being given to this phrase by the suggestion that these ``sports'' indicated some inscrutable purpose of the Almighty. We find theological substitutes for scientific explanation ripening into phrases more and more hollow - making fossils ``sports of Nature,'' or ``mineral concretions,'' or ``creations of plastic force,'' or ``models'' made by the Creator before he had fully decided upon the best manner of creating various beings.

Date: 2006/08/16 06:25:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
I was going to add a second part to that, showing how a "deep age" for the Earth gradually developed. THEN people began seeing how fossils might be SOMETIMES useful in terms of looking at the relative ages of things.

BUT it was in the work of Steno and John Woodward, and Robert Hooke and Buffon and Lehmann and Herschel and Hutton and Playfair and many others that a DEEP AGE of the Earth began to be formed, reaching a culmination in the "millionsofyearsianism" of  Lyell and others...BEFORE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

Fossils were only used to RELATIVELY date things in the early development of geology

Another important point is dave's claim that there's only a few dates on the Grand Staircase....I've asked him to enter into a gentleman's agreement with me, whereby I would prove him wrong.

But he runs from that and now he's back to talking shit about dating the coconino sandstone blah, blah, blah, none of which has anything to do with supporting his stupid claims...which is the most important thing to remember here.

Date: 2006/08/16 06:37:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
For those people that might be interested in it, the science writer Loren Eiseley, among others noted that, in order for things like evolution to be accepted as the fact that it is, a few things had to come first:
1) The idea that things COULD change. Remember, Aristotle said that the heavens themselves were constant and stars did not age or die and this was holy writ for centuries, until men like Galileo showed motion and movement and mutability

2) That the Earth itself was older than the Bible claimed ( via Ussher and others). This allowed TIME for change.

3.) That creatures could die off during time. When, for instance, Thomas Jefferson among others, found mammoth and mastodon remains in the Americas, this set off a big search for American elephants living in the forests of North America...which were never found, showing that species, in deep time could also change and even become extinct.

Date: 2006/08/16 06:55:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
In 1779, the Comte de Buffon made a little "model" Earth, heated it and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to estimate that the Earth was about 75,000 years old. But the theological faculty of the Sorbonne dragged him at once before them, forced him to recant ignominiously, and to print his recantation. It runs as follows:
Quote
``I declare that I had no intention to contradict the text of Scripture; that I believe most firmly all therein related about the creation, both as to order of time and matter of fact. I abandon everything in my book respecting the formation of the earth, and generally all which may be contrary to the narrative of Moses.''


There's many other examples like that in history, putting the lie to the idea that there is no "necessary" conflict between science and fanatical religionists.

Uh, contra Gould and others...yeah, there is.

Date: 2006/08/16 13:49:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Online encyclopedias put to the test
http://www.theage.com.au/news....45.html
By Stephen Cauchi, December 15, 2005
...According to a study by journal Nature, Wikipedia stuff-ups - such as this week's one on President Kennedy's assassination - are "the exception rather than the rule", and the resource is almost as accurate as the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, at least when it comes to science.
Nature took stories from Wikipedia and Britannica on 42 science-related topics and submitted them to experts for review. The experts were not told which encyclopedia the stories were from. "The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, around three," according to Nature.
The entries covered topics including Agent Orange, quarks and synchrotrons. "Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia … but reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica respectively."

(The reps of Encyclopedia Brittanica were not happy to find that their editors had failed to find errors by their writers, and filed some rebuttal to the Nature claims, but the fact is that any person that relies solely on popularized condensations of science is going to propagate the errors contained therein.)  

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Date: 2006/08/16 15:48:59, Link
Author: deadman_932
AirHeadDave, "pilot"

Date: 2006/08/16 18:26:31, Link
Author: deadman_932
Sounds like someone's familiar with the recent theistic-statistic work of Hugo Gherl : "Correlational- Regressive Analysis of Pluripotentate Phenomena" (the CRAPP Theory).  

Surely it won't be long before God is demonstrated mathematically/ statistically!!!

Date: 2006/08/17 05:21:35, Link
Author: deadman_932
A few comments:

1. DipShitDave accuses me of :  
Quote
trying to discredit Encyclopedia Britannica!  Nice try, Deadman!  Are you getting desperate?  Backed into a corner, perhaps?

What I did was post a news report about a study by the peer-reviewed journal Nature about errors found in both Wikipedia and the online Encyclopedia Britannica. *I* did not try to discredit either of those, but instead raised this caution:  
Quote
the fact is that any person that relies solely on popularized condensations of science is going to propagate the errors contained therein


2. AirHead cites the well-known story of the KBS Tuff and says:  
Quote
Now my question to you all ... would I discover a similar story if I dug into Deadman's supposed radiometric dates of various layers of the Grand Staircase?  I bet I would!  I bet I would find, first of all, that MANY discordant dates have been obtained for those layers and the ones that were not "right" (defined as fitting in with the currently accepted evolutionary fossil sequence) were simply rejected with some scientific sounding explanation.


(A) Again, i merely reported the dates, they are not "mine."
(B) You lack the requisite cognitive skills to do what you claimed above, Dave. Maybe if you found a blind, drunken and Korsakoff Syndrome-afflicted macaque, this would help you.  
(C ) Take up my gentleman's agreement on this matter and we will see if your macaque brain can cash the "check" written by your alligator mouth.
(D) The KBS Tuff story is recounted at Talk Origins   http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html and is used as an example, in University classrooms today, on the difficulties in dating specific materials. Recent studies such as Brown, Francis; Bereket Haileab and Ian McDougall (2006) Sequence of Tuffs Between the KBS Tuff and the Chari Tuff in the Turkana Basin, Kenya and Ethiopia. Journal of the Geological Society Volume 163, Issue 1, January (Full Text PDF, 20 pages, 379.6 KB available here ) continue to demonstrate the unbiased accuracy of the dating arrived at during the 70's-early 1980's.

Date: 2006/08/17 05:34:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
Another situation similar to "dating the KBS Tuff" was that of the Monte Verde Paleoindian site in southern Chile. Eventually what had to happen was the proponents of the site (mainly Tom Dillehay, U. of Kentucky and  Michael B. Collins, etc.) having to fly down a couple of planeloads of people to see and test the site themselves. The site is firmly dated at 12,500 BCE.

Date: 2006/08/17 05:44:53, Link
Author: deadman_932
More unsupported blather from AirHeadDave:
Quote
(a) Yes, but you believe them and spout them uncritically because they fit into your "religion"
(b) Oh yeah?  Strong words, them. We'll see about that.
(c ) I won't take you up on THAT wager b/c I wouldn't trust the reports,


1.) I read the reports that the dates are taken from, AirHead...have you? No. So...tell m again how this fits my "religion?"
2.) "We'll see about that?" AirHead, there's not a lurker here that hasn't seen how incompetent you are, not to mention a liar and coward, as in :
3) Yeah, you won't take me up on a gentleman's agreement (see point 2)

Date: 2006/08/17 06:04:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Faid hit it on the nose:
Quote
So, you lied for your ego, dave. You made your side (the side of GOD) look bad, because you lied in your arrogance and pride.


Just as with the sham-artistry of Dembski, Behe, Phil Johnson, Hovind, et alia, the most evident link is thier massive ego ---ego unsupported by the level of work and evidence that would justify it.

It's interesting that they all substitute bloviation and rhetorical sleight-of-hand or even outright lying...rather than show how good they are by doing the actual work needed to support their contentions.

Date: 2006/08/17 15:42:16, Link
Author: deadman_932

AirMonkeyDave's argument is simplistic and stupid, much like AMDave in general. His claims appear to be:

1. Researchers in a relatively new region must accept the first dates they get, not attempt to determine if they fit known faunal ranges. If the initial dates are wildly discordant with any other data, tough, keep 'em.

I assume this should also apply to cops...the first suspect they see, they should arrest and prosecute only that person, even if the circumstantial evidence conflicts.

Auto mechanics should only look for the first likely cause to engine failure/problems and ignore any other indications.

Etc., etc. Basically, what AirMonkey wants is for everyone to be as brainless as he is  

2. AirMonkeyDave says:
Quote
the fact is, FOSSILS ARE PRIMARY in every sense of the word as I will illustrate again today.     and , later,.....

WITH THE DATING OF THE KBS TUFF, FOSSILS WERE KING

(Note: I never cease to be amused that stupid people think bold caps make you more authoritative)

Dave says fossils take precedence over radiometric dates, yet, try as I might, I cannot think of a single family of critters that has not been re-dated since the advent of Radiometric Dating. So much for fossil stratigraphy/faunal analysis taking precedence.

3. AirMonkeyDave appears to be making lots of fallacies in his claims, but why not another? He says that if there were problems in dating the KBS Tuff, this means all other radiometric dates should have equal problems and be distrusted. Of course, none of AirMonkey's claims are reasonable or logical, but that's why we're all so amused at his antics -- our li'l pinheaded AirMonkey.

**points at AirHeadDaveHawkins and laughs and laughs**  

Coward, liar and fool is a bad combo to be while going through life, boy. I hope you remember these warnings on the day one of your kids walks up to you and basically tells you that you lied to them and that you're scum.

