RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 179 180 181 182 183 [184] 185 186 187 188 189 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:43   

Eric ...  
Quote
So who's going to "force" me to be a creationist, Dave? God? Doubt it.
Do you have a tongue, Eric?  Did you read the verse?  It said, "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."  This includes you, my friend.  Don't wait until it's too late.

SS...  
Quote
Dave, if god ordered you to kill someone, would you do it?
No.  What Deadman is thinking of is probably the discussion about Joshua.  And yes, if I were living in Joshua's day and were in Joshua's shoes, I would have, as he did.  

But the divine authority structure was changed with the advent of Jesus Christ, his apostles and the completion of the canon of Scripture.  There are no longer any "prophets" and "apostles" who receive direct instructions from God.  Sorry, Mohammed and Joseph Smith ... you are in error.  God has spoken to us in these latter times through His Son, the Living Word, and through Scripture, the Written Word, the latter portion of which was penned by the authorized agents of Jesus himself--the Apostles.

Hebrews 1 ...  
Quote
1 ¶ God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;


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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10278
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:47   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,21:43)
SS...  
Quote
Dave, if god ordered you to kill someone, would you do it?
No.

Really? You would disobey? Good. I guess my morality is universal after all.

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,15:56   

DM...  
Quote
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?
You are truly desperate to try to make me look bad aren't you?  What is it that motivates you?  Are you truly afraid of "religious nutjobs" like Katherine Harris (or me) running the country?  What ... do you think we'd have evolutionists all executed or something?  Get a grip, man.  

Christians are the ones who secured the freedoms in America in the first place.  It's other countries where they knock you off because they don't like you.

SS...
Quote
Really? You would disobey? Good. I guess my morality is universal after all.
Actually, this is a more complex question than meets the eye.  I took the question to mean if God somehow personally ordered me to kill someone.  And the answer is "NO" because God has already made His will quite clear in Scripture regarding this.

But there is another aspect ... capital punishment.  God already HAS "ordered" our governments to kill for certain crimes and in times of war.  Since these are lawful, God ordained "orders", I would obey them if I were in those positions, i.e. the military or the government.

BTW ... Universal Morality only applies to the Creature, not the Creator.  This is a common point of confusion.

--------------
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 2006,16:14   

Quote
You are truly desperate to try to make me look bad aren't you?  What is it that motivates you?  Are you truly afraid of "religious nutjobs" like Katherine Harris (or me) running the country?  What ... do you think we'd have evolutionists all executed or something?  Get a grip, man.  Christians are the ones who secured the freedoms in America in the first place.  It's other countries where they knock you off because they don't like you.

Yeah, I'm not inclined to ideas like that, particularly since they're not true. Instead what I see out of you is insane shit like:

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.  
   
Quote
God already HAS "ordered" our governments to kill for certain crimes and in times of war.  Since these are lawful, God ordained "orders", I would obey them if I were in those positions, i.e. the military or the government.


The issue is that it's you  and people like you that get to determine "certain crimes" and "lawful" and in so doing, you have no morals, Dave... your morality is dependent on what others have told you, not on what you THINK is right or wrong of YOURSELF.

Let me put it this way: if tomorrow you woke up and the bible suddenly said " kill all those chinks" you'd do it because YOU have no personal morals.

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

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,16:53   

Quote
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University


Abstract: People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.


I've posted a link to this study before but it was subsumed in the tsunami of citations refuting AddledFartDave's so-called reasoning. I'm re-posting it here, with the abstract, because AcephalicFreakDave is the platonic ideal of "unskilled and unaware of it."

Of course, he'll never "improve [his] metacognitive competence," since that would require acknowledging that the infallible* bible (i.e., his hotline to his god, his badge of authority) is in fact fallible, and the information contained therein is subject to the limitations of the physical universe, as observed by millions of scientists, with all their annoying sciencey language and picky documentation. Which would then invalidate all moral, rational, and instinctive restraints on AeratorFlinchDave's behavior; simple murder would be the least we could expect from the unleashed AgarFigmeatDave. (This, despite the fact that millions of atheists, agnostics, and unobservant believers manage to live carnage- and felony-free lives. Perhaps we should pity AnkaraFrillyDave for his weakness. Or report him to the nearest USA-PATRIOT Act law enforcement facility.)

All of which would be none of my liberal christian, anti-thought-crime bidness, if AnalFlockingDave merely indulged in "thinking" about evolution to pass the time, waiting for the Rapture. The fact that he's forcing children to accept his delusions as shut-up-and-stop-thinking truth, ratified not only by his infallible* bible but rational thinking and research -- no. No flicking way I'll let that go.

AbortiveFlaccidDave, you're free to believe whatever you want -- that the world is 6,000 years old, that Clio is the muse of history, that it's turtles all the way down. Teach your beliefs, as your beliefs, as the sacred word of the infallible* bible. That's your right. No one here, no one anywhere, could possibly care less.

But you can't legitimately claim that your beliefs are anywhere within spitting distance of scientific authority based on the shoddy documentation and anti-logical reasoning you've displayed here. If you want the imprimatur of science, you have to play by the rules of science, aka the rules of the natural world.**

You've presented a statement in the form of a hypothesis, more or less, but in all your thousands of posts in ALL CAPS AND BOLD and A L L  C A P S  A N D  B O L D  A N D  E X T R A S P A C E D  L I K E  T H A T  T R U M P S  A C T U A L  D O C U M E N T E D  E V I D E N C E -- you've never managed to post anything that actually supports your hypothesis. Nothing.

Even worse, you've ignored many questions basic to your hypothesis, such as:
* How did 5,000 feet of water deposit 5,000 feet of sediment?
* Limestone isn't sedimentary -- how were those layers deposited?
* How were the many and widely separated layers of rooted plants deposited? Any gardener knows that it's impossible to maintain the natural root spread in a deliberate (designed! ) transplanting, much less some random watery plunking-down. And that's just one layer. Talk to me about the one-on-top-of-the-other strata of mature, rooted plants you've ignored.

It's not rocket science. Or geology or biology or any other scientific discipline. AardvarkFeltDave can't even accept basic logic.




*You've acknowledged that your version of the bible is an imperfect copy of the infallible original. You haven't explained how you know which parts of your imperfect copy are infallible and which are errors of translation or transcription. Do you have a planchet to guide you, like a Ouija board? Or do you just let your pastor, or your daddy, tell you what to believe?

**Which was, I understand, created by your god. Why do you presume that your deity's powers are limited or determined by your imagination

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,16:55   

DM...
Quote
The issue is that it's you  and people like you that get to determine "certain crimes" and "lawful" and in so doing, you have no morals, Dave... your morality is dependent on what others have told you, not on what you THINK is right or wrong of YOURSELF.

Let me put it this way: if tomorrow you woke up and the bible suddenly said " kill all those chinks" you'd do it because YOU have no personal morals.
The opposite is actually true.  The Judeo-Christian moral structure based on what we call the Bible has brought the world the most stable, humane, fair system of laws ever in the history of the world.  And it is in writing.  It is not in some modern day "prophet's" mind.  The scary thing would be to have some system OTHER than the Judeo-Christian as some countries still have.  What you wind up with then is exactly the scary scenario that you have voiced.  What you would have is ... REX LEX, "the King is the Law."  Saddam Hussein was the "REX" and he IS the "LEX" and thus is also above the "LEX."

What we have thanks to the Judeo-Christian system is LEX REX, or "the Law is King" and even the President is under the law.  We saw this in living color with Richard Nixon ... it's a pretty good system ... the best the world has yet seen.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,17:11   

Sorry you're having a bad night, Jupiter.  Hope it goes better tomorrow :-)

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,17:38   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,20:43)
Eric ...      
Quote
So who's going to "force" me to be a creationist, Dave? God? Doubt it.
Do you have a tongue, Eric?  Did you read the verse?  It said, "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."  This includes you, my friend.  Don't wait until it's too late.

Dave, you've never given me a single reason to put credence in a single word in the Bible, and plenty of reasons to put none in it. So what do you think your quote means to me? So far, of all the people I've ever discussed religion with, you're the one who's been most successful in persuading me the whole thing is a sad, pathetic joke. Your weak, insecure, vindictive and jealous god doesn't even begin to resemble an entity who could create a universe 150 billion light-years wide. Your weak, insecure, vindictive and jealous god resembles nothing so much as the invention of weak, insecure, jealous and vindictive men.

So what's your answer to my question, Dave? What did God think he was going to accomplish 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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,17:39   

Quote
The scary thing would be to have some system OTHER than the Judeo-Christian as some countries still have.


Why do you hate America, Dave?

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,17:45   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,21:55)
What we have thanks to the Judeo-Christian system is LEX REX, or "the Law is King" and even the President is under the law.

What, have you been asleep for the last five years, Dave? What gives you the idea that the law is above the President, our god-fearing Christian President? He certainly doesn't think it is.

So about those questions, Dave? They're going on the list.

Stop the political hand-waving and get to (I can't say "get back to") finding some support—any support—for your hypothesis.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10278
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:00   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 09 2006,23:38)
Your weak, insecure, vindictive and jealous god doesn't even begin to resemble an entity who could create a universe 150 billion light-years wide.

Lest anyone object to this part and say the universe is ~32 billion light years wide, because the age is 15.8 billion years, let me go ahead and caution you. The present width of the universe is indeed ~150 billion lightyears. It has to do with acceleration from dark energy. Unless you're a masochist, I'd recommend just saying 'okay' and moving on. :-)

   
Henry J



Posts: 4656
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:43   

Re "Lest anyone object to this part and say the universe is ~32 billion light years wide, because the age is 15.8 billion years, let me go ahead and caution you. The present width of the universe is indeed ~150 billion lightyears."

Wouldn't that just be the lower limit? (I presume that's the span occupied now by galaxies that we've observed as they were billions of years ago.)

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 10278
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,18:48   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 10 2006,00:43)
Re "Lest anyone object to this part and say the universe is ~32 billion light years wide, because the age is 15.8 billion years, let me go ahead and caution you. The present width of the universe is indeed ~150 billion lightyears."

Wouldn't that just be the lower limit? (I presume that's the span occupied now by galaxies that we've observed as they were billions of years ago.)

Henry

blah blah blah observable universe blah blah blah.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,20:45   

Quote
The Judeo-Christian moral structure based on what we call the Bible has brought the world the most stable, humane, fair system of laws ever in the history of the world.

Yet, as I said, it calls for the killing of innocents that you HAD to say did "the world a favor by killing them off"
Bwahahahaha.

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

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,22:21   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,19:20)
And you will be too one day ... by choice or by force!

I'm sure this type of threat/argument works well on 3rd graders who are   intimidated by (pseudo) adult authority figures like yourself DDTTD, but there aren't any 3rd graders here.

This type of statement does lend itself to the earlier questions about whether what you do falls into the category of child abuse. The answer is an unqualified YES.

Statements about the ability of educated humans to reconstruct train wrecks (or plane crashes) or how systems that aren't 100% reliable aren't safely usable also call into question your education as an engineer of any type (much less a fighter stud).

Do you drive across the I-35/Paseo bridge often DDTTD?

What school did you receive your EE degree from?

It's obvious you can't defend your "hypothesis"!

DDTTD, how are you gonna 'splain Aspen tree roots that are older than your 6K "theory" of the Universe?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,22:28   

Quote
Do you have a tongue, Eric?  Did you read the verse?  It said, "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

I see, you definitely fear that admitting the Bible might be wrong would send you directly to heII.
So you've been LYING from the beginning, when you said you were ready to accept any evidence.

Your intellectual dishonnesty is disguting.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2006,22:31   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,23:00)
...because the age is 15.8 billion years...

It's 13.7.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,01:39   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 09 2006,21:14)
 
Quote
God already HAS "ordered" our governments to kill for certain crimes and in times of war.  Since these are lawful, God ordained "orders", I would obey them if I were in those positions, i.e. the military or the government.


The issue is that it's you  and people like you that get to determine "certain crimes" and "lawful" and in so doing, you have no morals, Dave... your morality is dependent on what others have told you, not on what you THINK is right or wrong of YOURSELF.

Let me put it this way: if tomorrow you woke up and the bible suddenly said " kill all those chinks" you'd do it
To put it another way, what is interesting here is that when Dave was directly if he would obey if God ordered him to kill, he said no.  But, earlier, when asked if he would obey if his government ordered him to kill, he answered yes.  So, it seems he is more willing to believe the voices in someone else's head than the voices in his own.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,02:11   

Crabby...
Quote
Do you drive across the I-35/Paseo bridge often DDTTD?
Ah ... you've read about this bridge.  Actually, I NEVER drive across this bridge.  And I don't trust Argon dating.

Carlson...
Quote
To put it another way, what is interesting here is that when Dave was directly if he would obey if God ordered him to kill, he said no.  But, earlier, when asked if he would obey if his government ordered him to kill, he answered yes.  So, it seems he is more willing to believe the voices in someone else's head than the voices in his own.
Again a desperate attempt to twist reality to portray fundies like me as some kind of monster ... pathetic.

You should not be a sore loser, Carlson.  Take your defeats on your evolutionary theory like a man.  Don't be a wimp and resort to childish tricks like this just because you don't like me for exposing your errors.

Christians are not believing voices in someone's head like the jihadists. We have the rule of law here in America and it has its basis in a written document--the Christian Scriptures.  There is a very clear distinction made between personal vengeful killing--murder, and God-ordained government killing--capital punishment and war.

Personally, I would be in much greater fear if someone like you were president because you have no moral anchor.  Your ethics are not firmly outlined in a book which has been settled for 2000 years.  (Actually over 3000 years if we are talking about the Mosaic code) Your ethics are decided by the whims of the age.  Thankfully though, we have checks and balances in the American government and you could not do too much damage.

--------------
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. 10 2006,02:41   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,14:31)
     
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.

Nope, it's true if you consider the entire history of radiometric dating.
     
Quote
Wanna guess why?

I know why.  You, Davie the ignoramus, don't.
     
Quote
Think, Jon, think.  Could it be that people don't trust Argon anymore?

Nope.  If people didn't trust K-Ar anymore they wouldn't do it. There's several reasons why U-Pb dating is the most widely used. K-Ar is only good to about 2-3%, and geochronologists are looking for better and better resolution.  U-Pb dating can get sub-1% errors, partly because the half-life of uranium is known better than for any other isotope (bombs and reactors, you know).
     
Quote
Hmmmm ... Bercause prior to that it was massively popular and was the most common method for many years.

It may have been the most popular for a few years in the late-1940's, but it was surpassed by isochrons and U-Pb in the fifties.
   
Quote
   
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.

Your analogy of the bridge sucks; it's a single made thing, while K-Ar dating is a process that is performed over and over, and human life is involved in bridges (which automatically brings in a whole different set of standards) but not in K-Ar dating.  {ABE: we also have far more control over the reliability of a bridge than we have over the reliability of K-Ar dating.}

But that all pales in comparison to the fact that you are arguing by analogy ... that's a fallacy.  If you want to argue that K-Ar dating has to be perfect to be useful, or that K-Ar dating is not good enough to ever be used, you need to establish that claim independenly of how reliable any other thing or process is.  The fact that bridges are very reliable (but not 100% reliable) does not mean that K-Ar dating, with an error rate somewhere under 10% (the excess argon rate in young rocks is not the overall error rate because excess argon is insignificant in older rocks) and those errors definitely not are large enough to be compatible with a 6,00 year old Earth, is not sufficiently reliable for our purposes.  We know that no technique, from the technique of desgning a bridge to the techniques of testing for cancer to the technique of K-Ar dating, is 100% reliable; we decide whether or not any particular technique is reliable enough by considering the purposes to which it is put, not the reliability of unrelated items.
     
Quote
     
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 aughable.  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.

Your entire rant is irrelevant. The fact remians that if O N E   R A D I O M E T R I C   D A T E   I S   C O R R E C T   T H E N   T H E   E A R T H   I S   A   L O T   M O R E   T H A N   6 , 0 0 0   Y E A R S   O L D.  Does the wide spacing and bolding help that fact penetrate your pointy litle head, Davie-moron?

