RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 177 178 179 180 181 [182] 183 184 185 186 187 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,11:55   

Quote
 Help!  Dave is demolishing our arguments against the Snelling papers ...Quick!  Bring up dendro and ice cores and belly buttons

The point being that -- as in the past -- you will offer up a purely fantasy, unfalsifiable claim such as "God made the world and stars to LOOK OLD"

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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,11:56   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,14:52)
Stephen Wells...
Quote
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?
Yes.

No, no, no, that's Stephen Elliot, our resident ex-AFDave.  He's probably the only one here who thinks you aren't beyond hope.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,12:24   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,16:52)
Stephen Wells...
Quote
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?
Yes.

Well, keep dreaming Davey.

I'm afraid that, if your YEC buddies use your logic against the scientific community, they won't be able to impose their views by 2016. We'll see you there, Dave.

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,12:52   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,16:52)
Stephen Wells...
Quote
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?
Yes.

Interestingly, it wasn't me who asked that question. That reading disorder of yours is really getting worse; you should have that looked at.

But thanks anyway for confirming the mismatch between your perceptions and those of, well, everybody else.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,13:08   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,16:52)
Stephen Wells...  
Quote
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?
Yes.

You aren't. Not one person here, poster or uncloaked lurker, not even observant Christians here, thinks you're winning anything, Dave. You are the only person who thinks you're winning, and since what you're trying to win is what's known as an "argument," then by definition you're losing.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,13:14   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,16:52)
Stephen Wells...
Quote
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?
Yes.

So, you won't mind me copying out this thread and distributing it to your fellow churchgoers, Dave?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10272
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,13:34   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 08 2006,19:14)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,16:52)
Stephen Wells...  
Quote
Do you seriously think that you are winning this argument?
Yes.

So, you won't mind me copying out this thread and distributing it to your fellow churchgoers, Dave?

I can see the email now
Quote

From Dave Hawkins
To Congregation (All)

Dear friends in christ. Recently I have been under attack by EVIL RUSSIAN GANGSTERS. They pretended like I debated them and they are uh B L A C K M A L I N G  M E by threatening to release A FABRICATED TRANSCRIPT....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111ONEONEONECAPSCAPSCAPS

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,13:37   

Ha ha ha hahahahahahahaha.... ouch.

Jesus fucking chrisp daveyDH.

Like you won the portuguese thing. Without making a single post in debate. Even after I offered to take either side!!

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

You are winning if your goal is to look like an idiot.

You are winning if your goal is to demonstrate overcompensation for small penis size.

You are winning if you are delusional.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha... ouch...Hahahahahahaha!! :p  :p  :p  :p

Core Samples.
That should be easy. If you can show me that the earth is 6500 years old I'll repent. I'll go to church. I'll even start respecting religion.

And I'll tell people that you were the reason for my transformation.

Core Samples.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,13:43   

Jeannot...  
Quote
How did Noah manage to carry millions of animals in his arch, since marco-evo never happened?
I suppose you mean macro-evo?  I think you are confused.  Noah did not have to carry millions of animals on the ark because micro-evolution does indeed occur and many varieties of animals would have developed after the Flood from just a single pair.  The reason he had to carry 35,000 (Morris/Whitcomb's guess) is because macro-evo has never happened and never will happen.  If macro-evo was possible, there would be no need for an ark to preserve distinct kinds.

Quote
So, you won't mind me copying out this thread and distributing it to your fellow churchgoers, Dave?
Most of my fellow church goers are not into the Creation/Evolution controversy so they would not be interested.  I have shared this site with those of my church who are interested in such things, though.  As for you contacting my fellow church members, I have said you are welcome to come to my church.  Are you coming?  Just give me your real name and some contact info and when to expect you.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,14:10   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,18:43)
Jeannot...    
Quote
How did Noah manage to carry millions of animals in his arch, since marco-evo never happened?
I suppose you mean macro-evo?  I think you are confused.  Noah did not have to carry millions of animals on the ark because micro-evolution does indeed occur and many varieties of animals would have developed after the Flood from just a single pair.  The reason he had to carry 35,000 (Morris/Whitcomb's guess) is because macro-evo has never happened and never will happen.  If macro-evo was possible, there would be no need for an ark to preserve distinct kinds.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Dave. There are—at minimum—10,000,000 species of organisms on earth today. Ants. Centipedes. Worms. Shrimp. Jawless Fishes. Rodents. Bats. Tubeworms. Sea Anemones. Molds. Fungi. Grasses. Orchids. Oak Trees. How many new species would you need per day if Noah had only 35,000 species on the ark? Can you do the math? That's six species a day, every day, from the time of the flood to the present. Minimum.