Have a nice day.

Date: 2006/08/18 06:08:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ladies and Gentlemen, during this pause in the continuing saga of AirHeadDave, I'd like to present my new favorite FlyingMonkey claim. Let me set the stage.

Dave, talking about the radiometric dates for the Grand Staircase, calls them "deadman's dates," and I responded by saying they were not "mine," but gathered, obviously, from journal sources. Then AirMonkeyDave says:
Quote
Yes, but you believe them and spout them uncritically because they fit into your "religion"

I'm nominating this sentence as my newest favorite AirHead claim because it encapsulates, in a mere 14 words, what it is to be AirHead Dave.
1. Avoidance of the issue. He merely says "Yes, but..."
2. Lying outright about the motives and actions/behaviors of others: He actually claimed that I "spouted them uncritically" despite having no idea if I had selected them randomly, critically or in some other way.
3. Hypocrisy. By claiming I "uncritically" accepted the radiometric dates I cited...he conveniently overlooks the fact that he not only rejects them, but has done so without ever reading the papers mentioned.
4. Illogical and obvious childlike manipulation attempts --In saying "your 'religion' " Dave is attempting to put all things on a par and insult me at the same time.

So there you have it...avoidance, lying, hypocrisy and irrationality coupled with a childlike need to control others...all contained in a 14- word sentence emblematic of who Dave Hawkins really is.

The lack of ethics and Christian morality shines through and stinks simultaneously, like a rotting mackerel on a moonlit beach-- Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Dave Hawkins

Date: 2006/08/18 07:22:07, Link
Author: deadman_932
Again, the TalkOrigins response to Lubenow's "Answers in Genesis" piece is at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html

I'm not going to recount the whole thing here, but to say that all the researchers involved (over 100 in both paleanth, geology, radiometrics and fossil suid specialists as well as other paleontologists) were somehow all subconsciously or deliberately led to a particular date...is simply wrong. The fossil pig sequence was continuously being worked on during the 10 YEARS of this dating debate...so were the radiometric dates and the geology of the region.

This is the strength of science, that it is continually refined according to observed data and logic, by testing and re-testing, by creating hypotheses and testing those, by working out ways to get closer to "fact".

This continuous "change" is antithetical to the theistic view of "absolute truth" being immutable and unchanging and is regarded with suspicion and fear. It also strikes a chord in the average reader who fears change, as most animals do. Creationists play on those fears to try to indict all of science, as AirHead does.

On a non-paranoiac (non-Dave) note: a good interview with Ian McDougall, he of KBS Tuff notoriety,  is available at :

  http://www.in-cites.com/scientists/DrIanMcDougall.html and I'll include a little excerpt:  
Quote
This controversy was resolved satisfactorily in the early 1980s through our precise and reproducible age measurements on the KBS Tuff, but my work on the geochronology of the sedimentary sequence in the Turkana Basin continues today. Isotopic ages are now available for more than 20 horizons within the Turkana Basin, showing that deposition began about 4.2 million years (Ma) ago. The measured ages are entirely consistent with the independently determined stratigraphic order, giving further credence to the ages. These dating studies, together with similar measurements undertaken elsewhere, especially on hominid-bearing sequences in Ethiopia, have provided a robust time framework which is of considerable value when dealing with questions related to the origin and evolution of hominids. Numerical age estimates were often hotly debated in the past, but the improved dating techniques and their proper application has resulted in dating issues becoming much less contentious than previously.

Date: 2006/08/18 07:29:23, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let me give AirHead another analogy he might be able to grasp: Suppose you are flying (by visual observation)  at about 2000 feet, ready to land. However, your altimeter ---an independent confirmation--- reads 14,000 feet. What do you do?

Date: 2006/08/18 08:57:34, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
To avoid circularity is difficult, and to do it you need some "final court of appeal" for dating.  RM Dating WOULD be this final court of appeal if you could simply grab ANY rock sample from a layer and date it and get concordant results. BUT YOU CANNOT.


Yes, you can. If you are using the same dating method and gather samples carefully from as far apart as thousands of miles, you will get the same results, statistically. As mentioned above, this is true globally with the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary)  boundary.
***********************************************
To say that I should be able to grab "any" sample from a given layer might mean a lot of things, Dave, what is it that you mean when you say it?

If I am looking at K-Ar dating on a given layer, I can't grab ANY mineral for dating...this should be obvious -- obsidian is not dated the same ways as feldspar, etc..

But if i DO grab the same undamaged feldspar crystals from a given layer, they will be the same dates.

Date: 2006/08/18 09:15:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and as far as your offer to fly me into the Grand Canyon to do some sampling...sure, I'll go. I'll even do all the work so long as you are paying for everything else--food and lodging, etc. I have minimal standards there, since I've been long accustomed to field situations. He11, MRE's are fine. Since this is your hypothesis we're testing, I have a rock drill I can borrow and all the tools needed, including sample containers but the cost of the testing is also yours to shoulder.

However, I won't shake your hand and I won't treat you as a friend or tolerate your attempts to be such. Further, I expect to be treated with the politeness and courtesy afforded a guest-- in return, I speak to you with the politeness and courtesy given to a host. The moment you fail to do that is the moment you wind up with some serious problems. Bring a bodyguard if you like, but that won't help either of you much, should you fail to meet my requirements above.

On a lighter note, I'll also be willing to bet you on the results of the testing, should the lab chosen be one agreed-on. You name the amount or the conditions of the bet, that will suit me just fine.

Date: 2006/08/18 09:26:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
In the case of fossils, scientists go with what they judge to be the most accurate--the Evo Fairy Tale Dogma.  So the dates which do not agree with this are pitched.


No, that is not how it worked, even with the example of the KBS Tuff. What you choose to forget is that some fossil sequences (proboscideans) were re-dated as a result of the continued radiometric work...others ( the suids, pigs) served to calibrate the radiometrics as the fossil work became increasingly precise.

You want to pretend that any one method has continuous precedence and in fact you said so...but you keep bouncing back and forth between methods that you say have precedence...revealing the truth of the matter:
The fact is that all methods reasonably possible to use were employed. No one method took precedence.

This was a new area, with relatively unstudied geology, with relatively unstudied radiometrics, with relatively unstudied faunal sequences...so all three lines were hashed out over a ten-year span to produce credible, reproducible stratigraphy --- that can be replicably dated now by anyone willing to take into account the nature of the stratum itself.

Date: 2006/08/18 09:53:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
And on the altimeter analogy:this is quite similar, an appropriate analogy for finding pigs and elephants at radiometric date that would place them with dinosaurs.
This is something that, contrary to any creationist anecdotes you have, had never been seen bfore, hence those results were immediately questioned.

Continuing work showed flaws in the radiometric dating machinery in one case, it showed the pig sequence becoming increasingly fine-grained...it showed that the KBS Tuff had lots of layering due to multiple events (how this was determined is part of the available literature, do your own work to find out).

In short, this was a great example of how good science DOES work, rather than your bizarre imagined (witting or unwitting) conspiracy to adhere to a given bias.  

What you forget ( again) is that scientists are trained to TRY to be hyper-aware of biases on their part, and other scientists will jump on you with both feet if you exhibit it. Thus, it would have been unusual to find a hominid in Triassic-dated layers, but Richard Leakey would probably have loved that since it would have made him the most famous paleontologist in history. He would have had lots of money to devote to saving African fauna and human groups.

IF all the evidence pointed irrevocably to one conclusion that overturned all of previous evolutionary theory, it would have been scrutinized beyond belief but if it held up, as Relativity did in Physics, then it becomes accepted and science would move on.

But that is not what happened, nor have you, Dave Hawkins, AirMonkey, shown the validity of your hypothesis.

Date: 2006/08/18 10:10:10, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
So if I call you an idiot to your face, you're gonna karate kick me unconscious and then slit my throat?


If you did that, you would deserve whatever you get in my book -- given that I was nice enough to give you ground rules and didn't offer you insult first. But killing you? Nah, you're not worth it, unless you try to up the ante. And I don't know karate, and don't find it particularly effective in an "informal" situation. Nor do I need a knife.

Date: 2006/08/18 11:53:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
Y'know, while I was having my late lunch here, I was thinking that I'd be happy to meet a bunch of people from this forum in person. Hoist a pint, shoot the shite or some 8-ball, maybe some darts...I don't even come close to wanting to meet AirHead.

This is not because you're Christian, AirHead, I get along fine with people of all stripes there. It's because you have demonstrated, as Louis mentioned, that you are a person without honor or ethics or the integrity needed to pursue unfearingly intellectual matters beyond the narrow confines of your delusional ideology.

This is why I like science. It is one of the very few areas of human endeavor in which nothing else really matters but the quality of your ideas and the evidence you bring to the table. Hawking is in a wheelchair and a great physicist, Abdus Salam is Muslim and a great physicist...others are  Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Agnostics and Atheists. Male and female ( I adore Fotini Kalamara in physics), from poor and wealthy backgrounds...this doesn't matter. Class doesn't really matter, nor race, or gender, or sexual orientation or anything but the quality of your ideas and evidence.

