RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,18:09   

Dave,

You never answered...

Does the sun revolve around the earth?....Is the earth the center of the universe?

It's in the Bible...spit it out.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,18:14   

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

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


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

Paley,

You're like the third man in, in a hockey fight.  A born coward/pussy....pick you term.

How about posting something that proves 6000 year Creation.  Back it up or piss off.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
stevestory



Posts: 8964
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,18:28   

I'm happy to report that the page just rolled over with no 'new page bug'.

cheers!

(shot of lime vodka with pomegranate juice)

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2006,19:30   

Quote (bystander @ Sep. 23 2006,20:32)
I have some questions from my nine year old. As AFDave is trying to poison/teach kids with his website these might be appropriate as most kids wont understand dating (also Dave doesn't seem to understand it either).

Pretty embarrassing, isn't it, Dave, that a 9-year-old can ask questions about your "hypothesis" that you can't answer.

But you believe your hypothesis is correct because of "the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of it." Except you can't remember what any of that evidence is…

--------------
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: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,00:56   

DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ... I have been unable to do so yet, and I assume others have not either.  I downloaded Jon Fleming's zip file but when I expanded it, I had the same original problem of too large a file size to handle.  If anyone (Jon?) knows how to make the thread into a downloadable text file (instead of an HTML file), this might work for everyone.  Then you could open it in notepad and search as needed.  I think many of you would be able to find what I have already said about many of your questions if you could do this.  I see that Improvius has already found my statements on accelerated nuclear decay--good!

FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?

WHO'S THE REAL REGURGITATORS?
JonF...
Quote
My opinion is that Davie doesn't think at all; he just regurgitates.  He hasn't caught on that, if accelerated decay happened, all this stuff about excess argon and mixing and what-not is irrelevant.  He also hasn't caught on (despite being told many times) that accelerated decay causes more problems than it solves; melting the Earth, killing people with the radioactivity from the radioactive atoms in their bodies, and what-not. Of course, accelerated decay is inherently and explicitly magic and not science.
Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.  

ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
You are correct that all the hoopla about excess Ar etc is NA if accelerated decay happened, but one of my goals is simply to get people thinking ... and pointing out that they have swallowed a very popular myth for many years is a good way to do it.  Some of you will say "Hmmmm ... I used to think Argon dating was accurate, but look at this evidence, and look at that evidence ... wow, I guess not.  I wonder what ELSE I've been taught is wrong."  IF accelerated decay happened, it happened mostly before life was created.

MAGIC? OR SIMPLY "HIGH-TECH"
I've said this before but it is worth repeating ...

"Miracles" by God or by any superhuman being are not really miracles at all ... they are simply high tech: technology which WE do not presently understand.  So they are miracles to US, but not to the Being performing them.  A native in the middle of deep dark Africa might think that our technology is magic also.  And to him it is.  But to us it is not because we understand it.  So let's quit spouting nonsense about "magic" and "miracles" shall we?

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

Eric...you need to go read Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory again.  He answers a lot of your questions.  Not saying I agree with him totally, but he's got some good guesses.  Which parts of his answers to your questions did you not understand or agree with and why?  www.creationscience.com

Skeptic ... p. 82 of the old thread answers your question very thoroughly.  Hopefully a downloadable text file will be available soon.  I also hope to rev up my blog and post these things for reference over there.

Those folks asking about hydrodynamic sorting should also search my old thread.

Monday we will continue with radiometric dating and look at mineral isochrons, concordia/discordia, etc.

--------------
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: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,01:02   

Quote
ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY

Interesting. Can your hypothesis explain this?

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,01:09   

STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

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


Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

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

Details please, Jeannot?

--------------
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: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,01:41   

There aren't enough details four you, Davey? You have a model but you're not quite sure whether it fits the 65-135 Myear-old crust near the shoreline and you want to be sure it's not 64-134 million years? Man, I wish I had an irony-meter. :D
You could just give your typical explanation like "accelerated decay made the tectonic plates look older than they are, tada!". And then "we have successfully covered plate tectonics, blah blah... I declare victory. :)"

Since you seem a bit lazy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,02:16   

:angry: "He's all over the place! 900 feet to 1300 feet!?!  What an #######!"   Airplane

 Part TWO!!!!  NOOOooooo!!!!!

 This guy isn't worth the first of any decent homo sapiens two cents!

 I beg of you all, let Dave die the miserable, lonely troll's death he deserves!  Not one lurker is ever going to be persuaded by his drooling lies and Xian faux-frindliness.