How many monkey "kinds" were there on the ark, Dave? How many speciation events among Platyrrhini alone since then? Do you have any concept of how much evolution must have occurred in the last 4,500 years for your "ark" story to be true? How did we get both freshwater and saltwater fish today, if either one or the other (or both) went extinct during the flood? Or did Noah maintain saltwater (or freshwater) aquaria on the ark for a year? How many beetle "kinds," Dave? How many ant "kinds"? Would you care to research how many ant species there currently are in the world? Did they all radiate from one, or ten, or a thousand ant "kinds" over the past 4,500 years?

Dave, your young-earth "hypothesis" is wrong in every particular. No matter what claim you make about it, that claim turns out to be wrong.

And here's the questions just from the last two pages:

HOW DID 5,000 FEET OF WATER LAY 5,000 FEET OF SEDIMENT?

HOW WOULD YOU DATE THE GRAND STAIRCASE STRATA?

HOW DID 35,000 "KINDS" RADIATE OUT TO TEN MILLION SPECIES CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE?


And you say you don't believe in macroevolution. You actually believe in fantastically-accelerated evolution, far beyond anything postulated by evolutionary biology.

It's just getting worse and worse for you, Dave.

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

  
Diogenes



Posts: 80
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,14:20   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,18:43)
Jeannot...  
Quote
How did Noah manage to carry millions of animals in his arch, since marco-evo never happened?
I suppose you mean macro-evo?  I think you are confused.  Noah did not have to carry millions of animals on the ark because micro-evolution does indeed occur and many varieties of animals would have developed after the Flood from just a single pair.  The reason he had to carry 35,000 (Morris/Whitcomb's guess) is because macro-evo has never happened and never will happen.  If macro-evo was possible, there would be no need for an ark to preserve distinct kinds.

[snip]

Random questions that just popped into my head:

How many of the 35k were beetles?
For there to be a single pair of creatures for each Kind to microevolve into all the creatures we see today then your definition of microevolution includes speciation and large scale functional change to body plan and organs, correct?
How fast did the microevolution occur, did it happen directly after (during?) the flood in a short period of time, or is it an on going process?
Why do we not see large scale microevolution at a similar rate today?
Did the large scale microevolution occur by naturalistic process (random mutation + natural selection + genetic drift) or was there alot of miracling going on?
What is your definition of macroevolution?

--------------
:)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4652
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,15:29   

Re "What is your definition of macroevolution? "

Obliviously, macro- is what's needed for ToE to work, and micro- is what's needed for Creation to work.

And that's regardless of how fast or slow either of them has to be. :)

Henry

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,17:22   

We will get into this in more detail later, but I'll at least give you something to think about for tonight before resuming our study of radiometric dating ...

Quote
A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today?

Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D., Speedway, IN, USA, who gave permission for his full name to be used. For a change from most negative feedbacks, this letter attempts to give an objection of substance. But as will be shown, it relies on the informal logical fallacy of argument from authority or Argumentum ad verecundiam (‘As a professional biologist …’) instead of performing elementary calculations, and like most evolutionists, misunderstands the vital point that evolution from goo to you via the zoo requires changes that increase genetic information content. His letter is printed first in its entirety. A response by Don Batten, Ph.D., also a professional biologist, of Answers in Genesis (Australia), immediately follows his letter (indented black text) with point-by-point responses (in dark red) interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses (…) at the end of one of TM’s paragraphs signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission.


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

RM: “I listened to your program of 6/14/01 entitled ‘Dogs—how many on the Ark?’. As I understand it, you are contending that the whole array of canine species, from wolves to jackals to foxes to canis familiaris arose in approximately 4,000 years from the genetic potential in just two animals.

