Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
Heh.
dave got all worked up again.
What did you guys do now to make him quote scripture again?
Oh, nevermind. I see. He just got cornered and switched to denial again.
Sooo... We got 'silenced', dave? "defeats in evolutionary biology"? When was that exactly? You "beat the Tyre thing to death"? Oh reeeeeeally? how did you do that, if I may ask? Because in all these issues, all I can remember you doing is repeating the same refuted non-arguments and running away like Brave Sir Robin.
But I may be wrong. Why don't you prove that by linking to the posts where you silenced, defeated and beat us up, dave? I'm sure your church buddies would love to see the evidence of your supreme victory... 
...But something tells me they've begun to figure you out themselves by now. Quick, do another "summary"!
Boy, your arrogance reeks through your pretense of humility like mold through age-old walls... If only you had the wit to back it up.
This is much easier when you do it with kids, right dave?
Now, for your latest pathetic handwaving:
I like your "bridge" analogy, dave, but unfortunately it totally fails. Here's another analogy that best portrays your viiews:
OMIGOSH! If you don't triple-check your instruments and systems and indicators before you take off in a plane, you might CRASH! Not to mention how likely that is if you try to take off in THUNDERSTORMS and HURRICANES! Well, it's obvious: PLANES CAN'T FLY! Aviation is...
BALONEY!
Sounds silly, dave? It is. And so are you.
If a CT scan fails to identify a small tumor in the lungs, does this mean CT scanning is "baloney"? If that tumor is hidden by a vessel of a local pneumonia, does this mean we should dump all CT scanners and get back to percussion as the most reliable diagnostic means?
You see, you're trying to argue against a scientific method -and all methods in science, from medicine to rocket technology, have margins of error and sensitivity in application. Scientists work around those, by careful selection and evaluation and correlation... And that's how science works (and you'd know that, if you REALLY were an engineer). He11, that's why science works.
And it works, dave. Oh-ho, it works. And you know it.
See, forget all your ridiculous rants, about how excess or less argon means that Argon is some magical element, undetected and ever-present like the anti-Ether, that screws up all datings (even not K-Ar ones?  ).
Or about how 4 wrong measurements out of 20 somehow mean that the other 16 out of those 20 were wrong too, and the validity of their results, cross-referenced and in accordance with other measurements, is apparently by CHANCE (just another joke of your clown version of a god, who likes to pull practical jokes on us).
Or about xenoliths, that first you denied they existed in the samples and then said that "you bet" (haha) their argon will be insignificant -even though the entire geologic community knows and has demonstrated otherwise.
Won't be the first time you argue against textbook knowledge in a scientific field, aided by the lies of AiG and ICR, and it won't be the first time you'd have to resort to conspiracies to justify your claims. Nothing new here.
No dave. All this is not worth our time. After all, they can all be refuted by a single word:
Pompeii.
Have the guts to finally address that, dave. And not by claiming that The Berkeley Geo Center are impostors, and that "you bet" they hid other more discordant data: Unsupported accusations are not arguments.
But hey, it's ok if you don't. Kicking puppies is not my favorite sport. If you want to take your mind off that, here's a small logical exersise to keep you occupied:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right. The world IS 6000 years old, and all radiometric dating provides false old ages because of the ever-present 'excess Argon'. Or whatever.
Now, in the Red Corner, we have the Atheist Pinko Evobot Scientists: They try to do their best to prove that the Earth is old, according to their Darwinist cult.
In the White Corner, we have the Scientist Champions of the Almighty's Truth.(*) They try to open the eyes of the world to the young age of the Earth and the flaws of the APES and their dating methods.
With me so far? Good.
Now, how would you expect each side to conduct measurements? Since the APES side desperarely tries to prove an old earth, they'd just throw measurements here and there, whole rocks partially heated, xenoliths and all, to get as much excess argon and crust contamination and whatever else it is that makes the rocks seem old. They would say that "xenoliths don't really matter, the don't make that much a difference" or "no need to evaluate excess argon" and throw out their results without cross-referencing.
Our Champions, on the other hand, would try to: A) either produce an accurate (young) age for the rocks, by eliminating all contamination as much as possible, or B) if that's not possible, show that, no matter how carefully you perform the method, it is still unreliable.
So, they would carefully select samples, evaluate them for obvious sources of excess Argon, exclude xenoliths, attempt to cross-reference the results with independent measurements, in order to find the REAL age of the rocks- or to at least demonstrate that, even taking all possibilities into consideration, and after copious efforts, the method still provides unreliable results.
Sounds reasonable to you, dave?
If not, why?
If yes, why do we see exactly the opposite?
Why do we see Geologists going into all the trouble of eliminating all possibilities of error in their method, by carefully selecting and evaluating and preparing and heating and measuring and cross-referencing samples, if they are looking for a FLAWED age?
Why do we see creationists being all sloppy and careless and provide stand-alone results on ambiguous samples with poor preparation and application of the method, if it is the method's essential validity that they try to discredit?
Starting to get the picture dave?
...No, of course you don't.
(*) haha, I just noticed that both acronyms work just fine!
--------------
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."
|
