RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 173 174 175 176 177 [178] 179 180 181 182 183 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2006,22:48   

DDTTD says...

Quote
Why does it always seem that every time the word 'God' is even mentioned, everybody runs for cover and says it's not science?


Nobody's running for cover, but until you understand that saying goddidit, you just don't have a clue what science is.

DDTTD says...

Quote
And so people don't think I'm greedy...

AND

Do you realize that companies in America have literally shut down whole divisions because of thin-skinned, greedy, litigious people?  Cessna Aircraft Company is one of them.  People like this are helping to destroy America.


We have every reason to think you and yours are greedy.

Destroy America? Teehee. What investment did you get BURNED on to spout that nonsense? Why did that lousy socialist rag The Pitch bring up your church's involvement with Graco? (The original story was first printed by the Kansas City Star, what's wrong with their credentials DDTTD?) There's enough evidence, dubious or not, that YOUR church is involved in a LOT more than saving souls. Greed for both political and monetary power is defininatly involved. Your kids4cults site is just another mani(in)festation of that mentality.

You've told us why you're here repeatedly but the story's changed whenever you had your back to the wall (and you've taunted us by telling us we didn't REALLY know why you're here, OOPS hand me that crack pipe DM).

Now you drop these steaming heaps on us and run.

Quote
I have no such illusions.  Here at ATBC, I am really in the role of Investigative Journalist. So I investigate the claims of Evolutionists and the claims of Creationists.

AND

I write materials for kids.

AND

And I want to write accurately.

AND

Because that is really my goal -- to weigh the claims of the Evos against the claims of the Creos.


DANG DDTTD I'm gonna go whack a dead skunk to get the stench outta my nose!

DDTTD, you have no illusions, you have major league delusions.

Is there any question why some have equated your behaviour with child abuse?

I picked up a copy of your Creo rag, "The Stitch" today, and I gotta tell you boy, I laughed till my stomach muscles hurt and I do 40 sit ups a day!

Dammit, I just rubbed two neurons together and the colours are fantabulous! Anybody up for some dead skunk Satay? The grill is hot! Beers are on me.

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,00:18   

As an amateur in all this, I think that the fossil record is the most powerful piece of evidence for common descent for non-scientists. It's easy to understand and doesn't lend itself to any other interpretation.

This is the second time that Dave quoted the AIG tract and again it got the same response that the sorting has nothing to do with body size or brains or speed but follows the tree of life.

I'll bet that Dave doesn't come back to it with a theory of sorting consistant with the actual fossil record.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,01:42   

Spanked for 170 pages? You guys have been blown away, but you are too blind and committed to Millionsofyearsianism to see it.  

1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  
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.
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.  
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.
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
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
7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
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.
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.
11) You were shown how many leading geologists have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
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"
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.
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.  
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.
16) You have been shown that incised meanders require soft sediments.
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.
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

And I just put this list together from memory in about 5 minutes.  I will put together a more extensive list soon.

Dropped my charade? There's no charade.  I am scientific though not a credentialed scientist.  And I am an investigator who is investigating these issues.  And I have been from the beginning.  There has been no change.  Only a relentless pursuit of the truth and a tireless walk through the points of my Creator God Hypothesis.  We will continue to forge ahead.

My character? I have been completely honest and up front, admitting my errors when I make them.  My church and its leaders are of the highest character and morals and have never defrauded anyone.  My pastor is one of the hardest working, lowest paid men for his skill set that I have ever met.  I challenge anyone here who wants to portray me or my church as immoral to come and see for yourself.  Get both sides of the story.  Only cowards sling mud when they hear just one side.  Crabby and Aftershave have said they want to visit.  Then come on!  I'm waiting.

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

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,02:17   

Dave said:

"(in regards to Fraud) Pretty strong words!  Is it a really a fraud?  Why?  Or why not?"

Really, you use and imply the word with every post.  The whole of science is perpetrating a fraud to convince people God does not exist.  How and why else would everyone in the scientific community, with the exception of the Christian Right, believe in such theory!  Such a fraud would require 10 of thousands of scientist to by lying.  Do they get pay-o-la for that?

Well, it could be that the theory IS correct and that the real fraud is being committed by a hand full Christian Right, mostly non-scientists, with a proven agenda.

Logically, which do you think is the more reasonable answer?

(No prompting from our studio audience!;)

--------------
- 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!

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,02:23   

NEW TOPIC:  THE RELEVANCE AND MEANING OF RADIOMETRIC DATING OF ANCIENT LAVAS.

