RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,05:52   

LOL could you imagine the expression on a peer-reviewer's face when he reads

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

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,06:41   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,10:33)
[Their literature reviews and their own studies have shown that "excess Argon" is a significant problem and has been well documented.  "Excess Argon" violates the fundamental assumption of K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating which is that there is supposed to be ZERO Argon in the rocks when they are first formed.  This is obviously not the case when testing historic lava flows so there is now no basis for believing it is true for ancient flows.  JonF contends that Creationists have to show that ALL ancient flows contain excess Argon in order to invalidate the technique.  Of course, this is ludicrous and shows just how desperate Deep Time Defenders are.  For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.

Wrong, Davie-doodles.  For example, there is no medical test that is right 100% of the time.  There is no medical treatment that works 100% of the time.  Do you refuse all medical tests and treatments?  Do you trust any medical tests or treatments?

Wotta maroon.

If K-Ar dating, or any geological radiometric dating, is right once your entire crazy "theory " is blown out of the water.  You acknowledged that fact. Therefore, in order to claim that your "theory" is correct, you must demonstrate that all radiometric dating is wrong all of the time.  Basic logic, moron.
 
Quote
This is also based upon the results of one of the leaders in the field, Dalrymple, who reported 20% (!;) of his  tests on historic flows had excess Argon.  Come on, guys, get a clue!

And therefore 80% of historic lava flows had no excess argon, and dating on such flows yields correct answers, and therefore dating on at least some ancient lava flows yields correct answers, and your 6,000 year old Earth is falsified.  You need to demonstrate 100% wrong answers, Davie-dork.
 
Quote
JonF also complains about xenoliths in Snellings test.  First of all, the xenoliths amounted to less than 5% in virtually identical flows.

But we don't know how much of the argon in the samples was due to xenoliths.
 
Quote
JonF must realize that his "xenolith horse" is dying, so he points out that the <5% xenolith figures apply to different flows than the ones Snelling tested.  Well, go look at the two charts, Jon.  They are virtually identical.

What two charts, Davie-dip?  But it's a minor, parenthetical point.  You still need to deal with the zircons and demonstrate that the Ngauruhoe lavas are just like all other lavas.
 
Quote
Secondly, Jon points out that anyone honestly trying to get an accurate date with Argon dating excludes xenoliths.  Fine.  Go tell that to all the geologists in the studies cited by Snelling.

Not necessary. They know it already.  They either deteremined that their samples did not contain xenoliths, or they separated the xenoliths.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths. Snelling knows it too.  That's why his "dating" of the Ngauruhoe flows is fraudulent.
 
Quote
You say they excluded xenoliths?  OK.  Fine.  They still got "excess Argon" and thus bogus dates.

Nope.  Some percentage of the time they got excess argon, and in some percentage of those cases the excess argon was swamped by the radiogenic argon and was therefore insignificant.  The near-universal corelation between different radiometric dating methods, the truth you dare not address, shows us that errors due to excess argon are rare.

But even if half the K-Ar dates had problems with excess argon, that's no consolation for you. You need all dating to be wrong all the time.
Quote
 Your "xenolith horse" is dead.

You mean "Davie-doofus's excess-argon horse is dead".  Excess argon does not affect all studies, and you need something that affects all studies.
 
Quote
Remember also that Snelling was not trying to get an "accurate date" because he's smart enough to know this is not possible with Argon "dating."  All he's trying to do is confirm with his own experiment what has been shown now for many years in the literature:  that excess Argon is the "Achilles heel" of Argon dating.  Do you understand what that means?  It means that Argon "dating" is like a chain with at least one broken link.

False analogy, Davie dootles.  We use techniques and tests that do not get 100% correct results in all sorts of fields all the time.  And the near-universal correlation between different radiometric dating methods, the truth you dare not address, shows us that errors due to excess argon are rare.
 
Quote
Do you know how useful a chain with a broken link is?  It's completely useless.  For the method to be trusted, it needs to be shown that it is NEVER in error.

Boy, Dave, you can always be trusted to serve up a healthy dose of stupendous stupidity.  Excess argon occasionally leads to wrong answers, so almost all of the answers we get are correct.  Deal with reality, Davie-poot, not your opium dreams.
 
