RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 196 197 198 199 200 [201] 202 >   
  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. 21 2006,08:35   

Quote
Er, Davie-moron, when you consider many other "Earth age indicators" (which you have not done), they all agree with the whole-rock isochrons to an almost frightening degree of precision .. the Earth and life are old.

Just to reinforce what Jon said above:
*******All Ages in Billyuns and Billllyuns of Years******
Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar whole rock 3.49 +- 0.05        Apollo 17 Rb-Sr isochron 4.55 +- 0.1
Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar whole rock 3.52 +- 0.04        Apollo 17 Rb-Sr isochron 4.60 +- 0.1
Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar plagioclase 3.57 +- 0.05        Apollo 17 Rb-Sr isochron 4.49
Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar plagioclase 3.56 +- 0.06        Apollo 17 Rb-Sr isochron 4.43 +- 0.05
Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar ilmenite 3.58 +- 0.05             Apollo 17 Sm-Nd isochron 4.23 +- 0.05
Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 40Ar/39Ar pyroxene 3.55 +- 0.05          Apollo 17 Sm-Nd isochron 4.34 +- 0.05
Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 Rb-Sr isochron 3.57 +- 0.05                   Apollo 16 40Ar/39Ar 4.47
Apollo 11 - High-K basalt 10072 Sm-Nd isochron 3.57 +- 0.03                 Apollo 16 40Ar/39Ar 4.42

Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) Rb-Sr isochron                   3.70 +- 0.12
Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) 207Pb-206Pb isochron      3.80 +- 0.12
Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) U-Pb discordia     3.65 +- 0.05
Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) Th-Pb discordia    3.65 +- 0.08
Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) Lu-Hf isochron     3.55 +- 0.22
*******Meteorites**********
Juvinas (achondrite) Mineral isochron                               4.60 +- 0.07
Allende (carbonaceous chondrite) Mixed isochron            4.5 - 4.7
Colomera (silicon inclusion, iron met.) Mineral isochron     4.61 +- 0.04
Krahenberg (amphoterite) Mineral isochron                      4.70 +- 0.1
Norton County (achondrite) Mineral isochron                   4.7 +- .1
Enstatite chondrites Whole-rock isochron                         4.54 +- 0.13
Enstatite chondrites Mineral isochron                                4.56 +- 0.15
Carbonaceous chondrites Whole-rock isochron                4.69 +- 0.14
Amphoterite chondrites Whole-rock isochron                  4.56 +- 0.15
Bronzite chondrites Whole-rock isochron                        4.69 +- 0.14
Hypersthene chondrites Whole-rock isochron                 4.48 +- 0.14

All of these are taken from Dalrymple. I suggest you go buy his book and contribute to the continued publication of science, AirHead. Or visit a library, that strange place that holds books , so many, many books that you have never read...and which say you're wrong beyond mere wrong, you're simply comical. Stupid, fanatical and blindly in error is a bad way for a sheep to go through life and does a disservice to any God worthy of the name.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,08:47   

Face it, Dave: you're getting your ass handed to you in this discussion of isochrons. JonF has repeatedly asked you questions that you cannot answer, and meanwhile has rebutted every single point you've ever made. You're hopelessly outclassed here, Dave, and it shows.

So why don't you try something you have a prayer of understanding: take a sphere of molten iron (pure iron, melting point 1811 K), with no impurities that would slow the rate of cooling. That sphere masses 6 X 10E24 Kg. How long will it take that iron sphere to cool in a vacuum to the point where the surfact temperature is, say, 275 K? You should be able to do the calculations without too much difficulty, Dave. What do you suppose the answer is going to be? Is it going to be 6,000 years or less? Is it going to be 1,500 years or less? Is it going to be 1 year or less? Because even a result of one year or more will utterly falsify your young-earth "hypothesis," with no escape other than appeal to miracles.

Don't be a coward, Dave. Answer the question. I already know you won't like the answer.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,08:52   

Steve is a selfish bastard and he just wants you to quit before anyone tops his TARD chart.

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

  
Robert O'Brien



Posts: 348
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,09:03   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2006,13:02)
Robert--  Glad you liked the "Watchmaker" ... feel free to join in any time on my thread here.  As you can see, I'm slightly outnumbered.

Hi Dave. I can't help you with YEC, since I accept that the earth is billions of years old. I can only help you to the extent that I am a theist who thinks the biological sciences rest on an inferior epistemological foundation.

--------------
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

    
Henry J



Posts: 4617
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,09:05   

Somebody mentioned the periodic table above, so thought I'd put in this link:

WebElements™

  
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,09:05   

or is it that I don't want any thread to surpass Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread? No, I'm just moody. Sometimes I see AFDave as hilariously dim, and other times, he's terribly boring.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,09:08   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2006,12:38)
You don't know any of this ... why don't you be honest and admit it is speculation?  And your speculation is no better than my speculation.

Why do all the isotopic ratios in chondrites converge towards 4.5 billion years instead of various ages from 0 to 6000 years, genius?