As a professional biologist, I can tell you that this is preposterous and points up the superficiality of your arguments. Since you deny the role of mutation in adding information to the genome, how do you account for the wide range of present-day traits arising from two individual genomes which could have had only two copies of each gene between them?

Such silliness will certainly not give you any credibility to those who are unconvinced (and are competent scientists), and most of your true believers lack the scientific background to assess the validity of your spurious claims.

Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D.
Speedway
IN”


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

I listened to your program of 6/14/01 [14 June 2001] entitled ‘Dogs—how many on the Ark?’. As I understand it, you are contending that the whole array of canine species, from wolves to jackals to foxes to canis familiaris [sic — I presume that a professional biologist knows that the generic name should be capitalized and this is just a typo] arose in approximately 4,000 years from the genetic potential in just two animals.

Obviously these short radio programs do not ‘cover all the bases’. I suggest that you check out the rest of our website for the details of these things—it’s easy to do using the internal search engine and the Q&A tab which hyperlinks to about 50 topic categories. Ken Ham was saying that the variety of dogs, wolves, etc., could possibly have come from one pair—that there may have been only one pair on the Ark. Evidence of inter-fertility between different species of the wolf group is good evidence that they belong to the one created kind. There is no doubt that the number of basically different kinds of animals is much less than the number of species that have been named, so that one of the common scoffers’ arguments that ‘Noah could not have fitted all the animals’, is just hot air (see Q&A: Noah’s Ark).

As a professional biologist, I can tell you that this is preposterous and points up the superficiality of your arguments.

I am a professional biologist also, so this argument from authority doesn’t impress me in the least, and nor should it impress anyone else. I do not see anything preposterous or superficial about the argument. Perhaps it is not the biology that offends you, but the worldview that we stand for and your protestations are an excuse for denying the clear teaching of the Bible regarding the Creation, Fall and Flood.

Since you deny the role of mutation in adding information to the genome, how do you account for the wide range of present-day traits …

Here we have a confusion of different issues. Do mutations contribute to the variety we see in things such as domestic dog breeds? Most certainly — see Is Your Dog Some Kind of Degenerate Mutant?. However, does this give support to belief in molecules-to-man evolution? Most definitely not. The sort of variety created by mutations (for example, hairless, pushed in face, stumpy legs, etc.) is due to loss of information, not the addition of new genetic information. This is not the stuff that would change a lizard (or a dinosaur) into a bird, for example — this requires the addition of the specifications (coded in the DNA) for making feathers (see scannning electron micrographs, left), flow-through lungs connected to hollow bones, bird-brains, etc.

As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism. If mutations are really responsible for all the information added to a microbe to make a man, there should be plenty happening today that could be observed.


… arising from two individual genomes which could have had only two copies of each gene between them?

Actually, two genomes (male and female) could have four different alleles (variety of a given gene) between them for each gene locus, not two. Since you say you are a professional biologist, I assume you just made a simple mistake here and you actually do understand the principles of genetics.

Now, there are probably some 30,000 genes in a wolf/dog, and if every gene locus were heterozygous (two different alleles), then for each gene there are 10 possible pairs of four types of allele (if the alleles are A, B, C, D; then the possible pairs can be easily tabulated: AA, AB, AC, AD, BB, BC, BD, CC, CD, DD — for n types of allele, the number of possible pairs is n(n+1)/2).

With the recombinations due to sexual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 1030,000 (this is 1 followed by 30,000 zeros). To put this in perspective, there are thought to be some 1080 atoms in the Universe! So, it appears that two wolves could produce quite a few descendants before the pattern would have to be repeated! Now because not every gene locus is likely to be heterozygous in the original pair, and because of recessive alleles not every gene will be expressed, so the number of animals that could actually be different in their form (‘phenotype’) would be less than the huge number above.

But let’s be ultra-generous to the evolutionist. I.e., let’s assume (as you claimed) that there were only two types of allele per locus, and that there was no co-dominance so only two phenotypes per locus, and there was only 1% heterozygosity in wolves/dogs (cf. 6.7% in humans even today, presumably much less than in Adam and Eve), the number of possible varieties would be 2300 = 10300(log(10)2) = 1090. Even with these conservative figures, this number is still so huge that it makes the number of atoms in the universe seem like a tiny smattering — 1090/1080 = 1010 (10 billion) times larger!