This is the precise opposite of you, Dave. Your ideology colors everything in science and everywhere else in your life, so far as I can see. This is why you will remain ignorant and an enemy of intellectual freedom. This is what ultimately puts you on a par with the fanatics of the world willing to fly planes into buildings or subjugate women or lay waste to the Earth or enter into "crusades" against open inquiry. To do so, you HAVE to abandon your honor and ethics by the roadside as you march to Armageddon. And the bad part is that fanatics like you want to drag the rest of us with you. No, thanks.

Hah, I see we were thinking along the same lines, Ichthyic. It'll be good to hoist a pint with you in NZ, bud. Cheers.

Date: 2006/08/18 13:30:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
On the DNS errors: I noticed that if I used a dialup and got an error, I could go to another IP and I could bring up the site.

I was wondering if this might have something to do with the anti-flooding script?

Date: 2006/08/18 13:37:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
, some zoology grad students (and even a prof or two) would knock the paleo dept. using arguments that sounded quite similar, when you get to the grit of it.
mathematicians would knock statisticians...

And I was in *gasp* the SOCIAL SCIENCES (Paleoanth, then Archaeo) and the stigma made me feel like a ...leper...*sob*

On a happier note, Coulter says guys that chase women are obviously gay, so I'm COMIN' OUT, BABY!!! This automatically doubles my chances of a date!!! (apologies if you read this,Fractatious, it was a joke, honey...put DOWN the knife..HELP!!;)

Date: 2006/08/18 13:41:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hell0oOo....hell0oOo...ell0oOo. Wow, nice echo in here, here, here...must be abandoned.

Date: 2006/08/19 17:36:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
The point is ... (Lord, why am repeating this? ... maybe they'll get it on their death bed! ... The Tuff yielded many wildly discordant dates (231my to 0.52my contradicting JonF's assurance that "we don't get discordance")
Leakey "helped" the geochronologists throw out all samples except ones with the 2.61 date because he wanted to make history. But for this to happen, the paleos would have had to adjust the whole picture of human evolution, and this was grandly announced by Leakey. The paleos dug their heels in and finally won with some help from pig evolution.
Ha! Just telling this story again makes me laugh at you and cry for the kids in public school that get lied to! What a joke! We have this political battle and a charade of the scientific method and you guys are taken in hook, line and sinker apparently!
I can't wait to do a Dynamation on this subject to help public school kids see how sadly mistaken you guys are.

Except for a few small things. Like that's not how it happened. By all means, feel free to caricature it as such, but the facts are against you. Also, take note that if you decide to libellously portray Leakey's actions or what he "helped" in ( without you KNOWING that he did any such thing, this is defamation) I'll make sure the Leakey Foundation is notified.

Otherwise, feel free to lie about this as you wish. Eventually, some of the kids you lie to will determine the facts of the matter and resent the way that they were lied to. No worries here, bub. The truth will out, as they say.

Now, again...how does this provide any evidence for your hypothesis?

Date: 2006/08/19 22:59:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Bring a Roosian bodygard if you feel the need.

Maybe GoP would volunteer there -- given that he spends so much time eyeballing those big sweaty mens, he should have picked up some skillz.

That is if you can pry him out of his mommy's basement where he lives and get him away from his...wait a minute, he doesn't have a job, that's right.

You should be free, GoP--why not volunteer to be AFDave's bodyguard should Dave need a friend? I mean, you have the courage of your convictions, don't you?

Date: 2006/08/19 23:10:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Which one of them wears the makeup?

I do, and I look Divine.

Literally -- think John Water's "Pink Flamingos" except I'm not as svelte and pretty.

Date: 2006/08/19 23:20:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
I can certainly chip in for a server. PayPal or whatever.

Date: 2006/08/19 23:31:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Mind you that being said, you Americans do have some splendidly bonkers creationist fruitcakes. Maybe they'd be as frothing as they are here.


Hah, I've only met ONE offline that was as nuts as online, and he was this old coot, about...ah, I'd say 60-ish that actually advanced toward James Randi onstage at a meeting at Caltech -- and before anyone could grab the nutter ( we were in the front row),  Randi -- old as HE is, and small as he is, just decked this fucker. The guy was escorted out by the collar of his jacket, and a good time was had by all.

I think Kent Hovind is truly nuts, though. Never met him personally, but heard he's crazy as a basketful of weasels on crack. His e-mails while negotiating an online "debate" were illiterate as ####, too.

Date: 2006/08/20 03:17:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
delete,delete,delete.

Date: 2006/08/20 03:20:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
1) the fact that most of the layers themselves have  been laid by water (yes, even the Coconino SS)
2) the fact that the non water-laid sediments can be explained as short duration volcanic/tectonic processes during and after the Flood
3) the fact that most layers contain marine fossils
4) the fact that present day mountain tops contain marine fossils
5) the fact of folded (uncracked) strata
6) the fact of incised meanders showing that sediments were soft when the meander was cut
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
8) the fact of historical records which tell of a great flood and legends of such from around the world


Nonsense, YOU provided zero data on any of this, AirHead, you merely copied from AIG or ICR.

1. You say you've shown the Coconino was WATER-LAID, yet you can't answer a single question on it about how SPIDER tracks are laid on a layer in the midst of a flood and have MORE layers dumped on TOP of that...and still survive.
2. Er, no, they can't. You haven't shown how anything as simple as the Kaibab limestone can be deposited PREFERENTIALLY in the midst of a flood. Limestone IN solution ...PREFERENTIALLY laid down with little or no included material? and that is NOT the only Limestone layer, you know. As to volcanics, look at the Hawaiian islands. Follow the guyots that indicate the direction of travel for the hot spot that the islands sit on. Calculate the rate of speed for that motion and volcano formation. Also, remember that your Baumgardner scenario is, by Baumgardner's own admission , impossible without a miracle that would deal with the energy (heat) given off by such movements...movements that would boil off the oceans.  
3. Many layers have marine fossils and many layers have ...DINOSAUR TRACKS in them...and DINOSAUR fossils...but no OTHER kinds of fossils that WOULD Be laid down in a raging flood
4. There are also trilobite fossils there, and dino fossils on some, and amphibians on others...but you find those mountains where? YOU DON'T FIND THE FOSSILS MIXED UP, you find mountains in orogenous zones on plates or where there are hotspots or other mountain-building geological features. Your model requires a flood during ONE year that killed off everything, but we don't find the fossils mixed up? And to try to wave your hands about that, you appeal to "well, mammals move faster than reptiles while drowning." What a hoot.
5) The fact of folded (uncracked) strata won't answer the questions I asked you about HOW the mountains folded and metamorphized, and in fact, you refused to answer it except to say you didn't know, yet modern geology DOES know, so your theory loses again
6) Repeating the "soft sediments" = "incised meanders" is typical of your lies. YOU MENTIONED ONE CITATION from a US army corps of engineers work on the MISSISSIPPI back in the 40's and  not anything related to the Colorado river or a giant flood
7) Except the Toutle river examples you gave don't show the steep-sided meanders large scale, nor could the Toutle ashbeds and mud ever show that, since it goes against all laws of engineering and physics and hydrology.
8) flood legends are not evidence of a global flood, dave. Some show RIVERS flooding, others talk about seas. And how many early cultures do we know of NOT NEAR WATER? And how many myths do we have of cave origins ? To try to say that the stories of every flood represent the Biblical flood is hilarious...here's the East African Kikuyu "flood" :  

"The old spirits destroyed a town by flooding it with beer, while the inhabitants took refuge in caverns nearby." (Abrahams, Roger D. African Folktales, Random House, New York, 1983.) Yeah, I'd like to be in THAT flood, but it sure doesn't sound like Noah

Oh, and why would you invite me to go to the Grand Canyon if you **now** say I am seething with "anger"? I said I would act cordially and politely, but you say that if you insult me to my face, I have to ...what? Accept it? and for you, that means i'm "seething?"

Pfft, just as you are an intellectual coward who will not answer a single question asked you , you are apparently a physical coward as well...one that wants to insult a decent human being ( me) with no repercussions. The interesting thing here is how desperately you want to play martyr...pretending that the pagans are assaulting you while you were innocent--when the truth of the matter is that you created this thread while insulting others, continued to do so when others asked you to stop, but you refused. Now you're a "victim?" You should be allowed to insult me and be immune? Hah.

Date: 2006/08/20 03:29:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
Grr. I don't like when I double-post due to board issues.

Date: 2006/08/20 03:40:20, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let me remind you once again what I said long ago on this board, DAVE, YOU came on this thread that YOU created...insulting people. Long ago, say about page 50 or so, I offered to engage you in adult debate, with you actually behaving like an adult without your juvenile insults and you managed to last all of a day or so.

Furthermore, yesterday you offered me a hypothetical case where you insult me to my face, and I said you would deserve whatever you get...this despite the fact that I said I would treat you with the courtesy deserving a host. Apparently, though, you feel as though you can't control your juvenile impulses or trust your ability to stave off your petty nature long enough to behave like a man and not a 12 year old. And you say that *I'm* "seething? You apparently forget a whole bunch of things real conveniently, AirHead, and I insult you now because you never dropped your little insult game long ago , when I asked you to.

