RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 182 183 184 185 186 [187] 188 189 190 191 192 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,14:07   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,18:28)
Is Tyre the only obstacle to you believing the Bible is the Inerrant Word of the Creator?

Hardly. Here are some the reasons I can think of not to believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of the creator (in no particular order):

• The events Genesis describes are completely out of order or in inconsistent orders in different chapters of Genesis. E.g., night and day are created before the sun is, organisms that eat grass are created before grass is created, Adam is created both before Eve and simultaneously with Eve.

• The Bible underestimates the age of the earth and the universe by six orders of magnitude.

• The Bible describes a flood that cannot possibly have happened.

• Different versions of the Bibles are mutually inconsistent, and you, Dave, have admitted that you've never seen a version of the Bible that is inerrant; you've only seen a version that is "pretty close." If you've never seen a version that is inerrant, then you have no idea how close to or far away from inerrancy any version of the Bible is.

• Every statement the Bible makes about the universe is consistent with what would have been believed by humans three thousand years ago. The Bible gives every indication of having been written by humans, not by a supreme being, which means it obviously cannot be inerrant. There is nothing in the Bible that could not possibly have been written by humans.

• I have no particular reason to believe the Bible is inerrant. From what I have seen, it is riddled with inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and information that is flat-out-obviously wrong. If a document were truly inerrant, one would expect that it would be extraordinarily difficult to find instances where its inerrancy would even be equivocal. Since it's actually pretty easy to find places where it's wrong (such as this), it's impossible to believe the Bible could be inerrant.

In other words, Dave, there's no obstacle to believing the Bible is not inerrant.


See how easy it is to answer your questions, Dave? Even when I'm half-dead from oxygen-starvation after a six-hour bike ride. But you sure do have a hard time answering our questions. Like this one: if your "hypothesis" is superior to the standard theories, then why can't it answer simple questions like how old the Grand Canyon is?
So, one more time: how do you know the Grand Canyon isn't only 600 years old, and how do you know it's not six billion, or six trillon, or six quadrillion years old?

--------------
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 2006,14:14   

Why run anymore Dave?  Why lie?

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,14:17   

Also, I should point out a parallel here to another of your claims, Dave:

You claim the earth is 6,000 years old—no older. Therefore, one date for anything anywhere in the world that's more than 6,000 years old blows this claim away.

In the same way, your claim of biblical inerrancy is blown away by one incorrect claim, even one that's very slightly incorrect, anywhere in the Bible.

In both cases, all it takes is one. Sorry, Dave, but if you're going to make extreme assertions, that's the way it's gonna be.

--------------
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 2006,14:23   

And core samples provide that one date. (among a few othewr things :D )

--------------
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 2006,17:55   

SS...
Quote
That's kind of shorthand. What AFDave has is an epistemological commitment to a set of wholly wrong, primitive beliefs. Over the period of the last few hundred years, most people in the christian west transitioned from that set, to a looser set of beliefs which accomodated science. The ones who keep the primitive beliefs, like AFDave, are forced to throw out whole areas of scientific study.
Wrong.  Over the last few hundred years, most people in the Christian West bought into several profound myths including the Marxist myth, the Darwinian myth, the Freudian myth, the Keynesian myth and several lesser ones.  Most of the founders of modern science were Creationists and Biblical literalists.  Their science was so good that it has brought great abundance to the western world in spite of the destruction caused by the Marxist and Darwinian myths.  The Marxist myth has ostensibly died with the USSR, although it seeks to live on.  The Darwinian myth is in the death throes and I'm not sure what will happen with the Keynesian and Freudian myths.  We shall see!

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

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,18:13   

Quote
Most of the founders of modern science were Creationists and Biblical literalists


i suppose asking you to support this by providing evidence would be another in an endless series of futilities?

come to think of it, there isn't one single, accurate, statement in your entire last post.

for example, marxism not only didn't die with the soviet union, it was never "birthed" there to begin with.

the USSR was no more marxist than the US is a pure democracy.

actually even less so.

humans in general are far too greedy and lazy for a pure democracy, or pure marxism, to ever be pragmatic on a large scale.

Freudian "myth"? why doesn't it surprise me to see someone who essentially embodies half of the terminology freud used to describe cognitive dissonance speak of it as "myth"?

you should investigate the meaning of the term "projection", 'cause buddy, it's all you have workin' for ya in that last post of yours.

sorry, Davey, but you is one crazy motherfucker (doubtless Freud would even say the same thing, if he was still around).

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,20:03   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,22:55)
 The Darwinian myth is in the death throes and I'm not sure what will happen with the Keynesian and Freudian myths.  We shall see!

Dave, if you think evolutionary biology (which is presumably what you mean by "the Darwinian myth") is in its "death throes," perhaps you can explain away the tens of thousands of papers that are published every year by evolutionary biologists, especially when contrasted to the (more-or-less) zero papers that are published by "creationary" biologists.

And in the meantime, will you please stop your desultory and ineffective attempts to refute standard scientific models of biology, geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. and actually provide some affirmative support for your own "hypothesis"? Do you know how tedious it is to watch you trip over your own shoelaces again and again and again in your vainglorious attempts to refute hundreds of thousands of man-hours of scientific research by actual scientists who actually have a fucking clue what they're talking about?