So it seems like there would have been plenty of genetic potential to produce all the members of the wolf kind that we see today. And if to this we add the degenerative changes due to mutations, we have more than ample capacity in two animals to produce all the varieties of dogs/wolves/jackals that we see today.


Such silliness …

Hmmm …

… will certainly not give you any credibility to those who are unconvinced (and are competent scientists), and most of your true believers lack the scientific background to assess the validity of your spurious claims.

Actually there are plenty of competent scientists, including professional biologists, who accept the Bible’s authority, including the accounts of Creation, the Fall and the Flood; and of course creationists were responsible for founding most branches of modern science, including biology. This is well documented in our creationist scientists page. And I know laymen who understand these basic issues of genetics better than some supposedly ‘professional biologists’. In fact, one Professor of Genetics at a university was shocked into reason by his wife, who has no academic qualifications — like you, he scoffed at her supposed ignorance, but God used something she said to break through his evolutionized outlook (see Jumping Ship: A geneticist tells of his ‘double conversion’).

Perhaps it is not the credibility of our teaching that is a problem but that, like other unbelievers, you are ‘wilfully ignorant’ of things the Bible teaches (2 Peter 3:5). This scoffing derision comes from a determination to follow one’s own evil desires (2 Peter 3:3) because to acknowledge the truth of the Bible would mean having to submit to the One who inspired it, admitting that you are guilty in His sight, deserving of His judgment and in need of the forgiveness He has made available through Jesus Christ. Such a profound change (conversion) would not make one the flavor of the month with one’s fellow scoffers! It would be a very difficult decision, but it needs to be done! Jesus said to follow him would be costly (John 15:18–21 cf. 2 Timothy 3:12), but He is the only way to eternal life (John 14:6, Acts 4:12).


Richard A. Meiss, Ph.D.

Sincerely
Don Batten, Ph.D.
Research scientist, author and editorial consultant
AiG (Australia)


No problem producing the necessary number of varieties in 4000 years, Eric ...

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,17:37   

Breathtakingly tardtastic.

"As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism. If mutations are really responsible for all the information added to a microbe to make a man, there should be plenty happening today that could be observed."

Drug resistant staph.
From wiki
"Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a specific strain of the Staphylococcus aureus bacterium that has developed antibiotic resistance to all penicillins, including methicillin and other narrow-spectrum &#946;-lactamase-resistant penicillin antibiotics.[1] MRSA was first discovered in the UK in 1961 and is now widespread, particularly in the hospital setting where it is commonly termed a superbug."


Did you really read any of this before cutting and pasting this rubbish?
edit [/tardgasm]
edit [/squee]

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,17:52   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,23:22)
No problem producing the necessary number of varieties in 4000 years, Eric ...

Wow.  If you wave your hands any harder, you're gonna lift right off.

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,18:25   

He may be a biologist, but he aint no chemist.
I particularly like this bit:
Quote
With the recombinations due to sexual reproduction, this amounts to a potential number of different genotypes in the descendants of 1030,000 (this is 1 followed by 30,000 zeros). To put this in perspective, there are thought to be some 1080 atoms in the Universe! So, it appears that two wolves could produce quite a few descendants before the pattern would have to be repeated! Now because not every gene locus is likely to be heterozygous in the original pair, and because of recessive alleles not every gene will be expressed, so the number of animals that could actually be different in their form (‘phenotype’) would be less than the huge number above.



Dave,
SUDO ReadBeforePosting


I suppose there are like, what... ten of each of these?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10272
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,18:33   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 08 2006,23:52)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,23:22)
No problem producing the necessary number of varieties in 4000 years, Eric ...

Wow.  If you wave your hands any harder, you're gonna lift right off.

I think it's only people with actual science educations who can appreciate how vapid hand waving is.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,19:14   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,22:22)
We will get into this in more detail later, but I'll at least give you something to think about for tonight before resuming our study of radiometric dating ...

   
Quote
A pair of dogs/wolves on Noah’s Ark couldn’t have produced all dog varieties today?

No problem producing the necessary number of varieties in 4000 years, Eric ...

Dave, dogs are all the same species. Dogs haven't even been domesticated for much more than 4,500 years. There are almost 12,000 species of ants, and over 35,000 species of beetles. Do you contend that one ant "kind" has radiated into 12,000 species in 4,500 years? Almost three new species of ant a year, every year? Almost 10 species of beetles every year, for 4,500 years?

How did redwoods, willows, elms, palms, and maples all radiate from one tree "kind" in 4,500 years, Dave? Redwoods can live to be almost 4,500 years old.

Why are you even discussing dogs, Dave? Dogs are the least of your problems. How about mushrooms? How many fungus "kinds" were on the ark?

Monkeys, Dave. What's the speciation rate for monkeys over the past 4,500 years?

10,000,000 species, Dave. Minimum. Explain them. Don't try to substitute one species (dogs) for ten million species.

But I'm sure you'll consider this another question you've supposedly "answered." The level of intellectual dishonesty you display continues to astound.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1778
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,20:01   



Do you know what makes Jesus angry, Dave?

LIARS make Jesus angry, Dave.

LIARS who refuse to address the tons of evidence that have been placed before them.

LIARS who misrepresent and ignore what other, more knowledgeable Christians have patiently explained to them.

LIARS who have sinned by bearing false witness.

LIARS like Dave Dawkins.  That's what makes Jesus angry Dave.

You know you will have to answer for these lies someday, don't you Dave?  Can you feel the flames already?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,22:04   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,18:43)
Jeannot...            
Quote
How did Noah manage to carry millions of animals in his arch, since marco-evo never happened?
I suppose you mean macro-evo?  I think you are confused.  Noah did not have to carry millions of animals on the ark because micro-evolution does indeed occur and many varieties of animals would have developed after the Flood from just a single pair.  The reason he had to carry 35,000 (Morris/Whitcomb's guess) is because macro-evo has never happened and never will happen.  

Your ridicule is fascinating Dave :D
   
Quote
Variety (biology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In botanical nomenclature, variety is a rank below that of species: As such, it gets a ternary name (a name in three parts).
A variety will have an appearance distinct from other varieties, but will hybridize freely with those other varieties (if brought into contact). Usually varieties will be geographically separate from each other.

But please, gohead and explain us how the million of *known* species of insects are only varieties of a few species.
Are gorillas and macaques two varieties of the "primate kind"?
In this case, you would'nt mind considering human and chimpanzee as two varieties of the "ape kind" Davey, would you? :)

And of course, sometimes after the flood(?), mutations rates were thousands of times higher than they are today. Is it linked to the faster rate of decay, Dave? My theorie of a space-time distortion, could be handy.
 
Quote
If macro-evo was possible, there would be no need for an ark to preserve distinct kinds.

Interesting reasoning. "The Arch had to preserve 35 000 species since macroevolution doesn't happen. 'Cause if it did, Noah wouldn't have had to preserve those 35 000 kinds. Duh." :D

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2006,22:54   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,13:21)
We'll see who's laughing 10 years from now ...

Deadman and friends?

Or the RATE Group ...

Heh, DDTTD says, "You talkin' to me, you talking to me...?

In ten years we'll see wing nuts like DDTTD from the FUDPUCKER (Fundamentalists Using Discredited Protocols to Utilise Creationist Kinderspielen for Enlisting Recruits) PROJECT spouting the same old crap, with a few corrections, because it's been force fed to them.

Like the old saw about how archaeopteryx was a fake. None of DDTTD's AiG/ICR "experts" made that claim! Es(bullshit)chew! Remember that claim DDTTD?

The YEC guys repeatedly start new organisations because they keep getting the crap whipped out of them (and arguing about whos' interpretation of the "inerrent bible" is more correct).

Loneliness has followed me my whole life. Everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man.

Evidence for your hypothesis DDTTD??? Come on! You can do it!

NO YOU CAN"T!;)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,01:16   

Uh ... sorry, 7 Popes ... I forgot that exponential numbers don't copy ...  here's a link to the original article ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home....001.asp

Also, we covered the supposed "upward evolution" of bacteria in a separate thread a LONG time ago.  Not planning on repeating this.  Here's a link to help you get started understanding this issue.