Date: 2006/08/20 03:50:23, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
And yes, I do have a lot of nerve


Except the nerve needed to answer questions honestly and directly, without avoidance and all the fallacies and rhetorical ploys you use....and apparently also lacking the nerve to try to control your own little-kid-insult-tendencies long enough to go sample some rocks in the Grand Canyon.

Date: 2006/08/20 17:20:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I have learned much about the self delusion of the Evo-mind and I have learned that most people come to a place like this to justify their skepticism.  I guess that includes you, eh?  IOW ... Misery Loves Company!


First you accuse others of insulting you , playing martyr as you hurl insults left and right --  and earlier in this thread were crowing about how you were used to such "rough" interactions...but then you say you were unfairly attacked when your insults are returned.

Later, you claim I "threatened you with physical harm  after you asked me what I would do if you called me an idiot to my face. I responded by saying you would deserve what you get, and YOU play martyr again, pretending I had physically threatened you.

Now, despite the fact that you cannot answer questions about your "hypothesis " directly --  you claim others are deluded, yet you avoid, ignore , distract, divert, use fallacies and games to never address direct questions put to you.

All of these are standard ploys used by people like you, Dave: the "martyr" game...the avoidance game followed by " I gave you evidence "..... while you again call others names like "self-deluded" merely because they point out your faults.

This is YOUR HYPOTHESIS, dave, and part of testing hypotheses is to question them narrowly to see if they hold up in explanatory value...to see if they are in fact falsifiable, to see if they can generate testable claims...and the fact is that you have failed miserably.

On the other hand, every question of import that YOU have asked...has been answered. YOU cannot even answer simple ones about Spider tracks in the Coconino, or how the sides of the grand canyon remained vertical despite being deposited in one year.

But you call others deluded? Take a look in the mirror, boy.

Date: 2006/08/21 03:22:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
As for visiting with me in person, I have no interest in meeting in person with anyone who even hints of physical violence towards me as Deadman has done.  Prior to Deadman's threat, I had no idea that there were any ATBC participants capable of stooping to that depth of quasi-criminal behavior.

"Threat?" "quasi-criminal?" Tell you what, liar, please cite where I threatened you. You asked me what I would do if you  called me a liar to my face and I said you would deserve whatever you get. I also said prior to that ...that I would treat you with the respect and courtesy given a host.

But apparently, as I said, you can't imagine yourself capable of acting like an adult long enough to gather some rock samples. Which figures, since your whole act reeks of immaturity...your taunts, your insults, your jibes at people who offered you no reason for your childish behavior....your lies, your claims that you can't back up. Now this silly attempt ( actually your third attempt at this game of martyr" and " Dave is innocent")
1.) You came into this forum insulting left and right.
2.) you were asked by several people to stop with the childish insults.
3.) You made fun of THOSE people by crowing about how you were USED to rough dialogue, and made fun of them for not being able to "take it"
4.) Now you complain about "being abused?" You're quite the nutter, AirHeadDaveHawkins.
Remember, Dave, YOU  you  asked ME " what are you going to do, karate kick me into unconciousness, then cut my throat? "

Sounds to me like you issued your OWN threat, then tried to latch onto my response as an affirmation of your delusion.

And all I said was " you would deserve what you get, and I don't know karate and don't need a knife." That is not a physical threat, it is an awareness on MY part of the game you are playing.
Keep it up, the "I'm a martyr" game isn't working for you, whiner.

Date: 2006/08/21 03:39:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
As to your questions about the Grand Canyon, AirHead...no answers that I give you will help you support YOUR hypothesis. The sheer fact that you are too lazy and/or stupid to go to the library near you to find things out for yourself speaks volumes about your sheer ineptitude and impotence in this forum.

Here's a novel thought, since you can't seem to think for yourself: Why not provide evidence about the Grand Canyon that DOES support your claims, while you answer straightforwardly all questions that might falsify your claims? Oh, that's right, you can't do that.

As I said, you're an intellectual fraud and apparently so cowardly that you create paranoid mental delusions about others wanting to hurt you. I don't CARE about you enough to hurt you in person, nor would I do anything but laugh at your childish antics, as I do here. Now you can take that and twist it into a "threat" too.

Spineless, utterly spineless and without morals or ethics...that's our little Davey Hawkins. I sure hope it wasn't your daddy that taught you this weird manipulation game, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least...you learned this SOMEWHERE.

Date: 2006/08/21 04:49:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
The moment you fail to do that is the moment you wind up with some serious problems. Bring a bodyguard if you like, but that won't help either of you much, should you fail to meet my requirements above.  [SORRY, BUT THAT'S A PHYSICAL THREAT IF I EVER SAW ONE]


So, Dave, in addition to being stupid, you're also delusional. "serious problems" might equal a lot of things, sweetie, none of which might equal physical harm.
I mentioned no physical threat at all, but you inserted that. Now you call me a criminal based on your delusion ? That sounds suspiciously like libel, Dave. Care to retract that?

Date: 2006/08/21 05:08:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
I was well aware at the time that what you were attempting to do was to goad me into making an actual physical threat, AirHead...You wanted that so you could play martyr. I answered you in a deliberately ambiguous way, so let me illustrate:

Take the sentence I responded with...

" The moment you fail to do that is the moment you wind up with some serious problems. Bring a bodyguard if you like, but that won't help either of you much.."

Was "serious problem"  specified? DID I SAY what "serious problem " WOULD MEAN?

Now, stupid, substitute "lawsuit" for "serious problems"....is that a physical threat? No...

Yet, you feel free to accusing me of HAVING "criminal urges?"
Quote
So I'm not convinced I want to go sampling rocks in the GC with a guy that has criminal urges


This is just further evidence of how stupid and paranoically cowardly you are, Dave. Now, I suggest you retract your libel.

I *knew* what you wanted to evoke, DaveLiar...I just didn't give it to you.

But you decided to insert it yourself, then accuse me. Tsk...you're not even a good liar, Dave...but you are a demonstrable liar.

Date: 2006/08/21 05:12:16, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I'll take your quote into a court of law any day.  Want me to call my lawyer?


Why, yes, Dave Hawkins, I'd like that very much. I expect to hear from a lawyer online to ask me my particulars. My hotmail address is deadman932@hotmail.com

As for you, little GoP...don't you have some old mentally ill guys to go beat up on and throw off buses, you big tough Atlanta-livin, jobless, working-out-of -a -library fraud?

Date: 2006/08/21 05:31:19, Link
Author: deadman_932
No, GoP ...what was creepy was Dave asking me if I was going to karate kick him and slit his throat. THAT was creepy. What was creepy was Dave trying to manipulate me the way he manipulates the little kids in his class, thinking he can get away with it

By the way, GoP you should indeed read up on libel law, outside of the U.S.
You see, this public forum allows anyone to file suit in a jurisdiction where the forum is available...say, oh, Singapore. Now, since I will be in NZ in a short time, and it's just a hop to Singapore and I plan on going there, anyway...what do you think their laws are regarding such suits? I can tell you that they are among the harshest in the world.
I've been thinking about this tactic, and there is case law in this regard. And yes, it would be enforceable in the US, as are other types of suits brought from foreign jurisdictions. Just to let you know.

Date: 2006/08/21 05:44:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
"Dirty pool?" after you try desperately to twist what I say? "Dirty pool " after you stupidly try to manipulate me into an *actual* threat and then pounce on what I said as confirmation? Even though it has no threat of physical harm in it? "Dirty pool" after you accuse me of criminal urges, then try to bluff your way through something you obviously know nothing about?

This is just a microcosm of your impotence and ineptitude, Dave. It illustrates perfectly just how stupid you are while you pose and preen as some authority on things you know nothing about.

The issue here is YOU supporting YOUR hypothesis, not everyone having to answer your stupid claims on the Grand Canyon that don't support your claim in the least.

What would support your claim is POSITIVE evidence for your assertion that the Earth is less than 10k years old...which you have failed to do, you stupid, lying cowardly little whiner.

Date: 2006/08/21 06:22:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
Ah, Louis, I was just calling little Davey's bluff. He knows he tried to manipulate me so he could play martyr and he just tried to weasel his way through it.

All I had to do was think ahead, something that DumbassDave is incapable of. Anticipating his moves is simple, since he's stupid.

Date: 2006/08/21 06:56:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
Lou: A pilsner would be good and a shot of Bushmills, thnx. He11, I'll even sing/play some Beatles later, which should really cause an international crisis. Hah!

Date: 2006/08/21 08:24:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
As for you, Deadman, if you want me to come to the GC, you are going to have to drop all your threatening talk--I will take your word for it that you were not threatening me physically--but threats of legal action are not much better.
So you need to give me some assurance that there will be none of that as well before I would be interested in meeting you to do any sample work....Now Deadman, let me ask you your opinion ... Is this a forum that truly allows people to speak their opinions freely, without fear of legal action or physical harm?

You're older than I am, Dave Hawkins. As an adult you know the answers to these questions. You are not a naif, you are not an innocent, you are not a martyr and you are certainly not a "victim," so quit trying to portray yourself as such.