We know that we want a low error rate in general in radiometric dating, but when it comes to testing the "hypothesis" that the Earth is 6,000 years off, a technique that is wrong 99.999999999% of the time would suffice to falsify a young earth.  
     
Quote
     
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.

Gee, Davie-doodle, you're too stupid to detect what I'm replying to when it's in front of your face.  I quoted what I was reponding to:
     
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.


But you're still way off base.  The result could have been zero excess argon if Snelling hadn't cheated.  We don't know.  It doesn't matter whether or not he thought he could get a valid date; he couldn't stand the possibility that he might actualy get a valid date, so he rigged the test so it was impossible to get a valid date.  That's fraud.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:23   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,07:11)
We have the rule of law here in America and it has its basis in a written document--the Christian Scriptures.

American law is based on the Constitution and subsequent legislation, and very definitley not on the Christian scriptures.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,03:42   

Hmmm ... not only are you ignorant about the failure of Argon dating, you also have not read much of the writings of the Founders of America.

Too bad for you!

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,04:08   

Heh.
dave got all worked up again.
What did you guys do now to make him quote scripture again?

Oh, nevermind. I see. He just got cornered and switched to denial again.

Sooo... We got 'silenced', dave? "defeats in evolutionary biology"? When was that exactly? You "beat the Tyre thing to death"? Oh reeeeeeally? how did you do that, if I may ask? Because in all these issues, all I can remember you doing is repeating the same refuted non-arguments and running away like Brave Sir Robin.
But I may be wrong. Why don't you prove that by linking to the posts where you silenced, defeated and beat us up, dave? I'm sure your church buddies would love to see the evidence of your supreme victory...  :D

...But something tells me they've begun to figure you out themselves by now. Quick, do another "summary"!

Boy, your arrogance reeks through your pretense of humility like mold through age-old walls... If only you had the wit to back it up.
This is much easier when you do it with kids, right dave?

Now, for your latest pathetic handwaving:
I like your "bridge" analogy, dave, but unfortunately it totally fails. Here's another analogy that best portrays your viiews:

OMIGOSH! If you don't triple-check your instruments and systems and indicators before you take off in a plane, you might CRASH! Not to mention how likely that is if you try to take off in THUNDERSTORMS and HURRICANES! Well, it's obvious: PLANES CAN'T FLY! Aviation is...
BALONEY!


Sounds silly, dave? It is. And so are you.

If a CT scan fails to identify a small tumor in the lungs, does this mean CT scanning is "baloney"? If that tumor is hidden by a vessel of a local pneumonia, does this mean we should dump all CT scanners and get back to percussion as the most reliable diagnostic means?

You see, you're trying to argue against a scientific method -and all methods in science, from medicine to rocket technology, have margins of error and sensitivity in application. Scientists work around those, by careful selection and evaluation and correlation... And that's how science works (and you'd know that, if you REALLY were an engineer). He11, that's why science works.
And it works, dave. Oh-ho, it works. And you know it.
See, forget all your ridiculous rants, about how excess or less argon means that Argon is some magical element, undetected and ever-present like the anti-Ether, that screws up all datings (even not K-Ar ones?  :p ).
Or about how 4 wrong measurements out of 20 somehow mean that the other 16 out of those 20 were wrong too, and the validity of their results, cross-referenced and in accordance with other measurements, is apparently by CHANCE (just another joke of your clown version of a god, who likes to pull practical jokes on us).
Or about xenoliths, that first you denied they existed in the samples and then said that "you bet" (haha) their argon will be insignificant -even though the entire geologic community knows and has demonstrated otherwise.
Won't be the first time you argue against textbook knowledge in a scientific field, aided by the lies of AiG and ICR, and it won't be the first time you'd have to resort to conspiracies to justify your claims. Nothing new here.

No dave. All this is not worth our time. After all, they can all be refuted by a single word:

Pompeii.

Have the guts to finally address that, dave. And not by claiming that The Berkeley Geo Center are impostors, and that "you bet" they hid other more discordant data: Unsupported accusations are not arguments.

But hey, it's ok if you don't. Kicking puppies is not my favorite sport. If you want to take your mind off that, here's a small logical exersise to keep you occupied:

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're right. The world IS 6000 years old, and all radiometric dating provides false old ages because of the ever-present 'excess Argon'. Or whatever.

