afdave
Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006
|
Incorygible... | Quote | | By the way, Dave, when you mentioned "abstract thinking ability" as an "immeasurable", "non-biological" argument against common ancestry of chimps, humans and gorillas, that paper I cited for ya (with the abstract) on May 24 must've slipped your mind, eh? |
OK. So you agree it's measurable? Then let's measure it. I propose a test to quantify all the non-biological differences among humans, chimps and gorillas. What do you think this test will show?
It will show that humans are far different than the apes, and it will show the apes are quite similar.
Incorygible... | Quote | | Oh really now? So now you CAN explain "ape type" vs. "human type" via molecular biology? Didn't you just fall back to "non-biological" comparisons? Vindicated, indeed. |
That's tough because they are so close. What I was referring to was Michael Denton's information about the discoveries in molecular biology vindicating the pre-Darwin typological perception of nature. Have you never read "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" ?? Molecular biology proved conclusively that nothing is "ancestral" to anything else as evolutionists would have liked for it to.
Deadman... | Quote | | 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. |
You keep making irrelevant statements about the hardness issue. Look what you just said ...
"Helium passes through pyrite easily UNDER pressure/temps comparable to the ranges given in the Fenton Hill samples."
Of course it does. No one said that it didn't. I'm going to say this one more time, then move on because Eric is tired of this topic. :-)
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.
Deadman... | Quote | | 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. |
Do what? How did I show I didn't know the Bible? As for your ancestors, I do believe they 'devolved' because there is overwhelming evidence that ALL mankind and ALL civilization originated within the last 6000 years in Mesopotamia (not Africa). The original civilization had all the marks of civilization--agriculture, metallurgy, music, writing, science, etc. VERY early--archaeology says at least by 5500ya, probably 6000ya. Since all mankind is descended from this original civilization, your ancestors are as well. How did they get to N. America? A guess, but probably via the Bering Strait which would have been a land bridge sometime close to the Ice Age, whcih occurred soon after the Flood.
Rilke... | Quote | This is utter nonsense; the separation of church and state simply means that the government cannot make mention of any specific religious belief in such a fashion as to endorse it. Tell me, Dave - do you really want schools to teach your children religion? Do you really want the federal government to be in the business of chosing which faith is correct?
We're a representative democracy; it could happen that we vote in a government of Muslims. Are you quite sure that you want the government in the religion business?
This is about non-discrimination and religious freedom, Dave. It's about removing (in cases such as the 'ten-commandments' instance) pre-existing bias on the part of the Goverment in favor of one, particular religion.
Or would you rather we simply burn everyone you consider a heretic at the stake? This country was founded on the idea of religious freedom - why do you wish to remove that freedom?
Quite false interpretation, thus they are 'religious crusaders' with an agenda to promote. Are you with them? |
Wow, Rilke. Didn't know you could do anything but 'troll.' I'm impressed. You apparently don't understand the issue of separation of church and state. You need to read 'The Myth of Separation' by David Barton. Here is an article from him, but you should read his book. David Barton's works are some of the best documented you will ever find. He is one of the few academics that I know of that almost exclusively uses the higher legal standard for documenting his quotes. Most academics use a lesser standard than this. Here is what he says ...
| Quote | Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:
[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. 8
Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.
Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions. http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9 |
In contrast to the intent of Jefferson and the intent of early courts, the NCSE is seeking to eliminate all reference to God in public school science classes. The ACLU is similarly trying to eliminate all reference to God in public school PERIOD.
This is un-American and naive. The USA was founded as a Christian nation in the sense that the laws and practices were founded upon the general principles of Christianity without favoring a particular sect of Christianity.
Improv... | Quote | | I'm saying you shouldn't get your geological information from CreationWiki. |
Turns out in the case of geology, it was better info than EvoWiki. EvoWiki had to modify their uniformitarian theory to match observation, which translated into 'neo-catastrophism' and 'episodicity', which is better, but it still isn't right. One of these days, geologists will understand what Creationists have understood all along--there was a Global Flood.
Deadman... | Quote | 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!!!!!!!!!!! |
Humphreys didn't say that. He said "it wasn't the usual practice among helium/zircon researchers then." Meaning people like Farley. Was Farley routinely doing this at the time? I bet not.
You have just pre-disposed youself to believe that Humphreys is a liar ... (he has to be ... how can anyone be so stupid as to be a Creo!! ... so you cannot conceive of the possibility that maybe the guy really didn't think of ratio testing because Farley was not doing it at the time.
