RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 8860
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,12:37   

Because the 'new page bug' accumulated in the old thread, we begin anew.

Quote
AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS

When I first proposed my hypothesis a few days ago, I asked for comments and critique.  I have now received this and have updated my hypothesis to reflect this.  You can see this discussion under "AFDave's God Hypothesis."  Thanks to all of you for your feedback!

I will now restate my updated Hypothesis (added a few points) and set forth the updated rules and framework which I wish to use for my reasoning.

MY BACKGROUND
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), 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.  I was never a logician, by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field.  I also do not pretend to be a professional geologist, cosmologist, physicist, biologist, or Hebrew or Greek scholar.  But I do know some good ones and I read voraciously. 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.  It appears to me that while there are many good scientists doing a truckload of good work for the benefit of humanity, there seems to be a big disconnect with reality when "science" begins speculating about how life began and developed.  I was pleased to see the article mentioned below by Meyer because it is now obvious to me that I am not the only one floating the "God Hypothesis" again. I am apparently in very good company and the pace of new research in this area is accelerating.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE)
I need to say right up front that my reasoning with respect to this "Creator God Hypothesis" DOES NOT follow the Deductive Framework.  I have stated prior to giving my hypothesis, that I cannot provide a watertight proof for God and I don't believe anyone can, so people are correct in saying that my hypothesis would fail using the deductive schema.  However, we CAN use Abductive Reasoning then draw an Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), and as Meyer points out below, this gives us powerful support for believing that the "Creator God Hypothesis" may in fact be true.  So there is good news, O Seeker of Truth!  There is massive support for the existence of God and for the literal truth revealed in the Bible.  Stay with me through all of my points and I will show it to you in terms you can understand!  

Here's a little blurb on Abductive reasoning from Stephen C. Meyer.  I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend reading his entire paper (only 23 pages) called "The Return of the God Hypothesis" which can be found here ...

http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf

Abductive Reasoning
DATA: The surprising fact A is observed. (The finely tuned cosmos, biological machines, written 'holy' books, etc.)
LOGIC: But if B were true, then A would be a matter of course. (B is the God of the Christian Bible)
CONCLUSION: Hence, there is reason to suspect that B is true.  

Stephen C. Meyer notes that "The natural and historical sciences employ such logic [abductive] routinely.  For instance, Peirce argued that skepticism about Napoleon's existence was unjustified although his existence could be known only by abduction: Numberless documents refer to a conqueror called Napoleon Bonaparte. Though we have not seen the man, yet we cannot explain what we have seen, namely, all these documents and monuments, without supposing that he really existed" (Peirce, C. S. 1931. Collected Papers. Eds. Charles Hartshorne & Paul Weiss. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

UPDATED HYPOTHESIS
A. There is a God -- My hypothesis proposes that there is a Super Intelligent, Incredibly Powerful Being -- I choose to call him God -- who has knowledge of scientific laws far more advanced than anything ever discovered by 21st Century humans.  These scientific laws are so powerful that this Being can literally "speak" material things into existence and destroy things with a simple command.  This Being lives "outside of time" and can view what we call "the future" and "the past" with equal ease.

B. This God created the Cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose.  This God created mankind with a choice of either doing his will or not doing his will, in a similar way as parents "create" babies knowing full well that their child will either do their will or not do their will.  Christian Theologians commonly call the choice of NOT doing God's will "sin."

C. All of human kind descended from two genetically rich parents, Adam and Eve, but did not diversify significantly due to minimal geographic isolation.  My hypothesis proposes that there was only one large "super-continent" prior to the Great Flood of Noah, thus minimizing geographic isolation and resultant natural selection and specialization/diversification.  The same applies to animals except that I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially.  Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later)

D. Early man was created perfectly, i.e. no deleterious genetic mutations.  It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans.  Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years.  Sons routinely married their sisters in the ante-diluvian world with no worries of genetic defects.  The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration.

E. Mankind chose NOT to do God's will very early on (just as all young children choose not to do parents' will), thus prompting God to institute a system for persuading humans to admit their folly and begin doing His will, for "redeeming" humans who choose this path, and for reminding humans that the present physical world is only a "proving ground" or "training camp" for the next world which will be created at a definite point in the future.  These events are commonly called the Fall and the Curse by Christian Theologians.

F. God allowed the choices of mankind to take their natural course for the most part, intervening in the affairs of men sporadically and briefly.  Most of the "day-to-day management" of Planet Earth was delegated to mankind himself, similar to how modern parents delegate the day-to-day management of their children to a school or a day care center.

G. The natural result of collective disobedience to the revealed will of God was an extremely corrupt society--i.e. rampant dishonesty, injustice, murder, theft, etc.--which was terminated by God through the agency of a global, life-destroying flood--the Flood of Noah described in Genesis.  