Unlike Samuel Johnson, I don't believe that patriotism is the *last* refuge of the scoundrel, I prefer Asimov's "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

I dislike you trying to manipulate me, per your earlier assertions in this thread that you were using "psychological warfare" against people (remember, you congratulated me on pointing this out, now you act wounded). Well...no, you're using low-level childish games to avoid your responsibilites of your "hypothesis" that you never seem to support.

So you flail about , seeking any childish means of gaining some leverage, including all the usual tools of the incompetent...fallacies, rhetorical ploys, lies, gamesmanship, pretense, etc. That's what led to your stupid attempt to get me to say something that you could use to play martyr and victim. Deal with it, AirHeadDave. And don't for a minute think that you are fooling people here.

Oh, and as to your GC expedition--remember, you said you *didn't* invite me, AirHead, so...nah, I'll prefer not to deal with you. Unlike Louis, I DO dislike what I can see of you personally (and your ilk -- the kind that play victim while abusing others).

Date: 2006/08/21 08:49:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
Lou: Yep, you're right, I should have phrased it differently. I'll get the next two rounds.

I do hate what Dave stands for, though -- the crushing of the human spirit and intellectual freedom under the banner of a faux "loving" religious view that is a thin disguise for totalitarian Theocracy.

Someone (apologies to who it was) asked Dave earlier if he thought that these were the "end times" and that the middle east pointed towards such...personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Dave, like many of his kind, was a "dominionist."

Date: 2006/08/21 09:58:51, Link
Author: deadman_932
*slaps GoP's muzzle* Did you want me to unzip my pants so you can stick your nose further in my crotch, GoP?
Like I told you a long time ago, you remind me of a weird manic toy poodle, bouncing up and down yapping for attention. Shoo, go sniff Dave's ass again.

Date: 2006/08/21 11:45:28, Link
Author: deadman_932
AirHeadDave: You keep trying to test the standard geological model. That is not your model to test.

Just for fun, let's say you convinced me that the standard geological model is wrong.

The default hypothesis is not YOUR model until you show it holds up better. End of story.

So, start presenting evidence FOR your model, not against others.

Start answering questions about your claims.

Until you do that, there is no reason to even bother responding to you. You have failed to show your hypothesis has evidence to back it.

Here's a question, Dave...about YOUR hypothesis...Why are there spider tracks in the coconino sandstone when millions more tons of watery sediments covered them in the flood year?

That's not even close to the harder questions I have, but you can't even answer that. Your model fails thereby.

You can't even answer that question. Not one.

Date: 2006/08/21 14:49:14, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Is it just me, or is everyone getting sick of AF Dave insisting on everyone backing up their claims, when it's his... claim that is under discussion here.


Yup. That's why I didn't even bother with an answer this time.

Every one of the germane questions he's asked has been answered-- but he still can't manage to answer any on his own claims. sh1t, he can't manage to present any evidence at all on HIS claims, they're just hot air and AIG/ICR vomit that everyone has already seen.

No wonder he was scared I'd simply leave him buried in the Canyon... he already IS.

Date: 2006/08/22 01:50:36, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Thank you! You've successfully completed your purchase from TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc.
You've sent a secure payment of $XXXX USD to TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. through PayPal. The payment will appear on your card statement as "PAYPAL *TALKORIGINS".

Please spend it all on watery beer and tarts wielding swords in a lake. Or a server.

Date: 2006/08/22 02:27:38, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
He says it was a legal threat which to me is not much better.


I merely substituted the word "lawsuit" for "serious problems" in a sentence...to illustrate that your claim of a "physical threat" was erroneous.

When you decided to test me by asking if I wanted you to call your lawyer, I called your bluff, too.

My history of lawsuits is non-existent, AirWhinerDave. Nor do I think "lawsuits" is even among the top 50 things I would list as destructive to America -- given the legal/legislative protections that corporations/companies can and do buy. Frivolous lawsuits still exist, certainly, but the evidence is that there are filters for such and most never see the light of day.

More importantly, try providing evidence for your silly unsupported hypothesis.

Crabby: Yeah, that would be fun. The whole southern mound culture "Snake Cult" would be neat, too,  I have a buddy down in Fla/Georgia working on that. Cheers!

Date: 2006/08/22 02:56:08, Link
Author: deadman_932
Looking at X as a tactic is not the same as using X as a tactic.
And as far as backpedalling is concerned, you better check your drawers for when you sh1t yourself yesterday, boy.
I don't give a flying fukc what other people on a board think if they are as dense as you, AirHead...and they would have to be to arrive at your conclusions

Date: 2006/08/22 03:23:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
According to AirHead, *I* am the resident litigious git and I'll SUE EVERYONE (in Singapore, no less) if you don't stop this terrible, terrible feuding. Won't SOMEBODY please think of the children?!?

Date: 2006/08/22 05:04:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
 He responded with his "serious problems" threat as a direct answer to my question of what he would do to me if I called him an idiot to his face.  You are the one with reading comprehension problems in yet another area.


Look, idiot, I just repeated (above) that my response THERE was an illustration of WHY "serious problems" =/= (does not equal) "physical threat."

The whole issue of me musing about a suit in Singapore (and thereby scaring the diapers off you ) concerned your libel of me as a "criminal", remember?

I state clearly I have no history of suing anyone, and you still rant off on it...indicating to me that the real problem is not that you're bothered by the thought of a lawsuit, but the fact that you curled up like GoP getting slapped around at a Girl Scout Jamboree

Incorygible was right and you are (In no particular order) a liar, idiot, coward and incapable of backing your hypothesis.

Did the Air Force conduct some mysterious forbidden experiments on you to make you this way?

Date: 2006/08/22 05:16:11, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and by the way, I also stated clearly previously that I had no intention of being anywhere near you. As soon as a mosquito or raindrop landed on you in the Grand Canyon, you'd run screaming for the hills, convinced I was "attacking" you, you freakin' eunuch.

Date: 2006/08/22 05:39:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I'll tell you who is soft ... YOU.  We are in an INTERNET FORUM.  Not a boxing ring.  Not a court of law.  Not the battlezones of Iraq.  If I wanted to be in any of those venues, I would be.


But you're still a coward that refuses, daily, to even answer the least questions regarding your claims. Like what I asked on the Coconino spider tracks yesterday ( for the ..what? 50th time? You simply avoided it again, thereby showing your intellectual cowardice.

Your physical cowardice is irrelevant to me, but also apparent from your comments -- your "I was a jungle boy" fantasies notwithstanding.

Date: 2006/08/22 05:57:48, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I say some people here HATE creationists simply because it sounds like they do.  Feel free to prove me wrong.


Many people here -- including Louis and myself yesterday -- said they don't "hate" creationists personally, but the fanaticism that drives the creationist agenda. For myself, I don't *hate* you, but I do despise you for being a liar, coward, fraud, etc.

Quote
How do explain my childhood in the jungles of Brazil where I had plenty of mosquitos, raindrops, biting gnats, foot-burrowing fleas, poisonous snakes, living in a grass hut, an outhouse for a bathroom and so on?


Oh, my. Mosquitos. Fierce fleas. Terrifying gnats. Snakeses that bites. Sheee-it, boy. That MUST have been a real trial for you, being around those big scary things in your frilly pink dress.

Date: 2006/08/22 06:18:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Where I differ from you is that I have (and have given many of them) much better answers for the BIG questions than you do.  Like how did all this sedimentary rock get deposited?


Er, no, you don't. Nor can you answer any questions on the big problems your hypothesis faces. The multiple layers of the Grand Canyon are the product of multiple freshwater and sea water deposition. This is why you see Spider tracks in the Coconino that could not have been formed without long periods of dryness , rather than your imaginary " it allgot deposited in one year" scenario.

There are obvious deep-sea deposits, like the limestone that cannot form in any other way. There are near-shore deposits that cannot form in any other way. Your whole scenario cannot account for any of these, nor the paleosols or evaporites. Your hypothesis loses every time, because it cannot deal with significant questioning of it.

Date: 2006/08/22 06:34:49, Link
Author: deadman_932
Let me give you a small example of the explanatory value that your hypothesis lacks:
Quote
The Redwall "Limestone" is divided into four members: the Whitmore Wash, Thunder Springs, Mooney Falls, and Horseshoe Mesa members. The Whitmore Wash is nearly pure calcium carbonate (98% pure). The Thunder Springs member consists of alternating layers of chert and carbonate. The Mooney Falls member is once again almost totally pure calcium carbonate (99.5%). The Horseshoe Mesa member consists of thinly-bedded carbonate with occasional chert lenses.


Beus writes:

"Deposition of the Redwall Limestone sediments occurred in a shallow, epeiric sea that produced a submerged continental shelf across northern Arizona. Deposits formed during two major [west-east] transgressive-regressive pulses, as demonstrated by McKee and Gutschick (1969). Detailed facies analysis by Kent and Rawson (1980) and Bremner (1986) have confirmed and refined this interpretation. The basal part of the Whitmore Wash Member records intitial deposition during the first transgression under nearshore, shallow, subtidal conditions where high-energy currents produced oolitic shoals. As the transgression proceded, more offshore deposits of skeletal grainstone and packstone accumulated under quieter water and more open-marine conditions. The Thunder Springs Member accumulated in increasingly shallow conditions as the sea regressed westward." (p. 128). http://vishnu.glg.nau.edu/rcb/mispaleo.html

Date: 2006/08/22 06:41:39, Link
Author: deadman_932
Okay, GoP, go ahead, boy, sniff my crotch real deep, poodle-boy...now shoo.