 Let him be remembered as the dumbest troll ever, with a permanent link to "Part 1" as his headstone (perhaps one like those painted styrofoam ones at the "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" tourist traps: "Here lies [how apt a metaphor!] Les Moore..."). but let it die!!!!!! :O

  
Steverino



Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,02:56   

Dave,

"FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?"

Now who is being disingenuous?  Are you attempting to interpret the written word of God?

So that whole Galileo being tossed in prison was just about turn of phrase??? Can't have it both ways.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,03:50   

Quote
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.

Yeah, like flying hydroplates of continents zipping around the Earth at speeds that would boil off every drop of water on the planet.
Or accellerated decay.
Or "fountains of the deep " that mysteriously vanished...
and floodwaters that flew off into space.
And a global flood that left no identifiable global strata, nor can any creationist identify the beginning of the flood anywhere by strata.
Or how about that testable hypothesis about "God created the Earth 6000 years ago?"
Or maybe the testable hypothesis of accellerated speciation that resulted in millions of new species in a two thousand year span?
Or how about that ice age that happened after the flood that NO ONE in history ever wrote about?
Or maybe the testable hypothesis of dinos that lived..AFTER the flood, 'cause NOAH, according to DumbAssDave...had dinos on the ark!! BWAHAHAHA
Yeah, real "testable" stuff there, Stupid.
By the way, AirHead, I love your pretense at "being scientific" after you fail to show how to falsify your hypothesis

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

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,03:59   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
STUPID QUESTIONS ... YES, THERE IS SUCH A THING

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


Maybe this particular question was not really stupid, but many like it have been ... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably, such as the supposed common ancestor of apes and humans, and radiometric dating methods.  Now immediately, some will say "How do you test for your God?" to which the answer is "Of course you cannot."  But we CAN find evidence for God, then we must decide if we will believe in Him or not.

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

Details please, Jeannot?

Thank you AFDave for admitting that the science of crystal formation is valid in your worldview.  The question wasn't meant to be "STUPID", only to establish a baseline that we both can agree upon.

My point in asking this (and other) questions goes back to your arguments in p.194 - p.202 of the 1st thread.  You (and Arndts and Overn) say you can't have a whole rock Isochron sample vary it's Rb/Sr ratio but the science of crystal formation directly contradicts your claim.

If you wish to carry on with your "ALL ISOCHRONS ARE MIXING LINES" claim then you have to show how the science of crystal formation supports your claim.

MANY (remember that definition) people warned you that you probably didn't know enough information to argue about Isochrons.  There are enough knowledgable people here to reveal what learning is required to understand this stuff.  However, your latest diatribe against "millionofyearsism" is troubling for this idea....
 
Quote
Actually, regurgitation seems to be a good description of Deep Timers.  You just regurgitate what you've been taught in school uncritically.

I'll leave this for another day.

Mike PSS

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,04:54   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ... I have been unable to do so yet, and I assume others have not either.

No problem here, Davie-dip; takes a minute or two to load (with images turned off) and search isn't really zippy, but it works.

Of course, if you're searching for answers to the tough questions that you've already given, you ain't gonna find any.  Hee hee hee hee..
Quote
I downloaded Jon Fleming's zip file but when I expanded it, I had the same original problem of too large a file size to handle.  If anyone (Jon?) knows how to make the thread into a downloadable text file (instead of an HTML file), this might work for everyone.  Then you could open it in notepad and search as needed.  I think many of you would be able to find what I have already said about many of your questions if you could do this.

HTML is a text file, Davie-doodles, which you can open in Wordpad or Notepad.  It's not as nicely formatted as it is in a web browser, but all the text is there.

I'll see what I can do.

No matter how you slice it, it's a big file.
Quote
I see that Improvius has already found my statements on accelerated nuclear decay--good!

Yup, but he didn't find any answers to questions, like "where'd the heat go?" and "what shielded Noah from the radioactive atoms in his own body, and in the animals, and in the gopherwood?".
 
Quote
MAGIC? OR SIMPLY "HIGH-TECH"
I've said this before but it is worth repeating ...

"Miracles" by God or by any superhuman being are not really miracles at all ... they are simply high tech: technology which WE do not presently understand.

Until you have evidence for this alleged high technology, it's arm-waving and invocation of magic.
 
Quote
Those folks asking about hydrodynamic sorting should also search my old thread.

