RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,14:30   

Eric:

 
Quote
I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!


But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
G. cuvier



Posts: 2
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,14:41   

Having read this thread from it's inception, let me just say that it has been hysterical. Everyone's responses to AFDave reminded me of this...
Robot Chicken - One-sided Fistfights

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,14:52   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:30)
But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)

Yep. He's much worse. The list of questions Dave's never answered gets longer every week.

I'm talking about questions that Dave's never even acknowledged, let alone answered.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,18:18   

Quote
But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?

Like eric said, yeah, he's much worse. In fact, I and others have told him explicitly that he would be answered if he asks a direct question...and he has been answered each time he has asked one. Whether he ACCEPTS the answers is irrelevant, what counts is the QUALITY of the responses, which have been very high in each and every case.
The same can't be said at all about DumbAssDave's responses, nor has he even addressed dozens of questions that have been posed to him. So, yeah, he's  inferior in that regard. He has a LITTLE "skill" in avoidance, denial, unresponsive reversals, etc., but he's not nearly as accomplished in the art of weaseling as you , GoP -- perhaps because he's just a tad more stupid, but with a touch more moral fiber, low as it is. Now, shoo, and go play with your silly little geocentric model that you got slapped around with, stupid.

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,03:09   

MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance.  Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.  Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have?  Well, you have ...

a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine.  Be my guest.  

I see someone was surprised that I said that if you have to be selective to get "datable" rocks, then this throws ALL rocks into question.  The reason for this is simple.  What is the criteria for "correct" dates?  I have said it is fossils which is actually not specific enough.  It is actually Fossils plus the whole Fairy Tale of Evolution.  This answers Deadman's objection.  It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.  If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.

I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing."  This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature.  And it is a fascinating search.

Every once in a while you all give me a glimpse into your minds and how you determine truth for yourselves.  I get these opportunities every time you speculate about some aspect of my life.  It is interesting because I know the truth about my own life far better than Origins issues, so it is quite obvious and funny when I see some of you making some wild speculation about some aspect of my life.  I've had people think I claimed to be a fighter pilot, had people say I washed out of pilot training in the Air Force, people that said I couldn't make rank, and got helicopters forced on me because I couldn't fly anything else and on and on.  I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.

The latest fun has been Steve Story speculating about my blog site ...  
Quote
Comments are turned off, presumably because Dave's family knows about the blog, and Dave doesn't want them seeing what we have to say about his horribly bad thinking. http://airdave.blogspot.com/
Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning.  As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now.  I'm spending my forum time here.  But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

Another good one is Eric counting my family members ... he has heard me say there are seven people in my family, but he only counts 6 in my family picture.  Hmmmm ... he says, "a Portuguese moment for poor Dave?" (betraying that he still thinks I was wrong about Portuguese)  I'll leave this one hanging and see if there are any rocket scientists here who can figure this one out.

I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution.  And of course, there is the persistent notion that since "95% of the scientists in the world believe something, it must be true."  (**cough cough** forget about Galileo and Copernicus) And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.

I see that Aftershave finally got slapped down for his foul mouth (er ... keyboard) ... I remember admonishing him and others in this regard months ago.  I said that all he was really accomplishing was making Evos look bad.  Steve Story apparently agrees now.  I guess I should have kept my mouth shut since it is to the advantage of my cause for Evos to look bad.  But I do feel sorry for the underdog and I can't help but wish for him to have a sporting chance.  Seriously, my true goal for ALL is that you would come to the knowledge of the truth.  I have no interest in "winning" a personal war.  I only want others to benefit from the knowledge of the Truth in their lives as I have benefitted.  I do realize that the odds of hardened skeptics coming to a knowledge of the truth are slim, which is why I take my message to kids, but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.

No time right now to give you any more info on RM Dating.  If anyone wants to try to convince me why Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time, I'm all ears.  Hopefully, I will have time next week to dive into this topic a little more.

I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months.  I will let you know when new articles appear there.

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

Mike PSS...
Quote
How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
No disagreement here.  I just don't think it proves Deep Time.  As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong.  Now ... convince me of something if you can.

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

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,03:47   

AFD projects:
Quote
Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning.