So one more time, Dave: what evidence do you have that the Grand Canyon is not 600 years old? And what evidence do you have that the Grand Canyon is not hundreds of billions of years old? Are your error bars really nine orders of magnitude wide? If your "hypothesis" is better than the standard models, then surely you can narrow those error bars a bit more than that!

--------------
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 2006,20:06   

Quote
the Keynesian myth
???????

Ummm... Please explain. I can't wait to hear this one. Has it been replaced by, oh, perhaps Milton Friedman?

Or was it "Deficits don't matter anymore" Cheney?

;)

God DaveyDH, I'll debate you on whatever you think about that one.

SteveStory,
You were wrong. He is stupid.

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

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,20:21   

maybe he meant "Kinseyan" as in "sexual revolution"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey

after all, repressed sexual desires are rampant throughout the fundie sect too.

just ask Joel.

I vote AFD is just completely dishonest, and mostly with himself.

What's more, that's how he likes it.

such is the disease he suffers from.

@BWE:

did Cheney actually say that deficits no longer matter?

I need to record the quote for my archives, if you can remember where you saw that.

it goes a long way towards explaining to old-school conservatives like my pop just how different the neocon way of thinking really is.

edit:

nvm., i found it, Cheney said it about a year ago:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=27156

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,20:30   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 11 2006,10:18)
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.

The unprecedented freedom in England and subsequently in America is a direct result of Martin Luther and the Reformation which he started.

DDTTD, once again you expose your massive ignorance.

The I-35/Paseo bridge is the most used bridge in KC! Just because you and your clique think it's a "suspect" bridge doesn't make it so. It just exposes your prejudice and ignorance, as does the next statement I've quoted.

Martin Luther had nothing to do with "unprecedented freedom" in England... That process started 300+ years earlier with the Magna Carta Libertatum, a legal document, not a religious document.

I can understand why you won't tell us what your alma mater is seeing how it did such a terrible job of educating you.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,20:43   

well, see, there's your problem, Crabby.

You assumed that the education Dave got had any impact on the previous amount of brainwashing he was subjected to.

Dave was washed and dried long before he attempted to get any kind of degree.

in fact, I think we had this discussion before; getting an engineering degree appears to be one of the few degrees someone with Dave's state of mind can actually obtain, which might explain why there appears to be a preponderance of engineers among the ranks of the creobots.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,20:51   

DDTTD, again, how do you 'splain living Aspen tree roots that are older than 6000 years (or other living organisms older than that magik figure)?

Or YOUR hypothesis?

How much did you pay for this indulgence?

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2006,21:30   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 12 2006,01:43)
well, see, there's your problem, Crabby.

You assumed that the education Dave got had any impact on the previous amount of brainwashing he was subjected to.

Dave was washed and dried long before he attempted to get any kind of degree.

in fact, I think we had this discussion before; getting an engineering degree appears to be one of the few degrees someone with Dave's state of mind can actually obtain, which might explain why there appears to be a preponderance of engineers among the ranks of the creobots.

You are correct, my problem is trying to understand how an accredited school (that the Air Force would accept) could produce a student as massively ignorant as DDTTD and why the majority of them are engineers.

I'm truly baffled.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,02:14   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 12 2006,01:21)
maybe he meant "Kinseyan" as in "sexual revolution"?

Actually, I'd prefer to hear Dave take on macroeconomic theory rather than the idea of sexual liberty. Does that make me kinky?

--------------
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. 12 2006,03:40   

HYPOTHESIS: MORE YEARS OF HIGHER ED = MORE ARROGANCE = BIGGER BLINDERS = MISSING OBVIOUS FACTS RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE

JonF...  
Quote
Those aren't counts of dating studies performed, Davie-doodles, they're counts of mentions of a dating technique {ABE: including references}.
If you look at the actual search results, you see that that many of the results are actual studies which include someone going out and dating the rocks.  It is true that some are not, but this applies to all the methods, so the COMPARISON is much more valid than your "personal communication" selecting at random only 164 articles, huge pretty graph notwithstanding.    
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

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,240 for U-Pb dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,600 for potassium argon dates 1991-2000
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,600 for argon argon dates 1991-2000

There you go. You are refuted yet again.  Actually DOUBLY refuted.  I told you Argon dating is the most popular.  And there is no question that it is from the above data.  You tried to say my "potassium argon dates" search is meaningless because there is a lot of "argon argon" in there ... mmmm ... maybe a little, but look at the seperate results for "argon argon."

 
Quote
And they're terifically biased by the facts that the older stuff isn't all indexed on the Web, you picked a particular set of keywords

Oh is that so?  Old stuff isn't indexed, huh?
 