Is god testing our faith again?  :O

And I'm still waiting your explanation about the Atlantic ridge.  :(

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,09:15   

Oh, and one more question, Dave (not that it hasn't been asked before ad nauseum): how does the fact that watches do not reproduce not completely invalidate your "watchmaker" analogy?

Any ideas? Or are you just going to ignore this as yet another question you cannot possibly answer?

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

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,09:30   

AFDave,
I begin to understand why people call you names on this board.  However, I have patience to engage in your present rambling explanations.  But first you have to show some knowledge of the material that you presented.

What you (and Arndts and Overn) are not recognizing is the actual formation of crystaline structures from a homogenous melt.  The melt may have 5 (or 7 or 9 or more) different elements that form a crystal structure.  With these elements, you may have preferrential crystallization of one type of crystal in one zone and another type of crystal in another zone of the solidification front as the melt cools.  Since there are MANY crystals in any rock there can be areas between the actual crystals that are amorphous in nature.  A granite countertop would be pretty bland if this were not the case.

To carry on with the technical side of this discussion you have to understand some terms.  
Face-Centered-Cubic, Body-Centered-Cubic, Hexagonal-Close-Packed.  These are unit cells of a crystal.
The unit cells can combine into different geometries like, Cubic, Hexagonal, Tetragonal, Rhombohedral, Orthorhombic, Monoclinic, Triclinic.
Depending on the unit cell AND the lattice geometry, an impurity may be substituted either interstitially (between crystal atoms) or substitutuinally (replacing atoms in the crystal matrix) depending on the impurities atomic size and the crystal structure.
Also, impurities may be present at the crystal boundries because of linear defects or grain boundries in the crystalline mass.

OK? Are you still with me?

To summerize into usefull bullet points.

*WHOLE ROCK ANALYSIS CAN CONTAIN IMPURITIES FROM INTERSTITIAL, SUBSTITUTIONAL, LINEAR BOUNDRY, OR GRAIN BOUNDRY DEFECTS ALONG WITH AMORPHOUS AREAS OF THE ROCK.
*THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF THESE DEFECTS IS RANDOM. which means...
*THE NUMBER OF Rb AND Sr ATOMS IN ANY ONE WHOLE ROCK SAMPLES IS SOMEWHAT RANDOMIZED.
*A WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRON ANALYSIS WILL SHOW DIFFERENT POINTS ON A LINEAR LINE RELATIONSHIP.
*ALL OF THIS VARIABILITY WAS FROM AN INITIAL, HOMOGENEOUS MELT.


Dalrymple probably didn't engage Arndts and Overn because the argument they used against Dalrymple was so basically flawed why should he respond to such simpleton accusations.

Back to you AFDave.

Mike PSS

****This information from my sophmore MatSci text.  It fits since AFDave's arguments are very sophmoric in nature.****

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,10:09   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 21 2006,14:27)
Ah, now I see.  They are allowing the varying mineral composition at different spots to substitute for isolation of individual minerals.

Yup. Well put; I may use that. Davie-doodles (and Arendts and Overn) can't figure that out.

  
PeterEvolves



Posts: 2
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,10:20   

Quote
A lot hinges on this, too.  What people think about origins and the nature of mankind is VITALLY important to law and society.  This is why you see me being so passionate about this issue.

Note: I am interjecting here to a much earlier thing that I still find fascinating after reading this awesome array of posts dismantling this amazingly inane argument.

I find the above quotation a stunning thing to write about the law, Dave, given that you apparently have no respect for the scientific method in your mind. The functionality of the U.S. legal system hinges considerably more on the scientific method and logic than you seem to be able to muster AND it functions so well because of its reliance on the presentation and logical (if emotionally laden) explanation of that evidence. You will find that the areligious (not anti-religious) nature of our legal system and its avoidance of a priori religious stances has ensured a much higher degree of fairness than those systems that existed before it.

Think of the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition or the present legal systems run by theocracies across the globe. What kind of evidence need be presented? None need be when you have the power of divine inspiration on your side. God fills in the blanks.

I have read so many posts here as a lurker and I find your lack of evidentiary respect so shoddy. You just keep moving the goal posts around trying to avoid the conflict that must arise in that fantastically evolved cortex when it is confronted by so much evidence.

Don't make us laugh by saying that you are serious about the law. You may be serious about some kind of anti-Enlightenment (your beliefs are antiquated beyond the 18th century) and anti-educational law rooted in a sectarian reading of the Bible (which translation I also wonder). You are serious about your ideology. You are not serious about U.S. law as it is rooted in the Enlightenment and the respect of evidence and reason.

You are a sham.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,10:22   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 21 2006,15:30)
Depending on the unit cell AND the lattice geometry, an impurity may be substituted either interstitially (between crystal atoms) or substitutuinally (replacing atoms in the crystal matrix) depending on the impurities atomic size and the crystal structure.

And, especially for substitutions, the electrochemical properties of the impurity atom.
 
