Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis

Pages: (202) < ... 194 195 196 197 198 [199] 200 201 202 >

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,13:47    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,17:59) Oh, I see that people looked at my chart and are pretending not to know what the word "hypothetical" means ... oh well ... what am I to expect from this crowd. Dave, we know what “hypothetical” means; you’re the one who doesn’t. Which is why after almost 200 pages, you still haven't managed to provide any support for what we laughingly (and you, evidently, in all seriousness) refer to as a "hypothesis." A "hypothesis" isn't a wild-assed guess, Dave. You merely sprinkled a bunch of red dots on a graph and drew some randomly-oriented lines through them. Is that supposed to mean something? Because it doesn't. I could equally reasonably illustrate the impossibility of an ark floating in water by drawing a picture of it with a giant hole in the hull beneath the waterline, thereby "demonstrating" that a wooden ark wouldn't be able to float in water. Your red dots have got to be the most idiotic attempt to refute evidence for an old earth in the history of creationist thought. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,14:43    Quote It's also pretty interesting that people like PZ Meyers have been lying to kids about our origins for years Now here's a particularly loathsome piece of sliminess. Would you care to document a single specific instance of PZ lying to kids? Or perhaps you'll want to hide behind the construction "people like PZ" (e.g. people with two eyes, people older than 30...). Really. If your Jesus approves of this sort of calumny, I want nothing to do with him. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,14:57    Dave, Does the sun revlove around the earth? -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,15:02    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 20 2006,16:05) That's so beautiful, I think I'm going to cry. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,15:04    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,17:59) It's also pretty interesting that people like PZ Meyers have been lying to kids about our origins for years, but now he's mad because there's an alternate view out there being promoted to kids. Just think how mad he'd be if we were TAX FUNDED like his view is AND mandated in all the public schools! Dave? Shut up. Okay? See if you can't salvage a tiny shard of human dignity. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,15:18    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,17:59) It's also pretty interesting that people like PZ Meyers have been lying to kids about our origins for years, but now he's mad because there's an alternate view out there being promoted to kids. Just think how mad he'd be if we were TAX FUNDED like his view is AND mandated in all the public schools! Whooo ... baby! ************************* Oh, I see that people looked at my chart and are pretending not to know what the word "hypothetical" means ... oh well ... what am I to expect from this crowd. More pretty pictures tomorrow! afdave, you are a very bad man.

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,16:13    AFDave, Your Isochron arguments made me decloak because I knew you didn't know what you were getting into when you started this little bit of "street theater". Then you presented REAL data on p.194 and stated that this was a point of discussion we should continue for your argument.  I think this was a first for you since the start of your hypothesising to actually present REAL data so I challanged you to interpret the data.  I even gave you an out and said you didn't have to commit to the age published in the graph, just the reasoning behind the linearity of the data.  SIMPLE. You said the graph came from RATE Book 1.  So...  what do they say about the graph and do you support the RATE group interpretation of the data? Stop playing with crayons and start using your grey matter a little bit more.  I predicted that you would put on your black filter glasses in my last post and you did just that. And finally you stated: Quote Mike PSS-- I have explained to you already why I posted the Minster plot. I could have posted ANY plot from the literature and it would have looked similar.  What I am saying, though, is that this plot is a SELECTION of data.  (It's not even 23 meteorites I see) Of course, if this was a random sampling of all the meteorites out there, and no data was discarded as "erroneous" for whatever reason, then this would be interesting and possibly indicate Deep Time. So we have come to an interesting point in your discussion of your hypothesis.  We have REAL data on the table (not your genital wart plot creation) and we have a statement of falsifiability for your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis from yourself. Also, How many is MANY (let's put this goalpost in concrete right now)? I gave you an out once with Minster's assumed age but you didn't take it.  So...Why do you think the linear plot would indicate Deep Time if it met your falsifiability statement (think about this one, you yourself stated it above)?   I think you are now seeing that this circular room has no corners to hide in.  There are multi-layer, multi-discipline, multi-connected reasons for a single data point on that graph (and that graph has 38 points, and there are thousands of these graphs) and I am beginning to detect that you aren't seeing enough of these connections. That's enough to get you thinking for now. Mike PSS

