RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:21   

Incorygible ... you give me a link to Google Scholar with "evolution" as the search term?  Come on.  How am I going to narrow that down.  I realize that I am also guilty of this sometimes, but I will repeat that it is much more conducive to having someone read your reference if you can select the concise portions which are applicable to the point being argued.

Quote
The genetic divergence between two species (the proportion of nucleotides differing between representative individuals of the two species) can be converted into a divergence time in terms of millions of years, provided that differences between genomes have accumulated at a constant rate as a result of new mutations1,2.
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.  Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?  This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)

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

When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.  A lot of Hebrew and Greek scholars have spent an enormous amount of time studying other texts and comparing them with the Biblical texts to see which parts are literal and which parts are figurative.  The RATE Book has a whole section proving why Genesis was intended to be taken as a literal, historical account.  But most of it is not rocket science.  Some is, to be sure, but most is not.  For the most part, we can look at the word for "day" in Genesis where it talks about the "evening and the morning were the fourth day" etc., and we can compare this with other instances of the usage of that same word, and we can pretty easily see that the author meant a literal 24 hr day ... not 1000 years or a million years, or what have you.

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

Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:40   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,14:21)
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.

Dave, he linked to this months ago, which you would have realized if you'd read it the first time. But even if you hadn't read it back then, wouldn't it have been a clue when Incorygible stated to you that he had posted it back in May, when it first came out? Or did you miss that part, too? How large and bold does the type have to be before you read it, Dave?

 
Quote
Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?  This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)

No. Dave, if you want to understand this, you need to develop the intellectual toolkit necessary to understand it. It can't be "distilled down" to where someone with a pea-brain can understand it. Don't complain that someone hasn't "shown" something to you, when the real issue is that you can't understand the explanation in the first place!

And Dave, the problem isn't that we don't "understand" your creationist drivel. We "understand" it just fine. We understand that it's undifferentiated bullshit, we've explained to you exactly why it's undifferentiated bullshit, and you ignore us.

 
Quote
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?

Or, more to the point, how do you determine where the Bible is right, and where it isn't? Given that you've already admitted that the Bible is not inerrant. So how do you know where it's right, and where it's wrong, Dave?

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

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:41   

Quote
RM DATING IS NOW "AS GOOD" AS FOSSIL "DATING."

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.  See?  "with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units restricted to the most recent 12% or so of geologic time."  IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.  That's because ...

1) FOSSILS ARE KING (and Evo assumptions with them)
2) FOSSILS VERIFY RM DATES (and determine which ones are "wrong" and "right")
3) AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA NO MATTER HOW LOUDLY THEY SAY OTHERWISE.


The first attempts to characterize the "relative" age of the landscape using fossil was done in the 1830s, almost 30 years before Darwin's work. Similar patterns of fossils were discovered in landscapes in different countries, and these were the first attempts of using the geological process of superposition. The actual pattern of fossils made sense in the light of the TOE, and then finally in the early 1900s the first absolute dating methods were discovered with  radioactive decay and radiometric dating. To say that the method requires knowledge of evolution is absurd. It requires you to assume that certain species lived at the same time together, and that the species should correlate in some way with the stratographic column. Eric, deadman, JonF and others showed you this many times before, and even offered you a testable method for carrying this out. The assumption of evolution becomes an independent verification when species complexity decreases with age.

This doesn't begin to address other dating methods either, which the thread has called you on many times.

   
Quote

Here's another quote I like ...        
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.


I love how you can understand the deep innerworkings of an entire field of science from a few quotes. I wish I had that talent.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:45   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:21)
When I say I am a Biblical literalist, I simply mean that I take passages literally unless there is a good reason to take them figuratively or metaphorically.  How do we determine this?  Well ... how do we determine if Steverino literally means the sun rose when he says "the sun rose"?  By knowing something about customary usage, that's how.  Same thing with Biblical studies.

So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?

Also, how long does a quartz crystal take to form?

--------------
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.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:46   

Quote
Mike PSS-- I accept the science of crystal formation ... I'm not dodging you.  I just want you to get to your point.  What are you trying to prove to me and how does olivine crystal formation support your point.  Concisely please.

AFDave,
This is where you go wrong.  The point isn't concise, or containable in an executive summary.  I'm trying to lead you down the primrose path of knowledge here in bite size pieces.  Each bite size piece is an executive summary of a whole body of knowledge.  There are at numerous seperate professional disciplines involved just to understand radiometric dating.  You have to understand what olivine is (geology), how the crystals formed (material science, chemistry, chemical and mechanical engineering), how isotopes and radioactivity work (nuclear physics), how radioisotope testing equipment works (mechanical engineering, physics, electronic engineering), and that's just off the top of my head.

When your argument is about "all Isochrons are mixing lines" then you are arguing DEEP into the basic knowledge base of the method (radiometric testing).  To support that argument you need to comprehend and understand ALL of the knowledge base listed above.
However, you don't have to be an expert in all the fields listed above.  You could purchase the radiometric testing machine and TRUST that the people that designed it and put it together knew what they were doing.  You could install the machine and calibrate it according to the instruction sheet that comes with the equipment.  You could then follow all the instructions (like proper sample selection) and test your materials.  The instructions probably have some checks and balances for your data to make sure the machine is working properly.  Voila, a valid data point.  Rinse and repeat.  That wasn't hard.