Date: 2006/08/22 06:51:57, Link
Author: deadman_932
So, Dave...how is limestone preferentially deposited in YOUR hypothesis? The answer will be "I don't know" if you are honest.

Date: 2006/08/22 06:59:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
I read this kind of stuff when I'm having insomnia, but not when I want to find out the truth about how the layers got there... The sciency sounding language that only the few, the "elite" can understand


Oddly enough, the great strength of science is that it is both understandable to anyone willing to crack a dictionary and textbook...and it is not elitist in the least, except to those too lazy and inept ( like you, AirHead) to bother. So...how did those 800-foot thick layers of limestone get deposited in your scenario, dave?

Date: 2006/08/22 07:12:20, Link
Author: deadman_932
You avoided my direct question again, "intellectually honest" Dave.

Oh, and by the way, look at where the paleosols are found in the layers. Kinda hard to form a paleosol in the midst of that raging flood, eh?

P.S. Congratulations on learning how to use a dictionary. Now, if only you had actually read any non-creationist geology books or maybe strained your frilly pink self to take a class or two, you might be able to speak competently on the subjects.

Date: 2006/08/22 07:25:02, Link
Author: deadman_932
C'mon, Dave, you said your hypothesis answers the big questions better than any other, yet I still see no response on how the limestones formed in your flood. Show me that vaunted "intellectual honesty" you possess.

Date: 2006/08/22 07:40:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Jon's not here, Dave...you're supposed to be answering what I asked over 30 minutes ago. "Intellectual honesty" my ass. Fraud

Date: 2006/08/22 07:46:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'm amused at how you switch roles, AirHead. Earlier in this thread you compared yourself to Newton and Maxwell, then started yapping about your engineering degree while talking about the intellectual rigors of the Air Force....now all of a sudden, you want to pose as "Dave Hawkins, ordinary guy baffled by the "mysteries" of elitist science" ....while you ignore what I asked you directly, in favor of addressing a person that isn't even active on the board at the moment.

It's been over 30 minutes, Dave, and you still haven't answered me with details from your hypothesis that is better than any other. How did that limestone form in your scenario?

Date: 2006/08/22 07:57:50, Link
Author: deadman_932
And Dave vanishes from the user list. Very nearly an hour after I asked him a simple question.

Ladeez and gennamen, Elvis has FLED the building

Date: 2006/08/22 08:11:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
If anyone's interested: "paleo-sol" just means "old soil". The neat thing here is that soils (as opposed to sediments that are laid by water or wind...have specific attributes. Look outside and you'll see soils getting affected by plants and animals, microbes, etc., which results in those attributes.

Paleosols are found (among other places)  IN the layers of the  Redwall Limestone, the Supai Formation, and the Hermit Formation. Paleosols are also found in the Chinle, Morrison, and Dakota Layers.

Jon raised this, so ...it's his to slap Dave around with later.

Date: 2006/08/22 08:41:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
k.e.: I think you mean Glenn Morton, and I don't have the specific website or paper on hand, no, sorry.  :(
TalkOrigins, of course has a bunch of his stuff, and ASA here: http://129.82.76.41:591/FMPro?-....&-find=

Date: 2006/08/22 09:21:26, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Real programmers don’t give hoity-toity names like “Genetic Algorithm” to ways of finding answers that just about every child invents on his own recognizance without being taught. That’s just a really lame attempt by greenhorns to appear smart and innovative.


"real programmers" design cheesy kiddy games years and years and years ago that have long faded into oblivion and yet allow DaveScot to claim "expertise." Uh-huh. Oh, and they do patent searches and approvals.

Date: 2006/08/22 09:34:37, Link
Author: deadman_932
This is cute, too:
Quote
Has anyone ever observed unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) process produce an algorithm? No.
Comment by Joseph — August 22, 2006 @ 11:20 am


#### those snowflakes! #### those seashells with their mutinous fibonacci notions!!!

Date: 2006/08/22 11:01:04, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
So, Paley. Ever like to hang out at the gymnasium?




"Paley, do you like to watch gladiator movies?"

Date: 2006/08/22 11:12:43, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
The whirlpools would capture gophers and fling them toward the muddy bottom at high velocity. The gophers would shoot like a bullet through several layers. Then when a continent drove over the area the unbelievable heat from friction ossified everything.


the ICR will soon be proving this thesis. And poor steve will be left to shake his fist at the injustice of it all. I still laugh at those whizzing continents..Wh0oOsh!!
"What the he11 WAS that, Martha?!?!"
"I think that was South America, dear"

Date: 2006/08/23 00:14:26, Link
Author: deadman_932
Crabby: ahh, we might know some people in common, then. Possibly. Both from the ####-hole and Potawatomi. Even if not, I'd be glad to buy the drinks.

GoP: I found that picture early on doing a search for "gay gladiators" then "gay warrior" on a lark...and there it was, labelled : " Is this totally gay or what?!?!" And yeah, this thread has the advantage of AirHead wanting to walk through every Creationist claim.

steve: Aye-aye, Cap'n Even if i like driving by braille, this is a bit much, agreed.

AirHead:
(1)That article you posted ( it's not "research") cherry-picks two paleosol layers and the author "Tas Walker" examines them via photograph in one case (Missouri)...and by some other unidentified means which he does not cite (Queensland Australia). The cherry-picked paleosols have nothing to do with the Grand Canyon at all. Try again. Not all paleosols are alike, nor does each have the same level of evidence available. Address the Grand Canyon paleosols. Address the Grand Canyon evaporites.
(2) You asked me how spider tracks form in the coconino sandstone...while avoiding what I asked you multiple times yesterday, before you ran off.

And yes, you fled while knowing that I had asked for a specific response to a specific question, AirHead. This was deliberate on your part. Look at the time stamps on the postings and that much is clear.

I'll tell you precisely how they were formed, AirHeadDave...after you answer what I asked you  yesterday.

So far, your "model that is better than any other" cannot account , by your own admission, for the metamorphic changes in the Vertebrae Ridge photo you yourself posted. You simply said " I don't know."

Your model cannot account for the spider tracks I mentioned. You simply said "I don't know"

If you were honest, you'd just admit that your "hypothesis" cannot account for the 800-foot thick limestone deposits that are up to 99% pure in the Grand Canyon. Your answer here , if you were honest, would be to simply say:  " I don't know"  

If you were honest about the Grand Canyon (not missouri or australia) paleosols and the features they exhibit, your answer to how they were formed would be to simply say: " I don't know"

If you were honest about how the evaporite layers (halites and more) formed IN the layers of the Grand Canyon, your correct and honest response would be to simply say: " I don't know"

I could go on and on about the questions you have refused to answer regarding the Grand Canyon and your "theory that is better than any other and answers all the big questions"...No. Your theory fails in big questions and small. It fails at all levels.

This is why you keep trying desperately to AVOID dealing directly with questions about YOUR MODEL...because it fails at all levels of scrutiny.

The fact is that you yourself or any lurker can go back in this thread and try to find any major questions.. about modern geology ...that were NOT answered by people here. Go do it yourself, Dave. See how many you can find. Bring them to the attention of people here and they will be answered.

If I ask you questions directly, as I did yesterday. You avoid. You divert. You pretend to address Jon, who wasn't even on the board at the time...rather than deal with the question I asked you while I was present...then, most amusingly, you left...and returned...and left....while never addressing what I asked. Now, today, you seem to have forgotten my question again, so I'll ask it again: How did the multiple layers of Limestone found in the Grand Canyon stratigraphy form in your Model? Be precise and detailed. show how many parts per million were needed in solute, and the origin of those suspended materials. Show the deposition rate, and why there are layers that are 99% pure calcium carbonates. Take into account this fact, confirmed by generations of chemists and others --
Minerals precipitate out of solution in the reverse order of their solubilities, such that the order of precipitation is:
(1)Calcite (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
(2)Gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O) and anhydrite (CaSO4).
(3)Halites  
(4)Potassium and magnesium salts

In short, Airhead...to show that your "theory " REALLY IS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER...you have to be able to answer these questions...which you cannot, of course...and you're still too dishonest to simply say the magic words : "I don't know"

Date: 2006/08/23 00:30:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Yay, David Klinghoffer, whip out those false dichotomies, boy!!

Date: 2006/08/23 01:06:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
I was just scanning over the ass-whuppin that Tom English is handing DaveTard1, and it suddenly struck me that Denyse O'Leary's posts used to be near-daily until the return of DaveTard.

Could it be that she resents his presence? His vast wealth that allows him to buy a ...er..."yacht" and a subscription to Scientific American? His fields of basement-grown phallic mushrooms ? Or was it his labelling her a "morphodyke?"