H. The Global Flood of Noah was an immense cataclysm of enormous tectonic, volcanic and hydraulic upheaval.  It completely reshaped the ante-diluvian world and resulted in massive, worldwide sedimentation and fossilization, mountain range uplift, sea basin lowering, continent separation, and climate change.  The Flood was survived in a floating ark by 8 humans (four couples) and one or more pairs of terrestrial, air-breathing, genetically rich animals and birds. The diversity we see in the living world today is the result of subsequent geographic separation and isolation of species and natural selection.

I. Following the Global Flood, we hypothesize an Ice Age of undetermined duration brought on by the massive climate changes induced by the Flood.  It was during this time that the dinosaurs and many other species died out. Since the time of the Ice Age, the structure of the earth's crust and the climate which followed, has not changed appreciably, and uniformitarian principles may now be applied to geological studies.

J. We hypothesize a supernatural intervention by God at the Tower of Babel which instantly and miraculously created several new languages (we think on the order of 12 or so), whereas prior to this event, there was only one language.

K. The record of these events (except the Ice Age) was dictated to selected individuals such as Adam and Seth and their descendants and carefully recorded on stone tablets, then passed down to successive generations.  Moses eventually received these stone tablets (or copies of them) and composed the book we now call Genesis by compiling these records into one written document.  He then composed his own written record of the events of his own lifetime, resulting in the complete Pentateuch.

L. God personally dictated the events of the Creation week to the first man, Adam, but then assumed a less active role in the composition of the balance of Genesis and the balance of what is now commonly called the Christian Scriptures.  This role varied from active dictation in an audible voice to less obvious methods--we might call it "planting of thoughts" in the minds of the writers.  This collective process is commonly called the "Inspiration of Scripture" by Christian Theologians.

M. Many cultures in geographically diverse locations around the world have legends which follow the general outline above.  The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.  Since the Documentary Hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen Theory) has now been thoroughly discredited, we have good reason to revert to the previously well established hypothesis that Genesis is NOT oral tradition, but rather it is a carefully copied written record of eye-witness accounts.

N. The Christian Scriptures, i.e. the 66 books of what is commonly called the Holy Bible, are essentially the WRITTEN record of what this Super-Intelligent, Super-Powerful Creator God wanted mankind to know about Himself, His Creation, and His Plans for the Future.

O. Jesus of Nazareth is the single most influential human being to ever walk Planet Earth.  Also, there are over 300 specific prophecies concerning a supposed "Messiah" figure throughout the Jewish Scriptures -- what Christians call the Old Testament.  These prophecies "just happen" to all converge in the life of one man of history--Jesus of Nazareth. We hypothesize that this Jesus of Nazareth was (and is) the Creator God in human form, just as he claimed to be.

P. The Christian Scriptures consisting of the Jewish Scriptures plus what is commonly called the New Testament are the most basic and foundational collection of documents for all of mankind's activities on Planet Earth--from scientific endeavor to family activities to government structure.  They also are the only reliable source documents for knowing the future of Planet Earth and Mankind in relation to it.  As such, 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.

So now you have the "AF Dave Creator God Updated Hypothesis" ... this is my second draft and almost completely my own words.  While it is true that I have done extensive study, the only sentence to my knowledge "lifted" from an outside source is the first sentence of para (b).  This hypothesis covers many of the main points that I believe should be included, but I would welcome any constructive comments suggesting additions, modifications, or clarifications.

As soon as I am satisfied from my feedback from you that my framework of reasoning is sound, I will proceed to provide evidence which I believe supports each point in my Hypothesis.

This should be fun ... I welcome your comments!

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:10   

stevestory,
I think MidnightVoice had a good idea in the "Broken Thread" discussion.
Quote
Try locking the old thread and leaving a link to the new one as the last post.


Still Possible?

  
stevestory



Posts: 8860
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:13   

I'll add a link.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:35   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2006,17:37)
I suppose I should be more considerate and at least give you a fair chance to explain why it makes sense, even though it makes no sense to me.

Gee Dave, it makes sense to the rest of us. What's your problem? Do you think maybe the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you don't want it to make sense?

As I've said before, it's difficult to make a man understand something when his religious beliefs depend on his not understanding it.

The thing is, Dave, you have no valid reason for supposing the earth is only 6,000 years old. You know you've never been able to find any method of dating anything which always results in dates less than 6,000 years. The most you've ever been able to do is throw up your hands in defeat and claim that it's impossible, even in principle, to date anything other than by reference to your Bible (which, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, is not self-authenticating, and that it gets some things right is no guarantee that it gets everything right).