By the way, don't think they conned me by telling me this test was in the book when in fact it was not. I already covered this. I told you that it was MY assumption that the guy that told me it was in the book was a tech assistant. Turns out he is not. He's an admin guy. When he said 'YES', he was just saying 'Yes, all testing results are in the book.' He didn't have a clue about ratio tests or any other tests. He's an admin guy.
And your propensity to see a con-man behind every tree is quite obvious. I think it clouds your thinking and goes a long way to explaining why you have been conned into believing the whole giant Fairy Tale of Evolution.
The only one being conned here is yourself ... by you!
Ichthyic... | Quote | | In case you had forgotten, early on Dave was shown how AIG lied to him about aspects of the GULO controversy, he at the time admitted that they were wrong.... and within two days had completely reversed himself. |
AIG never lied and I never reversed myself. Carl Wieland made a mistake. What in the world are you talking about?
Improvius... | Quote | | So what, in your mind, Dave, would possibly make you think that the nuclear decay rate would be less reliable than the diffusion rate? Because it seems to me that if you're rejecting the presumption of uniformity, diffusion rates would be meaningless. For bonus points, try to answer this without quoting something. |
Good question. Simple answer. No quoting required. Creationists DO subscribe to uniformitarian processes for most periods BETWEEN Creation and the Flood, and BETWEEN the Flood and the present time. See how easy that is? And I will say this. I think Humphreys could be off either way by several thousand years due to some of the issues raised by Henke and you all. And we understand that additional experiments are necessary.
But the real beauty of the experiment is that is soundly refutes the supposed 1.5 GY scenario.
Eric... | Quote | | Dave, since neither Humphreys, you, nor anyone else knows what the diffusion rate is, (because no one has sufficient data on half a dozen parameters that can affect the diffusion rate) what is Humphreys dividing the number of He atoms lost by? He's just pulling a number out of his butt, is what he's doing. Humphreys has no justification for even assuming that the diffusion rate has been constant over time, for crying out loud. |
Of course he did not know the diffusion rate BEFORE the experiment, but now he does because it has been tested. The beauty of the experiment is that he was able to PREDICT the diffusion rate correctly. Isn't this what you guys are always yapping at me about? "Nyah, nyah, nyah, Creos never make any predictions. They always just refer to analogies and wave their hands and say Goddidit."
Deadman... | Quote | | 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). |
Only in your dreams, my friend.
| Quote | | can't you just quote chapter and verse from the book? |
I did on several occasions.
Michael... | Quote | Below is a list of the title's from this month's issue of Geology, one of the most prestigious venues for publishing cutting edge work in the geosciences. The list represents a wide range of disciplines and every single paper draws upon and reinforces our knowledge of the earth's long history. This is just one example of the content of the hundreds of journal volumes that are published every year that relate to the age of the earth.
If the intellectual output of the overwhelming majority of the world's geoscientists is not sufficient to at least give you pause, is there any line of reason that would convince you that your desire to gain the imprimatur of science for your religious beliefs is the rear-guard action of a superstitious world-view rather than a battle at the vanguard of science? |
Conventional geologists have performed many good studies. No one is discounting the value of that. Creationists quote them often and are indebted to them for their work. What I am saying is that their interpretations of the data in regard to origins appear to be very flawed. I see much more sensible work coming out of the minority creationist camp in this regard. In this sense, they are 'on the cutting edge.'
Deadman... | Quote | | 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. |
There you go again. Exaggerating. Creationists don't say everything in geology is false. We are just more open minded and we open our eyes to additional evidence which you want to shut out.
OA... | Quote | You keep forgetting to provide evidence to back up the claims you make. For example, you said this
Quote
but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere. |
I guess it has somehow escaped you that I am still on the Helium zircon thing? I will move on when I get done with that.
| Quote | | Well, you claimed that radiocarbon dating was faulty based on incorrect assumptions about decay rates and C12 concentrations. |
Patience, OA, patience.
I made good on my promise to move on to "Age of the Earth" did I not? We've already covered two points there already and I have given you excellent reasons to reconsider your position of 'millions and billions of years'. Why would you think I would not make good on my other promises?
Crabby... | Quote | | The reason I keep picking on Dave is because his service record shows he wasn't able to play the game as well as he'd have us believe. |
Or maybe because you are jealous that you didn't get to fly fast jets like I did? :-) So you try to make up bogus stuff about my supposed career failures because you just can't imagine how a 'Stupid Creo' could ever have gotten such a cool job as a T-38 IP? Or have friends who are fighter pilots? Huh, Crabby? Is that it? How about that silly idea you had about being an O-3 after 10 years? Did you go back and do your homework about how promotions work? You haven't even looked at my service record have you. You just want to pretend to others that you have. If you are that dishonest, then you are a disgrace to whatever branch it was you served in.
--------------
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
|