Quote
     
Advanced Scholar Search
Scholar Preferences
Scholar Help  

Scholar  Results 1 - 10 of about 317 for author:rutherford. (0.07 seconds)  
Dates query: 1900 - 1950

All articles  Recent articles    

The Scattering of á and â Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom
E Rutherford - Phil. Mag, 1911 - dbserv.ihep.su
It is well known that the á and â particles suffer deflexions from their
rectilinear paths by encounters with atoms of matter. This scattering is ...
Cited by 166 - Related Articles - View as HTML - Web Search

[CITATION] Collision of Particles with Light Atoms IV. An Anomalous Eect in Nitrogen
E Rutherford - Phil. Mag, 1919
Cited by 25 - Related Articles - Web Search

[BOOK] Substitutional analysis
DE Rutherford - 1948 - University Press
Cited by 56 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search

[CITATION] Ellis
C Rutherford - Radiations from Radioactive Substances, 1930
Cited by 18 - Related Articles - Web Search

Transmutation Effects Observed with Heavy Hydrogen - group of 3 »
MLE Oliphant, P Harteck, L Rutherford - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, …, 1934 - JSTOR
Transmutation Effects Observed with Heavy Hydrogen By MLE OLIPHANT, Ph.D.
(Messel Research Fellow of the Royal Society), P. HARTECK, Ph.D., and Lord ...
Cited by 16 - Related Articles - Web Search

Bakerian Lecture. Nuclear Constitution of Atoms - group of 2 »
E Rutherford - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, …, 1920 - JSTOR
.page { padding: 1em; } Bakerian Lecture. Nuclear Constitution of Atoms.
E. Rutherford. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. ...
Cited by 15 - Related Articles - Web Search - Library Search

Experiments on the Transmutation of Elements by Protons - group of 2 »
MLE Oliphant, L Rutherford - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, …, 1933 - JSTOR
.page { padding: 1em; } Experiments on the Transmutation of Elements by Protons.
MLE Oliphant. Lord Rutherford. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. ...
Cited by 14 - Related Articles - Web Search

The Accurate Determination of the Energy Released in Certain Nuclear Transformations - group of 2 »
MLE Oliphant, AR Kempton, L Rutherford - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, …, 1935 - JSTOR
406 The Accurate Determination of the Energy Released in Certain Nuclear
Transformations By MLE OLIPHANT, Messel Research Fellow of the Royal ...
Cited by 14 - Related Articles - Web Search

[CITATION] ‘The probability variations in the distribution of á particles
E Rutherford, H Geiger - Philosophical Magazine, 6th series, 1910
Cited by 10 - Related Articles - Web Search

[CITATION] A radioactive substance emitted from thorium compounds
E Rutherford - Philosoph Mag, 1900
Cited by 9 - Related Articles - Web Search

Also ...  
Quote
Advanced Scholar Search
All articles 1900 - 1950
Scholar  Results 1 - 10 of about 67,800. (0.08 seconds)

300+ articles just for "rutherford" and 67,800 total articles published from 1900 - 1950?  Seems like they are doing a pretty good job of indexing old articles to me. Maybe not all, but it's pretty extensive.  I would bet large money that 95% of all published studies back to the 40's have been indexed.  Let me ask you something, Jon.  You acted all arrogant and made some wild claim about how popular K-Ar Dating was in the 40's or something.  Now you are trying to weasel out of it.  Why don't you just provide support for your statements, or else be a man and retract them?

JonF...  
Quote
(Hint:  Pb-Pb dating is not U-Pb concordia-discordia dating, ignoramus),
Where did I ever say that it was?  Are you trying to say that because I searched Pb-Pb that I think it's the same thing or something?  I just gave you U-Pb dates also above.  And your claim is refuted.  Argon dating is the most popular, just like Snelling said in his paper.

JonF...  
Quote
Fine, Davie-doodles.  Admit that Snelling committed fraud.  Your pathetic attempts to excuse him have all failed miserably.
Snelling did not commit fraud as I have meticulously explained, and your ship sinks even if Snelling had not done a single experiment.

You tried to tell me Argon dating was popular in the 40's.  REFTUED.
You tried to tell me U-Pb is the most popular now.  REFUTED.
You tell me Argon dating is not the most popular.    REFUTED.
You tried to say they don't index old studies.  REFUTED.
You keep yelling that Snelling is a fraud because of xenoliths.  REFUTED.  (Actually, this one doesn't even matter if I refuted you or not because there is much data BESIDES Snelling's that shows "excess Argon" ... hence unreliable dates).  So what again is your point of saying Snelling is a fraudster?  Even if I agreed with you, your theory is blown.  So are you just trying to make noise so as to confuse people?

 
Quote
The bottom line is that at least 60% (and maybe more) of the date-able formations were reliably dated,

Now, finally at the end of your post, you have said one thing I can agree with.  I was wrong for saying Dalrymple threw out 60 Argon dates.  I should have said he threw out "many of more than 60 Argon dates."  See how easy that is, Jon?  Now, your turn on your misstatements above.

So I'll just take your word for it (since I don't have access to the paper right now) that 60% of the dates are "good," meaning that they agree with some other method (which we have not investigated yet) ...

Again, my point remains ... ARGON DATING CANNOT BE TRUSTED IF IT IS "WRONG" 20 - 40% OF THE TIME

 
Quote
This study contradicts every claim you have made about radiometric dating!
Jon, you were doing so good at the end there, but this one is a real howler!  "Contradicts every claim I have made about radiometric dating!??" No.  Just the opposite.  It actually CONFIRMS the specific claims I have been making about radiometric dating which are currently ...

1) ARGON DATING IS WILDLY POPULAR BECAUSE IT IS CHEAP, BUT IT IS ALSO WILDLY DISCORDANT
2) MOST OF THE "DATES" GIVEN TO ME BY DEADMAN FOR 4 OF THE LAYERS OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE ARE ARGON DATES
3) SO ... THE IDEA THAT THE LAYERS OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE CAN BE DATED RADIOMETRICALLY IS ... WELL ...