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,16:47    So, how long til the number of posts on this thread passes the number of posts on that UDder thread? (In what, about half the time? Ack! ) Henry

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,16:52    Eric... Quote And did you actually read PZ's post, Dave? Because if you had, you would have noted that he obliterated your stupid watch metaphor in a single sentence. Mmm hmm ... same old stuff ... about as silly as reading Dawkins talk about bat echolocation, then attempt to explain for 8 chapters why it wasn't designed. Steverino--   Quote Does the sun revlove around the earth? Yes, and the moon is made of cheese and your ancestors were pond scum :-)  (the sad part is you really believe that last part) Arden... Quote Shut up. Okay? You know ... maybe I would, but Steve Story says I'm helping your side ... and I'm always one to help ... so I guess I better keep it up for a while ... you guys seem like you need help :-) Russell... Quote Now here's a particularly loathsome piece of sliminess. Would you care to document a single specific instance of PZ lying to kids? Or perhaps you'll want to hide behind the construction "people like PZ" (e.g. people with two eyes, people older than 30...). Really. If your Jesus approves of this sort of calumny, I want nothing to do with him. I see you answered your own question ... you did finally realize that I said "people like PZ" which of course means Evolutionists in general. I do commend you for your breadth of word knowledge ... I hadn't heard the word "calumny" for quite some time.  I am sorry that you don't like "my" Jesus.  You will bow before Him someday whether you like Him or not.  I'm simply here to warn you before it's too late. Hey, aren't you the guy that said it was a waste of time to argue with me?  Well, I see your back.  So am I irresistible? Steve Story-- I guess I will have to watch out ... I have an able and distinguished Photoshop opponent now! Mike PSS... Quote I think you are now seeing that this circular room has no corners to hide in.  There are multi-layer, multi-discipline, multi-connected reasons for a single data point on that graph (and that graph has 38 points, and there are thousands of these graphs) and I am beginning to detect that you aren't seeing enough of these connections. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not looking for any corners to hide in ... has it escaped you that this thread is nearly 200 pages long?  Has it dawned on you that I plan to be here as long as I can find a good YEC purpose for being here?  Or until I am banned? As for multi-this and multi-that, I've heard that many times on this thread now, the latest being how the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase can supposedly be dated radiometrically.  This turned out to be nonsense like so many other items. I am not done with studying isochrons, but if it goes anything like the other 10 or so topics that I have covered, then it will be just one more "skeleton" in the closet of Deep Timers. Mike PSS... Quote So we have come to an interesting point in your discussion of your hypothesis.  We have REAL data on the table (not your genital wart plot creation) and we have a statement of falsifiability for your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis from yourself. Mike, my friend, IF it somehow turns out that all meteorites plot on the Minster line and NOT in some pattern like my red dots, then you will have ONE shred of evidence supporting Deep Time.  But even this piece of evidence can still be explained in other ways besides Deep Time.   You are not even CLOSE to falsifying a 6000 year old earth. (And I did get the meteorite count wrong ... I guess there was 23, but 38 data points ... my error, not the RATE guys) -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,16:54    Quote if this was a random sampling of all the meteorites out there, and no data was discarded as "erroneous" for whatever reason, then this would be interesting and possibly indicate Deep Time Uh...it *does* indicate deep time, as do all the other data that has been presented to you in support of it. You haven't been successful in refuting any of it, AirHead, and in fact, you run from most of it -- like the radionuclide point I just mentioned...and deep sea cores...and ice cores...and dendro (on that last one, don't try to repeat your claim that one guy looking at NZ pine trees = refuting dendro). The fact of the matter is that the data is simply overwhelming that you are wrong in your creationist hypothesis. More importantly, you have offered no real evidence to support your claim of a young earth at all--what you have been reduced to is the same thing that all other creationists have been reduced to...you use the same cheap tactics over and over to try to falsely discredit good science -- rather than support your own claims. What you will resort to eventually...will be to invoke a "miracle" of accellerated decay...the same thing the ICR had to do, the same thing all creationists had to do...because the data is massively against you. So you will eventually make something up, attribute it to God...as if you speak for God...and make God into a liar, a charlatan who "faked" deep age for the universe around you...all for your silly literalist religious views. Pathetic, but true. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,17:07    DM ... Quote What you will resort to eventually...will be to invoke a "miracle" of accellerated decay... A m-m-m-miracle??!!  Horrors!  How dare anyone mention a miracle!!  Yes, Deadman, miracles DO happen ... we've been over this before ... and the biggest miracle of all is that trained scientists think their ancestors were pond scum! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,17:07    Quote the latest being how the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase can supposedly be dated radiometrically.  This turned out to be nonsense like so many other items. You lost that bet, AirHeadDave. Lying about it now doesn't help you. Pretending that all the dates I gave you on the Morrison alone (and how they concord with paleomagnetic and fossil data) that those "don't count" is just another example of your willingness to lie. Lying FOR "God" is making a liar OUT of God, AirHead. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,17:08    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,17:59) It's also pretty interesting that people like PZ Meyers have been lying to kids about our origins for years, but now he's mad because there's an alternate view out there being promoted to kids. Just think how mad he'd be if we were TAX FUNDED like his view is AND mandated in all the public schools! Whooo ... baby! ************************* Oh, I see that people looked at my chart and are pretending not to know what the word "hypothetical" means ... oh well ... what am I to expect from this crowd. More pretty pictures tomorrow! The real shame is...dishonest idiots like yourself are allowed to influence children with your misinformation.  Those children will grow up without the ability to critically think...all for your own personal selfish reasons. You and your closed minded, intellectually vapid leaders are really just about control.  God forbid anyone actually think for themselves.     You are promoting the dumbing down of America. -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,17:21    Quote A m-m-m-miracle??!!  Horrors!  How dare anyone mention a miracle!! But you said creationists don't invoke those, liar. But they do, huh? Like the "miracle" of flying hydroplates that leave no trace...like the miracle of a global flood that didn't leave a global stratum ( don't point to sedimentary layers and say "there they are" show me where the pre-flood and post-flood strata begin and end. ). The miracle of a global flood at 2300 BCE that didn't kill off the Egyptians and Sumerians and multiple other literate civilizations that don't even mention a flood, though they had writing before and after that date. The Miracle of accellerated decay, the Miracle of God making stars with apparent age. The miracle of "fountains of the deep " that have no support except selective citation of 2 deep boreholes, while ignoring the thousands of others that don't hit water at all. The "miracle " of flood waters SHOOTING OFF INTO SPACE. The Miracle of continents zooming around and not boiling off all water on the planet. And on and on and on. How many more miracles do you have to invoke to try to fake your way through this? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,18:37    Quote Mike PSS-- I have explained to you already why I posted the Minster plot. I could have posted ANY plot from the literature and it would have looked similar.  What I am saying, though, is that this plot is a SELECTION of data.  (It's not even 23 meteorites I see) Of course, if this was a random sampling of all the meteorites out there, and no data was discarded as "erroneous" for whatever reason, then this would be interesting and possibly indicate Deep Time. This is the part that's wrong, Dave. These results could all be from one single, solitary meteorite, and it would be, all by itself, enough to falsify your young-earth "hypothesis." Further, all sorts of results could have been tossed as erroneous, and your "hypothesis" is still dead. You seem to be under the delusion that some significant fraction of meteorites would have to be older than 6,000 years to falsify your "hypothesis." No. One would be enough to do it. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,18:41    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,21:52) Eric...     Quote And did you actually read PZ's post, Dave? Because if you had, you would have noted that he obliterated your stupid watch metaphor in a single sentence. Mmm hmm ... same old stuff ... about as silly as reading Dawkins talk about bat echolocation, then attempt to explain for 8 chapters why it wasn't designed. What, you mean the "same old stuff" that neither you nor any other creationist has ever been able to address? The fact that watches don't reproduce, and that completely invalidates your analogy? What's your response to that criticism, Dave? Do you have one? -------------- 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

