ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29) | I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation.  |
Which will be a great idea, once he actually starts presenting it.
But Dave's whole premise that you can't trust any testing methodology unless it's 100% accurate is facially absurd. No testing methodology is 100% accurate, but that doesn't stop Dave from going to the doctor. If the doctor came to Dave and said to him, "I've got bad news: your test results come back, and it looks like there's a possibility you've got colorectal cancer" (no tasteless jokes, please), would Dave's response be, "I don't need any exploratory surgery, because your test isn't 100% accurate and therefore is worthless"? Doubtful.
But Dave's issues with radiometric dating are psychological, not methodological. Dave is well aware of the fact that radiometric dating (among zillions of other things) is the death knell for his worldview, and therefore he simply cannot accept that it is accurate. Therefore, it's imperative that he try to find some way to discredit in his own eyes, which initially I thought he was able to do, but given that he does not allow comments on his own blog, I'm starting to think otherwise. I think Dave realizes he's been defeated here (don't worry, Dave; I'm not expecting you to admit it), but he can't ever stop fighting, which means he'll be our favorite Creationist piñata for some time to come.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