Is that right AFD? ..terrific..get them to logon and say hello..I say you're lying.


Quote

As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now.  I'm spending my forum time here.


Really? ...another bald faced lie. You're too chickensh*t to turn on comments. Spin away AFD you're not convincing anyone.

And now the money shot .....all creos do it ....as sure as the Pope is a Catholic.. they can't help themselves.
Let me help you fix your next comment for you AFD.

Quote

But your MYcomment provides an interesting parallel to the EvolutionistCreationist Approach to Truth.  What you I WANT to believe seriously clouds your MY thinking and causes you ME  to arrive at erroneous conclusions.


Say whatever you like AFD, what you do not realize is that every single loony creo that has popped up here and on PT has EXACTLY the same Modus Operandi.

They each naively without the slightest hint of self awareness make the same mistake...you are just a parody..and no university in the world teaches a parody as science.

Go for it AFD...project your faults for all to see.... you are just a total loser.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,03:53   

AFD makes another hollow boast:
Quote
I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months.  I will let you know when new articles appear there.


Why bother?

All you have done is C&P'ed creationist claptrap and hogwash.

If you were honest you would just provide the links to this thread......coward.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,03:57   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth.  What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

This seems to be the core of your Grand Evolutionist Conspiracy hypothesis.  But I don't think you have any supporting evidence for it.  In fact, the reality seems to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying.  I think I have a fairly objective view of the whole situation, and it seems obvious to me that the YECs such as yourself have far more of a psychological stake in the age of the earth than any of the "evolutionist" scientists.  As far as I can tell, the only people who are "seeing what they want to see" in regards to science are the fundamentalist Christians.

I'll grant you that there has been a lot of idle speculation WRT your personal life and issues, but I think that's beside the point.  Such things are already acknowledged as emotional reactions to your inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend simple logic.  But, as far as I can tell, the science discussed here (with the exception of any YEC claims that you present) bears no such bias.

YOU are the one who is desperate to match facts to your beliefs - not the scientists.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,04:45   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,08:09)
a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Schrodinger's Cat just rolled over in its box.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,05:09   

Quote
This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature.


That's fine if your version of "Truth" does not require being able to answer questions.

Quote
And it is a fascinating search.


I'll bet it is! A limitless flight of fancy unconstrained by buzzkills like reality? Pass some this way.

 
Quote
I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution.


That's fine if you don't feel particularly compelled to actually understand that which you are refuting.

 
Quote
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.


Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

 
Quote
but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.


Technically true, perhaps, and generally true if you are referring to the informative posts of others. But when it comes to yourself, Dave, I think you seriously misunderstand what we are learning from you. Plato you ain't, big guy.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,05:55   

Interesting that Dave has time to post a 1,000-word essay on why he's not losing here, but no time to post his objections to isochrons.

And Dave? You need a lot more than advanced degrees in 10 different fields to be able to "refute" evolution. Evolution is a fact, and no one who has actually studied the subject in any depth at all doubts it. In fact, you don't even doubt it. In fact, your "hypothesis" requires evolution rates far beyond anything contemplated by any theory of evolution, if you think the several thousand "kinds" on the ark have diversified into the tens of millions of species currently in existence in less than five thousand years. (Strange how silent you've been on this issue, like so many other issues, such as the depth of sediment your "flood" needs to account for.)

And that's why we know you're "losing," Dave. Your "hypothesis" has a number of absolutely fatal flaws to it (the above-mentioned two are representative of dozens), and your inability to address these critical problems with your theory means you are, indeed, "losing." As I pointed out to Bill, not only do you not answer these questions, you don't even acknowledge them.

Oh, so you want to refute the theory of evolution? Is that what you meant to say? Well, you're still going to need advanced degrees in ten subjects or more, because contrary to your bone-headed misapprehensions about how science works, the evidence in favor of the theory is mountainous.

And one more thing, Dave: "evolutionists" don't require the earth to billions of years old. The vast majority of complex multicellular life has arisen in less than the last billion years. For the first three billion years, life basically amounted to bacteria. So why do "evolutionists" "need" the earth to be 4.55 billion years old? They don't. They think the earth is 4.55 billion years old because the evidence supports that date. You're the one with an emotional attachment to a world six orders of magnitude younger than that, because otherwise your whole life becomes based on a lie. So don't go around accusing scientists of having an agenda. Your agenda couldn't be any clearer if you came out and admitted it (which, in some cases, such as the phylogeny of great apes, you already have).

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:03   

Yeah ShitForBrains Dave, I sure got 'slapped down' alright!  :D  :D  :D

I bet the readers and lurkers here will accept my honest statements with vulgarities over your sugar-coated and flowery set of outright lies any day of the week.  Want to start a poll and bet on it?

When are you going to discuss the C14 calibration like you promised Davie?
When are you going to discuss the time required to form limestone?
When are you going to discuss the time required to form 1000 ft. of limestone, erode a canyon in it, then cover it with 17,000 ft. of sediment?
When are you going to discuss the two dozen sequentially buried mature forests in Yellowstone?

See Davie, stevestory can delete my harsh language when I slip across the line (as I occasionally do) and it won't alter my scientific arguments one little bit.

If he started deleting your lies, there would be nothing left but a blank white page.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:04   

Quote
Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.

No, THEY said it. YOU parroted it, without knowing what the #### you were talking about. So much so that you felt compelled to invent fantasies out of whole cloth.
Quote
This answers Deadman's objection.  It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale.  If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.
Actually, no it doesn't answer my objections. As I previously posted, in the lunar and meteorite and prebiotic rock samples...all the radiometric methods used ...agreed. That is what you failed to address..the actual data. You have given what you think is a psychological reason for all scientists everywhere to FAKE dates...but you have not shown that they ARE fake. The term you are searching for here in psychology is "projection," little ProvenLiarDave.
Quote
I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing."

You have a hypothesis that you are attempting to support, yet you cannot support it by answering questions, thus your "hypothesis that is better than any other" fails at several levels of requirements. This eliminates your hypothesis as valid or viable until corrected.  If you believe this is "fallacious" to think so, please explain your reasoning and cite the fallacy -- because this is a basic tenet of science, Stupid, a thing you again, fail miserably at grasping.

Your intellectual dishonesty forces you to avoid or otherwise lie, Stupid--you have no choice. This sort of thing is admirably illustrated by the fact that you have not directly responded to Jon or Mike's explanations/queries on the subject of whole-rock dating, again.

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

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:13   

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 
Quote
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.


Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.

--------------
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!)

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:17   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 29 2006,11:13)
Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,10:09)
 
Quote
And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.


Since I can't recall anything else said recently on this front, surely you aren't representing my "executive summary" analogy (which used an appropriate-for-the-term corporate setting to illustrate increasing levels of understanding in a subject) as "evolution supports the real world of business"?

No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.

Ah! Silly me. I keep forgetting that evolution = geology.  My bad.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1788
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:21   

Quote
No, this addresses the fact that "old earth" geology is used quite successfully in the oil and gas industry.  Dave was asked the question regarding whether any such companies were using "young earth" geology to find oil.  Not surprisingly, Dave didn't answer.

I was the one a few months back who asked Dave questions about ANY businesses based on YEC models
 
Quote
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?  

Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  

and
 
Quote
If the YE model is the ‘truth’ and is so superior to the OE model, why has no YEC figured out a way to make money from it?  Why aren’t you, the super-duper businessman, making money from it?  Looks like you would have no competition IF you could figure out a good business case.  AFAICT, the only way to make money from YE is to sell pseudo-scientific books and videos to boobs like yourself who are desperate to have their delusions reinforced


As you note, Dishonest Dave never could come up with an answer.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,06:54   

Dave,
When will the earth be 6001 years old? Is there a specific day? Is it new years day?
Or is gawd keeping it at 6000 for ever?
It's a simple question but i dont expect an answer.

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

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:07   

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 29 2006,11:17)
Ah! Silly me. I keep forgetting that evolution = geology.  My bad.

Actually, more generally, "evolution" = "any scientific fact or theory that conflicts with my worldview." This may come as a surprise, but theories of cosmology or, e.g., stellar evolution are actually parts of the Theory of Evolution, to the extent that they require the universe to be more than 6,000 years old. It's a little-known fact that there is a conspiracy among cosmologists, astrophysicists, high-energy physicists, geologists, and evolutionary biologists, and others to defraud the public into thinking the Bible is false.

--------------
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. 29 2006,07:27   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 29 2006,11:21)
I was the one a few months back who asked Dave questions about ANY businesses based on YEC models
   
Quote
Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?  

Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?  

and
   
Quote
If the YE model is the ‘truth’ and is so superior to the OE model, why has no YEC figured out a way to make money from it?  Why aren’t you, the super-duper businessman, making money from it?  Looks like you would have no competition IF you could figure out a good business case.  AFAICT, the only way to make money from YE is to sell pseudo-scientific books and videos to boobs like yourself who are desperate to have their delusions reinforced


As you note, Dishonest Dave never could come up with an answer.

Are you serious?

Snake oil peddlers the world around use YEC models to make money. Dr. Dino? Tent revivals?

Hmm. Interesting that they are all making money by asking for donations from those who believe them isn't it?

Dave, Core samples? Let me know.

PS:
Quote
afdave  
Quote
Posted: May 18 2006,22:21    

...Yes.  I knew about the planet thing.  I actually speak quite a bit of Spanish and Portuguese (which of course is Spanish and French mixed).

afdave  
Quote
Here's the specific statement that I am defending:

1)  AF Dave says that Spanish and Portuguese were essentially the same language until 1143 AD when Portugal broke away from Spanish control under a French nobleman by the name of Henry of Burgundy.  From this point on, the languages diverged into the modern situation.  The primary influence on the linguistic divergence was the French language.

2)  Rilke and Toejam say I am wrong

How much are you willing to bet?  



afdave    
Quote

Posted: May 19 2006,08:37  
Rilke--

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't put your money where your mouth is.  Just tell me how much money it's going to be ...

$500 says I can prove my statement (my later, more specific statement).  Are you willing to put up $500 and prove me wrong?

You know the wager ... it's as clear as a bell ...

Now are you going to back up your claim?  Or are you going to retract it and apologize?  Or shall I embarrass you publicly in front of all your friends?

Your choice, sweetie.

BWE    
Quote

Posted: May 19 2006,14:22  
Davey-dog. You are an idiot. Define Spanish. Be careful, that's a trick question. Next Define spanish around the time of song of roland.  

I'll take your bet. But the stakes are different. If I win, I get to write a post on your blog, if you win, you get to write a post for my blog. and one more thing, please answer some age of the earth questions.


Just because I think you are stupid, I am not going to do any preliminary research.

And I am making some assumptions about your claim:

1) the portuguese language substantially changed beginning in the year 1143.

2) The Spanish you are referring to is Castilian

3) The french language and the Castillian language are the major components of modern Portuguese.

4) the dialect of Portuguese you are referring to is the one spoken in Lisbon.

5) That you are making an all or nothing claim similar to  your others (there are no gray areas)
link
link here

So you see, when you say that you didn't lose the portuguese thing, you get responses that disagree.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 10397
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:29   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 29 2006,12:03)
See Davie, stevestory can delete my harsh language when I slip across the line (as I occasionally do) and it won't alter my scientific arguments one little bit.

If he started deleting your lies, there would be nothing left but a blank white page.

I entertained this idea w/r/t Ghost of Paley--not allow any new posts from him which didn't provide the models and evidence he's claimed for a year to have. I discarded the idea after about 1 second when I realized it would effectively end Paley's participation on this board, forever.

   
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:49   

And the down side to that would be what, precisely?

Sheesh, with the ghast of Paley around, who needs dogs pooping on the lawn?   At least some owners clean up after their dogs...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:53   

Shirley said:
Quote
And the down side to that would be what, precisely?


Touché...

Ah well ......there's no party without punch.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,07:54   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 29 2006,12:27)
So you see, when you say that you didn't lose the portuguese thing, you get responses that disagree.

Dave, not only did you lose the Portuguese thing, you never even argued your position. If this were a court case, I'd say you lost by having your default taken.

Your claim was a linguistic claim, Dave, requiring linguistic evidence to support it. You never provided any liguistic evidence at all, instead providing a pastiche of irrelevant historical trivia.

So you not only lost, Dave; you didn't even put up a fight.

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

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,08:04   

AFDave,
I see you restate your case about mixing lines about Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graphs.          
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 29 2006,09:09)
MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS

Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance.  Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines.  Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have?  Well, you have ...

a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age

Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine.  Be my guest.  

And at the end of your post.  
Quote

Mike PSS...            
Quote
How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation.
No disagreement here.  I just don't think it proves Deep Time.  As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong.  Now ... convince me of something if you can.

Dave,
I'm not talking about time or ages or "millionofyearsism", only the Isochron sample data in a linear relationship.  I even posted a warning to you but you ignored it.  Please review this  again.  Especially the WARNING.

Since you agree to the statement then I can begin my "executive summary" in another post.

ALSO, since you said one of my claims was almost right but the other was wrong, please reply and correct my claims to correctly reflect your stance on this issue.  Fill in the claims that reflect YOUR stance on the Rb/Sr Isochron method.  It won't change my stance but may change some of the examples I use.
1) Dave and mixing (please elaborate)
2) Dave and whole rock data linearity (please elaborate)

Thanks,
Mike PSS

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,08:43   

Not that it isn't vastly entertaining watching Dave stagger around trying to discuss isochrons with his head wedged into a milk-bucket, but I wonder if he thinks he's getting away with anything here. His own "hypothesis" has multiple, absolutely fatal flaws, most of which are based on bone-simple conflicts with observations a bright nine-year-old could make, which he has not dealt with and cannot deal with. Yet here he is, trying to wedge a little doubt into an extremely technical, and yet extremely well-supported, methodology that happens to be just one of millions of nails in the coffin of his "hypothesis."

So why don't you start with the simple problems with your "hypothesis," Dave, like the fact that you don't have a source of water for your "flood," nor do you have an explanation for why we can see galaxies that are more than 6,000 lightyears away?

But if you would prefer to keep having your head bashed in by the likes of Mike PSS and JonF, go right ahead; I'll go make some more popcorn.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:28   

DumbAssDaveTheHabitualLiar says;
Quote
I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.

I'll handle the last part of that statement first: I said that you were making money off your propaganda. Where it goes is irrelevant. I also said if --IF--you are not getting paid anything as "treasurer', great.

As to the first part of your statement: The fact is that this entire exchange about "contacting WaiWai indians in Brazil" is on pages 88-93 of the previous "AirHead Dave's Wild-Ass Guess " thread part1. Here is how it went. First, Dave makes a stupid claim:
Quote
There is not a single Wai-wai village that my dad has not had contact with. What in the world are you talking about?
I said that I doubted that, for specific reasons:
Quote
(p. 91) What I **DID** say was that you lied about me, Dave. You lied about my theistic views, you lied about my charity and social work, you lied about me "never dealing with a jungle tribe" you lied about your father contacting every WaiWai village--How do I know your Dad did NOT contact them? because they were NOT contacted until the 80's-90's, Dave-- You lied about the numbers of CIIPR researchers, you lied about him being the ONLY white person they'd seen " in the 20th century." Your father did not contact every WaiWai group...he could not have. He was not the first white man there in the 20th century, you lied about the CIIPR researchers. Other WaiWai are doing fine without your daddy's help, and in fact your daddy's group would have made it through, too...probably by moving to the highlands as other groups did, from Shefarimo and Masemakari I
and
Quote
(p 93): The fact remains that other villages, uncontacted by your father...survived. You may idolize your father to the point of being willing to lie and exaggerate, Dave, but that won't change the facts there. Your father was not in fact the first white man they had seen in the 20th century. The American Museum of Natural History has collections of WaiWai featherwork and weaving collected in the 1920's from that very village. I'm glad that he tried to help. I am not glad that he completed the destruction of their original belief system for that group. Fortunately, other WaiWai held on to theirs. Your father was simply misguided, as you are, Dave. I doubt that you'd show him these pages of your insane lying, though.
The only one that's off his rocker here is you, Dave. You lied about me for no reason other than sheer hubris, as I said. You came into this thread preening about yourself, you continuously degraded others and then cried foul when people returned it. You then proceeded to lie utterly about me and others.
I challenged you to cite any place that I lied, Dave, and you rightly ignored that because you can't find any such place. You deliberately falsely claimed that you knew about me, my views on theology, my work, my life, my emotions, even --as if your belief system makes you some kind of prophet or psychic. Your alligator ego writes checks your mosquito brain can't cash, Dave, so I advise that you get yourself some genuine professional help.