Now, in the Red Corner, we have the Atheist Pinko Evobot Scientists: They try to do their best to prove that the Earth is old, according to their Darwinist cult.
In the White Corner, we have the Scientist Champions of the Almighty's Truth.(*) They try to open the eyes of the world to the young age of the Earth and the flaws of the APES and their dating methods.

With me so far? Good.

Now, how would you expect each side to conduct measurements? Since the APES side desperarely tries to prove an old earth, they'd just throw measurements here and there, whole rocks partially heated, xenoliths and all, to get as much excess argon and crust contamination and whatever else it is that makes the rocks seem old. They would say that "xenoliths don't really matter, the don't make that much a difference" or "no need to evaluate excess argon" and throw out their results without cross-referencing.

Our Champions, on the other hand, would try to: A) either produce an accurate (young) age for the rocks, by eliminating all contamination as much as possible, or B) if that's not possible, show that, no matter how carefully you perform the method, it is still unreliable.
So, they would carefully select samples, evaluate them for obvious sources of excess Argon, exclude xenoliths, attempt to cross-reference the results with independent measurements, in order to find the REAL age of the rocks- or to at least demonstrate that, even taking all possibilities into consideration, and after copious efforts, the method still provides unreliable results.

Sounds reasonable to you, dave?

If not, why?

If yes, why do we see exactly the opposite?

Why do we see Geologists going into all the trouble of eliminating all possibilities of error in their method, by carefully selecting and evaluating and preparing and heating and measuring and cross-referencing samples, if they are looking for a FLAWED age?

Why do we see creationists being all sloppy and careless and provide stand-alone results on ambiguous samples with poor preparation and application of the method, if it is the method's essential validity that they try to discredit?

Starting to get the picture dave?

...No, of course you don't.





(*) haha, I just noticed that both acronyms work just fine! :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."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10278
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,04:16   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 10 2006,04:31)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2006,23:00)
...because the age is 15.8 billion years...

It's 13.7.

You're right, I was not paying attention and I used the wrong figure. The age is 13.7 +/- .1. IIRC the 15.8 billion light years is the last figure I heard for the cosmic particle horizon. And 150 billion light years is the width thanks to dark energy.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,04:28   

HAHAHA Steve how could you make such a silly mistake! Are you from MIT too? BUAHAHAHAHAHA

Expect me to keep bugging you about it every time you post any thing on any subject, for the next dozen pages at least. That's all the response you'll get from me.

Then, I'll be all majestically humble in my grandeur and admit I was hard on you and apologise.

But untill then... BUAHAHA THE SILLY EVO MADE A BOOBOO WITH HIS NUMBERS NYAH NYAH

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,04:58   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,07:11)
Carlson...    
Quote
To put it another way, what is interesting here is that when Dave was directly if he would obey if God ordered him to kill, he said no.  But, earlier, when asked if he would obey if his government ordered him to kill, he answered yes.  So, it seems he is more willing to believe the voices in someone else's head than the voices in his own.
Again a desperate attempt to twist reality to portray fundies like me as some kind of monster ... pathetic.

Umm, Dave, I was speaking figuratively. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.  I find it ironic, though, that you would reject a command from an infallible diety, while blindly accepting the same command from fallible humans.  It really offers some interesting insights.
Quote
You should not be a sore loser, Carlson.  Take your defeats on your evolutionary theory like a man.  Don't be a wimp and resort to childish tricks like this just because you don't like me for exposing your errors.

Yes, you are right. I really should be stockpiling vaccines and anti-biotics for the coming overthrow of science.  
Quote
Christians are not believing voices in someone's head like the jihadists.

Figurative speech, Dave.  Not to be taken literally. Oh, never mind.
Quote
We have the rule of law here in America and it has its basis in a written document--the Christian Scriptures.