Quote
*WHOLE ROCK ANALYSIS CAN CONTAIN IMPURITIES FROM INTERSTITIAL, SUBSTITUTIONAL, LINEAR BOUNDRY, OR GRAIN BOUNDRY DEFECTS ALONG WITH AMORPHOUS AREAS OF THE ROCK.
*THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF THESE DEFECTS IS RANDOM. which means...
*THE NUMBER OF Rb AND Sr ATOMS IN ANY ONE WHOLE ROCK SAMPLES IS SOMEWHAT RANDOMIZED.

I don't quite agree; many of the ways impurities are incorporated are indeed random, but substitution typically is not.  But the chemical effects, of course, lead to enrichment or depletion in the melt as various crystals form from it, and inhomogeneous temperature effects contribute too, and all sorts of things show up that complicate the picture far beyond Davie's "it all freezes at once" level of understanding ... eventualy leading to initial spatial inhomogeneity in the solidified rocks as well as the minerals, and therefore, as you wrote:
 
Quote
*A WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRON ANALYSIS WILL SHOW DIFFERENT POINTS ON A LINEAR LINE RELATIONSHIP.
*ALL OF THIS VARIABILITY WAS FROM AN INITIAL, HOMOGENEOUS MELT.

FYI, FWIW, you can make neat lists with:

{list]
{*}Item 1
{*}Item 2
{/list}

Replacing the curly braces with square brackets.
 
Quote
Dalrymple probably didn't engage Arndts and Overn because the argument they used against Dalrymple was so basically flawed why should he respond to such simpleton accusations.

Dalrymple did a certain amount of responding to simpleton accusations. He engaged Arndts and Overn's argument at Isochrons and Mixing Lines, and apparently in an NCSE publication that's not on the web (I had hardcopy but have lost it, and don't rmemeber the details).  But Arndts and Overn didn't bring up anything new after Dalrymple fisked them, so there's no need to re-engage.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,10:39   

Quote (PeterEvolves @ Sep. 21 2006,15:20)
Don't make us laugh by saying that you are serious about the law. You may be serious about some kind of anti-Enlightenment (your beliefs are antiquated beyond the 18th century) and anti-educational law rooted in a sectarian reading of the Bible (which translation I also wonder). You are serious about your ideology. You are not serious about U.S. law as it is rooted in the Enlightenment and the respect of evidence and reason.

Been there, done that.  Dave rejects the notion that the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the nascent United States was derived from Enlightenment thinking. He has found his one book, his bible if you will, in the work of David Barton.  America is a Christian nation, by God, and 200 years of scholarship and the Founders own words, will never convince him otherwise.  That whole discussion is getting boring too.

Now if we want to really liven things up around here, we ought to see if we can get him on about macroeconomic theory. He has already stated that Keynesian economics is a myth and I, for one, would like to see him try to pull down the foundation of modern macroeconomic theory.  Should be good fun.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,10:59   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 21 2006,15:39)
Now if we want to really liven things up around here, we ought to see if we can get him on about macroeconomic theory. He has already stated that Keynesian economics is a myth and I, for one, would like to see him try to pull down the foundation of modern macroeconomic theory.  Should be good fun.

Or it would be, except Dave can't even answer the most elementary questions about his own "hypothesis," e.g, how does the existence of the Andromeda Galaxy not falsify his 6,000 year old cosmos, how long would it take a globe of molten iron the size of the earth to cool to a solid surface, how the fact that watches don't reproduce doesn't invalidate his "watchmaker" analogy, how even one object dated anywhere via any method to more than 6,000 years doesn't falsify his "hypothesis," etc. These are basic questions that any simpleton should be able to answer, but Dave's not up to the task.

It's hard enough to keep Dave on-topic on this thread—actually, he's never actually been on-topic, since he's never provided any support for his hypothesis. I'd suggest any debates on other topics, e.g., Keynesian economics, be moved to another thread.

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

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,11:23   

JonF,
     
Quote
     
Quote
(Mike PSS @ Sep. 21 2006,15:30)
Depending on the unit cell AND the lattice geometry, an impurity may be substituted either interstitially (between crystal atoms) or substitutuinally (replacing atoms in the crystal matrix) depending on the impurities atomic size and the crystal structure.


And, especially for substitutions, the electrochemical properties of the impurity atom.
     
Quote

*WHOLE ROCK ANALYSIS CAN CONTAIN IMPURITIES FROM INTERSTITIAL, SUBSTITUTIONAL, LINEAR BOUNDRY, OR GRAIN BOUNDRY DEFECTS ALONG WITH AMORPHOUS AREAS OF THE ROCK.
*THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF THESE DEFECTS IS RANDOM. which means...
*THE NUMBER OF Rb AND Sr ATOMS IN ANY ONE WHOLE ROCK SAMPLES IS SOMEWHAT RANDOMIZED.