Did you read my post from yesterday, Dave? You have two choices: you can believe that everything ever written on science in the last hundred years that has any bearing on the age of the earth is wrong, or you can believe that one book is wrong. But for some reason, you take the infinitely more unlikely choice, and put your one book (which even you admit has errors in it) against the hundreds of thousands of other books, papers, articles, etc., and claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever that your book is right, and all the others are wrong.

--------------
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. 22 2006,13:40   

Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after:
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection

Seems a bit - what's the word I'm looking for? - dishonest?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,13:45   

Quote
Did I read that right?

Nope, Davie-doodles.
 
Quote
I never noticed this before!  I was laughing so hard that John was griping about my miniscule range of Y-values being only slightly more miniscule than Dalrymples that I didn't even notice the X-axis values!

I never griped about any minuscule range of Snelling's Y-values; I wrote "Dalrymple's data is fine, accurate and well above the threshold of the instrumentation.  So is Snelling's."  I griped about your misleading plot that, due to inappropriate axis scaling, gave a false impression of the points not lying essentially exactly on a horizontal straight line.  Of course the range of Snelling's data is small; that's what we expect from a horizontal line. And that data defines a nice horizontal line when the axes are scaled appropriately, or when analyzed with an appropriate line-fitting algorithm.
   
Quote
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!

Nope, Davie-doodles.  Large.  Compared to the only relevant standard; the accuracy and precision of the measuring instruments.  I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
   
Quote
So you mean to tell me that you think this meteorite is 4.6 GYO because they measured these infinitesmally miniscule values and they plot on a nice line with a slope?  Wow!

Not quite, we think that meteorite is 4.6 GYO because we measured the ratios of isotopes with accuracy of 3-4 significant figures, and they plot on a nice line with a statistically significant slope.  As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!

I notice you're no longer claiming that Snelling's data doesn't define a horizontal isochron, and you have no response to my pointing out the difference between uptake of different isotopes of the same element and different elements.  Is it possible some facts have finally penetrated your pointy head?  My bet is no.
   
Quote

And mind you, I do understand why positive slopes LOOK like old age, but I just keep hearing Dalrymple's statements ringing in my ears ...        
Quote

The K-Ar method is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists.

May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
 
Quote
and ...    
Quote
Unlike argon, which escapes easily and entirely from most molten rocks,  

... and migrates IN also, JonF, as we have seen.

True (except, of course, there's been no discussion of the kinematics of argon in molten rock) ... but argon does not migrate in either direction after solidification, Davie-dork.  Argon moves freely in or out as appropriate in molten rock, doesn't in solidified rock.  That's why we can see excess argon in some (but not all) ancient rocks (if the argon were mobile there'd be no noticeable argon of any parentage), and it's why the K-Ar method works as well as it does.
   
Quote
And the famous Cherry Picking statement ...        
Quote

One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection

True in any field that involves selecting samples, and not evidence of cherry picking.

You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
Quote
And tomorrow ... Mineral Isochrons!

Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
   
Quote
(Oh BTW ... did anyone notice that the chart we just discussed with the miniscule range of values was primarily a MINERAL isochron chart?

Yup. Did you notice that Snelling's data is 100% whole-rock and defines a nice horizontal line with insignificant variation in 87Sr/86Sr and large variation in 87Rb/86Rb?  Therefore, at least some whole-rock isochrons are correct ... just as at least some K-Ar ages are correct because excess argon is not universal ... and we can therefore conclude that your hypothesis of a young Earth is falsified.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,14:50   

Quote (Russell @ Sep. 22 2006,19:40)
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine&#8482; Scissors:
 
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after:  
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection

Seems a bit - what's the word I'm looking for? - dishonest?

I missed that.  Just goes to show; the sheer quantity of Dave's pathetic attemps at deception precludes any one person tracking them all.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,01:38   

Russell ...  
Quote
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:
Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after: Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
What difference does that make?  Geochronologists have gotten so many "wrong" dates that they are adept at sample selection.  Why do you think K-Ar was so popular when Dalrymple wrote his piece but now it's not, according to Jon?  

But wait!  If they mess up they cherry pick them like in the example I gave you at Koobi Fora.

JonF...  
Quote
Yup. Did you notice that Snelling's data is 100% whole-rock and defines a nice horizontal line with insignificant variation in 87Sr/86Sr and large variation in 87Rb/86Rb?  Therefore, at least some whole-rock isochrons are correct ...
"Correct" WRT to what?  That's the whole problem.  You have this preconceived notion of "correct" dates and the whole geochronological community beats their drum to this tune.

No, Jon, my CGH is not falsified ... far from it.

JonF...  
Quote
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
No, just that I have led a horse to water once again, but I can only wait for him to drink so long.