Quote
Add to this the fact that all the Argon dates out there have to be "confirmed" with other methods.

Don't have to be, but often are.
 
Quote
Why?  Because of excess Argon, Argon loss, inheritance, mixing, etc.

Nope.  They are often confirmed because (1) real scientists always confirm everything as much as possible, and (2) we know that there are (rare) errors in K-Ar dating.
 
Quote
JonF says that Argon loss doesn't help the creationists, but he is wrong again.  Of course it does simply because it invalidates the technique in yet another way.  Excess Argon invalidates the technique because it violates the fundamental assumption of ZERO Argon when the rock is formed.  But Argon loss makes the rock appear younger than the "actual age."  This also has been well documented in the literature and by the ICR RATE Group and even acknowledged by the late, great JonF himself (well, at least he acknowledged that Argon dating has to be cross-checked ... dunno if we'll ever get him to admit that Argon dating is therefore wrong).

So, you acknowledge that there are rocks on the earth that are billions of years old, and our tests of them are realy underestimating their age.  First you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths (implicitly acknowledging Snelling's fraud), now you acknowledge that your 6,000 year age of the Earth is false. Not a good day for you, Davie-pud.

Oh, and I'm really looking forward to your mixing evidence against K-Ar dating.  I really, really want you to post it.  You don't have a prayer of figuring out why I want it so much; let it be a surprise.  Please post your mixing evidence against K-Ar dating, Davie-pootles!!
 
Quote
east, have satisfied myself that the most common method for dating rocks--Argon dating is ...

The most common method, by far, for dating rocks is U-Pb concordia-discordia on zircons (or sometimes other minerals).  All argon methods, including the widely used Ar-Ar, amount to about 30%. Gee, that reminds me; weren't you going to demonstrate how zircons, known (and acknowledged by Snelling) to contain only radiogenic lead, don't falsify Snelling's conclusion that "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." Why, yes, you wrote several times that you were going to do that... but there's no mention of zircons in your message!  Why is that, Davie-diddles?

  
Bing



Posts: 144
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,07:49   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 09 2006,10:47)
If you think you got evidence that its theories are flawed, why don't you send a paper to a scientific journal? If you want the YECs to take over the world within ten years, you should begin today.
I'll be checking Nature and Science for the next decade.

He doesn't want to be a published scientist, he said so himself.  The only evidence he gives any credence to is from AiG or ICR.  Forget about Nature and Science, they're hotbeds of radical atheists for which the academic mantra of "publish or perish" becomes "publish then perish in a lake of eternal fire".  

You'd be better off watching C-SPAN and reading the reports from the courts.  The fundies didn't take over the GOP from the ground up just because they believed the initials stand for "God's Own Party".  They believed that if they controlled the majority of elected positions from dogcatcher right on up to POTUS and the courts too then they could implement the America is a Christian Nation agenda without interference from the Damned.

If the Fundies see their power and influence waning I'd expect a last desperate gasp from them before they're consigned to the dustbin of political influence.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,08:31   

In criticism of the Ar-Ar dating technique, Stupid says :
Quote
For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.  Would you drive across a bridge that the engineers said was sound "except for those 4 out of 20 times that it broke when a truck went across it" ??  

No actual engineer would say this--because engineers know about catastropic failure and inherent, unaccounted flaws. Bridges *have* failed. We still use bridges. Airplanes have crashed due to anomalous failures of varying sorts. But we still fly planes.

To require Ar-Ar dating to be foolproof, even when used in ways expressly antithetical to the requirements of the test...is beyond stupid, but that's typical of your bullshite, AirHead. By the way, you should look up the genetic data on dogs, wolves and jackals...####, canids in general. Four years ago, the dog lineage was examined. It continues to be examined.

But that's just one more aspect of science that has to be tossed out to accomodate your "theory that is better than any other"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2498669.stm
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5598/1610

As for me giving you a heads up on when I'll distribute a log of this thread to your fellow church-goers, kiss my ass, Dave.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,08:54   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 09 2006,14:31)
In criticism of the Ar-Ar dating technique, Stupid says :  
Quote
For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.  Would you drive across a bridge that the engineers said was sound "except for those 4 out of 20 times that it broke when a truck went across it" ??  

