RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 180 181 182 183 184 [185] 186 187 188 189 190 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,07:17   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,08:42)
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!

I know far more about radiometric dating and its proven usefulness and reliability than you ever will.  I've also read quite a bit of American history, including a lot of the Federalist papers, and the various lies of the Christian Nationalsim movement ... and I stand by my statement.

Try Many Orthodox Christians Understand America isn&#8217;t a &#8220;Christian Nation&#8221;, just for a sample.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,07:21   

I've never lost my cool. I remain icy and sweet. 13.7 is good and 150 is right. And any god that requires/orders the death of little kids is pretty dammn sick.

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

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,07:40   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 10 2006,12:21)
And any god that requires/orders the death of little kids is pretty dammn sick.

But how do you know that? Because of the Universal Moral Law! See? There IS A UML! See? See?

OK, maybe it wasn't god-inspired after all But STILL

--------------
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. 10 2006,08:10   

how nice that G-D gets to ignore that universal moral law. It all makes sense now. MINE EYES HAVE BEEN OPENED. I can SEE

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,12:02   

Hmmm ... here's another good one for you ...

Dalrymple and Hamblin [1998] ... concluded that most of more than 60 (!!;) published K-Ar model ages on Pleistocene basalts in western Grand Canyon are in error ... [RATE Book 2000, p. 117] ... but you all are scientists so you can look up the original paper, right? :-)

And don't forget about the 20% (!;) of the results Dalrymple did himself on historic flows contained excess Argon ...

Oh ... and don't forget the wild discordance that the RATE Group themselves got with K-Ar dating.

Oh and one more thing before I head off to church ...

A thought question for you ...

If 80% of the Argon dates are "right," what exactly is your criteria for determine "right"??

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

Mmmm ... I see JonF wants to take up the "Christian America" debate again ... good ... I like that one too.  We'll see if I can make time for two tracks at once.

Poor 7P ... will someone kindly refer him to the appropriate page for the start of the Tyre debate.  I don't want to take the time to find it and I have not yet found a search feature on this forum.  I guess I should figure out this Permalink thing sometime, huh ...

Carlson ... you're not my enemy,  but I want as few guys with your philosophy in government as possible, thanks.

Faid and Eric ... Oh never mind.

See you guys in the morning for more fun!

--------------
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. 10 2006,12:11   

So, Dave: how are we doing on coming up with a method for dating the Grand Canyon strata? You claim your "hypothesis" is a better explanation for the existence of the Grand Staircase than the standard models are, and yet your "hypothesis" can't even provide a date for those strata. So in what way is your "hypothesis" "better"?

I expect to see a list of dates for at least the lowest and highest strata, and error bars. Given how recent your earliest date is, I'd expect to see error bars in the neighborhood of a decade or so (~1%), but I also want an explanation for where your error bars come from. And please, don't just pull numbers out of your ass.

And not one word about how you think radiometric dating techniques are bad, wrong, misleading, etc. The accuracy or lack thereof of the standard techniques is utterly irrelevant to whatever techniques you think should be used.

Oh, and Dave—not one quote from the Bible. The Bible is useless in establishing your dates; i.e., saying the Grand Staircase has to be less than 6,000 years old because the Bible says so is worthless from an evidentiary perspective. The inerrancy of the Bible is what you're trying to prove. You can't assume what you're trying to prove.

This is easily the tenth time I've asked this question, Dave, and I'm going to keep asking until you either answer it or admit you have no answer.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,12:34   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,17:02)
Poor 7P ... will someone kindly refer him to the appropriate page for the start of the Tyre debate.  I don't want to take the time to find it and I have not yet found a search feature on this forum.  I guess I should figure out this Permalink thing sometime, huh ...

Wow, Dave. You're definitely living in your own little universe (I guess it's the one that's 12,000 light years across, right? which means estimates of the size of the Milky Way are wrong too?). We all witnessed you lose the debate on Tyre. We all know you lost that debate, just as you've lost every other debate you've engaged in here.