I don't quite agree; many of the ways impurities are incorporated are indeed random, but substitution typically is not.  But the chemical effects, of course, lead to enrichment or depletion in the melt as various crystals form from it, and inhomogeneous temperature effects contribute too, and all sorts of things show up that complicate the picture far beyond Davie's "it all freezes at once" level of understanding ... eventualy leading to initial spatial inhomogeneity in the solidified rocks as well as the minerals, and therefore, as you wrote:{snip}
(my bold)

Thanks for the clarification.  I had thought of saying something similar to the bolded comment at first but thought a bit of explanation of how spatial inhomogenaity could be structurally formed.  I left the selection issue out of the discussion because I knew you were trying to hammer it into AFDave already.  I was then going to carry-on about the material balance and mass transfer issues at the solidification front of the melt but thought I would end the message with what I had.  Your summary above states it pretty well.
 
AFDave,
Do you agree with the structural mechanisms I presented?  Do they exist in your hypothesis?  If not, why not?

Mike PSS

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1029
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,11:26   

Quote
Or it would be, except Dave can't even answer the most elementary questions about his own "hypothesis," e.g, how does the existence of the Andromeda Galaxy not falsify his 6,000 year old cosmos, how long would it take a globe of molten iron the size of the earth to cool to a solid surface, how the fact that watches don't reproduce doesn't invalidate his "watchmaker" analogy, how even one object dated anywhere via any method to more than 6,000 years doesn't falsify his "hypothesis," etc. These are basic questions that any simpleton should be able to answer, but Dave's not up to the task.

It's hard enough to keep Dave on-topic on this thread—actually, he's never actually been on-topic, since he's never provided any support for his hypothesis. I'd suggest any debates on other topics, e.g., Keynesian economics, be moved to another thread.


Just an observation:  AFDave completely ignores any issue that he has no cut-and-paste or canned YEC "argument" to use for an "answer".  Something contrary to his beliefs has no existence (other than as an evil anti-faith claim) unless and until it has an answer that he is stupid enough to glom onto.

Of course the failures of his "answers" are spectacular, since neither he nor his sources have any reasonable grasp of science.  But that's beside the point that he treats anything not having a YEC "answer" as if it doesn't exist, or with some idle boast that he's sure he could as handily defeat, say, DNA dating, as he has radiometric dating, or some such ignorant fantasy.

OK, this is not rocket science.  However, it does point out how thorough his denial of any contrary evidence is, as anything not "explained", however badly, is denied point blank.  AIG BS is just a further form of denial, of course, since he neither understands nor cares about the actual science.  It is the denial that matters, not whether or not one could actually do science with his "hypothesis".  Clearly one could not do science with his or AIG's "hypothesis", which makes these people hostile to working science.

It's worth noting that near the beginning of this thread AFDave claimed that he wasn't so much out to bring in new evidence as a new way of thinking.  The trouble was that denial is not a new way of thinking.  Indeed, it is something that most of us have taken some trouble to get away from.  This doesn't change the fact that this "way of thinking" is all that AFDave has to offer, and it is something that prevents him from learning how to think in a way that treats data non-prejudicially.  

That's a given, though, since he's only trying to shore up his prejudices.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,12:22   

AFDave,
Is this your data interpretation filter? (found here)
     
Quote
Implications of the Old Earth Position
It is obvious that belief in a 4.6 billion-year-old earth and a 15 billion-year-old universe did not come from the Bible, for there is not a hint of evolution or long geological ages anywhere in the Bible. My book, Biblical Creationism, for example, examines every relevant verse in every book of the Bible, and there is no suggestion anywhere of the geological or astronomical ages that are widely assumed today. The concepts of evolution and an infinitely old cosmos are often found in the ancient pagan religions, but never in the original Judaeo-Christian literature.

Therefore, Christians who want to harmonize the standard geological/astronomical age system with Scripture must use eisegesis, not exegesis, to do so. That is, they have to try to interpret Scripture in such a way as to make it fit modern scientism. We believe on the other hand, that the only way we can really honor the Bible as God's inspired Word is to assume it as authoritative on all subjects with which it deals. That means we must use the Bible to interpret scientific data, not use naturalistic presuppositions to direct our Bible interpretations.

Those who choose the latter course, however, embark on a very slippery slope that ends in a precipice. For if the long geological ages really took place, that means there were at least a billion years of suffering and death in the animal kingdom before the arrival of men and women in the world. Each geological "age" is identified by the types of dead organisms now preserved as fossils in the rocks of that age, and there are literally billions of such fossils buried in the earth's crust. This fact leads to the following very disturbing chain of conclusions, as follows:


    [1]God is not really a God of grace and mercy after all, for He seems to have created a world filled with animals suffering and dying for a billion years, and He did so for no apparent reason whatever, assuming that His ultimate goal was to create human beings for fellowship with Himself.
    [2]The Bible is not really an au thoritative guide, for if it is wrong in these important matters of science and history, which we supposedly can check for ourselves, using the usual criteria of scientific and historical investigation, then how can we trust it in matters of salvation, heaven, and everlasting life, which we have no means of verifying scientifically?
    (and on and on and on and on.........)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,12:59   

For someone who had never been exposed to any sort of science before, or religion for that matter, there's a pretty simple method for making an assessment as to which is more likely: an old earth or a really, really young earth.