No actual engineer would say this--because engineers know about catastropic failure and inherent, unaccounted flaws. Bridges *have* failed. We still use bridges. Airplanes have crashed due to anomalous failures of varying sorts. But we still fly planes.

I had to admit, that gave me a moment's pause. I've been maintaining the belief that AFDave is not deliberately lying, he's just unable to understand basically anything that contradicts his religious beliefs. But that statement..."For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time." It's really hard to imagine someone with an engineering degree saying this and believing it. It gave me a moment's pause, but I haven't changed my mind. I think he's a True Believer. If he opened up the bible tomorrow and it said "The moon was burped up by a Cosmic MegaDonkey", by thursday he'd have a thread on an Astronomy blog titled "AFDave's UPDATED M E G A D O N K E Y  H Y P O T H E S I S"

Quote
Oh, you want my evidence again?
MILLIONS OF TONS
OF LUNAR ROCK LAYERS
BURPED UP BY A DONKEY
ALL OVER THE MOON

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,09:31   

THANKS FOR FINALLY MAKING MY POINT FOR ME.

JonF...
Quote
The most common method, by far, for dating rocks is U-Pb concordia-discordia on zircons (or sometimes other minerals).  All argon methods, including the widely used Ar-Ar, amount to about 30%.
Yeah, that's probably true if you consider the last 15 years or so.  Wanna guess why?  Think, Jon, think.  Could it be that people don't trust Argon anymore?  Hmmmm ... Bercause prior to that it was massively popular and was the most common method for many years.

JonF...
Quote
Wrong, Davie-doodles.  For example, there is no medical test that is right 100% of the time.  There is no medical treatment that works 100% of the time.  Do you refuse all medical tests and treatments?  Do you trust any medical tests or treatments?
Not even a close analogy.  My analogy of the bridge is perfect.  You would never drive on a bridge that was known to have broken 4 out 20 times it was tested.  That's nothing but Russian Roulette.  This is exactly what you have with Argon dating ... complete BOGOSITY (that is ... failure ... the bridge broke) in 20% of Dalrymple's tests plus many many other documented cases in the literature.

Quote
If K-Ar dating, or any geological radiometric dating, is right once your entire crazy "theory " is blown out of the water.  You acknowledged that fact.
No I did not acknowledge it and I will not ever. You cannot ever tell if this technique is "right" because you have nothing to measure it against except other bogus "dating" techniques which I will show in the coming days are equally vapid.  Or maybe you are talking about fossil dating?  That is even more laughable.  Argon dating is all over the map -- "too old" because of "excess Argon", "too young" because of Argon loss or mixing or what have you.  The only time it's "right on" is because it happens by some sheer stroke of luck to coincide with some other system like Pb-Pb or Sm-Nd or whatever.

Quote
And therefore 80% of historic lava flows had no excess argon, and dating on such flows yields correct answers, and therefore dating on at least some ancient lava flows yields correct answers, and your 6,000 year old Earth is falsified.  You need to demonstrate 100% wrong answers, Davie-dork.
What a joke.  No wonder half the public isn't buying the Millions of Years story ... your logic is terrible.

Quote
What two charts, Davie-dip?  But it's a minor, parenthetical point.  You still need to deal with the zircons and demonstrate that the Ngauruhoe lavas are just like all other lavas.
Read the paper ... thoroughly.  The two charts are there.  I will deal with zircons.  But now ... Argon.

Quote
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths. Snelling knows it too.  That's why his "dating" of the Ngauruhoe flows is fraudulent.
Don't twist my meaning.  ...   I said ...
Quote
Remember also that Snelling was not trying to get an "accurate date" because he's smart enough to know this is not possible with Argon "dating."
Do you see the quotes around "accurate date"?  The deal is that Snelling knows that Argon techniques are wildly in error.  Why should he then care if the sample comes back as 1 Ma or 2 Ma?  It simply does not matter because the point is:  there is excess Argon and the results have no age significance whether they are 2 Ma or 1 Ma.  There are a thousand results that could have come back and shown the invalidity of the Argon method.  There's only ONE result that could have validated the method.  ZERO excess Argon.  Why spend extra money when you don't have to.  If Snelling really was stupid enough (as many geologists are) to believe you could get a valid date from the test, then, yes, he should have excluded xenoliths.  Again, my Ted Koppel analogy applies here.  Ted's goal was to report that a bunch of people lost their homes.  It's irrelevant that some of the people he included as "residents" were actually foreigners.