An investigation of the 2003 paper by Dr. Andrew Snelling

   
Quote
THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIOISOTOPIC DATING ANDREW A. SNELLING, Ph.D. INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH PO BOX 2667 EL CAJON, CA 92021

ABSTRACT
Mt Ngauruhoe in the Taupo Volcanic Zone of New Zealand erupted andesite lava flows in 1949 and 1954, and avalanche deposits in 1975. Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb radioisotopic analyses of samples of these andesites, as anticipated, did not yield any “age” information, although the Pb isotopic data are strongly linear. When compared with recent andesite flows from the related adjacent Ruapehu volcano, the Sr-Nd-Pb radioisotopic systems plotted on correlation diagrams provide information about the depleted mantle source for the parental basalt magmas and the source of the crustal contamination that produced the andesite lavas from them. The variations in both the depleted mantle Nd “model ages” and the Pb isotopes also suggest radioisotopic heterogeneity in the mantle wedge 80 km below the volcano where partial melting has occurred, contaminated by mixing with trench sediments scraped off the interface with the subducting slab. Thus the radioisotopic ratios in these recent Ngauruhoe andesite flows were inherited, and reflect the origin and history of the mantle and crustal sources from which the magma was generated. By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental to their geochemistry, characteristic of their origin and history rather than necessarily providing valid conventional “ages”.

INTRODUCTION
With the development of isotope geochemistry in the last 35–40 years has come the realization that radioisotopes may not always provide reliable age measurements. It has been discovered that recent and historic lavas, particularly on oceanic islands, yield incredibly old radioisotopic “ages” [18, 22, 61]. This has led to the recognition that the radioisotopes in these lavas reflect the isotopic compositions of the mantle sources of these lavas, and of any crustal contamination the magmas may have incorporated during ascent and extrusion [18, 22, 59, 61]. The present burgeoning isotope geochemistry literature, reporting increasing numbers of ever more accurate and sophisticated radioisotopic determinations, has only refined the modeling of mantle sources and discussion of their origin, while ignoring the obvious implications for the radioisotopic “age” determinations of ancient lavas being published in the same literature. It was deemed timely, therefore, to undertake an isotope geochemical study of some recent lavas not previously investigated. There were two objectives — to explore the meaning of the radioisotopic ratios in terms of the petrogenesis of the lavas; and thus to recognise the implications for radioisotopic “age” determinations on both recent and ancient lavas.

(body of paper)

CONCLUSIONS
The Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb radioisotopic ratios in these samples of the recent (1949–1975) andesite lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, as anticipated, do not yield any meaningful “age” information, even with selective manipulation of the data. Instead, these data provide evidence of the mantle source of the lavas, of magma genesis, and of crustal contamination of the parental basalt magmas. Subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the Taupo Volcanic Arc has carried trench sediments with it — sediments identical in composition to the Torlesse metasediment basement underlying, and outcropping adjacent to, these volcanoes. Scraped off the subducting slab, the sediments have contaminated the basalt magmas generated by partial melting of the peridotitic mantle wedge at the mantle-slab interface. The resultant andesite magmas rose in the melt column through the mantle wedge, and then ascended through fracture conduits in the overlying crust into magma chambers below the volcanoes that erupted when full. The Sr-Nd-Pb radioisotopic systematics are thus characteristic of the depleted mantle source, modified by mixing with the crustal contaminant. Variations in the depleted mantle Nd “model ages”, which range from 724.5 to 1453.3 Ma, and which are meaningless in this recent (even in conventional terms) tectonic and petrogenetic framework, and the Pb isotopic linear arrays, indicate geochemical heterogeneity in the mantle wedge. Thus the radioisotopic ratios in these recent Ngauruhoe andesite lava flows were inherited from both the peridotitic mantle wedge and the subducted trench sediments, and are fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore only reflect the origin and history of the
mantle and crustal sources from which the magma was generated, and therefore have no age significance. By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information.


http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCMt_Ngauruhoe-AAS.pdf

What he's saying here guys is that since these flows are so recent, the "age" information--i.e. the parent/daughter ratios which indicate great age--are meaningless.  This is why it is said that you cannot date recent lava flows radiometrically.  The reason, supposedly, is because the amount of daughter product is so small that it cannot be measured accurately.  Remember, in theory at time T=0, there should be no daughter product.  However, in this case (and I assume in every case of recent flows), there is a significant amount of daughter products, thus indicating great age.  Of course this is not accepted because the flow was known to have occurred in the 20th century.  So he is saying that this simply indicates the origin of this recent flow, and by implication, all other recent and ancient flows.

Now JonF has said this whole study was a fraud and the reason he gave was because Snelling included xenoliths in his dating samples.  However, I think Jon is missing the point of the study and thus missing the reason for why xenoliths were included.  This topic is still very new to me but my understanding is that there are basically two general methods of dating igneous rock:  the Whole Rock Isochron method and the Mineral Isochron method.  I also understand that the majority of published RM dates involve the Whole Rock method.  Jon said Snelling was being deceptive by not doing a mineral isochron analysis.  Are all those published Whole Rock results frauds also?  What Jon is failing to see is that Snelling isn't trying to get an exact creation date for particular minerals.  Had he done so, his conclusions would have been the same ... he just would have spent more money!  The exact "age" of the samples is irrelevant.  He was simply showing that ANY "RM ages" determined on recent flows is irrelevant to the true age of the sample--it simply indicates its origin.  

I'm not sure what JonF thinks Snelling was trying to do, but it looks like he did not read the paper very well.

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

Regardless of what JonF understands or does not understand, I think I understand perfectly ... and hopefully you do as well ...