Literally hundreds of thousands of books, papers, articles, etc. provide evidence for an earth at least a few billion years old, and a cosmos at least twice as old as the earth. Virtually every branch of science there is provides some support for an old earth and an older universe. Such evidence is provided by such diverse disciplines as astronomy, chemistry, geology, biology, and physics.

On the other hand, there is one source for the belief in an earth 6,000 years old: the Bible.

So, one can believe that literally all of science, and everything ever written about science in the last 100 years—all those hundreds of thousands of books, papers, articles, literally terabytes if not exabytes of data—is wrong.

Or, one can believe that one book is wrong.

Knowing nothing at all about theology, science, or the scientific method, which seems more likely?

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

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,15:23   

Wee Davey hasn't popped his head out of his hidey=hole at all on this page.

Like one of those blowup punching dolls slowly running out of gas, it's taking roundheeled Dave longer and longer to roll back into the upright position.

Only to immediately be smacked down again.

Dave: it's been ugly for quite a while; now it's just pitiful.

Time to stay down for the count, "Rock"-y.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,18:54   

This is what I love about Dave's religion:
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,21:52)
 I am sorry that you don't like "my" Jesus.  You will bow before Him someday whether you like Him or not.  I'm simply here to warn you before it's too late.

I always thought Jesus was "the Truth, the Light, and the Way." Evidently not. Jesus, in Dave's constipated little universe, is a fascist jerk who demands obeisance and worship like some sort of infantile, insecure little tyrant. Just like Dave's god: he so desperately wants approval from his slaves that he'll wipe them all out if he doesn't get it.

Dave, your religion fills me with revulsion.

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2006,19:47   

PeterEvolves & Carsonjok (not to mention those who know who they are) are on the money with AFD.


PeterEvolves:
Quote
.....Dave, given that you apparently have no respect for the scientific method in your mind. The functionality of the U.S. legal system hinges considerably more on the scientific method and logic than you seem to be able to muster AND it functions so well because of its reliance on the presentation and logical (if emotionally laden) explanation of that evidence. You will find that the areligious (not anti-religious) nature of our legal system and its avoidance of a priori religious stances has ensured a much higher degree of fairness than those systems that existed before it.


AFD and his ilk must maintain a kind of post modernist funk where the rules of evidence are carelessly twisted if not completely disregarded to create the impression they are following them.

That is why the only way they can ever hope their insane version of reality will be accepted is to have SOTUS change the rules of evidence.

Of course if that were to happen the rule of Law would be completely bankrupt and the Crazies would be in charge of the Asylum....one can only speculate what would happen then...reasoning people becoming unreasonable?

Fortunately there are some people who realize this, however given that their dear leader Mr 30% ...Korn God GWB has failed dismally to convince even 'some of the people' ....the 30% being the proverbial backwash, I for one can't see that happening soon.

AFD stop lying to yourself.

You do understand if you had to support your case in a court you would be laughed out of it in next to no time.

Speaking of which how is your congregation going with that financial scandle ?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,04:41   

MIKE PSS AND JONF ARE DISPLAYING THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF MINERAL CRYSTAL FORMATION, BUT MISSING THE FATAL FLAW IN WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS



Very impressive display, guys ... I see you have a good command of all the intricacies of how mineral crystals form.  Now, why don't you face the fact that ...

a) Whole Rock Isochrons were far more common that Mineral Isochrons for many years (at least up until the mid-90's, and
b) Whole Rock Isochrons can easily be explained as Mixing Diagrams, thus rendering them unconvincing as proof of Deep Time

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.

Think of it another way.  Take 2 of those 23 meteorites we were discussing ... for example, take the ones with D and P equal to 0.708/0.18 and 0.81/1.7, the lower left data point and the upper right data point.  

Now melt them and mix them completely.  What do you get?  A SINGLE POINT ISOCHRON

Now rewind the tape.  Melt them again and mix them IN-completely, like in the picture above.  What do you get now?  A MULTI-POINT ISOCHRON EXACTLY LIKE THE MINSTER PLOT

Now do you see?  The point is that those 23 meteorites could have easily come from a source that was partially mixed.  (I've actually been reading Walt Brown's theory of meteorites here http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids.html ... pretty interesting, but I'm not prepared to debate this yet) .  I have read that the "Exploded Planet Theory" of the asteroids is evidently wrong, but I don't think the "Failed Planet Formation" theory has much support either.  Another new thing I learned is that apparently, meteoroids are not "chips off of asteroids," but more likely are "chips off Planet Earth."  See the link above for references.

In any case, it is quite easy to imagine that these meteorites are the result of varying degrees of mixing within a common source.  Partial mixing is actually quite common ... happens all the time when a volcano erupts.  As the magma rises through the fissure, it is mixed to a greater or lesser degree with crustal layers, finally escaping and being deposited in a heterogeneous mixture.

