Joined: Oct. 2005
Dave I think you might be up for the "Wishful Thinking of the Year" award here at AtBC. "Blown away?" Right. Sure. I doubt the most partisan Young-Earth Creationist on the planet could read this thread and think you've blown anyone's arguments away. And, more to the point, you've presented exactly no support for your own "hypothesis," which supposedly was the point of this whole thread.
So let's tale your assertions one by one and see what the real story is:
|Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,06:42)|
|1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.|
Um, No. You did no such thing, Dave. In fact, I don't even remember you even discussing anything about whale evolution, let alone showing how it doesn't support evolution. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to post a link to the page where you discussed it. But even if you had, that's a long, long way from affirmative evidence in support of your "hypothesis." Even if the Theory of Evolution were totally wrong, that would say absolutely nothing about whether your "hypothesis" is right.
|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.|
What, by posting pictures of chimps and humans and saying they look nothing like each other? That's "showing us in detail"? I don't think so, Dave. The evidence that humans and chimps are not only related, but more closely related than humans are to any other organisms, is conclusive. You couldn't even understand the evidence in support of that conclusion, let alone disprove it. In the meantime, Incorygible explained in exquisite detail exactly how the time back to the LCA of humans and chimps was derived, but somehow you managed to miss that whole discussion, even after he posted it twice. But even if that explanation were completely wrong, that would provide no support whatsoever for your "hypothesis."
|3) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages, yet Deadman wants to perpetuate Henke's distortion about zircons being tested under pressure even though he was clearly shown why it is not the same as testing soft micas. |
Wrong again, Dave. JonF obliterated your claims over and over again, and showed how even if Humphreys were totally right in his claims, at most that would amount to an interesting anomaly, and wouldn't even begin to overthrow the hundreds of thousands of concordant results obtained by multiple radiometric methods worldwide. But his claims were not right, and you were shown exactly why they were wrong. But even if they were wrong, that would provide exactly no support for your young-earth creationism, because you've never been able to come up a single method that produces a date of 6,000 years ± even 3,000 years.
|4) You were shown how geologists have been completely surprised to find too much C14 in coal and diamonds. If they are so old, it shouldn't be there.|
You showed no such thing, Dave. Half a dozen people explained to you exactly why you cannot date quarter of a billion year old coal seams with a dating technique that is known not to work beyond 50,000 years, and you were told exactly why it doesn't work beyond 50,000 years. And guess what? The results obtained still blow away your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You have not provided any single methodology for dating anything that produces a date of 6,000 years. So even if your claims about C14 dating were correct, they would still provide exactly no support for your "hypothesis."
|5) You were shown how leading evolutionists already admit "apparent design" in nature, yet they are so blind they (and you) say it is only a mirage|
Dave, are you ever going to understand the difference between "apparent design" and "designed"? What you think looks like it was "designed," I may not. Does a bat's wing look designed to you? Because it sure doesn't to me. Nor does a tree, nor does a mitochondrion. That's why argument by analogy doesn't work, and that's why when Behe said at the Dover trial, "Life looks designed because it was designed," the court was completely unimpressed.
|6) You were shown how your own site which you love (Talk Origins) supports the Michael Denton observation that the cosmos is finely tuned for life, and specifically for mankind|
Dave, if the cosmos was "finely tuned for life," then why is it that, as far as we can tell, the only place in the entire universe, of which we can see almost 14 billion light years in any direction, where life can exist is right here on earth? If the universe were designed with life in mind, then why isn't there life everywhere? It looks to me as if God dislikes life so much he made it practically impossible for it to exist.
|7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis|
You didn't even begin to show this, Dave. You weren't even able to show that a universal moral code exists. You yourself admitted that under certain circumstances you would be willing to put women and children to death if ordered to do so. Is that part of your "universal moral code"? If so, how do you personally feel about abortion? Gay Marriage? Illegal drugs? Because I'm in favor of all three. I believe all three can be moral choices almost all the time. So much for your "universal moral code."
|8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.|
Dave, macroevolution happens all the time, and overwhelming evidence that it happens is available in the fossil record. We don't see fruitflies evolving into something else within a human lifetime for reasons that any idiot can understand. You, on the other hand, clearly believe in ultra-mega-ultimo-superbo-fantasico-macroevolution, because you believe that a single monkey "kind" evolved into over two hundred species of monkeys in less than 5,000 years. So are you sure you don't believe in macroevolution? But even if macroevolution had in fact never happened, that wouldn't even begin to amount to evidence in favor of your "hypothesis."
|9) You were shown how the Genesis Record is not an oral tradition, but is in reality a carefully written, eye-witness account and predates the Gilgamesh Epic and other heathen distortions.|
Dave, you made this claim. You were never able to support it with a single piece of evidence, and the contrary evidence is so overwhelming that it beggars belief that someone living in the 21st Century could possibly believe it. Genesis underestimates the age of the earth by six orders of magnitude, just to take one example of where it is wrong.
|10) You were shown the most obvious and persuasive evidence ever given to any generation of the truth of a Global Flood--Millions of dead things buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth.|
Right, Dave. Do you think if you tell us this often enough, we'll eventually believe it? You've given exactly no reason why it's more plausible that all these fossils, which are laid down in exactly the order expected by evolution and not even close to the order expected by "flood geology," were all laid down in one massive deluge rather than over millions to billions of years. This is just one of the more than fifty questions you've never even tried to answer. You've been asked this one question at least ten times, and so far you've acted like you've never even heard it.