Crabby Appleton Posts: 250 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,21:24    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,21:52) ... your ancestors were pond scum :-)  (the sad part is you really believe that last part) ... you did finally realize that I said "people like PZ" which of course means Evolutionists in general. Steve Story-- I guess I will have to watch out ... I have an able and distinguished Photoshop opponent now! Has it dawned on you that I plan to be here as long as I can find a good YEC purpose for being here?  Or until I am banned? You are not even CLOSE to falsifying a 6000 year old earth. It's not sad that we realize that Evolution has taken place during the Deep Time you fear so greatly, what is sad is that you are so revolted by the fact that your Momma is a nekkid African ape. We have proof of that too DDTTD! Get over it. You and you children are nekkid African apes. DDTTD doesn't "mean" the same old stuff, he means the old same stuff! SEE! You can't get there from heah. Come on guys, the red dots are DDTTD hypothesizin'! Photoshop opponent? You admit you're doctoring evidence? No surprises there. You needed Photoshop to doctor that graph? What a dolt. Ahh, dawned on us about your purpose? I said a long time ago you were here to be crucified (banned) about the same time DM said you were here to bilk the ignorant of their filthy lucre. You're too cowardly both physically and mentally to ever suffer as Yeshua alledgedly did (but you can play at it over the internet, pseudo fighter stud). No one here has to falsify a 6000 YO "theory" of the earth, YOU do. Then you have to prove your "hypothesis". Good luck with that Taxi Driver.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,21:38    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,21:52) You are not even CLOSE to falsifying a 6000 year old earth. Dave, a 6,000-year-old earth was falsified at least a hundred years ago. A 6,000 year-old earth is a flat-out physical impossibility, from a hundred different directions. Evidently you haven't gotten the memo, even after it's been stapled to your forehead. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,21:51    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,22:07) A m-m-m-miracle??!!  Horrors!  How dare anyone mention a miracle!!  Yes, Deadman, miracles DO happen ... we've been over this before ... and the biggest miracle of all is that trained scientists think their ancestors were pond scum! Is it a "miracle" that a trained professional, living in the 21st Century, could be so deluded as to believe that world is only a few weeks (a few weeks, a few thousand years, on real time-scales the difference is insignificant) old? "Miracle" might not be the best word for it. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,00:54    Quote You are not even CLOSE to falsifying a 6000 year old earth. And what would falsify it, according to you? You don't even know.   BTW, your refutation of the isotopic ratio curve using imaginary red dots was quite amusing. That's some funny AFDave we got here. Give us some more.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,01:04    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,22:52) (And I did get the meteorite count wrong ... I guess there was 23, but 38 data points ... my error, not the RATE guys) Nope, Davie-doodles, it's the RATE guy's multiple errors; the printed caption clearly says "23" and {"ncludes multiple analyses on a single meteorite".  Both false.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,01:10    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,22:52) am not done with studying isochrons... Ah, good so you are going to address the fatal flaws in Arndts and Overn's hypothesis: Passing the mixing test is not sufficient evidence for a mixing line. Their own data doesn't support their conclusion; many of their samples failed the mxing test!  They have no evidence that it is even reasonable to interpret those isochrons as mixing lines. Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes. Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts. Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing.  No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis. Quote but if it goes anything like the other 10 or so topics that I have covered, then it will be just one more "skeleton" in the closet of Deep Timers. If it goes anything like the other topics that have been discussed, you'll ignore the evidence, make unsupported asserions, lie, and claim victory.