RADIOMETRIC "DATING" ON RECENT (AND BY IMPLICATION, ANCIENT) LAVA FLOWS IS MEANINGLESS

So "bye, bye" to Deadman's idea that radiometric dating of the ash mudstone of the Morrison formation has any relevance to the depositing of the layer.

Ditto for the ash beds of the Carmel.

Ditto for the tuff at Koobi Fora.

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

So now could we please stop lying to all the kids in public schools and universities by telling them that layers like the Grand Staircase can be dated radiometrically?

Thanks in advance!

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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,04:23   

Davie, Davie, Davie.  You moron. My prediction is fulfilled.  You didn't engage the issue of xenoliths at all.  You just regurgitated Snelling's handwaving.  Facts:

  • Xenoliths are older pieces of rock embedded in younger rock.
  • Dating a rock containing containing xenoliths with a whole-rock method gives a meaningless result, a weighted average of the ages of the components.
  • Snelling knows this.
  • Snelling did not mention this effect in his paper on Ngauruhoe.
  • This effect is the obvious reason for the results obtained.

Conclusion: fraud.

The entire quote of Snelling with your added emphasis is irrelevant to these facts and conclusion.

Deal with these facts, Davie-diddles.

(There are other problems with the study, but the fraud is the major problem).

Now for your ignorance-generated comments:
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,07:23)
However, I think Jon is missing the point of the study and thus missing the reason for why xenoliths were included.

The reason is obvious: to fraudulently skew the results.
 
Quote
This topic is still very new to me ...

IOW you're just blowing smoke about another topic on which you are totally ignorant.
 
Quote
... but my understanding is that there are basically two general methods of dating igneous rock:  the Whole Rock Isochron method and the Mineral Isochron method.  I also understand that the majority of published RM dates involve the Whole Rock method.

There are isochron methods and simple-accumulation methods (such as the K-Ar method Snelling used; he did not use an isochron method, you ignoramus) and the argon-argon method and the concordia-discordia method and a whole host of others.  There is whole-rock sample selection and mineral sample selection. Most methods can be performed on either whole-rock samples or mineral samples, but the most widely used method (concordia-discordia) can only be performed on mineral samples; there is no such thing as a whole-rock concordia-discordia analysis.

The majority of the dates in the literature, and the vast majority of the dates published in the last fifteen years or so, are mineral analyses.
 
Quote
Jon said Snelling was being deceptive by not doing a mineral isochron analysis.  Are all those published Whole Rock results frauds also?

No, they are not.  There are two valid ways of performing whole-rock analysis:

  • (The most common) examine multiple thin-sections of the rock to determine that there are no xenoliths present or, if there are xenoliths present:
  • Separate the xenoliths, usually manually (a grad student with a microscope and tweezers), from the material that is to be analyzed.

(See, for example, instructions and tips for sample preparation.)

Snelling's work is invalid because he did neither of these; it is fraudulent because anyone who is competent to conduct such a study knows how to do whole-rock analyses properly, and Snelling didn't do it properly.
 
Quote
 What Jon is failing to see is that Snelling isn't trying to get an exact creation date for particular minerals.  Had he done so, his conclusions would have been the same ... he just would have spent more money!  The exact "age" of the samples is irrelevant.  He was simply showing that ANY "RM ages" determined on recent flows is irrelevant to the true age of the sample--it simply indicates its origin.

But the only way he could come to that conclusion was through fraud. 
 
Quote
I'm not sure what JonF thinks Snelling was trying to do, but it looks like he did not read the paper very well.

I read it and understood it. You may have done the former, but you failed miserably at the latter.
 
Quote
RADIOMETRIC "DATING" ON RECENT (AND BY IMPLICATION, ANCIENT) LAVA FLOWS IS MEANINGLESS

Radiometric dating on such recent lava flows is meaningless because the instrumentation is incapable of resolving such small amounts of daughter product; this has no implication for dating ancient lava flows.  The only way to obtain results such as Snelling's is through fraud.

(It is possible, by dint of heroic effort and very careful analysis, to accurately date lava flows as recent as 2,000 years old; Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years and 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger.)
 
Quote
So now could we please stop lying to all the kids in public schools and universities by telling them that layers like the Grand Staircase can be dated radiometrically?

No lies involved, Davie-dork.  Layers like the Grand Staircase can be dated radiometrically.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,04:32   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,06:42)
(Long list of 18 GROSS DISTORTIONS AND BLATANT LIES)

OK, dave, you almost got me this time, but not quite. I was about to post a furious comment of your assertions, examine them quote by quote, show everyone how completely dishonest you are by claiming that this is the way this debate proceeded so far, and once again, DARE you to show me WHERE and HOW you managed to "show" all that to us...
...But then I stopped. A long, self-assuring list of unsupported assertions, and then we immediately rush off to another subject, dave? Hmm...

Aah, I see. AllCapsDave plays Brave Sir Robin again, but this time before his peers.

You HAVE shown this thread to some of your friends, right dave? Quite recently? Perhaps all this time when you were stalling with irrelevant posts about faith and such?