Quote
And the near-universal correlation between different radiometric dating methods, the truth you dare not address, shows us that errors due to excess argon are rare.
This is such hogwash!  The excess argon problem is enormous, which is why everyone "verifies" it with other methods. (problem is, though, the other methods are not valid either as I will show you)

Quote
So, you acknowledge that there are rocks on the earth that are billions of years old, and our tests of them are realy underestimating their age.  First you acknowledge that honest K-Ar dating requires excluding xenoliths (implicitly acknowledging Snelling's fraud), now you acknowledge that your 6,000 year age of the Earth is false. Not a good day for you, Davie-pud.
No. No. And no.  Putting words in my mouth is not a good technique, Jon, just because you cannot make your case with your own positive information.  The rocks are NOT billions of years old.  Honest K-Ar dating is impossible, xenoliths or no xenoliths.  And the earth is probably 6000 years old.  Is that clear enough for you?

Bing...
Quote
He doesn't want to be a published scientist, he said so himself.  The only evidence he gives any credence to is from AiG or ICR.
Interesting, isn't it ... how a handful of scientists committed to the truth (as opposed to many other agendas other than the truth) can make such an enormous difference.  How is it that 10 or so PhD's at two dinky little non-profit organizations can be making such a worldwide splash and be making so many evolutionists mad!!??  And they are not even calling them names!!  They are being polite!! (Hint:  maybe what they are saying is true!;)

Deadman...
Quote
In criticism of the Ar-Ar dating technique, Stupid says : Quote  
For a technique to be trusted, it must be shown to be reliable 100% of the time.  Would you drive across a bridge that the engineers said was sound "except for those 4 out of 20 times that it broke when a truck went across it" ??  

No actual engineer would say this--because engineers know about catastropic failure and inherent, unaccounted flaws. Bridges *have* failed. We still use bridges. Airplanes have crashed due to anomalous failures of varying sorts. But we still fly planes.
Deadman ... you are not thinking straight ... stop and think about what you are saying ... of course we drive on bridges because they NEVER ONCE failed in testing.  Engineers go to great pains to make sure they never do.  Of course they have once in a great while.  But please tell me that you are intelligent enough to not drive on a bridge that is known to have failed when 4 out of the last 20 trucks drove over it!  Imagine the engineeers saying ... "Well, the cement wasn't cured well enough ... but it is now ... we fixed it!!"  then the next time ... "Oh, we forgot to put the rebar in ... but we fixed it and it's there now" and so on.

This is what you have with Argon dating ... "Oh well ... there was excess Argon from the Blah blah ..." and "Oh, there was Argon loss because of fluid transport blah blah blah ..." ...  "but THIS test is accurate. (wink wink)"  "We know it's a good test."

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,10:01   

Quote
No. No. And no.  Putting words in my mouth is not a good technique, Jon, just because you cannot make your case with your own positive information.  The rocks are NOT billions of years old.  Honest K-Ar dating is impossible, xenoliths or no xenoliths.  And the earth is probably 6000 years old.  Is that clear enough for you?


Jesus Crisp DaveyDH, Are you saying that 100% of Argon dates are wrong? Are you saying that 98.2% are wrong?

If I could be allowed to guess at what you mean, I would guess one of the following:
1. Because the method has flaws that are very difficult to control for in the laboratory, all dates that have been arrived at using the method are suspect.

2. There are logical fallacies built into the test therefore the test is not able to produce accurate results ever.

3. The Bible might claim that the world is 6000 years old therefore argon dating that contradicts this info must be wrong.

Is one of these what you are trying to say?


