RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 172 173 174 175 176 [177] 178 179 180 181 182 ... >   
  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. 02 2006,15:54   

Quote
Nerds!

Speaking for myself...yup.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,20:38   

ericmurphy writes
       
Quote
On more question, Dave, to add to the four dozen or so you've never answered: how did your remarkably turbulent, chaotic floodwaters separate all their sediment (more sediment, in fact, than water) into nice neat layers, exactly the sort of layers the competing theory expects? I've never seen floodwaters lay down nice neat layers, filled with nicely organized fossils—organized according to exactly the sort of order to be expected by evolutionary theory, have you?

We’ve already beaten PolytardDave about the head and shoulders with this, say, 70 pages ago.  Dave’s "defense" was to C&P the AIG article where they showed that in a small laboratory tank under benign non-turbulent conditions, sand particles of different sizes will settle in recognizable layers

Large particles
Medium particles
Small particles

Of course ShitForBrainsDave can’t explain how such a process could possibly scale up to an incredibly violent flood with continents racing around at 100 MPH churning the oceans, and water moving so swiftly it would carve the Grand Canyon in just a couple of days.

SFBDave also can’t explain how his AIG hydraulic sorting BS accounts for areas like the buried Yellowstone forests, which have dozens of layers of the same materials in different strata, i.e.

Topsoil
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Mature forest buried in lahar
Fine grained paleosol
Bedrock

SFBDave is way too ignorant about the sciences involved, and is utterly incapable of thinking for himself.  If he can’t C&P a quick answer from his favorite Creto source he’s up sh*t creek with a turd for a paddle.

Being the dishonest schmuck our Davie boy is, he’ll either completely ignore the questions, or claim he already answered in a previous post.  Just watch.

How about it Davie - got any explanation for the dozens of layers of buried mature forests?  How long does it take a mature forest to grow Davie?

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

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2006,22:09   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 02 2006,19:06)
Nice organized fossils, huh?  Wanna show me an example?

Mosasaur maximus fossils are found in a constricted range of deposits world wide but they are all of the same age.

Go stud boy Don't let the raindrops slow you down!

Ouch Mama, the rain is falling SO Hard!

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,01:26   

THE GENERAL PATTERN OF FOSSIL OCCURRENCE

Quote
Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebrates tend to be found in the top layers. Consider the following factors:

Vertebrate fossils are exceedingly rare compared with invertebrate (without a backbone) sea creatures. The vast proportion of the fossil record is invertebrate sea creatures, and plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and human fossils are even rarer.2

If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood12 and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometers of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil.

A global Flood beginning with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep would tend to bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures first—many of these are immobile, or relatively so. They are also abundant and generally robust (for example, shellfish).13 As the waters rose to envelop the land, land creatures would be buried last.14 Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which, in turn would be buried before upland plants.

On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb. People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.

Further, the more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the Flood longest and be buried last, so their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters at the end of the Flood and in the aftermath of the Flood. Hence their remains would tend to be destroyed. The intelligence factor could partly account for the apparent separation of dinosaurs and mammals such as cattle, for example.15

Another factor is the sorting action of water. A coal seam at Yallourn in Victoria, Australia, has a 0.5 m thick layer of 50% pollen. The only way such a layer of pollen could be obtained is through the sorting action of water in a massive watery catastrophe that gathered the plant material from a large area and deposited it in a basin in the Yallourn area.

‘Cope’s Rule’ describes the tendency of fossils (e.g. shellfish) to get bigger as you trace them upward through the geological strata. But why should evolution make things generally bigger? Indeed, living forms of fossils tend to be smaller than their fossil ancestors. A better explanation may be the sorting action of water.16
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp


I like that last question ... "But why should evolution make things generally bigger?"  I thought there was no such thing as "Upward Evolution?"

NOTE:  Some of you have the idea that I am trying to become a scientist and present a hypothesis that could be published in a scientific journal or something.  I have no such illusions.  Here at ATBC, I am really in the role of Investigative Journalist.  I write materials for kids.  And I want to write accurately.  So I investigate the claims of Evolutionists and the claims of Creationists.  So if it frustrates you that I C&P from AIG and ICR, well ... I guess you'll just have to be frustrated.  Because that is really my goal -- to weigh the claims of the Evos against the claims of the Creos.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,03:30   

Except your "sorting by size and movement" doesn't explain the fossil sequence at all. I like the bias of thinking that humans would be "last" to die and fossilize, though.