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,02:20    Dave, No Dave, no more beating around the bush or obfuscation...answer the question...Does the sun revolve around the earth...Do the stars revolve around the earth? Ecclesiastes 1:4 and 5:  One generation goeth, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth. Psalms 92: "He has made the world firm, not to be moved." Psalms 103: "You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever." Joshua 10:12: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon." It's that simple.  You believe in Biblical Creation and that the Bible is a book of facts and the inerrant word of God.  Now pony up. Or do you just pick and choose the statements that support your beliefs? See if you can answer this time without resorting to an attempt at a "veiled" shot.[I] -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,02:31    Hey StupidDave Remember your claim on this: Quote I'm learning alot about RM dating, though, and also about how gullible you are to believe whole rock isochrons give valid dates, when Dalrymple himself doesn't even defend them. 2) DALRYMPLE ENGAGED THEM PUBLICLY, BUT AVOIDED A DEFENSE OF WHOLE ROCK DATING ?? 1. Dalrymple responded to some creationist idiots. That doesn't constitute some kind of "official debate." Creationists, like you, Airhead...are well-known as willing liars. This makes honest debate impossible. 2. Dalrymple further refuted creationist idiots in 2000. See: York D, Dalrymple, GB. Comments on a creationist’s irrelevant discussion of isochrons. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 2000; 20 (3): 18-20 "Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds (for example, Arndts and Overn 1981; Gill 1996) but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws (see Dalrymple 1984; York and Dalrymple 2000)." You're an idiot, AirHead. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,02:42    AFDave, I see in your reply to my previous post you missed (avoided) the questions I asked.  Let me be more precise. If you ever accepted the data in the graph from RATE Book 1, how does this indicate Deep Time? I never said this was MY evidence (or Eric's evidence or JonF's evidence) for Deep Time.  I never said you had to accept Minster's quoted age on the graph.  All I wanted to know was why you think this linear Isochron data set would indicate Deep Time?  SIMPLE

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,03:00    AFDave, I'm keeping my messages more concise.  I see that you are overworked with absorbing the multiple blows from the others on this thread. So.......     Quote Mike PSS...     Quote   So we have come to an interesting point in your discussion of your hypothesis.  We have REAL data on the table (not your genital wart plot creation) and we have a statement of falsifiability for your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis from yourself. Mike, my friend, IF it somehow turns out that all meteorites plot on the Minster line and NOT in some pattern like my red dots, then you will have ONE shred of evidence supporting Deep Time.  But even this piece of evidence can still be explained in other ways besides Deep Time.   You are not even CLOSE to falsifying a 6000 year old earth. You ALMOST have an answer in that statement.  Also, I'm not calling it evidence for anything.  Just a collection of data.  I want to know... What is your interpretation of the data explaining why the data set is linear? No age commitment, no zircon interpretation, no Portuguese word comparison.  Just tell me what you see and why you see it that way. Finally, you can see in my quote that I'm not trying to falsify your 6,000 year old earth hypothesis.  I only said that you yourself have established a test of falsifiability to your hypothesis.  From a logical standpoint this is good.  Why can't you see this? Mike PSS

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,03:06    Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 21 2006,09:00) What is your interpretation of the data explaining why the data set is linear? Dave thinks it's cherry picking. -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,03:34    Quote Hey, aren't you the guy that said it was a waste of time to argue with me? One of many. And, no, I haven't wavered on that. Pointing out that your rhetoric is beyond the pale of any normal person's definition of decency should not be confused with "arguing with you". Quote So am I irresistible? My work involves "germs". I admit I'm fascinated by viruses, bacteria and the like; can't get enough of them. Does that tell you something? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,03:48    Quote (Russell @ Sep. 21 2006,08:34) My work involves "germs". I admit I'm fascinated by viruses, bacteria and the like; can't get enough of them. Does that tell you something? Mine involves getting rid of them   -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,03:53    Quote (improvius @ Sep. 21 2006,09:06) Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 21 2006,09:00) What is your interpretation of the data explaining why the data set is linear? Dave thinks it's cherry picking. [Yoda] AFDave, don't think..... DO!  Or don't do.  Feel the force around you and act upon it. [/Yoda] (mis-quoted I'm sure) Like chess, I think everyone but AFDave sees three moves ahead and understands why I ask this question first.  AFDave is playing tiddly-winks on the chess board.

Pages: (202) < ... 194 195 196 197 198 [199] 200 201 202 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard