RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,13:28   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 02 2011,12:14)
Forastero,
Not sure if you noticed, but if you click on your own name to the left of each message everything you've ever written is displayed.

http://antievolution.org/feature....=Submit

As such it's easy to find posts that answer specific points, if you claim to have answered them already, and provide links (the permalink icon) to them.

Funny how both lawyers and criminals will regress to repeating a questions over and over again when things are not going their way.

but anyway its to bad  we dont have a good keyword search tool

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,13:40   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 02 2011,12:14)
Forastero,
Not sure if you noticed, but if you click on your own name to the left of each message everything you've ever written is displayed.

http://antievolution.org/feature....=Submit

As such it's easy to find posts that answer specific points, if you claim to have answered them already, and provide links (the permalink icon) to them.

Funny how both lawyers and criminals will regress to repeating a questions over and over again when things are not going their way.

but anyway its to bad  we dont have a good keyword search tool

Now see if somebody askes you something it is good that you answer. If you don't answer it means you are either:

1) Ignorant
2) Stupid
3) or you missed the question (that's why it's repeated).

Please select which one of the above represents your case so that the people of this forum may treat you accordingly.

Marty

Ps you may choose more than one option.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,14:32   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:47)
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:19)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,11:52)
   
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,09:42)
I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts

This isn't going to work, muppet, no matter how long you wait before posting.  You can only get away with saying "I have already explained all that" if you've, well, already explained all that.  A difficult concept I know, but why not give it a try?

Well maybe you should elaborate on exactly which of his topics I havnt detailed. Otherwise, you yourself are merely projecting a mob conforming muppet mentality

OK, muppet.  Here you go.

You haven't explained/answered this:
 
Quote
It doesn't matter WHEN these cultures existed.  You have to explain all of them coming from 10 people when a Global Flood wiped away every other living thing on the planet at some time close to these.

Or this:
 
Quote
Even further, you MUST have massive mutational rates to develop the unique genetic traits of these various cultures.  Or perhaps you should explain which of Noah's daughters-in-law was Chinese, which was Greek, and which was Egyptian... and which was Sumerian and Vietnamese and English and Dutch (giving the current names for the region in which these people's existed).  Heck, North American Indian, South American Indian, etc. etc. etc.

Or this:
 
Quote
What exploded to cause the Big Bang?  You seem to think that the scientists saying something actually exploded are literally correct... so, in your own words... what exploded?

Or this:
 
Quote
Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata?  How do you know?

Or this:
 
Quote
What is a layer of flood deposits?  You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood.  Do you still stand by this?  (yes or no)

Or this:
 
Quote
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?

Or this:
 
Quote
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?

Or this:
 
Quote
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood?  If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata?

Quote
It doesn't matter WHEN these cultures existed.  You have to explain all of them coming from 10 people when a Global Flood wiped away every other living thing on the planet at some time close to these.


 Even further, you MUST have massive mutational rates to develop the unique genetic traits of these various cultures.  Or perhaps you should explain which of Noah's daughters-in-law was Chinese, which was Greek, and which was Egyptian... and which was Sumerian and Vietnamese and English and Dutch (giving the current names for the region in which these people's existed).  Heck, North American Indian, South American Indian, etc. etc. etc.[/quote]

Yeah I did when I linked to the Table of Nations. if, your wondering how, it had nothing to do with mutations but rather human genotypic diversity, phenotypic diversity and skeletal diversity being vastly greater among the early ancestors

 
Quote
What exploded to cause the Big Bang?  You seem to think that the scientists saying something actually exploded are literally correct... so, in your own words... what exploded?


I have already said that no one has yet been able to  explain this supernatural explosion but proved to Ogre that his own links disagree with him in that they convey an explosion of one type or another. Now he is simply spins the goal posts and asks "What exploded"

 
Quote
Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata?  How do you know?

What is a layer of flood deposits?  You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood.  Do you still stand by this?  (yes or no)

Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?

 Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?

 Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood?  If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata?


I dont think there is a preFlood layer because everything that still exists from then is within the Flood strata; for the "earth was destroyed". I guess that the mantle and core perhaps could be considered as a preFlood layer but even they were altered.

Again, most fossil formations are miraculous preservations that testify to the glory of our Creator.   The demonically influenced overkill of Megafaunal is also preserved.

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. Recent fossil fuels are sometimes formed but not on such a grand scale as represented by the so called  Carboniferous period jungles. The same goes with the  other so called periods, which actually represent distinct ecozones laid down hydrologically during The Flood 99.9% of the time.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,14:45   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,09:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48)
Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system

You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy.

Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,14:47   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2011,16:16)
It is not possible to believe in the flood without ignoring all the evidence for Africa as the origins of all humans alive on this planet today. The migrations and the routes taken, the Neandertal and Denisovan hominins;, what is the creationist theory of how the continents were populated after the flood?

That is, if we really are stupid enough to believe we need consider the flood anything but a myth. Come on, creationists, a feasibility study shows that there isn't a chance in hell that the history about a family of eight on an impossible 'boat' ship in an impossible flood can be true.

Creationism is an insult to the human intellect. Intellectual catalepsy, a pathological worldview. There ain't no cure for stupidity.

Evolution is a  creationism and just as illogical the other pantheistic creation myths

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,14:48   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34)
Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion

Bullshit. You've steadfastly ignored these questions, and never pretended to make a response, although I've posed them to you countless times over several weeks.

Nor is this a response. Here are the questions again, for your reference.

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

Run hard now, Little Bunny!

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,14:53   

"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,14:58   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2011,16:16)
It is not possible to believe in the flood without ignoring all the evidence for Africa as the origins of all humans alive on this planet today. The migrations and the routes taken, the Neandertal and Denisovan hominins;, what is the creationist theory of how the continents were populated after the flood?

What a joke. Decades ago, while y'all were calling and depicting neanderthals as apes and later as closest to Africans, we creationists were calling him and erectus fully human. You scoffed at us as usual even though you straggle behind in every aspect.

Btw, there has only been one Denisovan found but all the evidence points to him being H. erectus.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,15:05   

Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably:
1.  Rain.
2.  Flooding.
3.  Rapid sediment deposits.
4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while.
5.  Forests grow underwater.
6.  More sediment deposits.

4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,15:05   

Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,14:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

I have already detailed how the Cambrian was a benthic system that exploded in biodiversity often if not usually found over your so called younger strata

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,15:08   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:05)
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,14:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

I have already detailed how the Cambrian was a benthic system that exploded in biodiversity often if not usually found over your so called younger strata

You haven't detailed anything.  Just asserted.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,15:19   

Quote (Indiumas @ Nov. 24 2011,10:42)
Quote
Forastero: You are assuming there was no agriculture and you are assuming that the carrying capacity in uniformitarian terms. Your assumptions are wrong because the evidence shows that Africa's carrying capacity was much stronger in the past and agriculture was present


No, I am not. This has been independently determined, see for example this paper and the references therein. Of course you can easily prove me (and all those stupid scientists working in this field) wrong: Show me that agriculture has been a major factor more than let´s say 15000 years ago. The funny thing, of course, is that according to you, humans don´t even have a history that goes back 15000 years! :D
So, when you demonstrate that humans had a thriving agriculture 15000 years ago, be sure to point out that you actually don´t mean 15000 years but 6000 years, which would of course make your point invalid again. I can´t even begin to imagine how you can cope with mental dissonances like this.

Also, I am not assuming that carrying capacity is "uniformitarian", whatever you mean by that anyway. I even mentioned that a better model should reflect that the carrying capacity can be time-dependent. Do you actually read what people write?

So, you are wrong on both accounts.

Been out of town so I just got a chance to read your paper by Belovsky. He claims that there is little evidence that hunter gathers will take measures against overkill and the last sentence of his paper says: “Therefore, humans will always hunt their prey to extinction in these models: there is no other alternative.”

Like most evolutionist, he stereotypes prehistory stereotypical rationalizations on some Kung people

Belovsky fails to understand the power of traditional knowledge. The Koihsan people are great agrforesters with vast knowledge about animals and hundreds of different plants. Like the Aborigines, The Khoisan really are  keystones to  improving desert  fertility and production via planting, transplanting, crossbreeding, amending, irrigating etc. etc.. etc…. They have great respect for the animals they hunt that includes a deeply spiritual understanding of cause and effect. This can also be said about so many other indigenous peoples around the world. In fact the most biodivers regions on earth are known to have undergone thousands of years of human manipulation.  

Humans have indeed caused mass overkill but archeology shows that it was a time before indigenous people such as the Native Americans, Aborigines and Khoisan—groups who suffered from the same survival of the fittest greed, genocide and predator control, etc.. that are leading to ecocide as we speak.

Modern evolutionists still cook up phylogenies and and IQ scores to project  people like the  Kung Bushmen as the epitome of prehistoric man  and/or  missing link between modern society and chimpanzee clans. Pygmies, Khoisan, and and Indians with so called archaic features were exhibited with zoo animals but little did the mob mentality realize the great variability, complexities, knowledge, and individualism of these people. Heck, I personally know several  a so called primitive who have fit right into modern society. Indigenous people who stick with their traditional ways do so because they love it and because it affords the more free time to be with the people they love and laugh with. Throughout time individuals and groups specialize in either hunting, fishing, pastoralism or swidden yet they have always had a symbiotic trade with each other. This trade has always been observed even among the khoisan and Pygmies and archeology shows that even their supposed sangoan ancestors domesticated melons, used grain-grindstones and exploited cattle; as did those cultures who inhabited the Sarah before it became a desert.

Moreover technology and invention most often builds upon itself and once severe perturbations cause man to become separated from their technical society, he often finds himself less technical than the seasoned hunter gatherer. For example, the golden ages of most empires had pretty much degraded its ecology and society out of a lust for power and materials, and thus in great part, often broke up into relatively unknown tribes.  In cases like this, its the so called barbarians whom have been living off the land and collecting the endlessly vast knowledge of nature who end up as the dominant social force. So dont be so quick to diss indigenous knowledge. Yes, kingdoms come and go and you really dont know the ancient history of the pygmy or San or aborigine, etc… Facts are stranger than fiction.

Belovsky is also in error in his failure to consider  fisheries, especially when most of Africa’s human populations have always straddled oceans, lakes, rivers and swamps. Even the Kung often favor the Okavango swamps. Concerning population rates, he is also wrong to put  so much weight on nursing mothers because agroforestry people are all about community and family time that often includes communal child care.    

Oh and exponential growth among Indians, Aborigines, and Khoisan .
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....bstract
http://www.pnas.org/content....53.long
http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstre....uence=1

Of course there has been some some drift and genocide via the progressive retrogressive social Darwinist

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,15:21   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:55)
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34)
A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating.

That's not an explanation, it's handwaving.

You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such.

You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially.

You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis.  You have six.

Ah, The IDiot is back.

Rates don't get contaminated, since they are not a physical object to add extraneous material to.  Samples can get contaminated (changing amount of parent or daughter), or rates can be changed (by external influences in a few cases).  Neither of which he can do any "formula waving" for, but handwaving aplenty (the radiodating based on a physcial mechanism and quantification is "magic" yet handwaving is rigorous - on planet Htrae).

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,15:46   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably:
1.  Rain.
2.  Flooding.
3.  Rapid sediment deposits.
4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while.
5.  Forests grow underwater.
6.  More sediment deposits.

4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.

all in 40 days?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,16:05   

Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,13:46)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)
 
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably:
1.  Rain.
2.  Flooding.
3.  Rapid sediment deposits.
4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while.
5.  Forests grow underwater.
6.  More sediment deposits.

4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.

all in 40 days?

It took a while for the flood waters to vanish to who-knows-where after the rain stopped, so this all happened in about a year.  

Not 40 days - that would be silly. :)

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,16:31   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,14:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

I have already detailed how the Cambrian was a benthic system that exploded in biodiversity often if not usually found over your so called younger strata

Are you sure you want to make this claim?  We are NOT talking about fossils here, we are talking about the rocks.  

Do you stand by your claim (in regards to OUR discussion, not what you think the discussion is about) that ALL rocks that are Cambrian in age are benthic?

Now, let me repeat this, because you aren't understanding this.

You claimed that many, many scientists say something exploded to cause the Big Bang.  Since you must have read these scientists' papers or books... I want you to tell me WHAT EXPLODED TO CAUSE THE BIG BANG?

I don't give a rat's left testicle about your philosophy or your pathetic attempts to turn this around.

Here, I'll help you... what do the scientists say exploded?

I promise there's a real lesson here.  You probably won't get it though.

Now, on to the flood deposits.

Your claim (at this point) is that all rock above the upper mantel is flood or post-flood deposits?  (yes/no   if no, then please elaborate on your claim so that I understand you.)

Stayed tuned folks, it's getting good.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,17:26   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,14:45)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,09:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48)
Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system

You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy.

Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again

You say that, and yet GPS navigation only works by allowing for the different rates that Earth-bound and satellite clocks run. Predicted with astounding precision by physics.

You post on a computer connected to the internet; both developed because of science. You probably use modern medicine developed by scientists. Plate tectonics has been measured and things like the Hubble telescope works.

You are barking mad, ignorant or just winding people up. That is not an exclusive or BTW.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1040
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,19:22   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 02 2011,17:26)
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,14:45)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,09:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48)
Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system

You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy.

Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again

You say that, and yet GPS navigation only works by allowing for the different rates that Earth-bound and satellite clocks run. Predicted with astounding precision by physics.

You post on a computer connected to the internet; both developed because of science. You probably use modern medicine developed by scientists. Plate tectonics has been measured and things like the Hubble telescope works.

You are barking mad, ignorant or just winding people up. That is not an exclusive or BTW.

Not nearly a high enough dose.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,20:48   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,12:45)
Been out of town so I just got a chance to read your paper by Belovsky. He claims that there is little evidence that hunter gathers will take measures against overkill and the last sentence of his paper says: “Therefore, humans will always hunt their prey to extinction in these models: there is no other alternative.”

Belovsky fails to understand the power of traditional knowledge. The Koihsan people are great agrforesters with vast knowledge about animals and hundreds of different plants. Like the Aborigines, The Khoisan really are  keystones to  improving desert  fertility and production via planting, transplanting, crossbreeding, amending, irrigating etc. etc.. etc…. They have great respect for the animals they hunt that includes a deeply spiritual understanding of cause and effect. This can also be said about so many other indigenous peoples around the world. In fact the most biodivers regions on earth are known to have undergone thousands of years of human manipulation.  

Humans have indeed caused mass overkill but archeology shows that it was a time before indigenous people such as the Native Americans, Aborigines and Khoisan—groups who suffered from the same survival of the fittest greed, genocide and predator control, etc.. that are leading to ecocide as we speak.

Modern evolutionists still cook up phylogenies and and IQ scores to project  people like the  Kung Bushmen as the epitome of prehistoric man  and/or  missing link between modern society and chimpanzee clans. Pygmies, Khoisan, and and Indians with so called archaic features were exhibited with zoo animals but little did the mob mentality realize the great variability, complexities, knowledge, and individualism of these people. Heck, I personally know several  a so called primitive who have fit right into modern society. Indigenous people who stick with their traditional ways do so because they love it and because it affords the more free time to be with the people they love and laugh with. Throughout time individuals and groups specialize in either hunting, fishing, pastoralism or swidden yet they have always had a symbiotic trade with each other. This trade has always been observed even among the khoisan and Pygmies and archeology shows that even their supposed sangoan ancestors domesticated melons, used grain-grindstones and exploited cattle; as did those cultures who inhabited the Sarah before it became a desert.

Moreover technology and invention most often builds upon itself and once severe perturbations cause man to become separated from their technical society, he often finds himself less technical than the seasoned hunter gatherer. For example, the golden ages of most empires had pretty much degraded its ecology and society out of a lust for power and materials, and thus in great part, often broke up into relatively unknown tribes.  In cases like this, its the so called barbarians whom have been living off the land and collecting the endlessly vast knowledge of nature who end up as the dominant social force. So dont be so quick to diss indigenous knowledge. Yes, kingdoms come and go and you really dont know the ancient history of the pygmy or San or aborigine, etc… Facts are stranger than fiction.

Belovsky is also in error in his failure to consider  fisheries, especially when most of Africa’s human populations have always straddled oceans, lakes, rivers and swamps. Even the Kung often favor the Okavango swamps. Concerning population rates, he is also wrong to put  so much weight on nursing mothers because agroforestry people are all about community and family time that often includes communal child care.    

Oh and exponential growth among Indians, Aborigines, and Khoisan .
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....bstract
http://www.pnas.org/content....53.long
http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstre....uence=1

Of course there has been some some drift and genocide via the progressive retrogressive social Darwinist

haha this motherfucker's an anthropologist now too!

for fucks sake bozo what are you doing off the BW at PT?  get tired of running away screaming everytime Mike tried to get you to take his entropy quiz?  what a sad sack of shit you are.  i suggest trying the ricin.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,20:56   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2011,12:03)
 
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,12:42)
I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts

Have you already responded to this?

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion

Now when you going to finally explain how all that dinosaur soft tissue lasted for millions of years or how that human DNA has lasted for tens of thousands of years? I have only asked y'all about ten times now

muppet you should, when boning up for your entropy quiz, learn the difference between additive and multiplicative.  

and... then....  swallow the whole bottle of pills.  it will be easier this way than the alternatives... say getting beat down by campus security at some redneck arkansas college, podunk school with podunk faculty that doesn't know what they are missing by turning down an offer to invite you personally to moo from a podium with their department footing the power bill and lemonade and cookies.

right?  i mean for fucks sake

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,21:11   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 02 2011,15:21)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:55)
 
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34)
A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating.

That's not an explanation, it's handwaving.

You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such.

You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially.

You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis.  You have six.

Ah, The IDiot is back.

Rates don't get contaminated, since they are not a physical object to add extraneous material to.  Samples can get contaminated (changing amount of parent or daughter), or rates can be changed (by external influences in a few cases).  Neither of which he can do any "formula waving" for, but handwaving aplenty (the radiodating based on a physcial mechanism and quantification is "magic" yet handwaving is rigorous - on planet Htrae).

All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions,  contamination, oscillations in  energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions,  chemicals etc... Its  the quantum tunneling  we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,21:24   

Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably:
1.  Rain.
2.  Flooding.
3.  Rapid sediment deposits.
4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while.
5.  Forests grow underwater.
6.  More sediment deposits.

4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.

all in 40 days?

They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.

Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,21:26   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:11)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 02 2011,15:21)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:55)
 
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34)
A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating.

That's not an explanation, it's handwaving.

You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such.

You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially.

You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis.  You have six.

Ah, The IDiot is back.

Rates don't get contaminated, since they are not a physical object to add extraneous material to.  Samples can get contaminated (changing amount of parent or daughter), or rates can be changed (by external influences in a few cases).  Neither of which he can do any "formula waving" for, but handwaving aplenty (the radiodating based on a physcial mechanism and quantification is "magic" yet handwaving is rigorous - on planet Htrae).

All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions,  contamination, oscillations in  energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions,  chemicals etc... Its  the quantum tunneling  we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis

Please explain, in detail, how each of these things can alter the rate of decay of radioactive elements.

Please explain how all of these elements combined results in a 22,700x difference in the correct age of the Earth.

Please explain how all of these changes would give the same age of the Earth, given all of the changes you specify in response to the first sentence.

Support your work.

BTW: What do you say exploded to cause the Big Bang?  What do scientists say exploded to cause the Big Bang?

and we haven't even gotten to his ridiculous understanding of entropy yet

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3322
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,21:31   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:24)
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)
 
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably:
1.  Rain.
2.  Flooding.
3.  Rapid sediment deposits.
4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while.
5.  Forests grow underwater.
6.  More sediment deposits.

4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.

all in 40 days?

They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.

Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not?

Can we PLEASE get into 'kinds'?  Pretty please.

I'll quit bugging you about the Big Bang if you start talking about kinds and the ark... pretty please!!!

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,21:38   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2011,20:56)
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2011,12:03)
 
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,12:42)
I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts

Have you already responded to this?

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion

Now when you going to finally explain how all that dinosaur soft tissue lasted for millions of years or how that human DNA has lasted for tens of thousands of years? I have only asked y'all about ten times now

muppet you should, when boning up for your entropy quiz, learn the difference between additive and multiplicative.  

and... then....  swallow the whole bottle of pills.  it will be easier this way than the alternatives... say getting beat down by campus security at some redneck arkansas college, podunk school with podunk faculty that doesn't know what they are missing by turning down an offer to invite you personally to moo from a podium with their department footing the power bill and lemonade and cookies.

right?  i mean for fucks sake

Hmm, why is it that Canadians get all ethnist on Arkansas when getting mad at gringos?

But then why do those who refuse to debate also vent fighting words from afar?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2268
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,21:39   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,19:24)
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)
 
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably:
1.  Rain.
2.  Flooding.
3.  Rapid sediment deposits.
4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while.
5.  Forests grow underwater.
6.  More sediment deposits.

4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.

all in 40 days?

They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.

Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not?

OK, got it.  Underwater forest growth in about a year.  Makes perfect sense to me.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,22:07   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2011,21:31)
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:24)
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)
 
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53)
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......

Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "

So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world?

The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably:
1.  Rain.
2.  Flooding.
3.  Rapid sediment deposits.
4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while.
5.  Forests grow underwater.
6.  More sediment deposits.

4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.

all in 40 days?

They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.

Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not?

Can we PLEASE get into 'kinds'?  Pretty please.

I'll quit bugging you about the Big Bang if you start talking about kinds and the ark... pretty please!!!

well I tried to get you to accept epigenetics at the beginning of this thread but you insisted on talking about how the Big bang wasnt an explosion.

However, if you have really had a change of heart, what would you like to know about epigenetics?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,22:19   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:11)
All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions,  contamination, oscillations in  energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions,  chemicals etc... Its  the quantum tunneling  we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis

All very interesting. But on reflection, the following questions occur to me:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,22:20   

Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit?

He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut.

I don't see the attraction.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,22:27   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 02 2011,23:20)
Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit?

He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut.

I don't see the attraction.

OTOH, he's not that much work. Since he hasn't the stones to answer questions, simply repeating same establishes the quality to which you refer.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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