So, why are there only fast-moving reptilian  (most dinosaurs were actually smaller than a chicken) only found below those "fast-moving" sloths? Why don't we find modern mammals of ANY SORT, EVER...in layers prior to the Cenozoic? Were ALL of them Olympic swimmers? AND ALL the dinosaurs swam like rocks? Why no mosasaurs or pleisiosaurs in the Eocene? Why no flying or gliding pteradons? NONE? BUT THEY COULD FLY!!!!!!!

What a lame-ass scenario, filled with holes. Hand-waving and hot air won't get your Creationist "Spruce Goose" off the ground, boy...you'll have to try better.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,03:35   

From that list of questions you couldn't answer, AirHead:
(13)  Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.
(14)  Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?
(15)  Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?
(16)  If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,03:45   

Quote (Crabby Appleton @ Sep. 02 2006,02:58)
What's wrong with Spam sandwiches?

Nothing, really, when you compare it to the "peanut-butter and brown sugar sandwiches" that my mom made me for lunch every OTHER day.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,03:55   

I mentioned flowering plants earlier...they don't seem to have differing flotation properties or leg speed than non-flowering plants....why do they only appear after the Cretaceous? Why don't primitive mammals like Eutherians appear in later layers? Wouldn't there be at least ONE crippled, or OLD or diseased mammal that would get "caught" and sorted with the dull-witted, slow dinos?  Placoderms are fish, too!!!Why don't THEY appear in more recent strata?

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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,04:37   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 02 2006,19:06)
Nice organized fossils, huh?  Wanna show me an example?

Sure, Davie-poodles, I'll show you more than one; they're easy enough to find if you get up off your duff and look ... after all, there's so many of 'em

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Foraminifera is especially interesting because foram fossils and their change over time are so well known that forams are one of the major markers used in interpreting oil well drilling cores (Foraminifera: Fossil Record) ... and those guys don't use techniques that aren't proven to work.  Glenn Morton provides a list of foram fossil names by age and by correlation between locations at Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood.  Over 216,000 foram fossils in The National Collection of Foraminifera, 16,000 of them catalogued in an on-line database with on-line SEM photographs.  Knock yourself out.

A few more examples of smooth transitions at Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

Good stuff on ammonoids at Species and Genus Level Evolution in the Fossil Record.

And, of course, we're interested in ourselves; the record of hominid evolution is well presented at Hominid Species, with lots more information at Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution.  I find it especially amusing that the changes in hominid evolution are so gradual that creationists who insist that each fossil is wholly ape or wholly human are all over the map on which fossils are ape and which fossils are human: Comparison of all skulls.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,04:46   

ShitForBrainsDave writes:
   
Quote
I write materials for kids.  And I want to write accurately.  So I investigate the claims of Evolutionists and the claims of Creationists.  So if it frustrates you that I C&P from AIG and ICR, well ... I guess you'll just have to be frustrated.

OK Davie, how about you give us your accurate explanation for the multiple independent calibration methods for C14 dating that all cross-correlate to ages well older than 10,500 YBP.

Then give us your accurate explanation for how the dozens of stratigraphic layers of buried forests in Yellowstone formed.

Then give us your accurate explanation for how long it takes 1000' of limestone to form, and how long it would take to erode a 500' deep canyon in such limestone.

AIG and ICR can't help you here SFB - you'll have to do research and come up with answers on your own.  I know that's something that a dishonest dog turd like you just can't handle, which is why you lie and evade every time these questions are asked.

How about it Davie - you gonna share your accurate answers with us?  Or were you just lying about your desire for accuracy too?

What will you tell the kids when they get older and see this evidence for themselves?  What will you say when they ask -
"Deacon Dave, why did you lie to us?"  :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,05:22   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 03 2006,06:26)
 
Quote
";Cope's Rule" describes the tendency of fossils (e.g. shellfish) to get bigger as you trace them upward through the geological strata. But why should evolution make things generally bigger? Indeed, living forms of fossils tend to be smaller than their fossil ancestors. A better explanation may be the sorting action of water.16
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp


I like that last question ... "But why should evolution make things generally bigger?"  I thought there was no such thing as "Upward Evolution?"

Yup, Davie-pie, there is no such thing as "upward evolution" in the sense of a teleological goal, or "aiming towards mankind", or any kind of goal other than short-term reproductive success.  But if you can actually take a moment to think about it, the observed pattern is strong evidence for evolution and pretty strong evidence against creationism.

The ToE predicts that organisms start small, because they can't just poof into existence fully formed, and that individual changes will be small because evolution can only modify pre-existing structures, and that populations respond to their environment (e.g. you can't have big organisms until there's enough for them to eat).  From these predictons it immediately follows that we should see an overall increase in complexity and size in the early parts of the fossil record (starting from small and simple there's only one direction in which to change), reaching a plateau when size and complexity get to a point beyond which the returns diminish. That's exactly what we see; another success for the ToE!

OTOH, creationism predicts that anything is possible, and has no explanation for the observed facts of tehj 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 grasss 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?
 
Quote
And I want to write accurately

Don't bother with your pathetic lies, Davie-dork.  You've made it painfully clear that your purpose is to promulgate your flawed ideology, no matter how many lies it takes or how much reality you have to deny.
 
Quote
So I investigate the claims of Evolutionists and the claims of Creationists.  ... because that is really my goal -- to weigh the claims of the Evos against the claims of the Creos.

Then you should start weighing the claims of the "evos" against the claims of the "creos". So far you haven't engaged the claims of the "evos" at all; you've just weighed the claims of the "creos" agains creationist strawmen of the "evo" positions.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,05:57   

Dave, your "hydraulic sorting" is a statistical mechanism, which means there should be exceptions all through the fossil record. After all, triceratops is roughly the size of a rhinoceros. Why do we never, ever see their fossils anywhere near each other? There are no exceptions to the sorting of the fossil record, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. That's what's known as a "statistical impossibility," Dave.

In other words, you haven't answered my question: why do we see fossils neatly organized in exactly the fashion expected by standard evolutionary theory, and in no way at all the fashion one would expect from a chaotic catastrophic flood? Once again, you'll think you've answered this simple, basic question, when you have done no such thing.

And besides, how do you think you get to use your "global catastrophic flood" to explain any particular phenomenon, when as has also been pointed out to you repeatedly, you haven't yet established that your flood ever even happened.

If you honestly think, Dave (and I don't think for a minute you honestly think this), that your creationist babble from the likes of ICR and AiG is somehow more credible than standard evolutionary and geological theory, you're a much bigger idiot than I think you could possibly be. Which leaves only one explanation: intellectual dishonesty. I think everyone here (with the possible, though unlikely, exception of yourself) is well aware of your intellectual dishonesty, after witnessing countless examples of it in almost 800 posts from you.

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,06:32   

IN DESPERATION, ALLCAPSDAVE AWKWARDLY QUOTES AN ALREADY AWKWARD AIG ARTICLE

Starting to get how desperate your mentors' efforts to prove the unprovable are, dave?

Let's see...
 
Quote
Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebrates tend to be found in the top layers. Consider the following factors:

Which, since life began at sea, is entirely consistent with ToE... On the other hand, "relatively immobile" marine organisms are STILL never 'mixed' in diferrent strata, with no occurences of say, modern clams or crabs with trilobites and ammonites- or are clams faster than trilobites?
Creo explanation: n/a
 
Quote
Vertebrate fossils are exceedingly rare compared with invertebrate (without a backbone) sea creatures. The vast proportion of the fossil record is invertebrate sea creatures, and plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and human fossils are even rarer.

Also true, and also entirely irrelevant with the 'flud' and entirely consistent with ToE- in fact, the very argument shows that the people making it have absolutely no idea about how fossils are formed. And of course, the lack of mixing between modern and ancient invertebrates and vertebrates remains.
Creo explanation: n/a
 
Quote
If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood12 and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometers of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil.

OK, this is the most absurd and laughable claim I've ever heard from a creo. Do they actually believe that humans lived so far apart from each other, for their bodies to be distributed evenly? WTF? Did every human being actually live alone in an area of about 31.5 km2, dave? Where are the cities? the densely inhabitated valleys and rivers? And why do we apparently have so many finds of "post-flud" remains, when humans were supposedly much less in numbers?
Creo explanation: n/a
 
Quote
A global Flood beginning with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep would tend to bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures first—many of these are immobile, or relatively so. They are also abundant and generally robust (for example, shellfish).13 As the waters rose to envelop the land, land creatures would be buried last.14 Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which, in turn would be buried before upland plants.

Like I said, perfectly in accordance with ToE- on the other hand: Where are the sea-dwelling creatures of simillar size and mobility? WHY are they so distinctively found in different layers? Mosasaurs and Whales? Icthyosaurs and dolphins? Not to mention modern sharks and ancient ones?
Creo explanation: n/a
 
Quote
On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb. People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb. People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.

Triceratops and rhinos? Protoceratops and buffalo? Iguanodons and titanotheriums and mammoths and elephants?
Creo explanation: n/a
 
Quote
Further, the more mobile, intelligent animals would tend to survive the Flood longest and be buried last, so their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters at the end of the Flood and in the aftermath of the Flood. Hence their remains would tend to be destroyed. The intelligence factor could partly account for the apparent separation of dinosaurs and mammals such as cattle, for example.15

Velociraptors and cheetahs? Dromeosaurs and antelopes?
Pteranodons and vultures? Archaeopteryx and pigeons? Not to mention Eohippus and modern horses? And cattle, smarter than pack-hunting large-brain carnivors like raptors? wtf?
Creo explanation: n/a
 
Quote
Another factor is the sorting action of water. A coal seam at Yallourn in Victoria, Australia, has a 0.5 m thick layer of 50% pollen. The only way such a layer of pollen could be obtained is through the sorting action of water in a massive watery catastrophe that gathered the plant material from a large area and deposited it in a basin in the Yallourn area.

Totally irrelevant with the issues discussed, this "argument" shows how desperately your mentors are trying to find something to fill a page, dave. And even so, this is an argument against a "massive watery catastrophe", and for a single isolated one -like a plain old river flood, or many repeated ones. How would pollen be deposited in a sediment in the middle of a raging flood with rain and upheaval that covered the entire globe, dave? How wouldn't it get dilluted? And if the deposition happened after the main "flood event" what was the pollen doing there in the first place?
Creo explanation: n/a
 
Quote
‘Cope’s Rule’ describes the tendency of fossils (e.g. shellfish) to get bigger as you trace them upward through the geological strata. But why should evolution make things generally bigger? Indeed, living forms of fossils tend to be smaller than their fossil ancestors. A better explanation may be the sorting action of water.

It shouldn't, and it doesn't. Trilobites got to be really big at some point, dave, and ammonites too, not to mention Orthoceras (that was like a giant squid with a shell). And most modern day shellfish are still pretty small, and are yet only found in their own strata, as they should be. Big trilobites and small trilobites: together. Big Clams and small clams: together. Big trilobites and big clams: nope. Small trilobites and small clams: Nope.
Creo explanation: n/a


...Aaaaand that clears off another AiG puff of smoke, dave. Got anything else?

You start to see how it is, right dave? As hard as you try to look away, as hard as you press your hands against your ears and shout "LALALALALALA", the fossil record screams at you my friend. Palaeontology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy, all Science screams at you. And what they actually say is "MILLIONS OF YEARS! MILLIONS OF YEARS! MILLIONS OF YEARS!"
And all your self-inflicted autism cannot make that sound go away.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,06:39   

Hmmm. I wonder, if I had not taken a long break from the long break from this nonsense that I did, would I be, by now, so frustrated with afd that I would be hurling epithets like "dishonest Schmuck" and "sh!t-for-brains". Quite possibly. But I'll try not to.

Here, for instance, afd writes:
Quote
NOTE:  Some of you have the idea that I am trying to become a scientist and present a hypothesis that could be published in a scientific journal or something.  I have no such illusions.  Here at ATBC, I am really in the role of Investigative Journalist.  I write materials for kids.  And I want to write accurately.
Hmmm. What to do? Be the 1000th scientifically educated person to try to get him to recognize where "accuracy" really stands among his priorities? Or just laugh?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,08:10   

Gotta love this:

Quote
If the Bible is wrong when it tells us it is infallible, then it contradicts itself.



Here's the thread...

Who can argue with fundy logic like that?

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

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

Russell....
Quote
Hmmm. What to do? Be the 1000th scientifically educated person to try to get him to recognize where "accuracy" really stands among his priorities? Or just laugh?
Ah Russell ... welcome back to the fray!  Where could I get more accuracy about the True Theory of Evolution than from a highly trained group of scientists such as those at ATBC?

Thanks to you all for your prompt responses ...

I will continue to study the fossil sorting issues ... there are many questions I still have.  But not just yet.  I posted the AIG article in response to one of you, but I really want to stay on track.

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

Tomorrow I intend to begin a topic which is very much related to the topic we have been examining for several weeks ... the Grand Staircase.

We will be examining the recent article by Andrew Snelling about the volcano at Mt Ngauruhoe which JonF claims is a fraud.

Pretty strong words!  Is it a really a fraud?  Why?  Or why not?

See you tomorrow!

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,10:10   

Yet you still can't manage to answer a single question asked of you. And this is your hypothesis.

I'm glad I'm not you, I couldn't stand being the way you are. I'd much rather be a person of honor and integrity, with the honesty to simply deal with things. Maybe one day you'll be like that, but it isn't today.

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

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,11:49   

AFDave, I can confidently predict that you will not attempt to address the several objections to "hydrological sorting". In fact, I will be astounded if you even acknowledge them.

And why you will ignore these objections? Because you don't need science, or physics, or detailed microscopic analysis to see why the distribution of fossils is fatal to the flood model. You just need a smidgen of common sense and enough courage and honesty to think clearly about it for 20 seconds. But your defence mechanisms are smart enough to know that actually thinking about this question, and all the others, could endanger your faith, so you just skip right over it.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,11:57   

Moan.  Complain.  Gripe.  Dave's dishonest.  Dave won't answer questions.  Dave this.  Dave that.

Hey, someone has to pick the topics, right?  Why not me since this is my thread?  I do answer many of your questions.  I have actually answered the sorting question twice now.  Maybe not to your liking.  But I've answered it.  Remember also ... I'm only one guy.  And can really only thoroughly research about one topic at a time.

Tomorrow ... Mt Ngauruhoe !!!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,12:24   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 03 2006,14:39)
I will continue to study the fossil sorting issues ... there are many questions I still have.  But not just yet.  

You mean, you'll try to find a way around the mountain of evidence supporting an interpretation based on the Theory of Evolution and contradicting an interpretation based on creationism.

You know, Dave, I have to say your arrogance is nothing short of breathtaking. Tens of thousands of scientists with decades of experience and training have devoted their lives to locating fossils and coming up with an overarching explanation for how they relate to each other. And here you come, completely and utterly ignorant of the field of paleontology, who wouldn't know a brachiopod if one crept up behind you and bit you in the ass, and yet you somehow think you're qualified to dispute their results.

Good luck.

And in the meantime, the number of questions you've been completely unable to answer mounts by the day. So much for your "hypothesis," 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: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,13:11   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 03 2006,14:39)
We will be examining the recent article by Andrew Snelling about the volcano at Mt Ngauruhoe which JonF claims is a fraud.

Pretty strong words!  Is it a really a fraud?  Why?  Or why not?

My bet is that you won't engage the issue of xenoliths at all.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,13:24   

Oh, I'm sure Dave will not address the xenoliths. Or that using K-Ar to date rocks 60 years old is like Dave's wife sending her doctor goldfish bowl water as "her" urine sample.
Yes, false readings would appear.

But when have lies and deception ever been alien to creationists?

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,14:13   

Quote
Moan.  Complain.  Gripe.  Dave's dishonest.  Dave won't answer questions.  Dave this.  Dave that.


The truth hurts, doesn't it Davie.

   
Quote
Hey, someone has to pick the topics, right?  Why not me since this is my thread?


Guess what SFB - You were the one who brought up the topic of the buried forests in Yellowstone looking like the single one at Mt. Saint Helens.  Not us Davie, YOU.   When you were pressed about the details at to how a single violent flood could produce layers of two dozen mature forests buried right atop one another with paleosols between each layer, you cowardly ran the other way.

   
Quote
I do answer many of your questions.


BULLSHIT Davie.  All you do is C&P something from AIG when you can match the appropriate buzzword.  Even with that, most times you're too stupid to even understand what is being argued.  You NEVER answer any question that requires actual thought on your part.

You're a dishonest, arrogant coward Davie.
And as long as you keep acting like one, you'll get treated like one.

Of course, you could easily shut me up and prove we wrong to the lurkers by actually addressing those tough questions.  
But we both know you won't, because you can't.

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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,14:20   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 03 2006,16:57)
 I do answer many of your questions.  I have actually answered the sorting question twice now.

Sorry, Davie-moron, what you've posted are not answers.  They're feeble attempts to avoid and obfuscate the questions.
Quote
Remember also ... I'm only one guy.  And can really only thoroughly research about one topic at a time.

You obviously can't research any topic at all, much less thoroughly.  Your ignorance is appalling.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,16:24   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 03 2006,16:57)
Moan.  Complain.  Gripe.  Dave's dishonest.  Dave won't answer questions.  Dave this.  Dave that.

Hey, someone has to pick the topics, right?  Why not me since this is my thread?  I do answer many of your questions.  I have actually answered the sorting question twice now.  Maybe not to your liking.  But I've answered it.  Remember also ... I'm only one guy.  And can really only thoroughly research about one topic at a time.

Tomorrow ... Mt Ngauruhoe !!!

Translation:

Quote
buck buck buck buck buck buckbuuuuuck...


:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D


Yeah, you better run!

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,17:23   

Quote
My bet is that you won't engage the issue of xenoliths at all.
How much?  And so people don't think I'm greedy, I'll donate my winnings to K4T :-)

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,17:41   

Gee, Dave, will this be like your reaction to a gentleman's bet on the strata on the Kaibab Limestone, then the Grand Canyon...then the Grand Staircase, then your "bet" about dating the Morrison via methods not involving igneous "grains?" I seem to recall  that you were already given methods of absolute dates *there* which you failed to honor as a bet.

Given your history there -- and given your history at getting caught in observable, demonstrable lies in the past...why should anyone believe you?  

Seriously, Dave...give me one reason why I should believe you at anything, given your tactics, your sheer willingness to do anything neccessary to weasel your way through nearly 180 pages of your "hypothesis?" You don't HAVE honor...you have an absolutist, irrational ideology that leaves you just as insane as any madman that ever flew a plane into a building.

The funny part about it is that it's not really about the religion for you, though...it's really about "Dave" Like I said, we peeled apart the layers of your "hypothesis" and at the center of it was a little mirror image of Dave...pretending to speak for God. But you don't count, so I see no reason to give a crap about you and your toxic ideas about God...or your bets.

Sure, Dave, you can "bring up" xenoliths. I just did right now...but just as with everything else, you'll run from actual direct question-and-answer debate. You'll skirt the issues and then "claim victory " as you have each time, regardless of how dishonest and unChristian you had to be.

So, hey, go for it, Dave...but I wouldn't *BET* you...not because I "fear" your ability to support an argument...but because I KNOW you're ultimately dishonest and you can't be trusted to back your bets or words.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,18:01   

Quote
MY BACKGROUND
I was first an Electrical Engineer, then an Air Force pilot (T-38 and Huey, believe it or not), then a businessman...I was never a logician, by trade, but that does not mean I can't become one very quickly, especially when I see gross incompetence in the field. I also do not pretend to be a professional geologist, cosmologist, physicist, biologist, or Hebrew or Greek scholar. But I do know some good ones and I read voraciously. What I really am is an ordinary guy with a pretty good brain for learning most anything who is sick and tired of what appears to me to be absolute nonsense being fed to us from the Evolution Dogmatists...I may not get very far with closed minded professional scientisits, which I hope you are not, but I hope to put some truth out there in an area where I currently see a lot of error...Why does it always seem that every time the word 'God' is even mentioned, everybody runs for cover and says it's not science?


That was from the first page of this thread...you then go on to talk about how you are "scientific " and believe your hypothesis to be "scientific" and how you believe you can bring sufficient evidence to the table and back it with cogent arguments that would convince cynical "Darwinists." In short, you pretended that your hypothesis WAS "scientific" and in fact you SAID so...