And now you are afraid they might see just how big an ass you're made in this forum, and you try to save what you can. So you post this long list of claims you supposedly "proved", and immediately head for the hills. It doesn't matter how obviously and indecently you show yourself as a LIAR by saying all these things- Your friends don't know, not unless they bother to read all 180 pages of the thread. So you try to fool them, not us.
You poor, immature fellow... In a way, it's good you got involved with religion: At least you will have people to take care of you, even if they use you sometimes; it yould be impossible to survive on your own in the real world with that teenage angst attitude.

So welcome, Friends of dave! This is the thread where your buddy keeps making a fool of himself. You are free to stick around and see for yourselves... As for those previous claims of his, I might get to provide a few links and quotes from those old discussions, to show you what REALLY took place and who got spanked (and keeps getting it). But you can also check yourselves if you like, and see your friend's dishonesty. It just takes a little time, and a little willingness to see the facts and the truth.
I hope that, unlike your friend here, you have both.

--------------
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."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,05:07   

As for your latest trick, I believe JonF has that covered, dave... but anyway, here's a page you might find interesting: It's even got paragraphs with titles in bold allcaps- Just the way you like it!

http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.html
Quote
SCIENCE OR PROPAGANDA?
Getting back to Dr. Snelling's paper, there are some points that can now be made: One must presume that Dr. S. was aware of Geochron's inability to provide reliable K-Ar dates on materials less than 2 million years old. Nevertheless he sent them samples that are less than 60 years old. And there is no mention in his paper of Geochron's limitations in this respect. Furthermore he asked for whole-rock analyses without regard for the problems arising from the presence of xenoliths.
In short, Dr. Snelling 'evaluated' the K-Ar test using samples that he, not to mention everybody else in the business, would have known would produce bad results and then, on this basis alone, gave a failing grade to the K-Ar Method as a whole. But all he has really done is to generate another piece of evidence to the effect that Geochron cannot do what they explicitly say they cannot do.
Dr. S. claims that the method as a whole is a failure and should be discarded, but this claim ignores large numbers of successful determinations on really old rocks that are in close agreement with other radiodating methods.
From these considerations it is clear that Dr Snelling's "evaluation" is nothing more than the sheerest self-serving drivel.

The Ar-Ar method, a more precise off-shoot of the K-Ar method, recently came surprisingly close to the correct date of the Vesuvius Eruption of AD79, 1,920 years ago. This has been hailed as a triumph for the method. As indeed it was.
Dr. Snelling's opus, on the other hand, is nothing more than a piece of propaganda, written not to inform scientists, but only to mislead the unknowledgeable.


How does it feel to be misled, unknowledgeable dave?

--------------
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."

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,05:40   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,06:42)
8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.


Again with the fruit flies. I don't recall you ever talking about them at length, but three or four times you mentioned them, in driveby style, as a "great failure." What are you on about there? What have you read that makes you think Drosophila research has been a failure?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,05:40   

Guys, you know, maybe I'm not getting this correctly (and someone please correct me if that's the case), but I think I can imagine the dialogue between those "scientists":

"Well, with this method, we're sure to get a reading that's way off."

"Hmm. How sure?"

"Well... I dunno, quite sure ?"

"Quite sure won't do...  what if the wrong results are not wrong enough?"

"You mean... oh right, I see."

"Throw a fair amount of xenoliths in the sample as well, and ask for a whole rock measurement."

"Haha, good call! only, um..."

"What?"

"Well the xenoliths are too much of a giveaway... Don't you think we'll get called on it?"

"Who cares? Look, this isn't about the scientists, it's about keeping the flock happy. We're paying good money to get a grossly mistaken date, and by gawd, we will!"

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
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."

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,05:45   

Having been a lurker since page 1 of this most wonderful of threads, and having learnt much about many things, there is one question that I don't think has been laid before our favourite creationist.

Since most of these 178 pages has been spent with Dave attempting to pick holes in accepted scientific evidence in many, many disciplines, has he ever actually presented any scientific evidence (ie not from the bible) for a ~ 6,000 yr old earth? Especially as this is supposed to be his Creator God Hypothesis.

So, rather than pick holes in our millionsofyearism, where is your scientific evidence for a ~6,000 year old earth? Where are your ice-cores? Your varves? Your dendrochronology evidence? Your paleosols? Your 40+ different radiometric dating methods?

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,06:45   

Don't forget the subterainian rock worms Tim, that somehow managed to get down into hard rock and leave all those burrows 1000's of feet down, after the flood.

Oh .......and all the angels or were they Santa's Elves..... sorting the fossils.

And my favorite AFD where is the great cosmic bucket god used to get rid of 26,000 of feet of water (ASL) covering the the whole planet.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10278
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,07:01   

Quote (Tim @ Sep. 04 2006,11:45)
Since most of these 178 pages has been spent with Dave attempting to pick holes in accepted scientific evidence in many, many disciplines, has he ever actually presented any scientific evidence (ie not from the bible) for a ~ 6,000 yr old earth?

No. Occasionally he says things like

Quote
Oh, you want my evidence again?
MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
LAID DOWN BY WATER
ALL OVER THE EARTH


He seems to think he's giving evidence. But none of us are quite sure how he thinks he's giving evidence here.

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,07:08   

JONF AND FAID STILL DON'T GET IT

Let's try one more approach ...

Snelling and friends have recognized that recent and historic lavas, particularly on oceanic islands, yield incredibly old radioisotopic “ages”. They cite 17 studies in the RATE Book 2000, including one as late as 1997 by Esser, et. al.)  (0.7 Ma to 700 Ma on historic flows!;) They recognized it and confirmed it with their own samples.  There is no fraud here, JonF.  Why are you quibbling about xenoliths?  Would the "ages" have come out younger if xenoliths were excluded? (BTW--is is not even conclusive that the supposed xenoliths are actually xenoliths at all)  Maybe.  Maybe not. Do we care in this case?  No.  Because we are not trying to get a precise "date" of creation of the lava. We are showing that the lava "dates" are not dates at all, but are merely a reflection of their parent material--the mantle source. But you want to exclude the xeonliths?  OK Fine.  Exclude the xenoliths.  What would they have gotten then?  Answer:  Probably not much different.  Why?  Well look at the 17 other studies cited in the RATE 2000 Book.  Most of them are from historic lava flows and they report everything from 0.7 Ma to 700 Ma!!  Did they exclude xenoliths?  Some did.  Some did not.  

Look here.  JonF is just trying to confuse people.  The truth is that there probably ARE NO xenoliths in the Snelling samples.  It's debatable.  If they are, so what?  All this means is that instead of the samples being dated at 724.5 to 1453.3 Ma, the numbers would have been somewhat different.  

But the thing is ... Millionsofyearianism is shown once again to be a joke ... either way!!  Fine.  Let's give you a really long rope and say the samples would have been dated at 10 Ma with the "xenoliths" excluded.  You still hang yourself by the neck!

Now ... would you please repent and quit lying to schoolchildren?

Thanks again in advance!

****************************
FAID PROVES TO THE WORLD THAT HE DOESN'T EVEN READ THE PAPERS HE IS ATTEMPTING TO REFUTE.

Faid...
Quote
In short, Dr. Snelling 'evaluated' the K-Ar test using samples that he, not to mention everybody else in the business, would have known would produce bad results and then, on this basis alone, gave a failing grade to the K-Ar Method as a whole. But all he has really done is to generate another piece of evidence to the effect that Geochron cannot do what they explicitly say they cannot do.
Dr. S. claims that the method as a whole is a failure and should be discarded, but this claim ignores large numbers of successful determinations on really old rocks that are in close agreement with other radiodating methods.
From these considerations it is clear that Dr Snelling's "evaluation" is nothing more than the sheerest self-serving drivel.

Faid, my friend.  Read Snelling's paper. His point is NOT to discredit K-Ar dating.  Look at the title again ...

THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIOISOTOPIC DATING

Now do you see anything about K-Ar dating anywhere there?  Do you see anything in his whole paper where he criticised the K-Ar test?  That's old news, friend.  He's not criticising K-Ar here.

In fact, here's the relevant section from Snelling's paper ...
Quote
K-Ar ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS Snelling [60] reported having obtained K-Ar model “ages” for these same samples of recent Mt Ngauruhoe andesite flows of <0.27 to 3.5 Ma. Such results were expected, as meaningful dates from historic lava flows are not usually obtained, which is recognised in the standard scientific literature [60, 61]. These “dates” could not be reproduced, even from splits of the same samples from the same flow. This apparent inconsistency merely indicates variation in the excess 40Ar* (radiogenic 40Ar) content. Indeed, Ar contamination at such low concentration levels is often expected, but this problem of excess 40Ar* in historic lava flows is still well documented in the literature. It was concluded that this excess 40Ar* had been inherited by these magmas during their genesis in the upper mantle, and therefore has no age significance.
So your criticism is completely irrelevant as is clearly shown above.  Of course Geochron says they cannot reliably date young samples!  Why?  Because they have excess argon, of course.  Are you really so blind as to think Snelling doesn't know this?  He acknowledges it right there above.  But he wanted the analysis anyway ... not because he's trying to show that K-Ar dating is flawed, but because he wants to show the correlation of the lava flow to the mantle source.  

And he accomplished his goal, in spite of the fact that you and JonF apparently don't even understand what he is doing or what he is saying in the paper.  Did you even read the paper?

Then you pull some irrelevant quote from some guy who ALSO does not even understand what Snelling did and accuses him of something totally bogus.

Wow, are you guys desperate or what??!!

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

Bfish ... "Accelerated evolution" of fruit flies has produced

1) Dead fruit flies
2) Mangled fruit flies
3) Mutant fruit flies

No SUPER-fruit flies.
No bigger, better fruit flies.

In a word.  FAILURE.

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

Tim ... yes.  Many times.  Here's some of it ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,07:14   

One swallow a summer does not make.

AFD you still have 39 other dating methods.

geez how desperate are you?

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

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,07:27   

Just as a matter of interest AFD how did the flightless bird the Kiwi survive the flood?