 
Quote
May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
Finally agreed with the creationists by '84 that it's bogus, huh ...

JonF...  
Quote
You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
All explained in the RATE Books, Jon.  The RATE guys have left these antiquated ideas of time significance in the dust (and they are presenting in Dallas in 8 days ... there's still time to book a ticket!;).  Radioisotope signatures DO tell us something ... just not what you think they do.  This is why they are discordant most of the time as the RATE Team has clearly shown ...

Quote
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
Could you kindly show me where I said that?

 
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

--------------
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

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:15   

AFDave,
As a preamble, I'm a chemical engineer and have worked in the chemical/agricultural process industry for ten years.  Lucky for me I'm still in a position where I can use skills and knowledge that were taught in university.  Also, PSS stands for Project Steve Sibling since my brother is on the list.  Before university I was enlisted in the Air Force fixing jets (F-4G, F-4E, F-16, A-10, and others) and teaching pilots how to properly use new avionics technology on the planes.
I've worked and trained Air Force pilots before and know that their egos get in the way of there brains sometimes.  I found that the only way some of them accept a fact is to make them think they discovered it themselves (as opposed to having someone else pound it into their thick skulls).

My presentation of Material Science facts regarding crystal structure and formation (and JonF's additional and detailed information) are based upon measured values of observed phenomena.  These values have nothing to do with age of the earth.

So when you respond with  
Quote
Look at those X-values!  Talk about MINISCULE!!
I wonder what you actually know about any of the basic sciences like physics, chemistry, math, statistics, etc.... being discussed.  At some point AFDave you'll have to take your Isochron argument back to the basic math and science of the method because your present line of arguments lead directly back to these facts.

AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?


Your lost in this argument and getting more desperate by the day.  Either learn some basics, accept some basics, or accept defeat of your argument and move on.

Mike PSS

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:16   

WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.
3) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages
4) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds.  If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.
5) You were shown how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they are so blind they (and you) say it is only a mirage
6) You were shown how your own site which you love (Talk Origins) supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind
7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
9) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.
10) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.
11) You were shown how many leading geologists have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
12) You have been shown that your "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time according to Encyclopedia Britannica, and is characterized by gaps, not a continuous sequence of evolutionary change
13) We touched on the fact that there has been a new term invented -- "Punctuated Equilibrium" -- Why?  Because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.
14) You have been shown two modern day examples--the Palouse Canyon and the Toutle River--of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock, showing exactly how the Grand Canyon was probably formed.
15) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.  When will they stop laughing at creationists who say the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly?
16) You have been shown that incised meanders such as those found in the Grand Canyon require soft sediments, thus showing that the Grand Canyon was formed while sediments were still soft in the Receding Phase of the Great Flood.
18) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils--which is pure speculation, not radiometrically as we are led to believe
19) You have been shown how K-Ar dating used to be the most popular radiometric dating method until geologists realized that there are all kinds of problems with it making it often wildly discordant from other methods
20) You have been shown how Isochron Dating was invented in an attempt to solve the problem of unknown initial conditions, but in the case of the whole rock isochron (used to be the most common), the diagrams can easily be interpreted as nothing more than mixing diagram--useless for assigning any real ages to rocks.

And much of this can be found at ...

Answers in Genesis International ... <a href="www.answersingenesis.org" target='_blank'>www.answersingenesis.org</a> which has many scholarly articles written by scientists with PhD's in many different fields.

Ditto for the Institute for Creation Research ... <a href="www.icr.org" target='_blank'>www.icr.org</a>

Where do we go from here?  We will finish our discussion of Radiometric Dating, then move to points in my "CGH" which have not yet been covered.

--------------
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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:29   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.

--------------
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.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:38   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
Russell ...      
Quote
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine&#8482; Scissors:
Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after: Quote  
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
What difference does that make?  Geochronologists have gotten so many "wrong" dates that they are adept at sample selection.

Unsupprted assertion, as usual.
 
Quote
Why do you think K-Ar was so popular when Dalrymple wrote his piece but now it's not, according to Jon?

Because other methods are more accurate (although K-Ar is stil useful and used, and is accurate enough to disprove your hypothesis by orders of magnitude) and more widely applicable. 
 
Quote
 
Quote
Ah, running away again leaving 99.9999% of the evidence and problems with your hypothesis unadressed.
No, just that I have led a horse to water once again, but I can only wait for him to drink so long.


  • 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 mixing 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.

You've been led to the water many times, Davie-doodles.  Drink up!
 
Quote
 
Quote
May have been true in 1984, Davie-dip. Not true today.  Proven several times over.
Finally agreed with the creationists by '84 that it's bogus, huh ...

Nope.  Just not as widely used, because improved methods have been developed.
 