The reason I said I knew Dave's father had not contacted EVERY Brazilian WaiWai group was precisely because the Human Resource Area Files (HRAF) relied on by every anthropologist in the field...stated clearly that specific villages of WaiWai had NOT been contacted by any whites after moving to the Brazilian Highlands regions. They moved before Davey's daddy got there. He did not contact them.

Did Davey's daddy lie to little Davey? Is this where little Davey LEARNED to lie?

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

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,09:44   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 28 2006,19:30)
Eric:

 
Quote
I don't think anyone here harbors any illusions about being able to change Dave's mind. I knew Dave was lying when he said he might become an evolutionist as soon as he said it.

But he sure makes a fun pinata!


But is Dave worse at answering questions than any of ya'll?  ;)

Typical Paley...wrong,  wrong, wrong!

People in the is thread have answered ALL of AFDave's questions and more...in detail...backup with links and documents.

Why is it you feel the need to make an incorrect statement?

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

   
Diogenes



Posts: 80
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,10:46   

Bob the Biologist: Hey Rob, could I get you to do a favor for me?
Rob the Geologist: Sure Bob, what do you need?
Bob the Biologist: Well you know that stupid make belief  evolution story that we invented back 150 years ago?
Rob the Geologist: Sure do.
Bob the Biologist: Well, at this point we're pretty much stuck with it, I mean who wants to admit we've been full of crap for the last 150 years.  We've got alot of holes to patch and I was hoping you could help with this one.  We need the earth to be old, very old in fact, for evolution to even have a prayer.  Anything you could do to date rock formations back a few billion years?
Rob the Geologist: Well sounds good to me, even though it's obvious to all of us that the God of the Bible created the world we hate him and want to trick his followers.  Previously we've just been making numbers up at random for different layers, but I guess some sort of consistency would be good.
Bob the Biologist: Excellent.  So just talk to the archeologists any time you are going to date a sample to make sure which bones they want to use in a layer and which they are throwing away.  Don't worry I already talked to the Guild of Archeologists and they are fine with using our timeline.  We're going to use 6 MYA for the split with chimpanzees *laugh*.  Sorry, I always chuckle when I think about how stupid that idea is, anyone that knows anatomy can easily see why chimpanzees and humans are not related at all.
Rob the Geologist: Well, we still have a problem.  As I told you we just make the dates up right now.  Pretty soon those hyper-intelligent religious people are going to catch on.  Don't worry though, I have a plan.  Hey Todd, could you come over here!
Todd the Physicist: Hey Rob, what's up?
Rob the Geologist: Congratulations on getting funding for that radiometric dating scam you've been running.
Todd the Physicist: Thanks, but it's not hard when all scientists are in collusion to defraud the government.
Rob the Geologist: I've been talking with Bob and we want to use your dating method *laugh* to prove *laugh* that the earth is older than 6000 years.
Todd the Physicist: Well good, because I've got some Big Bang buddies that need an old universe, so they'd love to start with an old earth.
Bob the Biologist: Todd, make sure that the numbers aren't exact, add some randomness and make sure you add those little error bars so it doesn't look like we're just making this stuff up.
Todd the Physicist: I'm a scientist Bob, of course I know how to fake data.  I mean that's all we really do all day.  I'm sure we'll get those Christians this time.  Praise Satan!
All Together: Praise Satan!

--------------
:)

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,11:25   

Do we have a Post-of-the-Week contender here?

Stevestory, any way to do a "post of the week" kinda thing here at AtBC? Or is it so much work it would take the fun out of 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

  
stevestory



Posts: 10397
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,11:33   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 29 2006,17:25)
Do we have a Post-of-the-Week contender here?

Stevestory, any way to do a "post of the week" kinda thing here at AtBC? Or is it so much work it would take the fun out of it?

I've got a lot going on. If you want to do Post of the Week, you're more than welcome.

Here's a contender:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=33183

   
  4989 replies since Sep. 22 2006,12:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (167) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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