NONSENSE!


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

JonF...  
Quote
We know that all K-Ar dates contradict a young Earth. We know that some those K-Ar dates are correct. Therefore, a young Earth is falsified even if we don't know which K-Ar dates are correct.
No you don't.  you only know that many "dates" agree with "dates" given by other methods.  I will show you here why ALL "dates" are suspect.  Yes, Eric, it is true.  There IS NO reliable way to physically date the layers of the Grand Staircase.  I know this is a shock to your system, but over time, you'll get used to the idea.

jonF...  
Quote
Geologists doing something you said they never do: publishing discordant dates.

Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: not accepting dates until they are verifiable, replicable, and cross-checked.

Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: discarding only dates that are proven to be wrong by multiple independent objective evaluations.
I didn't say they don't publish discordant dates.  I said they "throw them out."  KBS Tuff is a perfect example.  They explained away the ones they didn't like. All of this was published.  Just explained away.  There was at least one honest skeptic here who admitted this.  Was it Diogenes?  Why not you?  

jonF...  
Quote
Are you intending to break 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.
Explain to me why you think zircons refute Snelling's claim and I will be glad to discuss it.  As for mixing, why is it necessary to bother with this?  I've already clearly proven my point.  What more proof do I need?

Crabby...  
Quote
The I-35/Paseo bridge is the most used bridge in KC! Just because you and your clique think it's a "suspect" bridge doesn't make it so.
True, because many people have no other choice.  But my "clique" lives in suburbia and does not have to use this bridge very much.  If we have the choice, guess what we do ... not use the bridge.  Again ... my point is ... if a bridge dropped cars into the river 5 years out of the last 20, no one would trust it.  And no one should trust Argon dating which is wrong at least 20% of the time, and the 80% of cases which are "right" have a fake yardstick for determining that they are "right."

 
Quote
maybe he meant "Kinseyan" as in "sexual revolution"?
"Keynesian" not "Kinseyan."  As in John Maynard Keynes.  Don't know if I'll ever get to cover these other myths here.  The Darwinian Myth is the most important one ... hence the enormous time I'm spending on it.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,04:07   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 12 2006,08:40)
 
Quote
maybe he meant "Kinseyan" as in "sexual revolution"?
"Keynesian" not "Kinseyan."  As in John Maynard Keynes.  Don't know if I'll ever get to cover these other myths here.  The Darwinian Myth is the most important one ... hence the enormous time I'm spending on it.

That is a shame really.  I'd love to see you take on macroeconomics.  Keynes advocated governments exercising monetary and fiscal policy to control economic growth. There are two ways to attack Keynes.  One, of course, is to take the Marxist approach that macroeconomic theory is a tool of the class system built on the exploitation of the majority.  The other would be to advocate a hyper-extreme laissez-faire system that forbids government intervention (either active or tacit) in capital markets.

I am pretty sure I know which approach you would take and, of course, I would have to ask you to square your advocacy of unchecked capitalism with Christ's message of social justice (Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.)

You know, if you really think about it, if you want to remake the world, you would have better luck pulling down the economic system rather than attacking bug collectors and mushroom growers.  ;)

--------------
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. 12 2006,05:16   

Dave, you're not refuting anything here. That radiometric dating is in fact possible, that it is reliable, that it is concordant with other non-radiometric dating methods, has been established by JonF and others (and by "others," I mean the tens of thousands of scientists who have refined radiometric dates over the last hundred years) beyond any possibility of doubt.

Given your history of dishonesty, ignorance, and illogic, one would have to be crazy to take your opinion over that of thousands of individuals who are professional geologists and who know for a fact that radiometric dating techniques are accurate and reliable. After all, you're the same guy who still thinks Tyre is a bare rock even after looking at photos that demonstrate it is nothing of the sort, and you're the guy who thinks that Portuguese is a "mixture of French and Spanish," and you're the guy who thinks humans aren't related to chimps at all. And you think you have the merest fig-leaf of credibility on the subject of radiometric dating? Think again, junior.

And one more time: you need to disprove every single dating technique that has ever produced even one accurate date older than 6,000 years. Do you have any idea how impossible that's going to be? We don't even need to know which date is accurate. For your "hypothesis" to survive, you need to invalidate every single one of several million dates, derived from any possible dating technique, that is more than 6,000 years old. Your entire "hypothesis" rests on the impossibility of anything in the universe being more than 6,000 years old. The existence of the Andromeda Galaxy invalidates your hypothesis, for crying out loud!

Now answer the question: how do you know that the Grand Canyon is older that 600 years, and younger than six trillion years? You don't know, do you, Dave? You are completely at a loss as to how to date the Grand Canyon. You claim your "hypothesis" is a better explanation for the Grand Canyon than the standard theories, and yet you can't nail down the age of the Grand Canyon within 9 (or 90, or 900) orders of magnitude!

"Better," my ass.

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

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,05:37   

You're still on with that bridge analogy, huh? Here's a better version: Snelling tried to prove that you can't build a bridge a mile long. He knew that it wasn't possible already, so he didn't even really try. He built his bridge out of popsicle sticks.

Amazingly he was able to complete the bridge and he proceded to send a line of 20 trucks over it. 4 of them fell off on the way across, 'cause it was a crappy bridge, but despite this, the other 16 made it. Yet somehow Snelling is still sure that it is impossible to build a bridge a mile long.

I think the trucks must've been carrying sour grapes.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,05:49   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 12 2006,01:21)
@BWE:

did Cheney actually say that deficits no longer matter?

I need to record the quote for my archives, if you can remember where you saw that.

it goes a long way towards explaining to old-school conservatives like my pop just how different the neocon way of thinking really is.

edit:

nvm., i found it, Cheney said it about a year ago:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=27156

It's been a few years since I slogged through Keynes but I read "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman a couple years ago. (At the same time, an aquaintance was reporting from Chile on some environmental issues so it seemed relevant.) Cheney's quote reminded me of a line from C&F paraphrased something like "The purchasing power of the individual is always equal to his production into the economy. The number of shoes a miner will purchase will be commensurate with the amount of ore he extracts."

Let that one sink in for a moment.

I am always amused when one economist proclaims the "death" of a previous economist's ideas. It's like they define one cubic nanometer of a major phase transition and proclaim their new understanding to be the new physics of phase transition.

DaveyDH,
I wonder what you think of "On Liberty" (John Stuart Mill) DaveyDH. Is it dangerous? And I would really looove to debate you on keynesian macroeconomics being a "Myth"


See, I offer up these debates all the time even though I know next to nothing about the subjects because I know a secret: You are too stupid to win a debate. Even if I were wrong I would win. (But if you take the side you begin with, I will honestly try to be right).

And you are proving your nature by A) refusing and B) claiming victory without even having 1 keystroke of a debate.

As a chicken daveyDH, are you fried, baked or broiled?

edit*** You might want to start here with the "keynseian myth". It is reasonably well done and gives you a few points you can cut and paste and call truth even though you won't be able to explain why in any meaningful way.

DumbassDavey. Now, it's DumbassDavey.

cluck, cluck, bwaaaaaak!

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

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,06:29   

[quote=afdave,Sep. 12 2006,08:40][quote]Those aren't counts of dating studies performed, Davie-doodles, they're counts of mentions of a dating technique {ABE: including references}.[/quote]If you look at the actual search results, you see that that many of the results are actual studies which include someone going out and dating the rocks. [/quote]
Some of them are; some of them are references to someone going out and dating the rocks; some of them are other things;  and many studies are missed. Your methodology is invalid.
[quote]It is true that some are not, but this applies to all the methods, so the COMPARISON is much more valid than your "personal communication" selecting at random only 164 articles, huge pretty graph notwithstanding.[/quote]
164 articles out of those journals is statistically significant.
[quote][quote]And they're terrifically biased by the facts that the older stuff isn't all indexed on the Web, you picked a particular set of keywords[/quote]
Oh is that so?  Old stuff isn't indexed, huh?[/quote]
Yes, it is ... but not nearly to the extent that newer stuff is.
     [quote]I would bet large money that 95% of all published studies back to the 40's have been indexed.[/quote]
On-line and text-searchable by Google Scholar? You're on. $100. Produce your proof.
     [quote]Let me ask you something, Jon.  You acted all arrogant and made some wild claim about how popular K-Ar Dating was in the 40's or something.  Now you are trying to weasel out of it.  Why don't you just provide support for your statements, or else be a man and retract them?[/quote]
I don't have proof of the popularity of dating methods back then, but I've read a lot of papers form back then and my opinion is that K-Ar was not the most popular.  Your stuff does not prove otherwise.
     
Quote
   
Quote
(Hint:  Pb-Pb dating is not U-Pb concordia-discordia dating, ignoramus),
Where did I ever say that it was? Are you trying to say that because I searched Pb-Pb that I think it's the same thing or something?  

Yup, you got it.  The claim to which you responded was "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%.".  You attempted to refute that claim by searching for Pb-Pb and no other uranium-realated topic.  Obviously you didn't know the difference.
     
Quote
I just gave you U-Pb dates also above.

After I pointed out your error.
     
Quote
your claim is refuted.  Argon dating is the most popular, just like Snelling said in his paper.

Nope, with your particular choice of search terms you get more hits on argon. You have yet to establish a relationship between hits and nubmer of actual dating studies performed.
     
Quote

You keep yelling that Snelling is a fraud because of xenoliths.  REFUTED.

Nope, Davie-moron, you tried to claim that there were no xenoliths.  REFUTED. You tried to claim that everybody does whole-rock dating including xenoliths. REFUTED.  Sneling's a fraud.
     
Quote
 So what again is your point of saying Snelling is a fraudster?

Snelling is a fraudster.  Proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Frauds like Snelling cannot be trusted in any area.
     
Quote
     
Quote
The bottom line is that at least 60% (and maybe more) of the date-able formations were reliably dated,

Now, finally at the end of your post, you have said one thing I can agree with.  I was wrong for saying Dalrymple threw out 60 Argon dates.  I should have said he threw out "many of more than 60 Argon dates."

There were only 63 dates in the paper, Davie.  Exactly how many do you think he threw out? But he didn't throw out any dates, Davie-doodles. He published them all and noted which ones were reliable and why, providing objective reasons.
     