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Pretty periodic table ... thanks!  I suppose you posted it because you think I am confused about atoms or something.

Oh ... and you wanted to know about Tyre?  I beat that one to death ...oh ... about a hundred pages ago or so.  Not planning on repeating.  Sorry.

Hello Mr. Aftershave--  I see you're still with us ... do you know anything about Argon dating?

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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,02:44   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 08 2006,22:22)
Quote

As Dr Lee Spetner has pointed out in his book (above, right) and refutations of sceptics, no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism. If mutations are really responsible for all the information added to a microbe to make a man, there should be plenty happening today that could be observed.[/i]

Spetner's nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, e.g. at Information Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information.  But Spetner has also admitted that he was wrong.  From The Nylon BUg:

"The short answer is, the mutation does yield an increase of information, but was it random?)"

He's reduced to an unsubstantiated assertion that the mutation was non-random with regard to fitness.

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,03:05   

I've lurked in this thread for a while (50+ pages or so) and I just wanted to say that I've never seen arguments as hopeless and misinformed as those presented by AFDave in support of his "hypothesis"; furthermore, his obstinacy in the face of the most transparent facts is quite incredible.

As Elizabeth Bennet would have it:

"Allow me to say, Lady Catherine [I'm sure she'd say the same to Dave], that the arguments with which you have supported this extraordinary application have been as frivolous as the application was ill-judged."

Can't stay too long otherwise I'll get a headache.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,03:39   

Quote
I've lurked in this thread for a while (50+ pages or so) and I just wanted to say that I've never seen arguments as hopeless and misinformed as those presented by AFDave in support of his "hypothesis"; furthermore, his obstinacy in the face of the most transparent facts is quite incredible.
Of course that's what you think ... this forum is a "buglight" for skeptics seeking to justify their skepticism.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,03:56   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,08:39)
 
Quote
I've lurked in this thread for a while (50+ pages or so) and I just wanted to say that I've never seen arguments as hopeless and misinformed as those presented by AFDave in support of his "hypothesis"; furthermore, his obstinacy in the face of the most transparent facts is quite incredible.
Of course that's what you think ... this forum is a "buglight" for skeptics seeking to justify their skepticism.

if you were talking about how people who believe in the absolute literal truth of the bible are become skeptical of that "fact" by reading this thread, then i'd agree with you 200%.
C'mon Dave - even you can see your arguments are either

a) demolished instantly
b) demolished after a moments pause to reflect on how best to demolish that specific argument (or cut'n'paste job, thw word argument raises the bar to a level you have not got to yet).

I suspect you take that pause as your victory.

You are doing your "side" no good at all, why do you think you are still being toyed with?
Honestly, it'd be funnier if you were not twisting kids mind all the while.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,05:20   

Ten millions species, Dave.

From 35,000 in 4,500 years? Is that your claim? Aside from the utter impracticality of having even 35,000 species on the ark, how does the incredible proliferation of new species in 4,500 years to the diversity clearly visible today amount to anything other than ultra-mega-macroevolution? You say it can't happen and never will happen; well, if that's true, then your "flood" never happened and your "ark" never set sail.  

Or is this another one for the "List of Questions Dave Knows He'll Never Be Able to Answer"?

Oh, and as for Tyre—you got beaten to death with that one, Dave, not the other way around.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,05:33   

"REST ASSURED ... OUR BRIDGE IS SAFE!!  IT HAS ONLY BROKEN 4 OUT OF 20 TIMES THAT WE TESTED IT ... AND THE DRIVER RECOVERED FROM HIS INJURIES EVERY TIME!"

SUBTITLE:  JONF'S FLAWED LOGIC ON ARGON "DATING"

Austin and Snelling of ICR www.icr.org have done excellent work document the numerous problems with Argon "dating" of rocks.  Not only have they done extensive literature reviews which show numerous examples of excess Argon in historic lava flows.  They have also done their own experiments at Mt. Saint Helens and Mt. Ngauruhoe.