Quote
 
Quote
You have yet to address the the evidence that terrifies you ... the observed patterns of isochron slopes, isochron intercepts, and concordance between different dating methods.  No matter what you think of the methods, the patterns are there and if you can't explain 'em your hypothesis ain't viable.  You can't explain 'em, your hypothesis is rejected.
All explained in the RATE Books, Jon.  The RATE guys have left these antiquated ideas of time significance in the dust (and they are presenting in Dallas in 8 days ... there's still time to book a ticket!;).  Radioisotope signatures DO tell us something ... just not what you think they do.  This is why they are discordant most of the time as the RATE Team has clearly shown ...

Then tell us, Davie-poo, what's  the significance of the patterns of isochron slopes, the patterns of isochron intercepts, and the patterns of concordance between differnt methods.
 
Quote
 
Quote
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
Could you kindly show me where I said that?

Oh, so many places to choose from! here:
 
Quote
JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...

Oh really?  OK, fine.  Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also.  You cannot have it both ways.  The Whole Rock Isochron method assumes a homogeneous daughter ratio.  It is either homogeneous or it is not.  If it is, then Rb is homogeneous also.  If it is not, the the WRI diagram is rendered useless.

And here:
 
Quote
The above picture shows a typical lava flow.  Now the theory says that for the isochron to be valid, the initial Sr ratio of 87Sr/86Sr is HOMOGENEOUS.  Now one could argue whether or not the flow above is actually homogeneous, but for the whole rock isochron method to work, this is the assumption.  The typical assumed initial value is around 0.70 depending on whether you are talking about island volcanoes or continental volcanoes.  I think it's a little higher for contintental.  But in any case, it is ASSUMED to be homogeneous.  Now IF the 87Sr/86Sr ratio is homogeneous, this means that the 87Rb/86Sr ratio is ALSO homogeneous, and this means that we would have only ONE data point on the isochron diagram if we were to analyze any sample in the lava flow.

{emphasis added}

And here (the same post in which you made it absolutely clear that you thought the intial daughter ratio was assumed rather than calculated):
 
Quote

BUt again, you are missing his point which is that WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS are either (a) homogeneous and meaningless (single point), or (b) heterogeneous and invalid (no way to determine initial daughter ratio ... remember, Jon, we are not talking about single crystals yet, we're talking about big samples containing all kinds of crystals)

Remember, Davie-dippers, we're talking about Snelling's big samples containing all kinds of crystals, and a whole-rock isochron that demonstrably is not a single point and has an intercept that determines the intial daughter ratio.
 
Quote
 
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

Ah, I guess you don't have the faintest idea what significant digits are.  Not surprising. From significant digits:

"The digits of the decimal form of a number beginning with the leftmost nonzero digit and extending to the right to include all digits warranted by the accuracy of measuring devices used to obtain the numbers. Also called significant figures."

{emphasis added}

Davie-moron, significant digits have nothing to do with graphs or graph scales.  If we measured 87Rb/86Sr as 1983.0, that would be accurate to five significant digits because the accuracy of the instrumenttion warrants it.    If we measured 87Rb/86Sr as 0.18573, that would be accurate to five significant digits because the accuracy of the instrumentation warrants it. The absolute size of the number does not matter, the size of the number relative to the accuracy of the instrumentation matters; and by that measure (the only meaningful one), Dalrymple's numbers are large.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,03:53   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.

--------------
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.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:14   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,06:38)
 
Quote
As does Snelling's data, except the slope of the line is zero, and the variation in 87Sr/86Sr values is negligible, and the variation in 87Rb/87Sr values is significant ... exactly what you said was impossible!
Could you kindly show me where I said that?

Sure:

 
Quote
JonF says that the samples above are widely spaced enough that they would be inhomogeneous WRT Rb content ...

Oh really?  OK, fine.  Then guess what ... they are inhomogeneous WRT to intial 87Sr/86Sr content also.  You cannot have it both ways.  The Whole Rock Isochron method assumes a homogeneous daughter ratio.  It is either homogeneous or it is not.  If it is, then Rb is homogeneous also.  If it is not, the the WRI diagram is rendered useless.


--------------
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. 23 2006,05:30   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16)
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC


Um, not exactly, Dave. These points, these things you've "shown" us, have been refuted again and again and again and again. Do follow the links, Dave; they'll refresh your memory.

 
Quote
Where do we go from here?  We will finish our discussion of Radiometric Dating, then move to points in my "CGH" which have not yet been covered.


Glad to see you're finally giving up on radiometric dating, Dave (even though you'll never admit defeat, it's not like it isn't obvious you have been). Of course, you've only managed to completely mangle your understanding of basically two radiometric dating techniques out of the 40 or so that exist, but that's okay. I'm sure you're sick of getting the snot kicked out of your arguments (even though you'll never admit it).

So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?

--------------
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

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:41   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:53)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,07:38)
 
Quote
I know you are stupid, but I expected even you to understand the difference between magnitude and accuracy. The values were measured to 3-4 significant digits; that's plenty of precision.
Measuring infinitesmally small ranges of data and plotting the data on a hugely expanded scale does not a believer make, and is exactly what you told me I should NOT do ... are you above this?  Are you special or something?

If you really want to pursue this, Dave, you need to make a case for why the scale on your chart is more appropriate in this instance than JonF's.  But so far you haven't come up with any supporting reasons to think so.

He hasn't come up with a case for anything yet.  Assertions, yup, by the barrelful.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:41   

ericmurphy:

 
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8860
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,05:56   

BTW, Wesley mentioned a while ago that the bug which bedeviled the former thread seems to result from very long posts. So those of you who make such posts might want to break them into chunks.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,06:19   

Recapping...
Davie's original quote of Dalrymple, before proper application of QuoteMine™ Scissors:
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection, and the choices are made before the analysis, not on the basis of the results. (my emphasis)
... and after:  
Quote
One of the principal tasks of the geochronologist is to select the type of material used for a dating analysis. A great deal of effort goes into the sample selection
to which the irrepressible AF "Don Quixote" Dave responds:  
Quote
What difference does that make?
Well, now. That's a good question. Why did you excise the bolded part? To save precious bandwidth?

What we have learned so far:
No matter how thoroughly, devastatingly, "over-killingly" Davie's bizarre take on reality is demolished, he will keep summarizing all his ignominious defeats and retreats as glorious victories, thus firmly securing his reputation as the "Baghdad Bob" of internet creationists. One could, I suppose, go back and re-demolish each one of those "victories", but then one will have fallen for Davie's ploy of having one run around in infinite circles, covering the same old ground over and over.

Instead, one might ask Dave why, if actual practising scientists have been so decisively shown wrong on these extremely basic points, why are these "fallacies" still universally accepted in textbooks and in the professional scientific literature and practice?

Though that, too, would be covering old territory, as Davie will undoubtedly return with some variation of the "Atheist/secular humanist" conspiracy.

Here's one question, more or less randomly chosen from what must be at this point hundreds of dodged unanswered questions, I'll take as emblematic of the rest: Davie dismisses all the isotopic dating results as "unreliable" or "meaningless". Which, if it were the case, would predict a random, meaningless, array of dates for the age of the earth. Yet he's been shown volumes of data that all converge on the same remarkably narrow age: 4.55 x 10^9 years.

Which brings us back to the Dalrymple quote, and Davie's artful editing of it. I believe Davie's hilariously lame response to the obvious question is "cherry-picking".  So Davie is accusing Dalrymple (and the entire scientific community, for that matter) of the most contemptible sort of malfeasance when they point out, as Dalrymple did in the quote, that samples are selected before analysis.

I'm seriously considering using highlights from this thread for the very purpose Davie claims to be passionate about: teaching kids. I'm convinced that any high-school science student incapaple of recognizing the difference between "science" and "deluded zealotry" is beyond the reach of more sophisticated logic, and should probably not be wasting the time of science teachers anyway.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,06:21   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,11:41)
ericmurphy:

     
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

Touché GoP.  Touché.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,06:44   

Since we're posting lists
A Few Currently Unanswered Questions for Dave
(1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
(2)  You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
(3)  I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
(4)  How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(5)  Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(6)  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??
(7)  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?
(8)  You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
(9)  Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
(10)  Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
(11)  Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
(12)  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"
(13)  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.
(14)  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?
(15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?
(16)  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?
(17)  Where's your evidence that those tens of millions of species radiated from the several hundred species of organisms that could possibly have fit on the ark, all in the space of a few thousand years? Ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution, at rates millions of times faster than proposed by the Theory of Evolution?
(18)  Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(19)  Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 6,000 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 6,000 meters of sediment?
(20)  Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(21)  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.
(22)  Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(23)  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?
(24)  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?
(25)  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 (obviously , that is not "soft")
(26)  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?
(27)  Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(28)  Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that wouldn't have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years
(29)  Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor
(30)  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.
(31)  Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave? (32) Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.
(33)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(34)  Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(35)  Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
(36)  Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"
(37)  Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.
Quote
I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
> This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?
(38)   JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.
(39)   Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?
(40)  Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer p.125
(41)  How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?
(42)  The Arizona Barringer Meteor 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. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.
(43)  Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
(44)  Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?
(45)  How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.
(46)  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?
(47)  Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked: "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." And: "Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? 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. Cowardly Dave refused to answer.
(48)  Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase
(49)  Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them
(50) Why do you choose to lie deliberately so much, MaggotDave?

I would accept a global stratum that indicates a global flood. Such a stratum would have CLEAR indications of pre- and postflood strata bracketing it.
What creationists do is wave their delicate hands at ALL sedimentary layers and say "that MIGHT be one" without EVER clearly saying "here is the preflood basement...here's layer(s) X that were laid during the flood...and here are post-flood depositions."
Continents zooming around clearly did not occur 4300 years ago, nor is there any indication of a post-flood "ice age" which happened while the Egyptians and many others were still literate and writing. I'd accept a global strata, evidence of a massive die-off at that time, including freshwater fish, insects, plants, annelids, etc. but the fact is that no such layer can be shown to exist.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,07:05   

Let me be even more direct: I have no ideological inherent bias against the notion of a "flood" or a young earth for that matter. If such things were so, then the data would clearly indicate it. There would BE loud, clear unambiguous evidence of it everywhere. There would be short-half-life isotopes naturally occurring, there would be a global stratum, since floodwater carries suspended materials. There would be NO post-flood Egyptian or Sumerian civilizations. And a thousand other concordant facts. But NONE of those things are apparent, hence my rejection of this "hypothesis that is better than any other" since it has no factual basis.

Instead what there is evidence of is unfalsifiable fantasies by creationists--a flood that originates from water sources that "collapsed" and are therefore invisible now...a flood that left no clear traces that any creationist can clearly define....and  floodwaters that SHOT OFF INTO SPACE vanishing mysteriously. None of these things left a trace, they all are unfalsifiable, they all have no evidence at all to support them...but they are the mainstay of YEC (Christian) claims.

Creationists like Dave have no choice but to be dishonest, since the data is by far against them, yet he'll pretend to "win" arguments he knows nothing about, he'll repost a list of things he claims to have shown..while never having addressed directly those issues or any of the counterarguments directly under questioning. Anyone that reads the threads can see this is so, regardless of their views on YEC-ism, if they are honest.

As I said, I have no inherent bias against AirHead's claims, I was not born with a chip in my head forcing me to agree with an old earth, I am skeptical enough to reject claims that have sufficient evidence against them -- and theoretically, that COULD mean that I would reject an old-earth timeline...but the data is not against an old earth, it is clearly in opposition to AirHead's cartoon version of history.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,07:27   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,09:29)
 
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,09:15)
AFDave,
Do you accept the basic science of crystal formation?  If not why not?

I think another important question would be whether or not Dave accepts the basic science of half-lives and daughter elements.  He probably doesn't, since that alone would blow his 6000-year hypothesis.

I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

JonF or ericmurphy have already pummelled him with Ar-Ar dating techniques (which are self-correcting to original daughter isotopes) but Dave has ignored this MANY times.

AFDave,
Don't hold back.  State what you truly believe about crystal formation and radioisotopic half-lives.

Mike PSS

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,09:01   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

Oops!  Looks like he already has:

 
Quote
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.


 
Quote
Yeah and if your meter is off by 5 orders of magnitude because you close your eyes to the possibility of a Creation event and a Flood event that might have caused accelerated decay, then you can take a BILLION measurements and you'll be wrong a BILLION times.


And again:

 
Quote
The RATE Group claims that there is direct observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period in the past--we will be looking at this


And radiohaloes?  Oh yeah, Dave went there, too:

 
Quote
Next, we will be moving on to Uranium and Polonium radiohalos, which, according to ICR, provide direct, observable evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during some period of time in the past ... we shall see!


All of which leaves me to wonder why Dave didn't just skip past all of the "sciencey" stuff and dismiss the dating methods based on accelrated decay right off the bat.

--------------
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.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,09:09   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 23 2006,15:01)
   
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)
He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  (even though ericmurphy has tried to get Dave to say this)

Oops!  Looks like he already has:

     
Quote
Maybe you will catch on soon that the Helium-Zircon Project is a stunning blow to long agers.  Maybe long agers will actually take the cue from the RATE Group and get cracking on accelerated decay research.

I stand humbly corrected in awe of your search prowess.

AFDave,
You missed (at least) one:    
Quote
WHAT WE HAVE COVERED SO FAR HERE AT ATBC

21) You have been shown that Portuguese is a mixture of French and Spanish.  (i.e. Portuguese = French + Spanish  and you didn't think I knew math!!!;))

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,10:28   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,13:27)

I think Dave is working another angle on this.  He thinks if he can discredit the "assumption" of original daughter isotopic concentration in radiometric age analysis then he doesn't have to state the classic fundy line of "accellerated decay rates in the past" to explain the measured half-lives.  

My opinion is that Davie doesn't think at all; he just regurgitates.  He hasn't caught on that, if accelerated decay happened, all this stuff about excess argon and mixing and what-not is irrelevant.  He also hasn't caught on (despite being told many times) that accelerated decay causes more problems than it solves; melting the Earth, killing people with the radioactivity from the radioactive atoms in their bodies, and what-not. Of course, accelerated decay is inherently and explicitly magic and not science.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,12:00   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 23 2006,10:41)
ericmurphy:

         
Quote
So let's go back to your "global catastrophic flood," Dave. That was a good one. Let's see you once more avoid the unpleasant fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that it ever happened. Or would you prefer to move on to something else you have no evidence whatsoever for?


Eric, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for a global flood. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

Okay, this is the evidence I would expect to see if Dave's "Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis" were correct:

  • Evidence that there was ever enough water to produce a layer of water approximately 5,000 feet above current sea level (this is a tough one to pin Dave down on, because he doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that even without taking mountain ranges into account, continental terrain varies between a few hundred feet below sea level and ~5,000 above sea level, and he's never been able to account for such variation, even with continents rushing around at hundreds of miles an hour). I would want a description in detail of where the water originated from, how it got there to begin with, how it supported the weight of the rock above it and managed to remain in liquid form, and what is now in the place where that mile-thick layer of water used to be.
  • Evidence of where and how that water got to the surface. Given that several billion cubic kilometers were ejected from some distance beneath the surface into the atmosphere, there should be some evidence of escape routes for the water, which would have eroded hardly at all in less than 5,000 years.
  • An accounting for what happened to the water after the flood ended. I.e., where did it drain to? Or was it ejected into outer space?
  • A global layer of sediment laid entirely by water, datable to ~4,500 ya (Dave can use any method outside of reference to the Bible for dating this sediment), consistent with a layer of water between 5,000–7,500 feet (i.e., 5,000 or more feet of sediment is inconsistent with a layer of water 5,000 feet deep) above sea level.
  • Evidence that every human settlement in existence at the time (c. 2,500 B.C.) was utterly destroyed by a mile-deep layer of water.
  • A layer of partially-fossilized remains of holocene organisms (and no others) concentrated in the layer of sediment deposited by the flood, in no particular order, since the kind of turbulence associated with a mile-deep layer of water deposited in less than a year would certainly not allow for any sort of "hydraulic sorting."
  • Much smaller diversity in living organisms than we currently observe, since 4,500 years is nowhere near enough time for several tens of thousands of "kinds" of organisms to have radiated into the tens of millions of species observed today, aside from some sort of ultra-macro-hyper-evolution far beyond anything asserted by evolutionary theory.
  • All mountain chains worldwide should show the same amount of (very little) erosion, because 1) they'd be only a few thousand years old, and 2) they're all post-flood, so none of the accelerated erosional forces Dave assumes would be available.
  • Very little in the way of sea life, due to the huge dilution of seawater by fresh-water rain, unless Dave claims the floodwaters were seawater, in which case there should be almost no freshwater fish, molluscs, or crustaceans.
  • Evidence of a genetic "bottleneck" in not only humans, but in all organisms, datable to less than 5,000 years ago. There should be very little genetic variability among humans (to say nothing of other organisms), since 5,000 years is not enough time for much genetic variation to accumulate.

These are just a few things I could think of in ten minutes or so. Anyone else, feel free to add, but I should point out that the absence of just a few of these pieces of evidence is more than sufficient to completely falsify Dave's "hypothesis."

I should also point out that since it's Dave's hypothesis, it's his job to come up with evidence to falsify it, not ours, and he has never done so. Evidently he doesn't think it's possible to falsify it, which would be in accord with his statements so far.

--------------
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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4039
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,13:04   

Also lots of discontinuities between fossils just below the flood level, compared to what lives/lived after the flood - on each island, continent, body of water, or other isolated region.

Ice caps should be no deeper than expected from < 4500 yr. accumulation.

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,13:27   

This is actually very useful.  Having come in so late to the conversation I never went back and read the previous 200 pages so I never saw the original hypothesis.  Just want to look at one point and that is section K:

The recording by Adam and Seth of these events that were passed down to Moses...

gonna need a reference on this one, in fact I don't think I've ever heard this before.  Can you supply some more info please?

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,15:32   

I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either)

1. You say that the fossils are sorted based on body size, speed and intelligence. I have found out a lot of dinosaurs were small, fast and smart. Why aren't they mixed with mammals of the same size, speed and brain size?

2. You say that different sized sediments fell out of the water at different times forming the layers we see. I would have thought that this would mean the fine stuff would be at the top. However, in the cliffs behind my house I see shale below layers with bigger grains, how come?

Jordan (age 9)

  
  4989 replies since Sep. 22 2006,12:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]