Or the flightless parrot whose name  I can't remember at the moment or the Tuatara lizard or the exstinct giant Moa Bird and the lesser spotted Moa which I believe was the size of a Mack truck motor which Noah would have needed to race down the Jordan into the Red Sea scoot across the the Indian Ocean duck around Tasmania land on both the North and South Islands of New Zealand and round up all the different species of flightless birds in dense rain forest and swamps without the help of the native Maori who were still in Taiwan 6000 years ago....by the way  what about the Maori were they on the ark?

Noah didn't have them on his ark ....did he?... lies4kids 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

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,07:28   

Quote
1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.  
Lie.
Quote

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.
Lie. And besides, when a moron asserts that homonid fossils are just chimp and human bones mingled together, we don't waste our time to educate him.
Quote

3) I showed you the details of the RATE Helium diffusion experiment--another serious challenge to conventional earth ages,
Lie.
Quote

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.
Maybe true, but this is certainly explainable.
Quote

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
"apparent design"? Not a scientific evidence.
Quote

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
Opinion? Not a scientific evidence.
Quote

7) You were shown how the observed phenomenon of Universal Morality supports the God Hypothesis
Universal morality? Not a fact.
Quote

8) You were shown with fruit flies, bacteria and other organisms how macroevolution simply does not occur and has never been observed.
Lie. Speciation in the lab, on fruit flies.
Quote

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.
Lie. And this would not be a scientific evidence.
Quote

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.
Doesn't support your hypothesis better than the current one.
Quote

11) You were shown how many leading geologists have now reluctantly become catastrophists because of the goading of creationists to observe the actual evidence.
Lie. What about the numerous geologists (several reverends) who came to the conclusion that the flood never happened (before Darwin published the Origins) ?
Quote

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"
How does this support a 6000 year old Earth?
Quote

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.
Lie. Read Gould and Eldredge.
Quote

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.  
See 10)
Quote

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.
See 10)
Quote

16) You have been shown that incised meanders require soft sediments.
Lie. And see 10)
Quote

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.
Lie.
Quote

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.
Lie.

What about the Altantic basalts, Davey ?

  
Tim



Posts: 40
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,07:43   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,12:08)
Tim ... yes.  Many times.  Here's some of it ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

There are 14 items listed on that page, each one purportedly showing 'problems' with the long-age of the earth.

None of those 14 paragraphs, not one, produces any set of data, based on research. And that research reinforced by further research, reinforced by tests on the research, and tests on the research of the research, etc. You know, science. Most of them contain vagueries and approximations, based on not very much seeing as no data sets are presented.

One of them (the sixth item, the earth's magnetic field is decaying 'too fast' ) even suggests that the age of the earth cannot be more than 20,000 yrs old. Hardly direct, precise evidence for a 6,000 year old earth now is it.

Now what I originally asked for was a direct scientific dating method showing that the age of the earth is 6,000 years old. Y'know, something simple, like an ice-core that has a number of annual rings in it, and all one has to do is count the number of rings to get an idea of the age of history.

Is there any such direct dating method, or is all there is just AIG picking holes in several of the many thousands of data points showing the long-age of the earth?

I'd genuinely like to know.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,08:08   

Quote
A stalagmite normally grows 0.1 to 0.3 mm per years in moderate climate zones. This means a step of 20cm needed 2,000 years of continual growth to form


Not that yet another method is needed to date teh earth older then 6000 years, but here it is.

So, 2k years = 20cm. Therefore there are no 61cm long stalagmite's then Dave? As they have not yet had time to form, right?
Is that something you'd agree with? If not, why not?

Oh, and i'm sure you'll be happy to note that some can be correlated with and match tree ring growth (i.e climate changes).

Oh, and for future reference, your list of "answers" would have had somewhat more credibility if you added permalinks to each point, linking to where you "showed" the evidence for each item. Not much more, but you wont want to do that because if you start doing that it'll be even easier to see that your answers were just handwaving. Dont agree? Then go back and edit that post and add the links to where you provided the evidence in previous posts (like you SAID you have). Or was that a lie?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,08:27   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,12:08)
Snelling and friends have recognized that recent and historic lavas, particularly on oceanic islands, yield incredibly old radioisotopic &#8220;ages&#8221;. They cite 17 studies in the RATE Book 2000, including one as late as 1997 by Esser, et. al.)  (0.7 Ma to 700 Ma on historic flows!;) They recognized it and confirmed it with their own samples.  

17 studies is essentially zero compared to the number of studies that were done and agree with other methods that are not susceptible to a problem of excess initial daughter.
Quote
There is no fraud here, JonF.  Why are you quibbling about xenoliths?  Would the "ages" have come out younger if xenoliths were excluded?

Yes, and the error bars probably would have included zero age.  (Of course, you have no idea what that means or its significance).
 
Quote
(BTW--is is not even conclusive that the supposed xenoliths are actually xenoliths at all)  Maybe.  Maybe not.

It's conclusive, Davie-poo.  All the literature on the volcanos of NewZealand acknowledges the xenoliths.  And, of course, Snelling does too:

"Two modal analyses are listed in Table 3 which very closely resemble the samples collected for this study.

Component 1 2
Plagioclase 22.6 21.6
Augite 2.6 2.6
Orthopyroxene 6.0 5.8
Olivine 0.2 0.2
Iron Oxide - g*
Xenoliths 2.6 4.5
Groundmass 66.0 65.3

...