Where they'll find you just asserted, provided no evidence, and ran away from the questions (e.g. Message 30422:
Quote (Jonf @ Sep. 3 2006,11:22)
OTOH,creationism predicts that anything is possible, and has no explanation for the observed facts of the fossil record other than magic; the so-called "creationist explanations" for the order in the fossil record (differential escape, hydrodynamic sorting, and ecological zonation) fall apart when examined.

Let's look at grass and fern pollen.  Grass and ferns grow pretty much everywhere that any plant grows on land.  Grass doesn't run very fast, and ferns are famed for their lack of running ability.  Grass pollen has the same hydrodynamic properties as fern pollen.  

But fern pollen is found in abundance in strata from circa 400 million years ago to the present, and grass pollen is only found in strata from circa 70 million years ago to the present.

How did that grass pollen get sorted out, Davie-diddles?

Or take plesiosaurs and dolphins.   They live (or lived) in the same environment, moved the same way, and have the same hydrodynamic properties.  Plesiosaur fossils are found in strata from 200-65 million years old and no more recent, dolphin fossils are found in strata from 13 million years old to the present.  How did that happen, Davie-poot?


Explain those, Davie-dumpling.  You haven't. You can't.

Your hydrodynamic sorting, ecological zonation, differential escape, or any combination thereof is falsified by the observed patterns of fossils.

And, of course, I found that by searching the downloaded copy in Notepad.  No problem.
 
Quote
Monday we will continue with radiometric dating and look at mineral isochrons, concordia/discordia, etc.

Running away again, hum, Davie-moron?  You finally realized that you did claim, multiple times, that a horizontal-line whole-rock isochron cannot be obtained from fresh lava, and that's your (and Arndts and Overn's) entire argument against whole-rock isochrons?  And that your claim is falsified by Snellings's, a creationist's, data?  And that this proves yet again that creationists think of everything in isolation, never cross-comparing?

Did you finally figure out what significant figures are?  Still got a problem with Dalrymple's numbers?  

Got any defense for the scaling of your graph of Snelling's data, other than "Davie's too dumb to figure out an appropriate scale and doesn't have a prayer of figuring out how to implement one in Excel"?

And, of course, the problems that terrify Dave beyond any others 'cause he can't address 'em:

  • 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.


Let's say that again, Davie-pootles:  No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern of concordance is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.  Your hypothesis doesn't explain the observed patterns.

So, to summarize what we've learned of radiometric dating so far:

  • A few rocks have excess argon which screws up K-Ar dating, but most do not.
  • There is no reason to suspect that even a majority of K-Ar dates are wrong.
  • Snelling's study of isotope systematics is irrelevant,  his claims are not supported by his data, and the claims are falsified by easily-available evidence.
  • The claim that any whole-rock isochron must initially start as a point on an isochron diagram (unless it is a result of mixing) is false.
  • There is no evidence that any appreciable number of whole-rock isochrons are not true indications of the age of the rocks.
  • There is lots of evidence that the vast majority of whole-rock isochrons are not the result of mixing, but rather are the result of radiaoctive decay in-situ over millions to billions of years.
  • Davie's young Earth is falsified.

Hee hee hee hee..

Hey, Davie, bet you're even more ignorant of concordia-discordia than you were of isochrons.  What do you wanna bet?  Hee hee hee hee...

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,05:41   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:56)
FIGURES OF SPEECH ... IN EVERDAY SPEECH AND IN THE BIBLE
Steverino-- I finally do understand where you are coming from with your question ... I didn't know what you had in mind until you posted those verses ... I'll answer you with a question ... Have you ever used the terms "sunset" or "sunrise" ??  If so, does this mean that you think the sun is moving around the earth instead of vice versa?

Wow, it looks like something finally got through to Dave.  And I thought he'd never admit the folly of a literal interpretation of the Bible.  That's excellent progress, Dave my boy!

Now I want you to try expanding on that concept.  Meditate on this question: how can you tell the difference between literal and figurative passages in the Bible?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,06:00   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,05:56)
DOWNLOADABLE TEXT FILE NEEDED
I see that there are several people (including Deadman with his big list) who have the need to search my 200 page thread for answers to questions I have already given ...

Dave, I have a searchable copy of the entire first thread (it's a webarchive format readable—and searchable—by Mac OS X's Safari web browser), so I know for fact that, e.g., you never even discussed the evolution of whales anywhere on this thread. At least when it comes to me, you can run, but you can't hide, and you can't lie about what you have and have not "proven," or even discussed.
   