Sorry, guys ... you have failed to convince me that Whole Rock Isochron diagrams are of any use for proving Deep Time.  They COULD be interpreted that way, but it is more logical and consistent with the evidence to NOT interpret them that way.

*******************************

TIDBITS

JonF made a big deal a while back about how wrong I supposedly was about how popular the K-Ar "dating" method is ... I said what the RATE Group said (p. 37 of the RATE Book, Vol 1), which is basically that K-Ar is the most popular dating method.  Jon laughed at me and said I was crazy and that the RATE guys are liars, blah, blah, blah ...

So yesterday, Jon posted this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html#h22 which he says is Dalrymple's response to Arndts and Overn's article found here http://tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html

Hmmm ... Jon, guess what this article says ...
Quote
The K-Ar method is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists.
Now who's the liar?

I like this quote from Dalrymple's article also ...
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.
Yeah, a great deal of effort alright ... a great deal of effort to pick samples that will "date correctly" ... i.e. align with the "Deep Time Religion" ... can anyone say "Cherry Picking" ??

and this one ...
Quote
Unlike argon, which escapes easily and entirely from most molten rocks,
Seems likes Snelling and AFD said something like this once ... now we have Dalrymple himself saying it.  Hmmmm ... Jon ... fraudsters, huh?  I don't think so.

If you continue reading Dalrymple's rebuttal, it becomes clear that whoever said that Dalrymple wouldn't waste his time rebutting Overn and Arndts was wrong.  He spends quite a bit of his paper on them ... makes 5 points, which Overn and Arndts promptly rebutted here http://tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons.html.

I like this particular rebuttal of Dalrymple's Point 4 ...
Quote
4. If isochrons are due to mixing, roughly one-half should show a negative slope. It is probable that if all samples gathered from the field for testing by this method resulted in published curves, that a reasonably large percentage would be negative. However, since little significance is given to these "mixing lines", and because of the time and expense involved in obtaining the data, few negative-slope plots could be expected to be completed, and a much smaller number of those published. A significant sample does show up in the literature, however, which should be sufficient to satisfy a judgment that the field data satisfy this criterion.


In support of this, check out Snelling's data from Mt. Ngauruhoe ... (we're using the Talk Origins convention of P/Di and D/Di)



Article is found here http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCMt_Ngauruhoe-AAS.pdf

Not a very nice positive slope line now, is it?

Hmmmm ... what would I find if I spent a lot of money and did an extensive literature search ...

Probably the same thing.

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,05:02   

Wow ArtFraud lies4children Dave.

So ......has your congregation decided not to sue you and your shonky pastor?

What would it take AFD? have you covered up all the paper trail? What about the bank accounts ? 900 odd people AFD..... there must be someone who has an axe to grind. Anyone asking leading questions..any threats?..nasty letters?

Come on give us the good oil.

Back to your purty piktures ..just arant nonsense...how do I know? It's your MO half a D.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,05:21   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 22 2006,09:41)
MIKE PSS AND JONF ARE DISPLAYING THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF MINERAL CRYSTAL FORMATION, BUT MISSING THE FATAL FLAW IN WHOLE ROCK ISOCHRONS

Dave, you still don't get it: the chances that you, a complete dilettante in the field of radiometric dating techniques, could catch a fatal flaw in the methodologies that have eluded experts in the field for decades, are zero.

ZERO.

JonF has made it abundantly clear that he's forgotten more about radiometric dating techniques than you'll ever know, and the chances that you can educate him about anything in the subject are likewise zero.

ZERO.

The chances that young-earth creationists, who have an obvious and admitted agenda, are going to be honest with you in trying to find reasons why every single last bit of evidence for an old earth is wrong are likewise zero.

ZERO.

And the chances that any evidence whatsoever, no matter how compelling, could convince you that you're wrong about anything, are likewise zero.

ZERO.

So what stock should we put in a statement from you that you don't find the evidence "convincing"?

What do you think?

--------------
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: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,06:45   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 22 2006,10:41)

Very impressive display, guys ... I see you have a good command of all the intricacies of how mineral crystals form.


And you still don't have the faintest idea.

Quote
Now, why don't you face the fact that ...

a) Whole Rock Isochrons were far more common that Mineral Isochrons for many years (at least up until the mid-90's,


Unsupported assertion ... in fact, if your test of it is valid, it's falsified:

Results 1 - 10 of about 385 for isochron "whole rock" 1981-1990
Results 1 - 10 of about 478 for isochron mineral 1981-1990

Quote
Whole Rock Isochrons can easily be explained as Mixing Diagrams, thus rendering them unconvincing as proof of Deep Time

Only if you ignore 99.99% of the evidence, including Arndts and Overns' own tests which showed several isochrons severely scattered on a mixing diagram.  Repeating lies don't make 'em true, moron.
 
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.