Steiner [63] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lavas, but also noted that Battey [3] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.

Go tell Snelling there weren't any xenoliths, Davie-pie!
Quote
Do we care in this case?  No.

Yes. We care.  Fraud is fraud, Davie-pie.
 
Quote
Because we are not trying to get a precise "date" of creation of the lava.

Doesn't matter what you are trying to get, Davie-poots, doesn't matter at all.  Snelling purposefullly used invalid laboratory techniques, and the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that Snelling is a fraud.
 
Quote
But you want to exclude the xeonliths?  OK Fine.  Exclude the xenoliths.  What would they have gotten then?  Answer:  Probably not much different.  Why?  Well look at the 17 other studies cited in the RATE 2000 Book.  Most of them are from historic lava flows and they report everything from 0.7 Ma to 700 Ma!!

And look at Dalrymple's table reproduced at Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?; 26 recent lava flows and 18 of them did not have excess argon.  We know that the K-Ar method is susceptible to excess argon; that's why it's applied to carefully selected samples and cross-checked with methods that are not susceptible to such problems when possible.  But K-Ar dating is well understood and low cost, so it's still useful.
 
Quote
Did they exclude xenoliths?  Some did.  Some did not.

Prove it, Davie-poodles.  Let's see your evidence that some did not exclude xenoliths.  Many lavas do not contain xenoliths.
 
Quote
Look here.  JonF is just trying to confuse people.  The truth is that there probably ARE NO xenoliths in the Snelling samples.  It's debatable.

You're starting to foam at the mouth, Davie-dip; see above.  There were xenoliths in the samples.
 
Quote
 If they are, so what?  All this means is that instead of the samples being dated at 724.5 to 1453.3 Ma, the numbers would have been somewhat different.

Yup, that's the point. 

 
Quote
But the thing is ... Millionsofyearianism is shown once again to be a joke ... either way!!  Fine.  Let's give you a really long rope and say the samples would have been dated at 10 Ma with the "xenoliths" excluded.  You still hang yourself by the neck!

Your fantasies about what the results of excluding xenoliths might have been are not evidence.
 
Quote
Of course Geochron says they cannot reliably date young samples!  Why?  Because they have excess argon, of course.

No, Geochron cannot date young samples because their instruments can't resolve the tiny amount of radiogenic argon in such samples.  Many young samples do not have excess argon; see Dalrymple's table linked above.  Of course, nobody's instruments today can resolve the amount of radiogenic argon in Snelling's samples.  But this has no implications for dating ancient flows.

You still haven't addressed the facts:

  • Xenoliths are older pieces of rock embedded in younger rock.
  • There were xenoliths in all of Snelling's samples, your rabid opium dreams notwithstanding.
  • Dating a rock containing containing xenoliths with a whole-rock method gives a meaningless result, a weighted average of the ages of the components.
  • Snelling knows this.
  • Snelling did not mention this effect in his paper on Ngauruhoe.
  • This effect is the obvious reason for the results obtained.

Conclusion: fraud.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,09:32   

PantyDancerDave says:
 
Quote
Spanked for 170 pages? You guys have been blown away, but you are too blind and committed to Millionsofyearsianism to see it...And I just put this list together from memory in about 5 minutes.  I will put together a more extensive list soon.

Well, let's see how good your memory is. I'll just use the first three items in your list...oh, and feel free to try to compile a more detailed extensive one, since that can be just as easily shown filled with lies, too.  
 
Quote
1) I showed you how "whale evolution" doesn't support evolution.
Not in this thread you didn't. Please cite the relevant page number in this thread.
 
Quote
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.

Er, you were told genetics and fossil data. The genetic data includes studies done on the now-available complete genomes of both humans and chimps. You were told about chromosome fusion,GULO, etc., and you were told to do your own homework, too. See page 21, this thread
 
Quote
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.

Beginning at page 35 of this thread and up to about page 100 at various places, JonF, myself and others  didn't just **say** how how pressure affects testing, you were shown that materials harder than zircon -- such as quartz and Pyrex glass -- has higher diffusion rates of helium at high pressures. You were given multiple evidences of how flawed Humphrey's claims were: He cherry-picked data, altered it, claimed he got zircons from a depth that he could not have, he never offered a temp/pressure history of the region...you were shown he misidentified the rock in which the zircons were found, you were shown humphreys ignored high levels of external helium in the area, you were shown evidence of recent volcanic events and how helium can be transported at those times, while heat causes permeability of the zircons, which were highly damaged and "metamict" You were shown that Helium testing can detect isotopes and that Humphreys, along with the other fraud he perpetrated, lied to you about such ratio-testing being done.

As you can see, your "memory" seems a bit patchy and selective...in fact, it seems you're just lying and delusional.

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,09:46   

Aaah, dave... Caught with your pants down again.

Read this juicy bit:

Quote
The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?


Guess who wrote that, davesy? And guess where?