|11) You were shown how many leading geologists have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.|
Dave, would you characterize an asteroid or comet strike as a typically "uniformitarian" process? Yet it was proponents of standard theories of geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology who first compiled evidence for the asteroid strike that wiped out the dinosaurs, not creationists. The fact that you simply do not understand the difference between castrophists and uniformitarians in the context of evolutionary biology and geology lends exactly zero support to your "hypothesis."
|12) You have been shown that your "convincing fossil record" consists of only 13% of the entire supposed geologic time. I should show you how much of that occurs in the "Cambrian Explosion"|
Dave, the oldest extant fossils (fossil stromatolites) go back to 3.8 billion years ago. Is that 13% of the time the earth has existed? Do you believe the earth is 30 billion years old? And what kind of fossils would you expect to find anyway from 3 billion or so years ago? Multicellular life didn't even appear until less than a billion years ago, and very little of that life would be expected to fossilize anyway.
|13) We touched on the fact that there has been a new term invented -- "Punctuated Equilibrium" -- Why? Because the fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary scenario.|
Do you think "punctuated equilibrium" somehow falsified evolutionary biology, Dave? Do you even know what the term means? "Punk Eak" was propounded by, among others, Stephen Jay Gould, over 30 years ago. Do you think Mr. Gould disputes the reality of evolution?
|14) You have been shown two modern day examples of debris dams bursting and forming canyons, one of them cutting vertical walls in hard rock. |
And you have been shown exactly how those canyons differ in specific and expected ways from Canyons that take millions of years to form. You simply refuse to admit that there are differences, despite the fact that everyone else here can clearly see them. But even if it were true that, say, the Grand Canyon could have formed in a year or two, that provides no support whatsoever for your young-earth "hypothesis," because you've provided no method whatsoever for dating the Grand Canyon, despite having been asked multiple times to provide one.
| 15) You have been shown how uniformitarians laughed at Harlan Bretz for 60 years before finally agreeing that he was right--that the Palouse Canyon was formed catastrophically.|
And that has what to do with the Grand Canyon, Dave? Even proving that some canyons can form quickly doesn't even begin to say that all canyons form quickly, and the evidence that the Grand Canyon formed over millions of years is utterly conclusive.
|16) You have been shown that incised meanders require soft sediments.|
Dave, you've been shown how wrong you are on this point eight ways from Sunday. The "meanders" you're talking about were formed in soft sediments by the Mississippi. Did the Mississippi river form a canyon? Did the Mississippi form a canyon through hard metamorphic and igneous rock?
|17) You have been shown these and many other things which support the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed during the receding phase of the Flood.|
Dave, none of these things support the notion that the Grand Canyon was formed quickly, let alone a mere 4,500 years ago, and the contrary evidence obliterates your "hypothesis." Moreover, you've never even been able to come up with a source for water for your flood! How do you get a flood without any water, Dave? And how do you get 5,000 feet of sediment out of 5,000 feet of water? Was this a "global flood," or a "global mudslide"?
|18) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils, not radiometrically as we are led to believe|
Making a claim and supporting that claim are two entirely different things, Dave. You've never been able to support your claim that no Grand Staircase strata can be dated radiometrically, you've been given at least 80 sources to examples of radiometric dating of various strata, which you just ignore in the hopes that no one else will notice. And in the meantime, even if it were true that none of the Grand Staircase strata could be dated radiometrically, that would provide not the slightest ghost of a sliver of a particle of an atom of evidence in support of your "hypothesis." As I've pointed out at least a dozen times now, you have not been able to provide a single methodology to date the Grand Staircase strata at all, let alone a methodology that provides dates that converge on 4,500 years ago, or any other date for that matter.
So your "list" was just obliterated in the time it took to type this up, Dave, which admittedly was a lot more than 5 minutes, but I guarantee you it will take a lot less than five minutes to repost some, but by no means all, of the questions you have never been able to answer:
|(1) Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others. |
(2) You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124
(3) I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124
(4) How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?
(5) Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?
(6) If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??
(7) How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?
(8) You claim that humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?
(9) Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.
(10) Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?
(11) Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?
(12) How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"
(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?
(17) Where's your evidence that those tens of millions of species radiated from the several hundred species of organisms that could possibly have fit on the ark, all in the space of a few thousand years? Ultra-mega-hyper-macroevolution, at rates millions of times faster than proposed by the Theory of Evolution?
(18) Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains) Where did it go?
(19) Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 6,000 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 6,000 meters of sediment?
(20) Where did all that water in your ‘global flood run-off’---run off to?
(21) Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.
(22) Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?
(23) How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?
(24) If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?
(25) Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft ")
(26) You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?
(27) Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?
(28) Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that wouldn't have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years
(29) Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor
(30) Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.
(31) Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave? (32) Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.
(33) Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?
(34) Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?
(35) Why don't we see disruption of the varves?
(36) Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "theory?"
(37) Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.
I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.
> This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?
(38) JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.
(39) Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?
(40) Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer p.125
(41) How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?
(42) The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.
(43) Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.
(44) Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?
(45) How was a canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.
(46) I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?
(47) Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked: "okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong." And: "Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here. Cowardly Dave refused to answer.
(48) Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase
(49) Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them
(50) Why do you choose to lie deliberately so much, MaggotDave?
There. That took all of a minute.
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