So, I have 2 questions. What if we could RM date a series of things at over 6000 years and then verify the accuracy using several other, independent dating techniques? Assuming we could do that, would you believe the Earth is more than 6k years old?

If you looked at the evidence and decided that it shows that the Earth is actually more than 6000 years old, how would that information affect your life?

Have you had a chance to look at the AIG article I posted about ice cores? Have you tried to figure out what a scientist might object to in the article?

Remember, if you can show me just that core samples don't demonstrate more than 6000 years of earth's history, I will convert to whatever religion you want me to. And I will publicly renounce my belief in (b)illionsofyearsism.

:)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,10:17   

Dave, have you adressed the existence of mountains of limestone (the Jura for instance)?
Cause they are not easily concealable with your young Earth and flood, you know.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,10:34   

Davey, you are getting blogged! over at C.S.I bluffing
Davey - address the limestone issue! My pseudoscience gland needs pumping!

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,11:44   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,10:33)
I, at least, have satisfied myself that the most common method for dating rocks [sic]--Argon dating is ...

... BALONEY!

Dave, your utter vacuousness is simply astounding. Are you claiming that every lab in the world that does Ar-Ar or K-Ar dating is engaging in deliberate fraud? They're lying to their customers? Where are the lawsuits, Dave?

Your stupidity is just growing by leaps and bounds with every post, Dave. Actually, it's not stupidity (although it sure looks like it). It's actually raging, monstrous dishonesty, the kind of dishonesty I don't think I've ever experienced from anyone before. It has to be a symptom of your growing desperation; there's no possible other explanation for it.

You do realize, Dave, that there are over 40 radiometric dating techniques? And you think you're going to discredit every single one all by yourself? Why do all those techniques provide dates far in excess of your 6,000-year age for the earth, Dave? You think every single result that's ever been presented by any radiometric dating technique is wrong by anywhere from two to six orders of magnitude? Are you completely out of your mind?

In the meantime, you haven't presented any methodology for dating anything! None of your dates (using your mystery dating technique)converge on any particular value at all!

And your bogus requirement that any test be accurate 100% of time ranks up there with the stupidest statements you've ever made. I thought you were an engineer. No engineer who wasn't mentally ill would ever make an assertion so utterly laughable. Jon's right, Dave: you have to prove that every single date ever given by any dating technique anywhere in the world that's more than 6,000 years old is wrong. One accurate date kills your "hypothesis" dead.

Of course, 10,000,000 living species of organisms kills it just as dead. Along with every other bogus claim you've ever made that's been roundly refuted; they all kill it dead too.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,12:39   

Quote
The rocks are NOT billions of years old.  Honest K-Ar dating is impossible, xenoliths or no xenoliths


Why, Stupid? Would it be because in the past, radioactive decay accellerated, though you can't show it?

Why is Argon dating  and radioactive decay to specified isotopes...wrong? Because 2 out of 200 argon dates are anomalous? Bwahahaha, you're as stupid as you appear to be.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4792
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,12:48   

Not to mention, there's also the amount of genetic variety within each of those millions of species. That too takes time to build up again after a population crash (aka genetic bottleneck event).

Henry

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,12:51   

Quote
The rocks are NOT billions of years old.  Honest K-Ar dating is impossible, xenoliths or no xenoliths

Actually, as far as Dave can tell, any kind of honest radiometric dating is impossible, because they all return dates that he knows, in his heart of hearts, are way too old.

That's the criterion in Dave's constipated little universe: if a date is more than 6,000 years old, it is physically impossible for it to be correct.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,13:33   

Steve Story ...
Quote
LOL could you imagine the expression on a peer-reviewer's face when he reads

Quote  
Oh, you want my evidence again?
MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
LAID DOWN BY WATER
ALL OVER THE EARTH
Yes, and it would be equally interesting to have seen Darwin's face when he met his Creator.

Yes, Darwin's a Creationist now!

(You will be too, one way or another)

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,13:45   

Quote
Yes, and it would be equally interesting to have seen Darwin's face when he met his Creator. Yes, Darwin's a Creationist now! (You will be too, one way or another)


Can you get any lower than to abuse a dead man? Tune in when AirHeadDave sinks even lower. You may as well claim you "know" he became a muslim.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,13:52   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,19:33)
Yes, Darwin's a Creationist now!