You claimed that Tyre is an uninhabited bare rock, but no matter how you danced around the issue, no matter how you tried to redefine "Tyre," you still couldn't change the fact that Tyre has been continuously inhabited for thousands of years.

You think I'm wrong? Fine: post the link to the post where you proved otherwise, or find someone else besides you who will back up your claim that you "won" that debate. I'm fine with either one.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,13:27   

Okay, here's how Black Knight Dave "won" his "Tyre prophesy" argument. Votes as to whether he's right when he says he "won" it.:

Initial Post, Seven Popes:

Seven Popes

Seven Popes explains the prophesy

Dave's pathetic appeal to authority, without explaining how the prophesy was "correct."

Seven Pope's refutation of Dave's claim, with link to supporting evidence.

GoP's link to a completely wrong argument, that tries to weasel out of the fact that Tyre has been continuously inhabited since Nebuchadnezzar's assault. One might as well say that a prophesy that Rome would be destroyed and never rebuilt has been fulfilled, because Rome is a different city now than it was 2,000 years ago.

Dave complains that Seven Popes' refutation is wrong because it's from an
infidel site. But neglects to mention what's wrong about it. He just says it's wrong.

Faid's completely dismantles GoP's attempt to prove the prophesy was fulfilled.

Deadman states the obvious: "Forever" means "Forever."

On a side note, Deadman points out another, different biblical prophesy never fulfilled.

Seven Popes drives in the final nail.

But not to be outdone in the stupidity department, Dave once again tries to claim he's right because the ancient city of Tyre is gone. Duh. Every ancient city is gone, Dave. Is Tyre an uninhabitable rock? No. So in what way have you not lost this argument?

Once again, someone has to point out the obvious to Dave; this time it's Faid. The city that was Tyre is not a "bare rock." It's part of the modern city of Tyre. There is no portion of the old city of Tyre that is currently uninhabitable. But will we get Dave to admit he was wrong? Of course not.

Deadman piles on.

Seven Popes posts the pictures to prove Dave's wrong. Will that get Dave to admit he's wrong? Automatic self-answering question, gentlemen.

Just in case we're still not convinced how wrong Dave is, Deadman posts a map.

To avoid Dave's scattershot attempt to answer every objection to his theory ever given in one post, I'll just quote the relevant bits:

Quote
JOSH McDOWELL ON TYRE
Subtitle: You can pretty much justify anything you want to believe.

Ezekiel 26:8 - Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the mainland city.  FULFILLED in 573, although the island city (where the inhabitants moved to) remained for several hundred years.

26:3 - Many nations against Tyre.  FULFILLED.  In waves:  Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Antigonus, and Moslems.

26:4,5 - bare and flat, like the top of a rock.  Fishermen will spread their nets on the site to dry.  FULFILLED. The secular historian Philip Myers said, “Alexander the Great ... Reduced it (the island city) to ruins (332 BC) ... The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock -- a place where fishermen that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry.”

Hmmmm ... secular historian ... not even a 'christofreakazoid' !!

26:14, 21 - never be rebuilt or found.  FULFILLED. Nina Jidejian in “Tyre through the Ages,” Beirut: Dar El-Mashreq Publishers, 1969. --  
She relates that all the wealth of Tyre disappeared to Alexandria and elsewhere” and she concludes, “Tyre's stones may be found as far away as Acre and Beirut ... Looking down into the water one can see a mass of granite columns and stone blocks strewn all over the sea bottom.  Until recently the ruins of Tyre above water were few.”

Now if you guys want to weasel and squirm, I'm sure you can find a way to justify your skepticism, but you cannot avoid the fact that ...

Tyre was a great, powerful, proud city ... And it got destroyed in the exactly detailed way that Ezekiel said it would.  The city that is there now is not the same city.  It's about as similar to ancient Tyre as Microsoft Corporation headquarters is to Feldman's Farm Supply headquarters.  The ancient Tyre of world renown is GONE!

But again, why the fascination with Tyre?  There are more interesting Bible prophecies than this one.  Someone mentioned Nostradamus ... please, now ... How can anyone even compare Nostradamus to Bible prophecy?

Oh, and Deadman ... you are wrong about Nechadnezzar and Babylon ... and I gave you the evidence to prove it.  Go back and re-read it. See also my answer to your question at the end of this post.


As you'll note, Dave was completely unable to get around the fact that Tyre is, in fact, inhabited, and always has been. He conveniently neglects to note that "forever" means "forever." And he fails to explain how modern Tyre is different from ancient Tyre in a way that is completely different from how modern Rome is different from ancient Rome. If the Bible prophesied that Rome would be destroyed, and would be uninhabited forever, would Dave now be arguing that Rome is no longer inhabited because it's a different city?

And that's about it, folks. Dave claims the biblical prophesy that Tyre would be destroyed, and left uninhabited forever, has been fulfilled, despite the fact that Tyre is now, and always has been, inhabited. Show of hands for those who think Dave "won" this argument?

--------------
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. 10 2006,14:08   

Quote
And that's about it, folks. Dave claims the biblical prophesy that Tyre would be destroyed, and left uninhabited forever, has been fulfilled, despite the fact that Tyre is now, and always has been, inhabited. Show of hands for those who think Dave "won" this argument?




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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,14:11   

Oh, and for the record, it's Dave Hawkins, not Dave Dawkins. Not to be confused with the celebrated evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins, despite their similar views on evolutionary theory and the utility of religion.

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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,14:52   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,17:02)
Hmmm ... here's another good one for you ...

Dalrymple and Hamblin [1998] ... concluded that most of more than 60 (!!;) published K-Ar model ages on Pleistocene basalts in western Grand Canyon are in error ... [RATE Book 2000, p. 117] ... but you all are scientists so you can look up the original paper, right? :-)

You obviously hope we can't, because reading the paper refutes your claims.  But see K-Ar ages of Pleistocene lava dams in the Grand Canyon in Arizona, which doesn't have any such conclusion.  Let's see your evidence for your claim.

Oh, and when you looked up the paper, no doubt you read this part:

"Many of the basalts contain xenoliths (primarily dunite) and carbonate and as much care as possible was taken during sample preparation to avoid incorporating either of these into the sample analyzed."

Oooh, let's see that one again, with the full paragraph and some emphasis:

"Many of the basalts contain xenoliths (primarily dunite) and carbonate and as much care as possible was taken during sample preparation to avoid incorporating either of these into the sample analyzed. Both the carbonate, which interferes with the clean-up process during Ar extraction and whose results are unpredictable, and the older inclusions, which contribute unknown and varying amounts of inherited 40Ar, would be expected to result in calculated ages that are inconsistent and, where inherited 40Ar is present, too old. Despite our precautions, the inconsistency of the results for several of the samples suggests that we were not entirely successful for several of the flows."

What was that you said about telling geologists that they need to exclude xenoliths, Davie-poodles?  Seems as if Dalrymple knows already, doesn't it, Davie-dumbo?  Snelling's xenolith fraud is pretty solidly established now; is Snelling a Christian?

{ABE:  There certainly are a few discordant results identified and published in that paper.  Weren't you claining that discordant results are discarded?  Both this paper and the KBS Tuff papers thoroughly refute that silly claim.}
   
Quote
And don't forget about the 20% (!;) of the results Dalrymple did himself on historic flows contained excess Argon ...

Oh ... and don't forget the wild discordance that the RATE Group themselves got with K-Ar dating.

Oh and one more thing before I head off to church ...

A thought question for you ...

If 80% of the Argon dates are "right," what exactly is your criteria for determine "right"??

First; more than 80% of K-Ar dates are correct within identified error bars; excess argon is insignificant in older rocks.

Second: depends on your definition of "right".  If you mean "refutes the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old", then we don't need to determine which ones are right, so the question is irrelevant; we know that all of them contradict the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old, some of them are right, and we don't need to know which ones are right.

If you mean "are correct within error bars", we determine that by cross-checking with stratigraphy, index fossils, and other radiometric dates.

Don't forget your promise to discuss why you think zircons don't refute Snelling's "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."

And I did ask nicely that you post your evidence that mixing affects K-Ar dating; I really need a good laugh.  I hope you don't disappoint me.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,15:59   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,17:02)
Carlson ... you're not my enemy,  but I want as few guys with your philosophy in government as possible, thanks.

The United States has been run by my philosophical kin since 1789. I will gladly admit to being more of a Hamiltonian federalist than a Jeffersonian democrat. But, even such avowed majoritarian democrats like Jefferson and Andrew Jackson recognized the necessity of keeping religion and government as far away from each other as possible.  

In fact, in the modern political landscape, a libertarian like myself finds kindred souls more often in the GOP than the Democratic Party.  Surprised?

--------------
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 2006,17:30   

Eric--  Many thanks for correcting the inadvertent insult on my name ... I really would rather not be Dave Dawkins!

BTW--  What do you do for a living? ... you have way too much time on your hands :-)

--------------
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. 10 2006,18:07   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 10 2006,22:30)
Eric--  Many thanks for correcting the inadvertent insult on my name ... I really would rather not be Dave Dawkins!

BTW--  What do you do for a living? ... you have way too much time on your hands :-)

Dave, it's the weekend.

And I still had time to get in 135 miles on the bike. It really doesn't take that much time to blow your claims away.

As for Mr. Dawkins—I'm confident the feeling is mutual.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,18:57   

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.

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;

In the end DaveyDH always seems to devolve into "My religion's better'n yurs."

To which I would have to answer, "No it isn't."

Core samples (in fact all the evidence presented so far) prove an old Earth.

And since the whole world of religion is open to those of us who weren't brainwashed as kids, we have much better religions to choose from so your provincial little god doesn't make much sense.

By the way, is there anyone out there who thinks dave has won a single argument? Any of your friends DaveyDH?

I have to laugh about the Portuguese thing still. You claimed victory without firing a shot.

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

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,01:21   

135 miles on your bike?  This weekend?  As in bicycle??!!  Not a motorcycle?  Wow ... you just officially obtained my respect ... not in science, but in biking! What do you do for a living?

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

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,02:32   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 09 2006,19:33)
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)

So, you're absolutely sure that Darwin has and that stevestory is going to meet his maker and become a Creationist??

Quote
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, if there's such a thing as "too late" then it's quite possible that steve will in fact wait until it's too late, just like Darwin and Ghandi. I know I'm never going to become one- unless I'm somehow injured in the head just right, but if your god does that to me, F it, he can have me for his zombie army.

About Darwin. I'm pretty sure he was not opposed to god. And if he were to wake up in christian heaven and learned the truth that he was right about the way god made us, he'd be happy. But, if he found out that his theory that explains things so well merely describes the illusion of a cheap parlor trick, I think he'd be pretty pissed off!

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,02:41   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,06:21)
135 miles on your bike?  This weekend?  As in bicycle??!!  Not a motorcycle?  Wow ... you just officially obtained my respect ... not in science, but in biking! What do you do for a living?

How condencending and rude Dave...
Quote

Poor 7P ... will someone kindly refer him to the appropriate page for the start of the Tyre debate.  I don't want to take the time to find it and I have not yet found a search feature on this forum.  I guess I should figure out this Permalink thing sometime, huh ...

Your information is ready, sir.  You have run at least a half a dozen times from this, and are now caught in a lie.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,02:43   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,06:21)
135 miles on your bike?  This weekend?  As in bicycle??!!  Not a motorcycle?  Wow ... you just officially obtained my respect ... not in science, but in biking! What do you do for a living?

yawn.
Amazing indeed.
Now, answer the goddam questions!

What do you do for a living Dave? Lie to kids cant be the only thing? Or is there more money in that nowdays then there used to be?
Fleece money from the gullible? Doubt that'll go down too well on a CV.

And how are you getting on with spreading the word of your great victorys on this forum? Nobody's piped up yet with any support, unless you'd care to point us towards a permalink? Oh, you've not worked them out yet have you? not too surprising, lets just add it to the list of things you still dont understand desipte having had your hand held and it explained to you in words i'm sure even the kids whose minds you posion could understand.

Here, let me get you started. This is a permalink to where one of your oh so tyresome (heh!;) argument gets totally destroyed. You say you won, but anybody looking at that post (nicely done btw) can see for themselves you got whipped!;).

And, unlike the kids you poison, "it's wrong" "why?" "because"  is not a way to win arguments, friends and influence. Is that what you say to the kids "it just is, now believe or burn in ####".

Have you ever told Kids about #### Dave? Do tell? Does it come up often when they ask you an question you cant answer (i believe that even 8 year olds could ask you questions that would leave you stumped!;)

"but Dave, if all the animals were living together on the ARK why didn't the Lions eat the Zebras?"

"they just didnt, now shut up or burn in #### little girl"

Is that accurate? Is that how it goes down when you are poisoning kids minds? Dont you think that at least some of them will grow up to be scientists? Dont you think that on 2016 they'll be on this board telling you what a fool you were and how much they resent you for lying to them for all those years!?!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,03:15   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,06:21)
135 miles on your bike?  This weekend?  As in bicycle??!!  Not a motorcycle?  Wow ... you just officially obtained my respect ... not in science, but in biking! What do you do for a living?

so you edited your own post to remove the permalink reference? I see, is this because you realised that by even mentioning it you'd have to start providing references to *where* you'd "proved" your point? And of course, you cannot and so that does not help you does it?
Ha, it's nice to know even you realise that you cannot support your own "i've won" posts with THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU SAY YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN.

which, on examination, of course would prove to be just mroe empty handwaving or quoting for AIG.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,05:16   

SFBDave sez
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" ??  


So if 1 out of 20 Christians at Tri-Cities Ministries is shown to be a scientifically illiterate, egotistical, pathological liar by his actions on a C/E discussion board, then ALL Christians at Tri-Cities must be scientifically illiterate, egotistical, pathological liars.

Did I get that logic right Davie?

--------------
"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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,05:18   

XENOLITHS OR NO XENOLITHS, ARGON DATING IS UNRELIABLE ... MAKE THAT HORRIBLY UNRELIABLE

JonF wants to make a big deal out of xenoliths ... fine ... make a big deal out of them ...

In fact, you could even forget about Snelling's own experiments completely and guess what you would have ...

Wildly unreliable Argon dating

It is my understanding that Dalrymple was one of the leading popularizers of K-Ar dating with his 1969 book on the topic ...
[BOOK] Potassium-argon dating
GB Dalrymple, MA Lanphere - 1969 - Freeman

It is interesting to note the increase in popularity of the method beginning in the 50's and continuing to the present from the Google Scholar searches below.  I suppose this confirms Snelling's statement that continues to remain the most popular dating method. [RATE Book 1, p.37] Why?  Because it's cheap I guess.  I think JonF says Snelling is wrong about this too, but I'm not seeing that, Jon.  From the data below, I see 2600 search returns for K-Ar vs. 391, 299, and 1150 for Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb respectively.  Maybe you could back up your statements with data?
Quote
Results 1 - 10 of about 45 for potassium argon dates 1941-1950
Results 1 - 10 of about 164 for potassium argon dates 1951-1960
Results 1 - 10 of about 578 for potassium argon dates 1961-1970
Results 1 - 10 of about 840 for potassium argon dates 1971-1980
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260 for potassium argon dates 1981-1990
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,600 for potassium argon dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,930 for potassium argon dates 2001-2006

Results 1 - 10 of about 391 for rubidium strontium dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 299 for samarium neodymium dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,150 for Pb-Pb dates 1991-2000


Also, I'm not sure where JonF gets his idea that K-Ar dating was popular in the 40's, but then, I'm not sure where JonF gets lots of his ideas ... maybe he could fill me in.  

