RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4484
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,05:48   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55)
You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005.

It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.

Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence:
†  
Quote
Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html

Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N † but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 ◊ (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation.

The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.

Really? Not by you, at any rate.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,06:29   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,23:02)
Sorry but I have given several detailed descriptions that likely dismiss your question and you havnt responded to even one of them

No, you've remained completely silent as I repeated my questions for over a month, hoping that if you cowered long enough I would stop asking them. None of your sleeve-mutterings have been remotely responsive to my specific questions.

Here they are again:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth and your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Grow some stones and state a number or range of numbers. Cite literature that supports those numbers.

Remember, you must account for physical processes that inflate radiometric estimates of the age of the earth by a factor of 450,000 in less than 10,000 years (you don't have access to "millions of years" for those errors to magically compound), yet have escaped the notice of the entire edifice of contemporary physics.

2) If (fictional) corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is merely 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

 
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)
Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?

If you believe you have responded to these questions, please provide links.

Time to squeeze the sac Forastero. Anything in there?

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

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

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

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,07:38   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55)
You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005.

It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.

Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence:
† †
Quote
Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html

Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N † but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 ◊ (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation.

The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.

Nonsense. †The point had to do with your idiotic assertion that P(N) = 8 ◊ (1.005)^N represented a "much larger growth rate" than P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N. †(If I wanted to demonstrate that a whole article was deceptive, I like to think I'd choose an illustration that was, you know, actually deceptive.)

You seem to think that a simple admission that you were wrong would damage your credibility. †Trust me, in this case it would be the only way to salvage even a shred of it.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes. †I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it. †Okay? †So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
JohnW



Posts: 2233
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,13:27   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,17:04)
Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000

why do y'all keep asking that?

Because it's funny, muppet.

Especially when you say that 10000 years is sensible, but 6000 years is crazy talk.

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

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,17:50   

Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:07)
... radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread

You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,18:29   

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 13 2011,17:50)
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:07)
... radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread

You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.

0.5% in one series of trials that haven't been reproduced is 'vast'?

I have some stocks that will give you 'vast' gains.  I'll give you the list for $45US.  PM me for more information.

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

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

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,21:19   

Quote (JonF @ Dec. 13 2011,17:50)
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:07)
... radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread

You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.

Half-vast claims at that.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youíre taking refuge in what we see in the world." †PaV

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

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2882
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2011,22:14   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 14 2011,05:19)
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 13 2011,17:50)
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:07)
... radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread

You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.

Half-vast claims at that.

Right so 0.1 assed claims binary then?

he's on a hiding to nothing.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2011,04:13   

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 13 2011,22:14)

For forestiero:

Would you be so kind as to answer the following two simple questions:

1) Do you think/believe/know that god is omnipotent?
2) Do you think/believe/know that god created man?

Please select the correct verb above in accordance with your line of reasoning and answer the question (yes/no answers will do just fine, and would be appreciated).

Cheers
Marty

Ps:Let's let the man answer these pertinent questions ;)

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4484
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 30 2011,23:15   

[sound FX]Crickets chirping[/sound FX]

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2011,14:42   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2011,00:15)
[sound FX]Crickets chirping[/sound FX]

I tole the cute Little Bunny not to jump into the rain barrel.

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

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

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

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

Pages: (51) < ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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