Quote
Eric...you need to go read Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory again.  He answers a lot of your questions.  Not saying I agree with him totally, but he's got some good guesses.  Which parts of his answers to your questions did you not understand or agree with and why?  www.creationscience.com

Dave, I've looked at Walt Brown's Hydroplate "Theory" and various rebuttals of it, and I am well aware that 1) the "theory" is impossible on its face, and requires multiple miracles for it to have happened the way Dr. Brown claims it happened, and 2) there is no evidence, from geology, paleontology, or any other field, that Brown's claims are accurate. And just for review, Dave, you might want to read this again, assuming you ever read it in the first place.

Moreover, regardless of what Brown may think happened, he hasn't presented any actual evidence that it happened that way, and he presents none of the evidence I said I would need to credit a "global catastrophic flood hypothesis." In other words, he's answered none of my questions. If you think he has, feel free to post it here. Remember, this is your hypothesis, and it's not my job to hunt around for evidence supporting it; it's yours. If you can find any evidence at all of the kind I told Bill I would need to credit your "hypothesis," I strongly urge you to post it. You claim you've already seen such evidence, so it shouldn't take long to find it.

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

  
TangoJuliett



Posts: 12
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,07:43   

Quote (tiredofthesos @ Sep. 24 2006,07:16)
This guy isn't worth the first of any decent homo sapiens two cents!

 I beg of you all, let Dave die the miserable, lonely troll's death he deserves!  Not one lurker is ever going to be persuaded by his drooling lies and Xian faux-frindliness.


Easy there fella!  As a (mostly) lurker, I can certainly agree with this sentiment.  However, if you take Dave seriously, you'll most likely go insane or be filled with revulsion!  His value lies (aptly) in taking him humorously.  How could anyone be so astoundingly, moronically, and irrationally stupid?  And all in the name of some magic sky-pixie dictator fantasy worship?!?!?  It boggles the mind!  You simply can't script this kind of humor.

Back in the 80's I used to watch televangelists just for laughs.  I found most of them to be hilariously funny.  Unfortunately, I don't have cable now so don't get to see much of them.  And, not surprisingly, Dave has taken their place for me in the humor department.  So I say let him drool and distort and wiggle and twist.  He's a great example of why I would never freely choose to be religious, in general, or Christian, in particular. Yes, he can be trying at times, but generally, I love the laughs.  I also appreciate the wit, humor, and knowledge of those who engage him on a regular basis.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,07:56   

Bwhahahahahahahahaha

hehehehehehehe.


Quote
Quote  by lies for kids AFD
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  



AFD you lying piece of ****.


You hold all evidence in total contempt,

You are pathologically incapable of accepting the rules of evidence.

If you were in a court you would be put away for contempt, for being the recalcitrant liar you are.

You and your fellow blow hard scam artists aka creationists, reduce your religion to nothing more than an ignorance peddling criminal activity.

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

   
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,09:04   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,06:09)
... so I will give general guidelines for determining whether your question is stupid or not.

After having read about 150 pages of the previous thread, I assure you that you are in no position to be able to do this.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,09:12   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 24 2006,07:09)
Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.

Super.  Then how long does, say, a quartz crystal take to form?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,10:53   

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

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)
2) I showed you in detail how ridiculous it is to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor.  No one has ever showed me how the LCA date of 8 my was arrived at.

I thought I'd take this opportunity to show, once again, how much of a liar Dave really is. He claims to have already covered these 20 topics. I've already shown he hasn't even begun to prove any of these assertions, or even present any evidence for them, but I thought I'd show how much of a liar is with one of them in more detail.

As I stated earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread, but it's hard to prove a negative without posting all 20-some megabytes of the entire thread. But I can provide affirmative evidence that dave is lying when he says "No one has ever showed [sic] me how the LCA [of humans, chimps, and gorillas] of 8 my was arrived at."

In other words, Dave claims he hasn't been shown any evidence for the assertion that humans, chimps, and gorillas have a common ancestor. Now, if he'd said he didn't believe that evidence, that would be one thing. But let's see what incorygible had to say on the subject back in May, in a post that I think deserved something along the lines of talk.origins "post of the month" award:

 
Quote
Dave, while you're parsing the sequence similarities between chimps, humans and gorillas, I have this nagging fear that once again you're going to miss the point.  Those similarities are interesting, but they aren't as relevant as this is going to be.  (I nevertheless eagerly await your response.)

In the meantime, please pay attention to this post.  It’s going to be long, but I’m really going to try to meet you halfway.  It is often said by some overzealous "evolutionists" that Creationism makes no testable predictions.  While this is often true (“goddidit” predicts nothing), it is by no means universal: there are many places where Creationists say “goddiditthisway”.  We’re going to talk about one of those.  The age of the earth is another great example yet to come, but we’re going to talk about the relationship between humans and (other) apes.  We’re going to assume that your theory (I’ll bite the bullet and avoid the scare-quotes) is, as you have claimed many times, “just as good” as ours.  We’re going to use our respective theories to make predictions.  You game?

A few notes before we begin:  When I make predictions on your behalf regarding Creation theory, I will disregard age of the earth, resulting rates of mutation, etc., and assume only the following (correct me if I’m wrong on either): (1) God originally created a human kind and an ape kind, the latter of which includes gorillas and chimpanzees; and (2) DNA is a valuable tool for examining and comparing exactly how God designed his creations.  Are you okay with those?  I will use parentheses to denote phylogenies, with H=humans, C=chimpanzees, G=gorillas.  For example, (H(CG)) represents a phylogeny where chimps and gorillas are most similar and humans are an outgroup, whereas (G(HC)) represents a phylogeny where humans and chimps are most similar and gorillas are an outgroup.  Finally, note that when we talk about frequencies of predicted phylogenies below, these are the percentages of sequences for which two species are predicted to be more closely related than the third.  These percentages are not the same as actual sequence similarity.  In other words, don’t get confused with the percentages below and the percentage sequence similarities in my earlier post – they’re related, in that the percentages we’re talking about here reflect how often chimps are more similar to gorillas, etc., but they are not the same thing.

All good?  Away we go.

Let’s assume it is 1985, and you and I are in a coffee shop having a congenial scientific discussion about the new-fangled genetic technology that is just being developed (and won’t really come into its own for another 10-20 years or so).  We’ve been over the same old ground many times about your Creation theory and my theory of evolution, including why you distrust dating methods, why you distrust the fossil record, etc.  These are accepted areas of disagreement.  Today (1985), we’re going to use our theories to predict what genetics will reveal about the relationships between humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

Specifically, we’re interested in novel mutations.  We both believe these are random changes in the genome.  I think they are responsible (along with natural selection and a host of other mechanisms) for the diversity of life on earth, whereas you think they reflect degeneration of God’s Creation since the Fall.  This disagreement in views won’t matter.  Since we only have the back of the envelope, we’re going to simplify mutation as completely random changes in any sequence of DNA that occur at the same rate in each of our three species.  We’re going to assume that the rate at which these random novel mutations accumulate is dependent only upon time, but we’re going to keep time relative (so as to avoid that whole millions vs. thousands of years problem).

We start with a few null hypotheses that neither of us believes.  We believe genetics will reveal some sort of phylogenetic relationship (as opposed to none, or a purely random relationship).  For example, from the evolutionary perspective, if humans, chimps and gorillas were unrelated, or if they diverged from a common ancestor at the exact same time, I might predict that when we look at their genomes, 1/3 of my predicted phylogenies would be (H(CG)), 1/3 would be (C(HG)), and 1/3 would be (G(CH)).  However, the fossil record gives me good reason not to believe the null hypothesis (which doesn’t mean we don’t check it!.  Similarly, from a Creationist perspective, if humans, chimps and gorillas were created as separate kinds, you might predict the same 1/3 for each phylogeny.  However, you believe chimps and gorillas were created as part of a single “ape” kind, and even if they weren’t, you might predict “common design” to create the appearance of relationships that would refute the null hypothesis.

So I start with my Theory of Evolution prediction, based on what we know of the fossil record in 1985 (the timelines have changed a bit since then).

Predicted initial conditions:  Humans, chimps and gorillas shared a common ancestor as recent as approximately 8 million years ago.  From that LCA (8 mya), the gorillas diverged from the line that would eventually become both humans and chimps.  Humans and chimps themselves diverged about 5 million years ago.

Predicted genetic relationships:  If we assume random, time-based mutations occurring independently in each line, then we can expect that each of the three phylogenies may be produced, depending on the sequence we are looking at.  For example, if a novel mutation in a given sequence occurs independently in the human line, than phylogenies based on that sequence will group chimps and gorillas: (H(CG)).  If the mutation occurs in the gorilla line, the sequence will group humans and chimps (G(CH)).  However, we should be able to roughly estimate the frequencies at which these predicted phylogenies will occur, based on the ancestry pattern found in the fossil record and the relative timeframes for each lineage to mutate.

As in our null hypotheses, if they all diverged from the LCA at the same time, we would predict a 33% occurrence of each "tree".  However, I believe they diverged in the manner and times above.  Chimps and humans shared a lineage for 3 million of the 8 million total years, and this would tend to increase the frequency of (G(HC)) phylogenies by an amount we can estimate.  I therefore predict the following frequency of phylogenies:

(G(HC)) = 39% (from independent mutations in the gorilla line: 0.5*(3/8)+0.33*(5/8)) + 19% (from accumulation of mutations in the shared human-chimp line: 0.5*(3/8) = 58%

(C(HG)) = 21% (from independent mutations in the chimp line: 0.33*(5/8))

(H(CG)) = 21% (from independent mutations in the human line: 0.33*(5/8))

So I predict 58% of the sequences we look at will group humans and chimps as closer to each other than to gorillas, 21% will group humans and gorillas as closer to each other than to chimps, and 21% will group chimps and gorillas as closer to each other than to humans.

You then counter with Creationist Theory.

Initial conditions: the human kind and the ape kind were separately created, and never shared a common ancestor.  Already we’re in trouble, because we have no information on the genome of those two ancestral kinds.  We have reason to suspect they were similar (common design, like Escorts and Tauri in 1985), but we don’t know how similar.  We can’t do the same kind of relative calculations that I did by assuming one common ancestor (which do not require knowledge of its actual genome, just that it was shared).  However, we do know that any differences between these two ancestral kinds should inflate the frequency of (H(CG)) phylogenies predicted.  So right from the initial conditions, you predict that, when we look at a lot of genes to get overall frequencies, the predicted frequency of the relationship (H(CG)) will be greater than 33%.

Creationist Prediction:  We don’t have any information on when (relative to initial Creation – actual years don’t matter for this) chimpanzees and gorillas diverged via “microevolution” (changes within a Created kind).  However, we know it was some time since the Fall.  Without relative time-spans like I had, we can’t do similar estimates like I did, but we can predict that the shared ancestry of chimps and gorillas prior to divergence will increase the frequencies of (H(CG)) even further (as it did for the (G(HC)) phylogenies in my example).

So you end up predicting that more than (far more than?) 33% of sequences we look at will group chimps and gorillas as closer to each other than to humans, less than 33% of sequences will group humans and gorillas as closer to each other than to chimps, and less than 33% of sequences will group humans and chimps as closer to each other than to gorillas.

So, armed with our predictions, we meet back up in a bar 20 years later to discuss the results.  I bring along some papers from the prolific new genetics literature.  Specifically, I show you the following:

Satta, Y., J. Klein, and N. Takahata. 2000. DNA archives and our nearest relative: the trichotomy problem revisited. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 14:259–275.

Chen, F.-C., and W.-H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergence between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68:444–456.

O’hUigin, C., Y. Satta, N. Takahata, and J. Klein. 2002. Contribution of homoplasy and of ancestral polymorphism to the evolution of genes in anthropoid primates. Mol. Biol.
Evol. 19:1501–1513.

Kitano et al. 2004. Human-Specific Amino Acid Changes Found in 103 Protein-Coding Genes. Mol. Biol. Evol.:936-944.

Combined, these studies examined hundreds of sequences for their predicted phylogenies.  Each one found that, on average, approximately 60% of these sequences predicted the (G(HC)) tree (i.e., humans and chimps closer to each other than to gorillas), and the remaining 40% predicted the remaining two trees in roughly equal frequencies (i.e., humans and gorillas closer to each other than to chimps, and chimps and gorillas closer to each other than to humans).  (You can look this up if you don’t believe me Dave – I’m more than halfway here.)

I order you a double scotch (you’re gonna need it! as we pull out the faded napkin and look at our predictions.

If you’re still with me, here’s the pop quiz:

What did Creation theory predict?

What did the ToE predict?

What did we actually see?


So, Dave—still saying it's ridiculous to claim that apes and humans have a common ancestor? Or that no one showed you how a date of 8 mya was arrived at?

Of course, on one level it is absurd to say that apes and humans have a common ancestor, because humans are apes. But I can fix that by asserting that humans and other apes have a common ancestor. I know saying that makes Dave's blood boil, but that's why it's so much fun to say it!

--------------
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. 24 2006,12:32   

I notice that AFDave's posts are a bit more shrill and contain a bit less truthiness.  I think this little exchange is going on in the background (a la Top Gun).
Quote
Kids4Truth: “WHAT? WHERE'RE YOU--HEY, WHY THE HECK DON’T YOU POST?”