(You will be too, one way or another)

Really? You know what Darwin's up to now? Where is he? What's he doing?

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,13:56   

This is precisely what sickens me about your view of God, Stupid.
Anything you can't lie about to promote a young-earth-literalist view, you then claim that your evil, petty God would "avenge" in the afterlife. Despite the fact that Darwin as a man was more ethical, more moral, more of a decent human being than you will ever be in your crappy lifetime.
Darwin cited the essential unity of humankind. Your view would have your evil god punishing honesty and truthfulness... all for your sick view of things. This is why you claimed earlier on this thread that your god would kill children because they MIGHT do wrong in the future, you sick little twit.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,13:58   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,18:33)
Yes, Darwin's a Creationist now!

(You will be too, one way or another)

Don't think so, Dave. See, the thing you don't get is, we already knew your "hypothesis" was a joke as soon as you presented it.

It's one thing for someone to state his or her believe that God exists. He11, for all I know, God does exist. Not your god, of course; no supreme being could possibly be so incompetent and clownlike. But there's every possibility that there's an actual creator god out there.

But no, that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that every single word in the Bible (or more precisely, some bible, because you've already admitted you've never read or even seen a literally inerrant bible) is literally true. Which is more laughable than I could ever really convey to you, Dave.

The idea that some ark bobbed around in the drink for a year, carrying the ancestors of every single living thing on earth today, is truly a toddler-level story. It would be perfectly okay for a five-year-old to believe it, but to think that a guy in his forties with an engineering degree could think such horse-hockey is actually true? That's well beyond stupid, and far into the realm of the comically absurd.

Has it ever occurred to you to wonder how long it would take a 10^24 kg sphere of iron to cool down from the molten state to the point where someone could walk on it, Dave? Because it occurred to Lord Kelvin over a hundred years ago. He came up with a figure of less than a hundred million years, because he knew nothing of radioactivity. But even a figure too low by more than an order of magnitude still blew your "hypothesis" out of the water more than a century ago, Dave. Back here in the 21st Century, what's your explanation for how the earth could have cooled that much in six thousand years? Yet another of your miracles? Like your floodwaters "poofing" into existence and then "poofing" back out of existence?

And before you start protesting that you haven't gotten to that part of your "hypothesis," Dave, consider this: you haven't even gotten past your missing water for your flood, a topic I first raised with you almost four months ago. You haven't managed to establish a single point you think you've made so far, and believe me, I haven't even started presenting objections to your young-earth "hypothesis." I can keep this up until the cows come home, grow old, and die, and so can every single other poster here. You and your "hypothesis" will be getting pelted with objections from every quarter for the next century, and we'll never run out.

Dave, your hypothesis has been ruled out of consideration on all conceivable grounds. Including coffee grounds.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,14:20   

Well then, Eric, your job is done.  I am no longer a threat to humanity since you have so soundly refuted me.  I guess you can go home now.

What's Darwin doing now?  I don't know.  I just know that he is either in Heaven or He11 and that he is most definitely a creationist now.

And you will be too one day ... by choice or by force!

Quote
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,14:23   

Quote
Hello Mr. Aftershave--  I see you're still with us ... do you know anything about Argon dating?


Yes I do Mr. Dawkins  I'm not an expert, but I have a good working knowledge of the basics.

Now Mr. Dawkins, do you know anything radiocarbon dating?  Do you know that there are not one, not two, not three, but at least six independent calibration methods for C14/C12 decay rates that all agree to within a few percent, and all give accurate dates to a minimum of 10,500 YBP, up to 50,000 YBP?

Did you know that when scientists do a radiocarbon dating of Catal Huyuk and get a value of 9000 YBP, that date comes from a method that has been independently verifed six different ways?  And when when scientists do a radiocarbon dating of the cave art at Lascaux and get a value of 28000 YBP, that date comes from a method that has been independently verifed six different ways?

Mr. Dawkins, do you realize that ALL radiocarbon dates older than 6000 YBP kick the living snot out of your literal young Earth Genesis claim?