Quote
So I'll just take your word for it (since I don't have access to the paper right now) that 60% of the dates are "good," meaning that they agree with some other method (which we have not investigated yet) ...

Nope, that's not what's meant by "reliable". And you do have access to the paper, or would if you were clever enough to do a Google search.  I already posted one of several links to on-line copies.
     
Quote
my point remains ... ARGON DATING CANNOT BE TRUSTED IF IT IS "WRONG" 20 - 40% OF THE TIME

Argonm dating is not wrong as much as 20% of the time ... but even is it is wrong 20 - 40% of the time, T H A T   R E M A I N I N G 6 0  -   8 0 %   F A L S I F I E S   Y O U R   C L A I M   O F   A   Y O U N G   E A R T H.
     
Quote
This study contradicts every claim you have made about radiometric dating!
Jon, you were doing so good at the end there, but this one is a real howler!  "Contradicts every claim I have made about radiometric dating!??" No.  Just the opposite.  It actually CONFIRMS the specific claims I have been making about radiometric dating which are currently ...

 
Quote
1) ARGON DATING IS WILDLY POPULAR BECAUSE IT IS CHEAP, BUT IT IS ALSO WILDLY DISCORDANT

Less that 20% error is not discordant at all for our purposes here.
     
Quote

2) MOST OF THE "DATES" GIVEN TO ME BY DEADMAN FOR 4 OF THE LAYERS OF THE GRAND STAIRCASE ARE ARGON DATES

Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staricase) are argon dates?
Quote
Quote
Geologists doing something you said they never do: publishing discordant dates.

Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: not accepting dates until they are verifiable, replicable, and cross-checked.

Geologists doing another thing you said they never do: discarding only dates that are proven to be wrong by multiple independent objective evaluations.
I didn't say they don't publish discordant dates.

Oh yes you did, Davie-pud.  Remember that you claimed that the reason for apparent concordance is that discordant dates never get published.  I pointed out that geologists don't have the money to do that, and you responded that you didn't see why they wouldn't. I suggested that you get information from the Menlo Park dating lab under the FOIA, and you said you might.  How ya doin' on that investigation, hum?
     
Quote
I said they "throw them out."

Even if that were true, you're still wrong. They don't throw anything out.  They publish the dates for all to see, and then decide which are reliable based on objective and repeatable experiments.
     
Quote
The KBS Tuff is a perfect example.  They explained away the ones they didn't like. All of this was published.  Just explained away.

Your fantasies notwithstanding, the KBS Tuff results were investigated and after some could be reproduced by many methods and many labs, and the reasons for the discordant dates were published and reproduced, then those dates were accepted as reliable.
     
Quote
     
Quote
Are you intending to break 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.

Explain to me why you think zircons refute Snelling's claim and I will be glad to discuss it.

Pretty obvious and basic, Davie-moron, and the required information has been ignored by you many times in this thread. It is widely known that the isotopic composition of zircons, when they form, do not reflect "the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  In particular, the U/Pb ratio is very very high, no mater what the U/Pb ratio of the source was.  (This sort of thing is comon for many relevant radioisotopes, but it's most extreme and obvious for zircons). Snelling has acknowledged this, in HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY: "The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth "at today's rates" of nuclear decay occurred."

Therefore the U/Pb radioisotope ratios in zircons found throughout the geologic record do not "only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  They reflect radioactive decay in-situ.  And, if Snelling wants to claim that this does not indicate age, it's up to him to provide far more evidence than a few zircons with complex thermal histories and some apparently anomolous helium.
     
Quote
As for mixing, why is it necessary to bother with this?  I've already clearly proven my point.  What more proof do I need?

You haven't proved any point .. but all I was asking for was a good laugh at your ignorance, thinking that mixing has any relevance to K-Ar dating.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,06:53   

Recall the original assertion by AFDave, that  "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?JonF..."

Which JonF did do.

[quote=afdave]  
Quote (JonF]Those aren't counts of dating studies performed @ Davie-doodles, they're counts of mentions of a dating technique {ABE: including references}.[/quote)
If you look at the actual search results, you see that that many of the results are actual studies which include someone going out and dating the rocks.  It is true that some are not, but this applies to all the methods, so the COMPARISON is much more valid than your "personal communication" selecting at random only 164 articles, huge pretty graph notwithstanding.        


Well, shouldn't a sampling of a recent journal be the appropriate way to see if K-Ar is the most popular?  Your method is incompetent, just what we have come to expect.

[quote=afdave]
 
Quote (JonF]And they're terifically biased by the facts that the older stuff isn't all indexed on the Web @ you picked a particular set of keywords[/quote)

Oh is that so?  Old stuff isn't indexed, huh?
   


Is there something about the meaning of "all" that confuses you?

Apparently yes.  Remaining twaddle deleted - it is all the same old crap.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,07:43   

Ved...
Quote
You're still on with that bridge analogy, huh? Here's a better version: Snelling tried to prove that you can't build a bridge a mile long. He knew that it wasn't possible already, so he didn't even really try. He built his bridge out of popsicle sticks.

Amazingly he was able to complete the bridge and he proceded to send a line of 20 trucks over it. 4 of them fell off on the way across, 'cause it was a crappy bridge, but despite this, the other 16 made it. Yet somehow Snelling is still sure that it is impossible to build a bridge a mile long.