Nah, "guessing" would require actual brainwork on your behalf, let alone looking it up... So, there you go:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

See how that article's called, dave? See who wrote it? Your friend Snelling, that's who.
Now, what is it you said he didn't want to do? He didn't want to question the validity of K-Ar dating? Yup. Riiiiiight.
So you see dave, nitpicking and going from one article to another won't help you, or your dishonest mentors. It's best that YOU actually read what your pal Snelling says, and try to understand the scam he tried to pull...

...But I doubt it.

--------------
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."

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,10:02   

Quote
My character? I have been completely honest and up front, admitting my errors when I make them...I challenge anyone here who wants to portray me or my church as immoral to come and see for yourself. Get both sides of the story. Only cowards sling mud when they hear just one side


You lied in the very first sentence, Dave. You never admitted wrongdoing in lying about my religious views, my work with "jungle" groups, or many, many of the myriad examples of lies that you were caught in. In fact, your "list" of items you claim to have "shown" includes this:
Quote
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
Yet you have been given over 80 radiometric dates, total, on layers in the Grand Staircase. You could be given hundreds, but you'd still lie and say "but the dates are only by fossils"
And you also recently lied about your "bet" concerning "dates on the Morrison are only through igneous grains." I could go on and on, in fact, I have a list of your outright, knowing lies, including the four times you said "deadman tells me sedimentary layers can't be dated" despite me telling you each time to stop lying about what I said. FOUR TIMES....but you're not *deliberately* lying? HAHAHA.

Now, since you feel that it's important for folks to get both sides of the story...I'd like your agreement that I can print out a copy of this thread...excise the salty language and distribute it to your fellow church-goers, so they can get both sides of the story.

Would that be agreeable to you now? I said earlier that I didn't feel you important enough to damage your life, but if you'll agree to this, then I'll be quite happy to show what a liar and perverter of "truth" that you are.

Care to respond directly, Dave?

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,10:18   

Crabby: woot, sounds good to me :)
k.e : the flightless parrot you're thinking of is the Kakapo

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,10:25   

Dave, I'm getting tired waiting for you to take your microscope out of your ***. ???

Should I formulate my objection again?
This very image completly annihilate your young Earth, Flud, hence Goddidit hypothesis.

So Dave, how a event that occured within a few days some 5000 years ago produced basalts whose levels of radionuclids indicate ages ranging from 0 to 135+ Myears, in a coherent symetrical pattern from the ridge to the shores, and which happen to match the current rate of divergence between the continents, as measured by satellites ?

You can halt your babbling about the Grand Staircase, or about anything else actually. As long as you can't provide an explanation for this picture, your credibility remains zero.
My bet is that you'll NEVER be able to answer this.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,10:37   

http://shurl.org/davetard
It just links to this page of the thread. TinyURL seems faulty atm.
But far handier to distribute on scraps of paper etc. Nobody make one like

http://shurl.org/kids4lies
and put it in the small ad's now will ya? ( links to daves "you JUST DONT GET IT" froth at the mouth")

Far handier to distribute then the mighty tome this thread would be printed out deadman_932, even with the salty language expunged! think of the trees!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,10:37   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 04 2006,12:28)
Quote

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
Opinion? Not a scientific evidence.

And also a lie. dave has systematically and willfully ignored the third paragraph down from where he quoted, where TO explains that the hypothetical "creation" of a universe within physical parameters that would support creation of stars (and perhaps life) does NOT rely on the existence of multiple Universes. I (literally) pointed that out almost a dozen times, and he acted as if my posts didn't exist.

That was the time I started to realize he was NOT an open-minded inquisitive individual, as he proclaimed, but a dishonest and deceiving person, who wasn't going to provide anything substantial to this  forum... Except entertainment, of course.

--------------
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."

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,14:58   

Quote
Since most of these 178 pages has been spent with Dave attempting to pick holes in accepted scientific evidence in many, many disciplines, has he ever actually presented any scientific evidence (ie not from the bible) for a ~ 6,000 yr old earth? Especially as this is supposed to be his Creator God Hypothesis.


Because writing appeared about 5000 years ago!  Prehistory is inconceivable.  We know that this is when writing appeared because radiometric dating tells us so.  And Dave agrees, radiometric dating is reliable.  Or something.  Brain off, Tim.  Brain off.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,15:45   

 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.

 
Quote
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."
 
Quote
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.
 
Quote
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."
 
Quote
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.
 
Quote
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.
 
Quote
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."
 
Quote
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."
 
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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."
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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"?
Quote
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:

Quote
(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.
Quote
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

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2006,17:05   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 04 2006,12:08)
Bfish ... "Accelerated evolution" of fruit flies has produced

1) Dead fruit flies
2) Mangled fruit flies
3) Mutant fruit flies

No SUPER-fruit flies.
No bigger, better fruit flies.

In a word.  FAILURE.


OK, that rings a bell as what you said before. So that is the alpha and omega of your comments about Drosophila research. A bare assertion with no supporting arguments.

Unfortunately, what you have written is not enough for anyone to evaluate your argument. What experiment, or set of experiments, are you talking about here? What were the experimental objectives? What were the results. What lab or labs did the experiments?

Thanks.

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

Pages: (202) < ... 173 174 175 176 177 [178] 179 180 181 182 183 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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