Actually, I can and do have it both ways.  I realize that this is very basic chemistry and therefore far above your capabilities, and we've only gone over it at least two times before, so it's unreasonable to expect you to have caught on yet.  But I'll go over it again. I'm warning you, though, it's going to be difficult for you; you'll have to keep three ideas in your head at one time, and it's obvious you're not accustomed to have any ideas in your head at any time. But I'm here for you, and I'm confident that if you try hard and really concentrate you can handle it.  Ready?  Stoked?  Here we go!

  • Different isotopes of the same element are chemically and mechanically identical.
  • Solidification is a chemical (and slightly mechanical) process.
  • Therefore, solidification cannot and does not distinguish between isotopes of the same element.

Got that?  I know you love wide-spaced caps, so to help you fix it in your mind: S O L I D I F I C A T I O N   C A N N O T   A N D   D O E S   N O T   D I S T I N G U I S H   B E T W E E N   I S O T O P E S   O F   T H E   S A M E   E L E M E N T .  Hold that thought if you can, we're going to the next stage:

  • Different elements have different chemical and mechanical properties.
  • Solidification is a chemical (and slightly mechanical) process.
  • Therefore, solidification can and does distinguish between different elements.

Here it is again, in your favorite format to help you remember: S O L I D I F I C A T I O N   C A N   A N D   D O E S   D I S T I N G U I S H   B E T W E E N   D I F F E R E N T   E L E M E N T S.

In particular, when we are talking about the 87Sr/86Sr ratio during solidification, we are talking about how solidification affects different isotopes of the same element, and we know it affects them identically; so, no matter how little or how much Sr is taken up in a particular crystal, we know that the 87Sr/86Sr ratio in that crystal will be the same as in the melt, and the 87Sr/86Sr ratio in the melt doesn't change.  But when we are talking about how Rb is taken up into crystals (substituting for other elements or fitting mechanically in "nooks and crannies"), or what the Rb/Sr ratio is in a crystal, we are talking about how solidification affects different elements, and we know that it affects them differently. For example, if a particular type of crystal happens to take up a lot of Rb when it solidifies, that reduces the percentage of the local melt that is Rb; or, if a particular type of crystal happens to reject a lot of Rb when it solidifies, that increases the percentage of the local melt that is Rb.  And different types of crystals are forming in different places in the melt, depending on temperature and cooling rate and dynamically changing concentrations of various elements and all sorts of stuff.  Now add in the fact the all this is affecting the Sr concentration in crystals and we come to the final conclusion:

The 87Rb/86Sr ratio is going to vary between different minerals, and between the same minerals in different paces in the solidified melt, and different minerals are going to form in different places in the solidified melt, and therefore the rocks we take from that solidifed melt "shortly" after solidification are going to be made up of different minerals and/or the same minerals in different proportions ... the 87Rb/86Sr ratio is going to vary between rocks and the 87Sr/86Sr ratio is not going to vary between rocks.

It all follows directly from the facts that solidification cannot and does not distinguish between isotopes of the same element and solidification can and does distinguish between different elements.

Oh, and Davie-poo ... melt solidification has been extensively studied and tested.  We know this happens 'cause we see it in the lab.  Observations trump your pipe dreams.
   
Quote
Think of it another way.  Take 2 of those 23 meteorites we were discussing ... for example, take the ones with D and P equal to 0.708/0.18 and 0.81/1.7, the lower left data point and the upper right data point.  

Now melt them and mix them completely.  What do you get?

After solidifying, a body with constant 87Sr/86Sr ratio and varying 87Rb/87Sr ratio.  I.e., a multi-point horizontal isochron.
     
Quote
Hmmm ... Jon, guess what this article says ...        
Quote
The K-Ar method is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists.
Now who's the liar?

You, Davie.  I admitted I had no proof for popularity back then, it was just my opinion, but I posted three independent pieces of evidence, each of which proved that your claim that K-Ar is recently the most popular dating technique is wrong.
     
Quote
I like this quote from Dalrymple's article also ...        
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.
Yeah, a great deal of effort alright ... a great deal of effort to pick samples that will "date correctly" ... i.e. align with the "Deep Time Religion" ... can anyone say "Cherry Picking" ??

Nope. Can you say "don't make claims unless you have evidence for them"?
      
Quote
I like this particular rebuttal of Dalrymple's Point 4 ...        
Quote
4. If isochrons are due to mixing, roughly one-half should show a negative slope. It is probable that if all samples gathered from the field for testing by this method resulted in published curves, that a reasonably large percentage would be negative. However, since little significance is given to these "mixing lines", and because of the time and expense involved in obtaining the data, few negative-slope plots could be expected to be completed, and a much smaller number of those published. A significant sample does show up in the literature, however, which should be sufficient to satisfy a judgment that the field data satisfy this criterion.