Dalrymple was a big promoter of Argon dating and wrote a book on the subject in 1969.  He tested 26 historic flows in the same year and found 20% of them to have "excess Argon."  In spite of this, he was still promoting Argon dating with his statement that Argon atoms are "like a bird in a cage." [Dalrymple, 1991, p.91] Yeah, some cage! ... read [Plummer and McGeary, 1996, p. 170] to see how easily that "bird" can fly right out of (or into) that cage!  Then of course, we have Mr. Bird-in-the-Cage man himself throwing out 60 published K-Ar dates in the western Grand Canyon [Dalrymple and Hamblin, 1998].  JonF waves his hands wildly and says "Look!  He excluded xenoliths!"  OK. Great.  What's your point?  So he excluded xenoliths and threw out 60 dates anyway.  That establishes MY point, not yours.  
Then the question arises ... "How do we determine if a particluar Argon "date" is "right?"  Hmmmm ... good question.  The answer of course, although no one here will admit it, is that it agrees with the "accepted bio-stratigraphical timescale."  To put it in laymen's terms, geologists go out and date rocks for which they already have a pre-conceived idea of what the "ages" are.  They throw out the "ages" that don't agree with this pre-conception and keep the ones that do.  This is the "yardstick" for determining if a "date" is "right" or not.  Don't think they throw out dates they don't like?  Well you are mistaken as I have now shown you on the KBS Tuff and the example of Dalrymple and Hamblin [1998].  I'm sure I could spend a great deal of time and show you many, many more.  

But again, my time is not well spent trying to convince skeptics of anything.  My time is best spent subjecting the statements of creationist scientists to the rigors of skepticism and seeing if they survive.  I have now done that with Snelling's statements on Argon dating from two of his papers and he has passed the "Skeptic Test" with flying colors!  For those of you that have a shred of honesty left in your body, I would suggest that you buy or borrow the two RATE Books from ICR and read them for yourselves.  On the other hand, if you are comfortable in the "Fog of Deep Time" then don't bother.

And if you think that the above mentioned problems with Argon dating are not really a problem, then you should be ashamed to call yourself a scientist.  Not too many people I know want to drive across the Paseo bridge in KC that Crabby mentioned and it has NEVER dropped a car into the river.  It's just been suspect.  Imagine how much traffic it would get if it had dropped cars into the river in 4 out of the last 20 years!  That's the situation we have with Argon dating.  Actually, if the truth were known, the percentage would be much higher.  Read the RATE Book Vol 2 and you will see this.

So, my friends, I have now done a thorough job of giving you a glimpse into the "rest of the story" about Argon dating.  And I have shown you that in spite of this, Argon dating continues to be wildly popular as Snelling has pointed out.  So tomorrow we will begin looking at some of the other popular dating methods.  Surely they will "save the day" for Deep Timers, right?

Stay tuned!

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

I wish I had time to list some Founding Father quotes, but I'm out of time.  I did notice an interesting post over on the "Necessary Education needed to debate" thread ...

Scary Facts...  
Quote
I don’t know of a Christian out there—including me—who doesn’t believe “yeah, I agree.  There are stupid (or bigoted, or intolerant, or illogical) Christians out there.  But I’m not like that.”

Of course, we can’t all be right.  I suspect that at one time or another I have been all of those things.  (Heck, there was that night in Phoenix when I was ALL of those, but I digress…)

Humans act out.  Christians are no exception.  And I’m not going to use that bumper sticker excuse for bad behavior:  “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”

But here’s the rub I have been dealing with for the last several years:  What does a 21st century Christian look like?  How would a Christian live in a 21st century western culture?  

It seems to me that non-Christians might be the best people to ask—Christians have waaaaayyyyy too many “oughts” to get an honest answer and the non-Christians seem to have a better picture of the ways real Christ-ies act.