BUT...now it's come down to this claim:  
Quote
NOTE: Some of you have the idea that I am trying to become a scientist and present a hypothesis that could be published in a scientific journal or something. I have no such illusions. Here at ATBC, I am really in the role of Investigative Journalist.


Suddenly you're NOT a "scientific" guy, you're a "journalist" investingating both sides of the argument...but you already have your mind made up. This is shown in every page of this thread, as you weasel your way through it...avoiding, lying, diverting, distracting, refusing to deal with facts as they are or questions regarding your claims and assertions.

So...that's what it's come down to: You KNOW that in fact, you've been slapped around with each of your silly YEC claims, so now you say you're not actually presenting a "hypothesis" you're just a "journalist."

Very convenient...and a good excuse for you to never have to answer any questions that you find troubling, because suddenly you're not the Dave that made gradiose claims , you're now the Dave that got smacked around on his stupid claims and knows it.

You're reduced to a pinata for the amusement of every poster here and all the lurkers who have voiced their opinion. You're reduced to this continuing strategy of never dealing with your own "theory that is better than any other" which you can't even support. Good for you, Davey. Bravo!! You're now just a clown.

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

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,18:23   

AFDave, you answer questions only if you can come up with search terms that lead to something you find convincing in your creo databases. All the questions you ignore happen to pose basic challenges to your hypothesis. What could explain that peculiar distribution?  Is it related to gravitation and mobility?

As for "move along, nothing to see here" -- sorry, sweetpea, but you don't get to manipulate this audience like you do your hapless Sunday-schoolers. You started the thread but you don't own the discussion. I've copied dead_man's list of unanswered questions and every time you try to move on, I'll add it to the comments.

As a teacher, you're sub-worthless; as a Christian, you're a disgrace.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,19:01   

Quote
NOTE: Some of you have the idea that I am trying to become a scientist and present a hypothesis that could be published in a scientific journal or something. I have no such illusions. Here at ATBC, I am really in the role of Investigative Journal

Nobody, and I mean nobody here that has just two neurons to rub together thinks that you're "trying to become a scientist " capable of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, AirHead. But you certainly made claims early on about your "hypothesis " BEING scientific...which it turns out it is not...and now you say you're *really* just an "investigative jounalist" (yeah, you remind me of Denyse O'Leary at UD...equally stupid, the differences being she's female and Catholic, that's about it. )
You made claims about being a skeptic, about presenting evidence, at having a "theory that is better than any other," at being capable of presenting your arguments and data to support your claims...here's just a few of your comments from the first pages of this thread:  
*********************************************
A few quotes from AirHeadDave

Page 2: That's the difference between my Hypothesis and the two of yours. Yours have no evidence. Mine does.

Page 3: I have the mind of an engineer and a scientist. I, like you, am a healthy skeptic... But my real view of myself is that I am scientific, not religious. But my definition of science is ... drum roll ... more expansive than yours. I consider ALL possibilites for explaining and describing the universe, not just so called 'naturalistic ones' which we presently understand. I, in contrast to you, make allowance that there just might be some things that we don't understand yet because our science is not advanced enough

p. 6 : Science attempts to explain things in terms of current understanding. Then as new understanding comes, science modifies its descriptions. This is what I do... It is my goal of this exercise...The proper definition of science should include trying to explain the phenomena in the universe, where ever that may lead...What I am doing.. is showing everyone why MY proposed proximate cause makes more sense than YOUR proposed proximate cause for explaining the phenomena in the universe

p.9: It is my opinion that these claims are true ... however, I am not asking anyone to join me in that belief until I show my evidence supporting these claims... Creationism explains everything MUCH better than Evolution does. It explains designs in nature, it explains the human condition, it explains the fossil record, it explains coal beds and oil wells, it explains the races of mankind. It explains dinosaurs and the ice age.
************************************************
Now, after getting spanked for over 170 pages, you've dropped that charade in favor of an approach that you want to use to avoid questioning of your "theory that is better than any other." You're not even close to being a good scam artist, but you are definitely trying to sell snake-oil. Yet you don't like the way it tastes getting shoved down your throat. Too f___ing bad.

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

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

Pages: (202) < ... 172 173 174 175 176 [177] 178 179 180 181 182 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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