Date: 2006/08/23 03:21:18, Link
Author: deadman_932
Steverino: obviously, AirHeadDave would say it's a great conspiracy formed of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostic and Atheist scientists of all backgrounds, origins, preferences...that are seeking to undermine holy creationists and preventing them from publishing their cutting, devastatingly scientificalicious articles.

On that note, and in the spirit of AirHeadDave-tardery, I'd like to offer up this little ditty, with apologies to the Simpsons episode 2F09 (Homer the Great). Sung to the tune of  "We do!" (The Stonecutters Song)
**********************************************
The Scientist Song
Who hides all the proof of God? Who perpetrates the fossil fraud? We do, we do!

Who hates God and Jesus too? Who says evolution's  true? We do, we do!

Who expands the age of Earth? Who denies the Virgin Birth? We do, we do!

Who snuck Chuck Darwin into schools, Who mocks believers all as fools?...We do, we do!

Who denies the fact of creation? Who will destroy the Christian nation? We do, we will!

What does Satan like to see? ATHEIST scieeeence... CONSPIRACY!!!
*********************************************

Thank you , thank you, I'll be in the lounge all this week.

Date: 2006/08/23 03:40:55, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Tas Walker examines the Missouri pseudo-paleosol by photograph, but fails to notice that it was Meert that produced the photo, not Walker.


1. The Missouri paleosol and Queensland one are not in the Grand Canyon.
2. Tas Walker "diagnosed " the Missouri paleosol by photograph. He COULD have gone to look at the actual site...but didn't, preferring the "creationist" style of "research"
3. You can repaste all of the AIG article and it still won't pertain to the Grand Canyon paleosols at hand.
4. Once again, per your usual intellectual cowardice, you failed to address what I asked about limestones in the Grand Canyon.

Date: 2006/08/23 04:22:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
1) So what?  All the points made about Paleosols in general are valid.  What do you have to say about the general points made?  Nothing.  Thought not.


1. What general points, AirHead? Everything in the article pertains only to Meert's examples. Show me a sentence that extends specifically to all paleosols.

2. Did you bother to read Meerts' response that was posted above?  Let me quote it: [QUOTE]Furthermore, any geologist would also realize the importance of actually visiting the outcrop before writing up a "scientific" article on the subject.   However, Walker is not just any geologist, he's an electrical engineer with a goal of proving that the Noachian flood actually took place.  Facts, field work and research have little meaning when you've already reached a conclusion. [QUOTE]

3. No, it doesn't, Dave, and you cannot show that it does. Walker says "However, when two examples of alleged paleosols are examined, one in Missouri, USA and the other in Queensland, Australia, they do not stand up to scrutiny. "...but fails to address the paleosols in the Grand Canyon. As to posting a photo of the paleosols, that's up to Jon, I don't want to step on his line of slapping you around.

What counts is actual research on the paleosols in question, and YOU supporting your model here. Which you have once again failed to do.

You can claim that this examination-by-distance of paleosols in Missouri and Queensland has something to do with those in the Grand Canyon, but this is just another example of your willingness to lie.

4. Of course you can't address what I asked over half a dozen times now, Dave.

Even though you keep claiming your hypothesis has better value than any other, you still can't manage to address direct questions specifically about the Grand Canyon. You avoid, you post meaningless articles by electrical engineers on layers unrelated to the Grand Canyon, you refuse to look at peer-reviewed research ON the Grand Canyon layers, you distract, tap-dance, lie -- anything to avoid scrutiny of your claims directly.

Date: 2006/08/23 04:30:10, Link
Author: deadman_932
I happen to like this response by Meert to "Taz Walker's" silly claims  http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walker.htm

So I'm going to post it here, it cuts to the quick about the lying ways of creationist geologists.
Quote
One of the more important details that creationists are loathe to provide is a detailed explanation of flood boundaries within the rock record. Creationists, like Walker, deal in vagaries. Why? According to ye-creationist dogma, the Noachian flood is THE defining event in Earth history. Creationists claim it is responsible for much of the geologic column. Since the flood was a short-duration event and creationists have been studying the rock record for 200+ years, it is surprising that none of them will supply the answers to the following questions:
a. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the pre-flood/flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature.

b. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, strata laid down during the peak of the global flood (i.e. globally correlatable strata all deposited under water)? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for these rocks in the creationist literature.

c. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the flood/post-flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature. To be fair, creationists have a little more leeway in defining this boundary since the flood waters receded over a slightly longer time interval, but it still should be possible to provide considerable detail.
There is a reason that creationists will never provide such detailed information. If creationists ever provide these answers, they will also have to explain the many anomalies that cannot be fit into a global flood (e.g. paleosols, desert deposits and glacial deposits for example).


See, Dave, they're just like you. Avoid, distract, lie, pretend...but they never deal with actual meaningful research on matters that would really support their claims. But boy, do they sell books to the stupid like yourself.

Date: 2006/08/23 05:10:06, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
1) So what?  All the points made about Paleosols in general are valid.  What do you have to say about the general points made?  Nothing.


And what does Dave have to support this claim? One sentence that he says indicts all paleosols across the world. That study of the paleosols began ...well, Dave puts it stupidly by saying this:

"Did you not read that the whole Paleosol idea began in the "Quaternary" and then was extrapolated through all lower layers?  On what basis?  Uniformitarianism ... which is DEFUNCT! "

Dave: the idea of paleosols began in the Holocene...the geological period in which you exist now. If you mean That paleosols found IN the quaternary were the first subjects of research, sure, so?

How does this paper pertain to all paleosols? Just because it says " Paleosol research first dealt with Quaternary layers" doesn't mean that paper...article...uh, bit of creationist drivel...is about all paleosols, stupid. Nor can it be extrapolated to all paleosols, since the author, the famed electrical engineer who got his ass handed to him, Taz Walker...only mentioned the Missouri and Queensland examples.

Your lack of even basic logic is pretty funny, stupid.

I just noticed AirHead's post above. Apparently he thinks
PRE-flood boundary
PEAK-flood layers and
POST-flood boundary are all the same:
" Is there some reason, Deadman, why you post the same question 3 different ways?  Desperate to refute me in some way, but really have nothing substantive to say?"

Date: 2006/08/23 05:25:30, Link
Author: deadman_932
Here, AirHead, let me put this in childlike terms so you understand it.

1. PRE-flood boundary. Where is a layer in the grand canyon that represents the **start** of the flood depositing layers on that landscape? Everything UNDER it would be PRE-Flood. Name that layer, AirHead.

2. PEAK-flood layers: show me where the peak deposition rates occurred, when the "flood" actions were greatest.

3. POST-flood: Show me the last layer deposited by the flood in the Grand Canyon. Point to it, name it, use your crayons to draw it, child. Any of those would be nice.

Date: 2006/08/23 05:32:00, Link
Author: deadman_932
Note to AirHead: if you can't use the Grand Canyon to name the last layer deposited by the flood in that geographical area, point to anywhere in the US that has the last layer. Name it.

Date: 2006/08/23 05:35:33, Link
Author: deadman_932
Oh, and thank you , k.e., I appreciate the compliment and LOVED " The Singing Detective." I'm very partial to music from that period, esp. big band and blues. Killer script, too.

Date: 2006/08/23 05:55:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Heh, AirHead's childlike squawk about "it's all the same thing" is like me talking to a buddy about his cross-country trip and asking him where he started, where he ended and where he drove through...and having the person say "It was all one trip, those things are irrelevant." ( A la Dumbski's : "I don't have to match your pathetic level of detail !!!!;)

Oookayyyyy...(and yeah, that person would be quickly off my mental list of friends)

Date: 2006/08/23 06:24:42, Link
Author: deadman_932
I'll attempt an answer for Dave, sans the stupid-ass boldings:

No one can name the Pre-flood boundary and neither can you. (imagine bold here)

Baumgardner gives us an complete theory that has continents whizzing about and diving under the crust like mighty dolphins in the sea, or sandworms in that great Creationist epic, "Dune."

It is only your millionsofyearistic blinders that has kept you from dealing with his most excellent scientificalicious evidence.

Date: 2006/08/23 06:53:06, Link
Author: deadman_932
So...in your "theory that is better than any other...you can't name a layer that represents the start of the flood deposition...or the end of it, even in one geographical location like the southwest.

You say you can SEE the layers...but you can't name them? You can't use any name to describe them? So...can you point to one in person? YOU say you can see them...well, have you? What's the name us "long agers" would give to one? Remember, I am asking for specific layers demarcating the beginning and end of flood deposition in a geographical area...anywhere in the world. Name one, using any method you choose, or show a picture or draw one, or describe the attributes of it and the area in which it is found.

Remember, you said you could SEE them. So describe one, post a pic of one or anything else that would serve to define it.

Date: 2006/08/23 07:02:24, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hurry and find a diversion, Dave. Make sure you avoid answering what I asked directly. Wave your hands and point to some meaningless AIG drivel then try to get everyone to post on it so you can avoid longer.

How long can you avoid direct questioning of your "theory that is better than any other," AirHead?

Date: 2006/08/23 07:31:23, Link
Author: deadman_932
Varied topics on your part. The actual content is provided by others. And you didn't answer what I asked, Dave (but you did find a diversion). Gosh, that's a surprise.