I think the trucks must've been carrying sour grapes.
Ved.  Come on, man.  Snelling has never attempted to "build a mile long bridge."  He did two tiny little experiments just to confirm for himself what was obvious from the "bridge builders" in the literature.  The so called "geochronologists" have tried to build that mile long bridge and have failed.  They would be better named something like "Rock Composition Analysts" or something because that's really all they have accomplished.  They are the ones who have "built the bridge with popsicles" and it is people like you who are naive enough to drive across it.  All 20 trucks that have tried to drive across the "bridge" have fallen into the river ... 4 of them knew they did and were disappointed ... 16 of them don't even know they fell in!  So their trucks are now smashed and useless, yet they are "high on the drug of Deep Time" and don't even realize it!

JonF...
Quote
On-line and text-searchable by Google Scholar? You're on. $100. Produce your proof.
Not so easy, big guy.  YOU made the statement.  YOU prove to me that you are right and I am wrong and I will gladly pay you $100.

JonF...
Quote
You attempted to refute that claim by searching for Pb-Pb and no other uranium-realated topic.  Obviously you didn't know the difference.
I DO know the difference ... wanna go another $100 to prove me wrong?  I searched Pb-Pb because I know it is an important method and was one of the methods used in the Snelling 2003 paper.  I did fail to notice that your claim was about U-Pb, not Pb-Pb.  I obviously had Pb-Pb on the brain since reading Snelling's paper.  In any case, what's your point?  I think you just try to jump on any little thing you can think of to try to somehow show that I am stupid.  You tried to do that with the KBS Tuff also, trying to somehow say that I think volcanic tuffs are sedimentary, when the truth is that if ANYONE said anything close to that it was you.  You are the one that called me on the carpet for generalizing about sedimentary layers.  I committed the henious sin of referring to water-laid sedimentary rock simply as sedimentary rock and you arrogantly went off about how there's all kinds of things that can make sediment--water, wind, lava flows, etc.  So be careful about arrogantly assuming that I'm stupid on some topic.  You might just wind up being embarrassed.  I admit that I am only just beginning to get smart in geology, but I do have some basic concepts down pretty well, and I am learning fast.

JonF...
Quote
Snelling is a fraudster.  Proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Frauds like Snelling cannot be trusted in any area.
So let's pretend Snelling's a fraud (since most ATBCers live in a pretend world anyway, why not step into that world for a moment?)  How does this help you trust Argon dating?  Do you discount all the other studies?  Is it not a problem for you that only 20 - 40% of the Argon dates are "right"?  Have you ever investigated the other methods critically to see if they serve as a good yardstick for verifying Argon dating accuracy?

JonF...
Quote
Pretty obvious and basic, Davie-moron, and the required information has been ignored by you many times in this thread. It is widely known that the isotopic composition of zircons, when they form, do not reflect "the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  In particular, the U/Pb ratio is very very high, no mater what the U/Pb ratio of the source was.  (This sort of thing is comon for many relevant radioisotopes, but it's most extreme and obvious for zircons). Snelling has acknowledged this, in HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY: "The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth "at today's rates" of nuclear decay occurred."

Therefore the U/Pb radioisotope ratios in zircons found throughout the geologic record do not "only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis".  They reflect radioactive decay in-situ.  And, if Snelling wants to claim that this does not indicate age, it's up to him to provide far more evidence than a few zircons with complex thermal histories and some apparently anomolous helium.
You are correct that Humphreys and Co. acknowledge significant radioactive decay has occurred.  But this has nothing to do with Snelling's conclusion.  Snelling was not focusing on zircons in the 2003 study.  He simply points out that the overall geochemistry of recent lava flows is merely an indication of their origin--it is not reliable date indicator.  He proposes that this is quite likely for ancient flows as well.  Real simple.  This does not negate what you are pointing out about zircons, and what you are saying does not negate Snelling's conclusion.

As for the mixing issue, I merely mentioned that in passing because Snelling did.  I do not know what his specific claim is and I'm not sure it warrants my time to investigate it, since I have thoroughly established (if no other place than in my own mind :-)  ) the unreliability of Argon dating.  I am only interested in investigating things which are central to my purpose.  You probably know better than I do what Snelling said in regard to this ... go ahead and refute him if you would like to and you need a good laugh.

Tracy ... I'm sure JonF appreciates your efforts to cover his unsupported assertions, but alas, they fail.  The data show that Snelling is correct whether you like it or not.  

He's correct about the popularity of Argon dating and, more importantly, about it's unreliability.  These are two very important points and I have given you excellent supporting evidence.

JonF has been soundly refuted whether you realize it or not.

--------------
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: 10220
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,08:17   

95%? No way. It doesn't even get Reed Elsevier. Google scholar is not very accurate yet. It is popular mostly with undergrads. I would use ISI Web of Science.

Some comments made about Google Scholar in articles:

Quote
Google has deals with several academic publishers that allow it to search the full text of many papers, whereas Web of Science and the others are largely restricted to searching abstracts. But Scholar's index is restricted to online sources — Web of Science has archives that go back to 1900. And the automated process means Scholar's citation tracking can return odd results. For example, Web of Science finds almost 14,000 citations for a 1988 Science paper on the polymerase chain reaction2, identifying it as the most highly cited paper ever to appear in that journal. Scholar finds just under 3,000.