Their literature reviews and their own studies have shown that "excess Argon" is a significant problem and has been well documented.  "Excess Argon" violates the fundamental assumption of K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating which is that there is supposed to be ZERO Argon in the rocks when they are first formed.  This is obviously not the case when testing historic lava flows so there is now no basis for believing it is true for ancient flows.  JonF contends that Creationists have to show that ALL ancient flows contain excess Argon in order to invalidate the technique.  Of course, this is ludicrous and shows just how desperate Deep Time Defenders are.  For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.  Would you drive across a bridge that the engineers said was sound "except for those 4 out of 20 times that it broke when a truck went across it" ??  Go ahead, my friend.  If you are that stupid, I have a bridge I will SELL you for a really good price.  This is the exact situation we have with Argon dating and we are not just trusting Austin and Snelling (I know this is important to you becasue they are such "fraudsters").  This is also based upon the results of one of the leaders in the field, Dalrymple, who reported 20% (!;) of his  tests on historic flows had excess Argon.  Come on, guys, get a clue!  

JonF also complains about xenoliths in Snellings test.  First of all, the xenoliths amounted to less than 5% in virtually identical flows.  JonF must realize that his "xenolith horse" is dying, so he points out that the <5% xenolith figures apply to different flows than the ones Snelling tested.  Well, go look at the two charts, Jon.  They are virtually identical.  Secondly, Jon points out that anyone honestly trying to get an accurate date with Argon dating excludes xenoliths.  Fine.  Go tell that to all the geologists in the studies cited by Snelling.  You say they excluded xenoliths?  OK.  Fine.  They still got "excess Argon" and thus bogus dates.  Your "xenolith horse" is dead.

Remember also that Snelling was not trying to get an "accurate date" because he's smart enough to know this is not possible with Argon "dating."  All he's trying to do is confirm with his own experiment what has been shown now for many years in the literature:  that excess Argon is the "Achilles heel" of Argon dating.  Do you understand what that means?  It means that Argon "dating" is like a chain with at least one broken link.  Do you know how useful a chain with a broken link is?  It's completely useless.  For the method to be trusted, it needs to be shown that it is NEVER in error.

Add to this the fact that all the Argon dates out there have to be "confirmed" with other methods.  Why?  Because of excess Argon, Argon loss, inheritance, mixing, etc.  JonF says that Argon loss doesn't help the creationists, but he is wrong again.  Of course it does simply because it invalidates the technique in yet another way.  Excess Argon invalidates the technique because it violates the fundamental assumption of ZERO Argon when the rock is formed.  But Argon loss makes the rock appear younger than the "actual age."  This also has been well documented in the literature and by the ICR RATE Group and even acknowledged by the late, great JonF himself (well, at least he acknowledged that Argon dating has to be cross-checked ... dunno if we'll ever get him to admit that Argon dating is therefore wrong).  

Of course, the question remains ... what is the Actual Age of any rock?  This is of course the million dollar question.  Eric has asked me how I would date the layers of the Grand Staircase.  Good question.  I'm not quite ready to give you my answer because I want to first of all show that all the "radiometric dating methods" out there are invalid.  

I, at least, have satisfied myself that the most common method for dating rocks--Argon dating is ...

... BALONEY!

Again, if it is TRUTH you are interested in, here is the  link which will get you all the relevant Snelling and Austin papers ...

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,05:37   

Dave's funny theory also predicts that the phylogeography of his "varieties" should reveal common origins arround Mt Ararat.
Well, of course that's not the case, but I wouldn't engage Dave in this discussion, since he can't undestand basic genetics.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,05:47   

Quote
this forum is a "buglight" for skeptics seeking to justify their skepticism
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,10:33)
"REST ASSURED ... OUR BRIDGE IS SAFE!!  IT HAS ONLY BROKEN 4 OUT OF 20 TIMES THAT WE TESTED IT ... AND THE DRIVER RECOVERED FROM HIS INJURIES EVERY TIME!"

Dave, we have the whole scientific community (expect a couple of wingnuts) on our "bridge".
If you think you got evidence that its theories are flawed, why don't you send a paper to a scientific journal? If you want the YECs to take over the world within ten years, you should begin today.
I'll be checking Nature and Science for the next decade.

:D

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < ... 177 178 179 180 181 [182] 183 184 185 186 187 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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