Actually, I like that a lot.  It demonstrates the vacuity of your position very well.  "A few negative-slope plots are published, therefore about half of the possible plots are negative-slope".  Sure, Davie-dumbo. Yeah, right. Negative-slope isochrons are interesting and publishable, Davie-pootles.  Academics like to publish, it helps their careers.  A few published negative-slope isochrons are evidence that that's all there are, not evidence that a lot more exist.
      
Quote
and this one ...        
Quote
Unlike argon, which escapes easily and entirely from most molten rocks,
Seems likes Snelling and AFD said something like this once ... now we have Dalrymple himself saying it.  Hmmmm ... Jon ... fraudsters, huh?

Yup, analyzing rocks with xenoliths (which were not molten when the rest of the rock was) and claiming the results mean anything is fraud. Clear and simple.

You can't even keep your claims straight, Davie-dweeb.  Real geologists know that argon escapes easily from molten rocks.  Argon that does not escape from molten rocks is called "excess argon", and your claim is that argon does not easily escape from molten rocks, therefore giving rise to lots of excess argon.  Do try to keep up, Davie-pie, there's a good lad.
     
Quote
If you continue reading Dalrymple's rebuttal, it becomes clear that whoever said that Dalrymple wouldn't waste his time rebutting Overn and Arndts was wrong.  He spends quite a bit of his paper on them ...

971 words out of 30,969.  3%.  "Quite a bit", hum?  Wotta dork you are.
      
Quote
In support of this, check out Snelling's data from Mt. Ngauruhoe ... (we're using the Talk Origins convention of P/Di and D/Di)



Article is found here http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCMt_Ngauruhoe-AAS.pdf

Not a very nice positive slope line now, is it?

Oh, Davie, Davie, Davie, Davie, Davie.  You're a classic.  You post so much evidence that disproves your claims and you don't even notice.

The range of Snelling's 87Sr/86Sr values is 0.000507.  The range of 87Sr/86Sr values found in real isochron analysis of old rocks is on the order of 1.0.  E.g.:


Four orders of magnitude larger than Sneling's data range, Davie-dipsy. Hee hee hee hee hee ... gee, wonder what I'll get if I plot Snelling's data  on a realistic scale instead of letting Excel choose the scale for me?  Let's have the Y-axis range be 0.1, one-tenth the realistic range for an old rock:


Gosharootie, Davie-pud, it is a nice straight horizontal line, derived from whole-rock analysis of a young flow, showing significant variation in 87Rb/87Sr but negligible variation in 87Sr/86Sr.  Snelling's data clearly shows what you and Arndts and Overn are claiming is impossible!!!!  
     
Quote
Hmmmm ... what would I find if I spent a lot of money and did an extensive literature search ...

Probably the same thing.

Absolutely, Davie-dip.  You'd find whole-rock isochrons from young flows plotting as nice horizontal lines with wide variations in 87Rb/87Sr and minuscule variations in 87Sr/86Sr.

Hee hee hee hee hee hee ...

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,07:18   

Hey, Davie:

AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis.zip
{abe: fixed link.  Only had one / after http:.}

You can thank me by pointing  out exactly where I said lava is sedimentary, posting your often-promised discussion of the Grand Staircase paleosols, responding to my refutation of your claims about Snelling's paper and zircons, and, of course the list you've ignored so many times:


  • Passing the mixing test is not sufficient evidence for a mixing line.
  • Their own data doesn't support their conclusion; many of their samples failed the mxing test!  They have no evidence that it is even reasonable to interpret those isochrons as mixing lines.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
  • Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing.  No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,07:19   

Quote
I am sorry that you don't like "my" Jesus.  You will bow before Him someday whether you like Him or not.

How do you know that?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,07:32   

Hee hee hee hee ... says JonF ... he's laughing so hard at his wiley ways of tripping me up that he fails to notice that his own champion, Dalrymple himself, tries to prove meteorites are 4.6 BYO with a very similar graph ...



Figure 3: Rb-Sr isochron for the meteorite Juvinas. The points represent analyses on glass, tridymite and quartz, pyroxene, total rock, and plagioclase. After Faure (49). Data from Allegre and others (3).

Hey, Jon ... what would I get if I plotted this on a "normal" graph?

Pretty near a horizontal line, my friend!  See what the range is?  

0.0057 !!!!!!!!!!!

Incidentally, what I showed with my graph is ...

a) WR Isochrons are useless (plotted on a fine scale, they are all over the map) ... hence useless.
b) WR Isochrons are useless (plotted on a "normal" scale they are a horizontal line) ... again useless.

USELESS EITHER WAY YOU SLICE IT, JON.

Your guy is trying to prove meteorites are 4.6 GYO with a range of 0.0057!!!!!!!!!!

And you laugh at my chart!!!!  Oh man, this is great stuff!

(But thanks for the zip file ... you're a good man anyway!;)

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,07:46   

Oops ... your zip file didn't work ...

(sort of like your logic, possibly?)

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10217
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2006,07:52   

http:/www.fleming-group.com/Misc/AF%20Dave's%20UPDATED%20Creator%20God%20Hypothesis.zip

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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