AFDave: “MY ARGUMENT DIDN'T ... AHHH...LOOK GOOD.”

Kids4Truth: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT DOESN'T GET TO LOOK MUCH BETTER THAN THAT?”

AFDave: “NO. NO GOOD.”


{Later at the water cooler…}
Ken Ham walks up to Andrew Snelling who waits near a Piltdown Man replica.

A. Snelling: “He just won't engage. He can't do it, Skipper. He can't get back on the horse.”

K. Ham: “It's only been a day. Keep sending him our reports.”

A. Snelling: “I've seen this before.”

K. Ham: “So have I.”

A. Snelling: “Some guys never get their cognitive dissonance back.”

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,15:02   

Dave, a couple of posts ago I asked you to present evidence for the outlets of the "fountains of the deep" water that produced your flood. I said that in the last 4,500 years they should not have eroded very much, and should be easy to locate.

So where are they?

4,500 years ago isn't very long ago, and these suckers should be huge to have disgorged several hundred million cubic kilometers of water in a matter of a few hours, according to Walt Brown.

So where are they?

By way of contrast, Dave, the Chicxulub crater dates to 65 million years ago, and it's underwater, but it took less than 10 years of looking to locate it.

And by the way, here's a list of evidence for the impact:

   
Quote

  • The iridium excess in the 65 My-old soil layer has been confirmed at many points around the world.
  • The same soil layer contains grains of quartz that were deformed by high shock pressures, as would occur in a giant explosion. (The deformation is a microscopic structure called "twinning," in the crystals).
  • The same soil layer contains enough soot to correspond to burning down all of the forests of the world. This suggests that massive fires were touched off at the time of impact.
  • The same soil layer, especially around the Gulf of Mexico, contains massive deposits of tumbled boulders, as would be generated in a large tsunami, or "tidal wave." The geographic distribution of tsunami deposits suggest the impact was in the Caribbean area.
  • After a decade of searching, scientists in 1990 identified the crater associated with this material. It is no longer visible on the surface of the Earth, but is buried under sediments. It straddles the coast of Yucatan. It is revealed by mapping the strength of the gravity field over that area, and by drilling; it has been dated to 65 My old.
  • Astronomers have charted numerous asteroids that cross Earth's orbit. From studies of orbit statistics, it is estimated that asteroids of 10 km size can hit the earth roughly every 100 My or so -- which fits with the idea that we actually did get hit 65 My ago by an object this size. (Smaller hits are much more common).


And just so you know, Dave: that list is an example of what "evidence" looks like. You know, that thing you've been unable to provide in support of your "hypothesis" for the past five months? Now, I'm sure you'll disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but you cannot deny that evidence has, in fact, been supplied. This stands in stark contrast to your inability to provide any evidence whatsoever for a flood, or a young earth, or indeed any other assertion you've made, that isn't far, far better explained by alternative theories.

But let's not get sidetracked here: WHERE ARE THE OUTLETS FOR THE "FOUNTAINS OF THE DEEP," 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

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,15:52   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 24 2006,16:53)
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16))
I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)

As I stated earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread

He did write that his pathetic atttempt at refutation is not in this thread, it's supposedly in AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,16:59   

Quote (JonF @ Sep. 24 2006,20:52)
 
Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 24 2006,16:53)
   
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 23 2006,08:16))
I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  (AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution thread)

As I stated earlier, Dave's never even mentioned whale evolution on this thread

He did write that his pathetic atttempt at refutation is not in this thread, it's supposedly in AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution to Him.

Yeah, I found it. It's your typical argument from incredulity. Dave himself doesn't find the evidence that whales are descended from land mammals persuasive, based on his extensive background in paleontology, comparative anatomy, and cladistics.

He sure convinced me. I'd certainly expect an undergraduate EE to be able to look at web graphics depicting fossilized remains and determine cladistic relationships from them.

--------------
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. 24 2006,17:13   

AFDave,
Let's kick it up a notch and start putting some of the pieces of the sciences together to get a clearer picture of what is going on in Isochrons.

You accept the science of crystalization.  
Quote
In general, I (and every creationist I know) accept all science which involves repeatable, testable events.  Crystal formation and many other phenomena fall into this category.  What we do not necessarily accept is hypothetical stuff which cannot be tested reliably,{snip}
I asked this question because I wanted a baseline of agreement for our discussion.