Do you know anything about intellectual honesty Mr. Dawkins?   That means dealing with ALL the evidence that is presented, not lying and avoiding those unpleasant facts that directly contradict your views.

Do you know any honest YECs who are willing to actually discuss this C14 calibration data Mr. Dawkins?  Because I sure can't find any around here.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,14:26   

Quote
I just know that he is either in Heaven or He11 and that he is most definitely a creationist now. And you will be too one day ... by choice or by force!


Except I don't agree to your evil God, Dave. Nor will I ever agree that a decent man should be punished eternally for mere disagreement.

Nor do I believe as you do...that innocent babies would be sent to eternal torment because they *might* do bad things in the future---which is predestination and exactly opposite to the Bible, you sick little thing.

But YOU believe that.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,14:29   

What's with the "Mr. Dawkins" moniker?  Is that a new veiled insult of some sort?

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,14:34   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,19:20)
Well then, Eric, your job is done.  I am no longer a threat to humanity since you have so soundly refuted me.  I guess you can go home now.

What's Darwin doing now?  I don't know.  I just know that he is either in Heaven or He11 and that he is most definitely a creationist now.

And you will be too one day ... by choice or by force!

Dave, this isn't work for me. It's not a job. You have no idea how much entertainment I get watching your astounding resistance to what really just amounts to common sense. Your belief in things that are on their face so absurdly ridiculous is totally worth the price of admission.

I never thought you were a threat to humanity, Dave, and I never for a minute believed you were persuadable. How could you be? You've been immersed in evidence contradicting your bible your entire life. If you've been able to ignore that evidence for the past 35 years, you can ignore anything.

You don't know what Chuck is doing these days, Dave, and you most definitely do not "know" he's in either heaven or he11. You believe he is, but that belief is based on nothing other than your own desire to believe. You have less evidence for the existence of heaven or he11 than you do for the existence of your "flood."

So who's going to "force" me to be a creationist, Dave? God? Doubt it. Certainly not you, and I'm assuming the American people will rebel before we ever get to the point of forcible indoctrination in religious cant.

And as for your quote, Dave: can you explain to me, in your own words, what God thought he accomplished by nailing his own son to a tree?

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,14:39   

Page 16, this thread--Dave opines on children being killed by god:  
Quote
IF there is a Creator God, then there are things that we do not know or understand, and how can we say that God is not good if he orders the killing of certain people groups.  In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off.  

now, class ...can we say "predestination?"

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,14:47   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 09 2006,20:39)
Page 16, this thread--Dave opines on children being killed by god:    
Quote
IF there is a Creator God, then there are things that we do not know or understand, and how can we say that God is not good if he orders the killing of certain people groups.  In the big scheme of things, maybe He knows that He is doing the world a favor by killing them off.  

now, class ...can we say "predestination?"

Dave, if god ordered you to kill someone, would you do it?

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:02   

Quote
Dave, if god ordered you to kill someone, would you do it?

Dave already discussed this in terms of "authority" . Notice that he claims at one time that man has a common morality. Notice on the other that he says the same morality can be altered at any given time...meaning he has no morality.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:07   

What was his answer? Would he do it?

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:14   

I believe he said "yes" but I'll have to doublecheck the thread

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:32   

Quote
the answer to all these questions really boils down to an authority question.  And this in turn boils down to the question of "Is there a Creator?  Or is there not?"  Which is precisely why I am so interested in these questions.  Here's the deal.  IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us.  IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"
He (Dave) doesn't say explicitly that he would obey such biblical injunctions to kill kids, but I bet he would...
how could he, as a believer, NOT?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:38   

Quote
the answer to all these questions really boils down to an authority question.  And this in turn boils down to the question of "Is there a Creator?  Or is there not?"  Which is precisely why I am so interested in these questions.  Here's the deal.  IF there is a Creator, then it follows that HE gets to make the rules, not us.  IF He says "Go destroy all the Amalekites" and He was the one that created the Amalekites, then how can we say, "No, that's wrong?"


I would say "No, that's wrong." If morality is universal, Dave must think the same thing.

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

Pages: (202) < ... 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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