Quote
A closer look at Scholar search results suggests that duplication may well be occurring. One of Scholar's harshest critics, Péter Jascó, an information scientist at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, has taken the engine on numerous test drives. He has documented the results in unflattering terms on a website run by Thomson Scientific. In one extreme case, Jascó found that the first 100 results from a search for documents on 'computers' and 'intractability' returned 92 slightly different citations of a book entitled Computers and Intractability and only 8 other unique results.


wikipedia:

Quote
A significant problem with GS is the secrecy about its coverage, its refusal to publish a list of scientific journals crawled and its updating policies. It is therefore impossible to know how current and/ or exhaustive searches are in GS.


and it's completely worthless as far as using number of hits to indicate something about dates:

Quote
Some searchers consider GS of comparable quality to commercial databases (e.g. [5]), even though its user-interface (UI) is still in beta. Many search experts suggest that its functionality is severely hampered by poor database design. For example, when searching articles based on publication dates, GS results are unreliable, even inaccurate. The number of articles found in some searches, for example, increases when limiting to a range of years (ie. 2000-2006) instead of decreases.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,08:22   

Dave, JonF has made it clear, through his posts, that he has a detailed and intimate knowledge of the various methodologies applicable to radiometric dating. You have made it clear, through your posts, that you are an ignorant dillettante, who has no knowledge of the techniques at all, and are merely cutting and pasting from individuals with known and obvious axes to grind. You haven't even managed to refute the accuracy and reliability of Ar-Ar or K-Ar dating, to say nothing of the 40 or so other radiometric dating techniques, and less than nothing about other, non-radiometric techniques.

In the meantime, you haven't even hazarded a guess as to how to date anything. You have no idea how old the Grand Canyon is, other than that it must be more then 600 years old. For all you know, the Grand Canyon is 6 X 10 ^500 years old.

But let's demonstrate some of the other reasons why the earth cannot possibly be only 6,000 years old.

• There are hundreds of thousands to millions of dates derived from both radiometric and non-radiometric techniques that range from more than 6,000 years to ~4.55 billion years. Note that no object that is known to have originated on the earth has ever been dated beyond ~4.55 billion years. I.e., nothing has ever been found that dates to 10 billion years, or a hundred billion years, or a trillion years.

• The half-life of Uranium 235 is 704 million years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, essentially none of this U-235 should have decayed by now. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, it should be essentially impossible to detect any decay products of U-238.

• A sphere of iron massing 6 X 10^24 kg could not possibly cooled down from the molten state to a condition where liquid water could exist on it in less then several tens of millions of years.

• It would take at least several million years for the giant molecular cloud that birthed the sun to undergo gravitational collapse to the point of self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion.

• It would take at least another few millions years for the planets to have formed through a process of gravitational accretion.

• Photons produced in nucleosynthesis in the sun's core take a minimum of several tens of thousands of years to reach the photosphere, and an appreciable quantity would take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach the photosphere.

• If the universe were only 6,000 years old, there could be no stars, or galaxies, or quasars, or galactic superclusters, than are more than 6,000 light years away. But numerous methods of determining distances which all result in similar values demonstrate that the closest galaxies are several hundred thousand light years away, and the most distant visible objects are almost 14 billion light years away.

• For any of these things to have happened in 6,000 years or less would have required multiple miracles, Dave. But you say you believe in science. In fact you claim, overwhelming evidence to the contrary nothwithstanding, that you accept "90-95%" of science. So if you believe in science, Dave, why do you also believe in miracles? Isn't that just a little bit inconsistent? And a little bit useless, in that you can wave away any phenomenon with an unknown cause by appeal to miracles?

We can keep coming up with reasons why the earth cannot possibly be only 6,000 years old essentially forever, Dave. When are you going to present evidence that it cannot possibly be more than 6,000 years old?

--------------
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. 12 2006,08:37   

…and just so you know, Dave, all these questions are going on the list too. I'm thinking that by the end of the month you'll probably be up to 100 questions you cannot, and never will be able to, answer.

I'm wondering what your prize should be when you get to 100.

--------------
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. 12 2006,08:52   

Quote (Seven Popes @ Sep. 11 2006,13:49)
Quote (Seven Popes @ Sep. 11 2006,10:47)
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.

Still waiting, Mr. Hawkins.
Just a few lines would suffice.

At this point, Mr. Hawkins, I would probably be satisfied with an explanation of why you continue to lie about our discussion.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,08:57   

Nice essay, Steve.  You're telling me that Google scholar is not even in the ballpark for the results I posted?  Tell me how to search ISI Web of Science, then, and let's see those results.

--------------
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. 12 2006,09:03   

Eric-- What page was that on where you re-posted my piece on Tyre.  Will you kindly post that again for 7P?

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,09:11   

I read it, Mr. Hawkins, and in it, you mentioned that the results of the prophecy were "equivocal", even though I have proven it did not come true.  I would like you to address your characterization, and simply either admit that the prophecy failed, or show this forum that it was indeed never again inhabited.

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

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2006,09:15   

The  permalink you were looking for, Dave.

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

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

Pages: (202) < ... 182 183 184 185 186 [187] 188 189 190 191 192 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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