I believe you misspelled Enlightment philosophy and English common law.  After all, only 3 of the 10 commandments are actually codified in federal law. But, one can really find most of Locke and other such thinkers in our system.
Quote
 Personally, I would be in much greater fear if someone like you were president because you have no moral anchor.  Your ethics are not firmly outlined in a book which has been settled for 2000 years.  (Actually over 3000 years if we are talking about the Mosaic code) Your ethics are decided by the whims of the age.  Thankfully though, we have checks and balances in the American government and you could not do too much damage.

You don't know my theology. You don't know my politics. You don't know the causes I believe in. You don't know how or where I spend my time and money. In short, you don't know anything about me, Dave, except that I don't buy into your narrow worldview.  That alone makes me your enemy and someone to fear?  What I find so ironic is that my worldview is clearly a product of Enlightment thinking and, thus, makes me much closer philosophical kin to  Jefferson, Adams, and Washington than you could ever be.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,05:54   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,07:11)
You should not be a sore loser, Carlson.  Take your defeats on your evolutionary theory like a man.  Don't be a wimp and resort to childish tricks like this just because you don't like me for exposing your errors.

What are you talking about, Dave? Are you under the misapprehension that you've defeated someone in an argument on evolutionary theory? Or that you've exposed someone's errors? In evolutionary theory, or geological theory, or astronomical theory, or politics, or history, or linguistics?

Once more, I challenge you to produce one person, lurker or poster, who thinks you've won a single argument on this thread on any subject whatever. Try to get someone to post a statement that you've won an argument here, Black Knight Dave. Your "arguments" have been obliterated, devastated, annihilated, eviscerated, and terminated with extreme prejudice. I have never in my life seen anyone suffer such comprehensive intellectual defeats, over and over and over again, and yet still insist he was "winning."

I've read a lot of people's posts on the Internet in the past twelve years, Dave, but I don't think I've ever read posts from anyone so breathtakingly arrogant, with so little justification, as you, Sir Black Knight. If part of your plan here is to show the superiority of Christian intellect and morality, you're having precisely the opposite effect.

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10278
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,05:57   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 10 2006,11:54)
I have never in my life seen anyone suffer such comprehensive intellectual defeats, over and over and over again, and yet still insist he was "winning."

I haven't either.

   
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,06:30   

What you actually wrote:
Quote (Seven Popes @ Sep. 08 2006,15:31)
 
Quote (Seven Popes @ July 24 2006,22:16)
 
Quote (Seven Popes @ July 24 2006,07:47)
   
Quote (afdave @ July 22 2006,08:00)
1.  I have not any part of the Bible which anyone has proven to be untrue.  Sometimes a statement appears untrue at first, but upon closer inspection, it proves true after all.
2.  I think the parts that Jesus said were true and the parts He commissioned to be written are the ones we accept as 'Inspired by God.'  Jesus confirmed the inspiration of the OT and he commissioned the apostles to write the NT.  So I take both to be true.
3.  Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) if you are highly motivated.  If not, try the New King James or the New American Standard.  I like them both.  Also get a Power Bible CD ROM from www.powerbible.com -- Adam Clarke's commentary and many others contained there are very good.
4.  I don't know of any 'obvious errors' -- we went through one supposed 'error' about Tyre here and it was equivocal at best.  Buy yourself a good book on Bible Difficulties.



How exactly is the Tyre prophecy equivocal?
It stated that Tyre will be bare, and it's not.

Care to explain dave?  How is a populated Tyre a bare rock?  I give you proof positive of a biblical mistake and you sadly call it equivocal?

I caught you in a lie, Mr. Dawkins, And I have been quite polite about it, and you have not been.  I hope you can finally clear this up.


And now this, on page 182.
 
Quote

Oh ... and you wanted to know about Tyre?  I beat that one to death ...oh ... about a hundred pages ago or so.  Not planning on repeating.  Sorry.



Mr. Dawkins, you are clearly lying.  Why?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,06:56   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,08:42)
Hmmm ... not only are you ignorant about the failure of Argon dating...

Dave, what do you expect with this remark, coming from a guy who doesn't know the first thing about science?

You obviously didn't think what you just said (which makes you a liar and a hypocrite), you've just been taunting us into losing our cool, and you succeded several times. A true honest christian should not be that arrogant, you know.

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

Pages: (202) < ... 179 180 181 182 183 [184] 185 186 187 188 189 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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