Point to a layer or describe it. Use numbers and say "number 12 from the uppermost stratum is the pre-flood basement" Or you can try answering the limestone question I've been asking for oh...about 2 months now. You say you'll get to it, but that has never happened, despite the conversations being about the Grand Canyon.

You refuse to answer any questions on your "theory that is better than any other," except to admit that it is flawed and you don't know the answers.

Date: 2006/08/23 07:49:46, Link
Author: deadman_932
Well-said, eric.
After stripping away all of AirHead's posturing and bravado, his fallacies and games...after stripping away the deceptive coverings of his "hypothesis that is better than any other," the creationist lies that covered that...there is a core to Dave's claims.

That core is hollow, but it has a little image of Dave inside it. That is what Dave worshipped all along.

Date: 2006/08/23 08:41:17, Link
Author: deadman_932
No, Airhead, you cited a paper from an electrical engineer that was soundly refuted by an actual geologist.
The paper had nothing to do with any Grand Staircase paleosols and in fact, as you were shown above...had nothing to do with anything but some claims on paleosols in Missouri and Queensland.
And then there is, of course, your refusal to answer my direct questions on the flood strata.

Date: 2006/08/23 08:52:41, Link
Author: deadman_932
A lesson in logic for little AirHead Dave:
You say your paper by an electrical engineer showed why most paleosols are not in fact paleosols. Good.
Now, other than the ones mentioned in that paper...name one that is shown *not* to be a paleosol BY that paper. Name just one.

Date: 2006/08/23 09:42:29, Link
Author: deadman_932
Dave didn't bring up the "polonium haloes" that I recall. The Fenton Hill samples were especially tragic for Dave, given that he was lied to directly by Humphries and some unnamed "assistant" or something there, demonstrating the ...bah. It's gotten to the point that I'm sorry to even say I belong to the same species as these people.
I'd be really sorry to have these kinds on my "side," so to speak. In fact, I wouldn't...I'd just disavow them and move on.

Date: 2006/08/23 11:25:52, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
After all, all anyone needs to do to sink Dave's "hypothesis" is to find one single thing anywhere that's more than 6,000 years old.

I remember telling Stupid that a while back -- that in logic, all that is needed to counter the claim "all geese are white" is to show one naturally black goose...a standard dictum in logic. Did it matter? Hellz no, that's why he's Stupid.

By the way, Stupid, you have quite a few questions from the last few pages to answer about the Grand Staircase and your "theory that is better than any other."

Date: 2006/08/23 11:55:12, Link
Author: deadman_932
eric: yep. The funny part to me is that Stupid has to basically invoke a trickster God...one that creates stars with distance and ages in the Hertzsprung-Russell "diagram" that give a "fake" age, according to Stupid. Same with the sun. And radioactive decay, etc., etc.

By the way, Stupid, this is why rational Christians view your absolutist/literalist/creationist crap as ultimately damaging to faith. It's why the RCC basically gave up that stupidity...as science advances and shows your claims wrong, it diminishes the credibility of your stance. Not that you care--after all, for you , it's really not about truth, honesty, faith -- it's all about Daaaavey. Freakin' eunuch.

Date: 2006/08/23 12:39:44, Link
Author: deadman_932
Bing: yes, I meant them
Ichthyic: I bet he's a "dominionist," too.

On a lighter note, I've been looking over the posts and Stupid's responses and dammn, there's some funny crap there.

Date: 2006/08/23 13:18:56, Link
Author: deadman_932
BRAVO, Richard, that's VERY nice work. May I steal it for use in the future, elsewhere?

Date: 2006/08/23 21:59:20, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
Shall I tell 'em what church you attend DDTTD?

I know!! I know!!

And on the note of scams....
Quote
a "conspiracy" kept him from his seat in a FIGHTER, (General changed the rules).

If you look at his "Kis4Truth" site, you'll see this written about AirHead in the "who are we" section http://www.k4t.com/donate/davehawkins.htm :
"During his Air Force years, he wrote thought-provoking Christian articles and flyers for distribution to co-workers."    Meaning they probably sat his ass down because they thought he was a whackjob who might go blow up the Vatican or something.

And remember that Dave said he wasn't going to try to make any money off this? The yearly cost per child for the Kids 4 Truth clubs is $35.95. (plus you get to buy their crap, ranging from baby jammies -- to little "awards" to give your perfectly programmed kiddies.)

Oh and oddly enough, he already has an endorsement from "Answers in Genesis" ...looks like I DID hit it on the head two months back or whatever it was. He was planning alllll along to scam the kiddies' parents. Yeah, he wants their approval and built-in consumerbase. But he said he wasn't aiming for their approval...*snort* Whadda Eunuch.

*waves* Hi Stupid!!!

Date: 2006/08/23 23:50:45, Link
Author: deadman_932
Hah..yeah, you're old. And as soon as you stop dancing on the table and pinching the waitress, I'll shoot you a game. Go easy on me, I'm just learning!  ;)

Date: 2006/08/24 00:15:23, Link
Author: deadman_932
Eek. Tough topic. The diversity of "Muslims" is a real sticking point. It's not like..well, Ruth Benedict did a study on the Japanese around WW2 that was amazingly good for the time (The Chrysanthemum and the Sword..still a #### good read)..but trying to do the same for Muslims as a whole..from Indonesia to Lebanon...do black muslims here in the States count? This should be interesting. The only work that I have on the socio-historical "mindset" of Muslims is Raphael Patai's " The Arab Mind" which got a lot of shit from people like Edward Said.
Offhand, I'd say there is a greater degree of isolationism due to religion, modernism, prejudice, etc. but the Jews had their shtetls and shtots once, too...yet seem to have done pretty well in the long run. Bring on the stats!
Although I'm as socially liberal as anyone I know, I think large-scale (larger than now) conflict between Islam and the largely Xian west is near-inevitable. Cultures resist change and one of the things archaeology tends to point out is that very, very often disaster is required to force changes in perceptions and action/behavior. Even if global warming doesn't force a mass movement from the arid regions of Eurasia..the absolutist mindsets of extremist factions, along with the booming birthrate in Islamic groups...well...it doesn't look good for peace and loving groovy good vibrations to me.

Date: 2006/08/24 01:27:40, Link
Author: deadman_932
Richard: Thank you! I'm going to use the one you posted here, it's nice and compact, yet still readable.

Bah, and on a much more ugly note:  For one brief mad moment, I thought of posting a list at UD of quotes by Hitler extolling the virtues of Christianity and its influence on his thought. Some of those quotes can be seen here, for instance: http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm
Although most of the ones in that group are from Mein Kampf, Hitler's speeches ( which were collected) have far, far more, of course. Anyone can use google to find them, or a library.

There are also quotes by almost every high-ranking Nazi on this subject.

The amusing thing is that every Christian there would say " but Hitler was NOT a Christian" then many of them would turn around and say " but he was a DARWINIST, neener, neener."  

Showing Hitler's references/allusions, or Albert Speer saying Hitler was a catholic until the day he committed suicide... that would be playing into their hands (or at least letting them direct the debate). In my view, this kind of hypocrisy and abuse of a decent man's memory ( Darwin)...is pure evil on the part of UD, but that's to be expected.

They're covering the vacuity of their "science" while attacking strawmen. It stinks like a rotting red herring in the noonday sun, or the decaying remains of Dembski's ethics and morals.

Date: 2006/08/24 01:52:21, Link
Author: deadman_932
Quote
My plans are to NEVER take a salary from K4T even if I were to take a full time position with them.


So, as "Treasurer" of Kids4Truth, you get no compensation? If true, how noble of you to forego monetary gain while you shill crap items. Somehow, though, I doubt that.

Now, Stupid, you seem to have overlooked some questions during the last few pages. Try screwing up what little courage you can muster as a eunuch...and address them.

Date: 2006/08/24 04:47:01, Link
Author: deadman_932
Davey squeaks in his falsetto eunuch voice:
Quote
I don't tell lies.

Uh, really? So you "studied up on paleosols"...but need someone to tell you where the paleosols are in the Grand Canyon/Staircase?  You cited one article by an engineer --who looked at pictures of paleosols and made an uninformed pronouncement...that was devastated by the response of an actual geologist.

You earlier stated that none of the Grand Staircase layers were directly dated...yet on page 138 of this thread alone, you say : "It's as I suspected.  There are radiometric dates available for the Chinle, the Morrison, and the Carmel" At that time, I offered you a gentleman's agreement, saying that you were given much more than that, even...and I offered to leave this forum if I was wrong. I even made this offer:

"I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how  I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here. "

Yet you refused that. Just as you refused every other gentleman's agreement on not just the number of radiometric dates, but the layers that HAD been dated. Did you refute a single one of those dates? No...but now you insist that there are NO DIRECT Radiometric dates for the Grand Staircase? Anyone here can go to page 132-139 of this thread and follow your lie. JonF notes on page 136 of this thread that you were given an "Absolute minimum sixty-six radiometric dates posted in the past few days, Davie-dip.  With a minimal amount of effort.  Think of what someone who was really researching the field could find!"


You continue to use this lie:  
Quote
I was told by Deadman and others that we cannot use radiometric (