Christianity doesn’t have a very illustrious history (when looked at objectively.)  The billion or so people who currently profess the faith have far too few notable exceptions to societal norms.  In some areas Christian performance is below societal norms.
Have to agree with you there.  The history of the Christian church (substitute the term Catholic for Christian for most of that time) is quite dismal.  What I find interesting, however, is that a small minority of people who wanted to fix the problems have always been there and their influence has been astounding.  Martin Luther is a perfect case in point.  Here you have a guy who sees all the crap that Scary Facts is talking about and he's fed up.  So what does he do?  He risks his life and posts the 95 theses.  Rome goes ballistic and tries to fry him (literally).  The only thing that saves his skin is his friends in high places.  He and some other leaders put their necks on the line in taking their stand for rightness and freedom and the world has never been the same since.  The unprecedented freedom in England and subsequently in America is a direct result of Martin Luther and the Reformation which he started.  Many posters here discount this and point to the Enlightenment as the wellspring of American freedoms.  But this is only partially correct.  It is true that the founders of America were "enlightened" to the errors of the authoritarian church hierarchies of Europe, but it is a serious mistake to overlook their committment to the fundamentals of Christianity and the Scriptures and there is a massive body of original writings which support the fact that America was most definitely founded as a Protestant Christian nation--not an authoritarian one as some here like to say that the GWB's of the world want, but a definitely Christian, Bible promoting one.

Scary Facts...  
Quote
I suspect there are many Christians who have lurked over the AFDave thread and have had some of the same reactions I have—that much of what our “brothers and sisters in Christ” are telling us are obvious lies.  Many of the lurkers won’t ever post here.  It’s a little intimidating for the non-scientist.

I am extremely interested to know what things you think are "lies."  What are your top five "Christian lies?"  I would be interested in others responding to this question also.

 
Quote
If there is one thing I respect about AFDave is his courage to take a stand for what he believes.  Sure, you guys fed him his balls with gravy, but he at least put it out there.  I’m actually thankful he did that.  The thread is teaching me a ton.

I guess the point here is that there are Christians out there who are trying not to be ignorant church-bots.  We want to learn the truth—even if it challenges our long-held beliefs.  Any god who is scared of truth isn’t God*.  

(*note the effective use of capitalization)  

Hmmmm ... a compliment!  He respects my courage.  

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

Eric, thanks for reposting my Tyre argument for 7P ... i hope your bill of secretarial services is not too high!  I had forgotten what I said, but now that you showed me, I like it!  Now, "oldman," tell me how a Permalink would help me refer back to Eric's repost of my Tyre quote.

I'm not sure what "oldman" is talking about that I deleted some Permalinks.  I have never even used one ... how would I even know how to delete one?  I suppose I will read up on them, though.  It would be nice to get some favorite links organized.  I do plan on using this info in the future.  And for the umpteenth time, yes, my friends at church know about this site.  None of them are "forum posters" though so they don't post.  [Permalink needed so as not to have to keep saying this] I think it's kinda funny that you all somehow think I would be embarrassed if they saw the stuff here.  You must really not understand my fellow church goers too well.  Actually, what they would be embarrassed by is all the foul language.  They already have a low opinion of evolutionists ... they would really have a low opinion of them if they saw this thread.

--------------
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. 11 2006,05:37   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,06:21)
135 miles on your bike?  This weekend?  As in bicycle??!!  Not a motorcycle?  Wow ... you just officially obtained my respect ... not in science, but in biking! What do you do for a living?

Yes, on a bicycle.

As for what I do for a living: I'm a highschool graduate who works for a law firm doing legal research and some IT work. And yet, somehow, Dave, I'm able to riddle your "hypothesis" with holes without even really trying.

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,05:47   

Quote (Seven Popes @ Sep. 10 2006,11:30)
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?

Well? How was it "beat to death"? :)
A simple honest answer will do, sir.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,05:53   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,10:18)
Eric, thanks for reposting my Tyre argument for 7P ... i hope your bill of secretarial services is not too high!  I had forgotten what I said, but now that you showed me, I like it!  Now, "oldman," tell me how a Permalink would help me refer back to Eric's repost of my Tyre quote.