I'm going to use an example at University of Wisconsin-River Falls Dept. of Planet and Earth Sciences.  Nothing special about this selection, just near the top of the Google search for "Olivine mineral formation".  One member of the faculty is a PhD of geology in the department.  Who he is doesn't matter for my point, BUT he has co-authored an article about the subject we are talking about, BUT we won't discuss ages or time just yet.  I'm just showing that this particular reference is valid to our discussion.              
Quote
{snip}, 1976, "Rb-Sr Geochronology of Granite Gneiss from Horse Creek, Tobacco Root Mountains of Montana", Geochron West, Summer, p. 49.

The department has catalogued a lot of Wisconsin minerals but I want to point to Olivine specifically since this mineral is found in magmas AND in chondritic meteorites (remember the Minster graph?).  The Olivine page lists the identified locations of Olivine found in Wisconsin.  The entries are by county and indicate platte map references for location so any other geologist who is searching for this particular mineral can "find it quite easily" (a relative statement I'm sure). Notice that the Olivine page (and the other mineral pages) don't mention age or time, only location and geographic structure.  The site also has a bibliography of numerous references here, here, and here.

The Olivine page also has this heading: OLIVINE (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 Orthorhombic.  Ignore the chemical formulae for now, we can get to that later.  However, notice the "Orthorhomibic" entry because this describes the crystal structure of Olivine.  In fact, almost all the entries in the list of minerals have a heading with a specified crystal structure of the mineral.

So.... Olivine is a crystaline mineral with orthorhombic structure found in numerous places in Wisconsin and catalogued extensively.  Nothing hypothetical about this information that I can see.  I'm going to end my boring entry right now since there is enough corroberrated information above to ask a NOT-SO-STUPID question.

AFDave,
Do you agree that Olivine is formed according to the science of crystal formation?


If we can agree on the structural mechanics of Olivine then we can start on the chemistry.  Are you still game to continue with discussing Isochrons?
Mike PSS

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,17:53   

Oi, man. I hadn't read all of Stupid's "AFDave Wants You to Prove Evolution " thread before...hah, he started out there just as arrogant and stupid as he did on the original thread of this. And got slapped around just as easily.
In particular, this claim set me laughing:
Quote
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Bwahaha. He abandoned that crap as soon as he could, after getting batted around like a pinata--he can't even claim a shred of "scientific" evidence at all, since his hypothesis isn't falsifiable and isn't science. What a wanker. I'll be glad when one of his kids grows up and learns enough to spit in his smug, stupid face (metaphorically speaking, of course, hahaha). $500 bets on "Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French"...hahahaha, oh, man. That's almost as funny as him getting caught lying so many times. And quote-mining. And changing his claims. And running from data. And faking "data."
AirHeadDave is clear proof that being a creationist means you HAVE to lie -- he has no other option.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,18:38   

Quote
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2006,18:56   

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

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


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

Paley, please tell us what would constitute "evidence" for the Sun revolving around the Earth and a 6,000 year old universe. Try to be as precise as possible. Thanks.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,02:45   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 25 2006,00:38)
   
Quote
I would have to say that the "God Hypothesis" or the "Creation Hypothesis" is actually one of the best supported hypotheses around... In another post, I will outline the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my "Creator God Hypothesis."

Gee, Dave, I hope you weren't referring to this thread for where you were planning to post your "overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines for my 'Creator God Hypothesis.'"

But if you're not talking about this thread, then which thread were you talking about?

What I have found so interesting in this thread is how our resident YEC has tried to use the "paragons of YEC" at AIG and ICR to support his arguments yet someone like myself with an undergrad education and some time in my field can overcome these arguments with LITTLE effort.  Some critical analysis of the YEC papers is all you need to shoot down their claims.

In AFDave's present train wreck called Isochrons I'm not even trying hard to find references or facts to support my claims, yet what little I find and use is damning to AFDave's argument.

C'mon Dave!
Give us something tough!
Your wrong about Isochrons!
Post some more evidence from many different disciplines!


Mike PSS

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2006,03:44   

Mike PSS

Right now lies 4 kids AFD is in the middle of compiling one of his long screeds of utter vomit.

Like the mythical Cyclops he believes he is a giant among men, even though he is half blind and easily fooled.

AFD thrives on the energy of others, he literally craves to be told he is a lying, contempable arsehole.

Evidence? You will never get any from him, lies yes.

Now back to our reularly scheduled program.

Take it away..... lies 4 kids AFD.......

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

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

Pages: (167) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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