Yet another of my BlackKnight™ predictions has been validated. I think that puts me in front of the Bible, Dave.

Even after seeing his own blood-spattered remains from the Tyre debate on display for all to see, he still thinks he won the argument! But I wonder if any of the children he teaches would agree, especially after they've seen photos of every part of what could ever possibly have been considered to be "Tyre" is thoroughly built-up, and not remotely barren.

Further evidence that Dave lives in his own private universe.

Also, I'll save everyone the effort with the permalink thing. It's pretty clear Dave knows everything there is to know about C&Ping. So here's how it's done, Dave: go to the post you want to permalink to, click where it says "permalink" into a new window, C&P the URL, and copy it into the message you want it in.

--------------
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. 11 2006,05:55   

Let's see ...

Faid - Doctor
JonF - MIT student
Aftershave - EE working in the space industry
Eric - Legal research and IT
Incorygible - works with fish
Steve Story - ankle biter

Anyone else?  

How about pictures?  I would sure like to see what you guys look like.  (You know ... I want to see if anyone has horns or fangs or anything like that!;) Anyone have blogs with your picture posted?  Crabby's posted his picture and there is an amazing resemblance to Mel Gibson.

--------------
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. 11 2006,05:55   

Dave,

"It is true that the founders of America were "enlightened" to the errors of the authoritarian church hierarchies of Europe, but it is a serious mistake to overlook their committment to the fundamentals of Christianity and the Scriptures and there is a massive body of original writings which support the fact that America was most definitely founded as a Protestant Christian nation--not an authoritarian one as some here like to say that the GWB's of the world want, but a definitely Christian, Bible promoting one."

To the contrary, if you step away from the koolaid and read any number of books (authors) who researched the men and their beliefs, you would find that they did not intend this country or the governmnet to be "Christian or Bible promoting".

That's just a lie promoted by you and your ilk to assume the moral high ground, categorize patriotism and again, as usual, force you religious dogma on other.

Let me suggest a good book to start with:

The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (Hardcover)
by David L. Holmes

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

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,05:58   

Quick reminder, Dave:

1) Methodology for dating Grand Staircase strata
2) Error bars for such metholodogy
3) Justification for such error bars

Notes:

i) No discussion of perceived shortcomings of standard techniques
ii) No quoting from Bible
iii) No assuming of what you're trying to prove

Have at it, Dave. Sometime this century, please. Or, to save time, you could just admit you have not the faintest notion of how one would date the Grand Staircase.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,05:59   

Quote
there is a massive body of original writings which support the fact that America was most definitely founded as a Protestant Christian nation--not an authoritarian one as some here like to say that the GWB's of the world want, but a definitely Christian, Bible promoting one.


You must be on the "Original Intent" by David Barton bing again DaveyDH.

Take a bunk bed, now take the top off. What have you done? The same thing that has been done to David Barton.

He admitted to using quotes out of context, fabricating quotes and using quotes that he was aware were not from the authors he attributed them to. It's called Lying for jEsus, something you are familiar with.

Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Paine, -Not Fundies. Don't know about the rest because those are the only ones I have read works by. But I can go with John Locke or Adam Smith. Not Fundies.

Wanna do it like portuguese?

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

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,06:12   

Eric...
Quote
Have at it, Dave. Sometime this century, please. Or, to save time, you could just admit you have not the faintest notion of how one would date the Grand Staircase.
Actually, Eric, NO ONE has the faintest idea of how to date the layers of the Grand Staircase.  It's just that many geologists play a fine game of pretending they do.  More on this soon.

BWE ... I tried to view your Profile on your blog and my filter blocked it ... what do you got on there, anyway?  Oh ... and why don't you substantiate your accusations about David Barton?  Give me an example of where he misquoted, eh?  Thanks.

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

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

Pages: (202) < ... 180 181 182 183 184 [185] 186 187 188 189 190 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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