If you want an executive summary then talk to me about the economic viability of investing in an alternative fuels plant (ethanol or biodiesel).  I'm involved in the operation, modification, testing, and optimization of these things.  Landfill Gas?  No problem.  Wood Combustion?  Bring it on.  Executive summaries work in business, not always in science.

Mike PSS

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,09:48   

And, you know, this is classic Dave: first he complains that you haven't shown him something, even after you've shown it again and again and again. Then he complains that you haven't really shown it to him; you've just sent him links to a bunch of articles that say something, without showing  how that conclusion was arrived at. Then, when you point out that those articles show exactly how that conclusion was arrived at, in excruciating detail, he complains that the explanation is too complicated, and could you please distill it all down to an executive summary he can actually understand.

And then, if you actually complied with that request, he'd accuse of you of just giving him a biased interpretation of the data, rather than the data itself.

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

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,10:04   

I give you guys executive summaries all the time to try to make my points understood, the latest being the issue of Biblical Literalism.

Why is it so hard for you to do the same?

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,10:11   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,15:04)
I give you guys executive summaries all the time to try to make my points understood, the latest being the issue of Biblical Literalism.

Why is it so hard for you to do the same?

Think about it, Dave.

If you think the Bible (especially Genesis 1 and 2, which are like 800 words long) is as complex and difficult to understand as, say, genomics, or the Theory of Evolution, or Quantum Chromodynamics, or superstring theory, or comparative anatomy, or nuclear chemistry, then you're even dumber than you appear (and you appear pretty dumb).

You can't just do an executive summary of topics like radiometric dating, Dave. Sorry; it just simply cannot be done. Why is this such a tough idea to get through your noggin?

Also, when are you going to address the glaring problem with your Biblical Literalism, which is that you've already admitted that the Bible is not inerrant, and you have no way of knowing which parts are correct and which parts are not?

--------------
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. 26 2006,10:41   

OK Dave,  Here's an executive summary for you.

Bible - Goddidit.
Your arguments - Wrong
My arguments - Right.

Is that what you wanted?  Be concise in your requests.

I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.

Mike PSS

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:17   

Improvius...
Quote
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."  However, it is interesting to note that many of the ancients who lived a very long time ago (like longer ago than 2000 BC) knew that the earth went around the sun and they knew the length of the period, the earth-sun distance, the number PI, and many other scientific facts.


Mike PSS--  
Quote
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!

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

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:35   

Quote

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!


Sweet! Ghost of Paley has a new challenger for the most "more on XXXXXX which I will completely garble tomorrow!"

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:47   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Improvius...  
Quote
So are suggesting that, at the time the Bible was written, it was customary to assume that the Earth circled the sun, and not vice versa?
The biblical writers were not making a statement one way the other about which actually circled which, just as we are not when we say "the sun rose."

Dave, you said we could discern between literal and figurative statements "by knowing something about customary usage."  So you must be able to tell that any biblical statements WRT the sun rising are figurative because it was the "customary usage" at the time of writing.

--------------
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.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:49   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,09:50)
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ON "DATING"

Not a particularly reliable source.  It's too dumbed-down to be really accurate.
 
Quote
ROCKS ARE "DATED" PRIMARILY BY FOSSILS AND BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVOLUTION HAS OCCURRED
           
Quote
[DATING ...] in geology, determining a chronology or calendar of events in the history of the Earth, using to a large degree the evidence of organic evolution in the sedimentary rocks accumulated through geologic time in marine and continental environments.
I said this long ago and was laughed at of course, but it is still true and here it is confirmed again.  After the "date" is "determined" from fossils, then it is "confirmed" or "calibrated" with RM dating if possible.

That quote does not support your claim. Yes, stratigraphy and index fossils are involved in dating.  No, the date is not determined from fossils, absolute dates are determined from radiometric dating and index fossils are used to correlate between locations.
 
Quote
CHERRY PICKING CONFIRMED AGAIN: ONLY "CERTAIN" ROCKS
           
Quote
Rubidium&#8211;strontium (Rb&#8211;Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not. Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering. Similar studies have shown that the samarium&#8211;neodymium (Sm&#8211;Nd) parent&#8211;daughter pair is more resistant to secondary migration but that, in this instance, sufficient initial spread in the abundance of the parent isotope is difficult to achieve.[This is what JonF was griping at me about on the Snelling data...]
If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately?

By cross-correlation with other methods, some not radiometric.
 
Quote

Here's another quote I like ...            
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.
... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.

Not implying any such thing.
 
Quote
IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Not quite.  Now we can obtain the same precision on near 100% of geologic time, and verify the fossil dating.
 
Quote
Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.

Yes, yes, yes, Davie-doodles, your lack of reading comprehension is showing again.  They explicitly said that RM dating allows us to verify our fossil-based data. "Isotopic dating ... is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history."  "Virtually all of Earth history" ain't no stinkin' 88%, Davie-dip, it's 99.9% or so.
 
Quote
CONCORDANCE OBTAINED BY "PROCESSING" INDIVIDUAL GRAINS?"
Moving along through the "Dating" article from EB ... we see that U-Pb dating supposedly is superior to other dating methods ... then we read something rather surprising ...

           
Quote
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating > Uranium&#8211;lead method > Double uranium-lead chronometers

Figure 2: Concordia diagram.
From T.E. Krogh, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 46; © 1982 Pergamon Press
The reason why uranium&#8211;lead dating is superior to other methods is simple: there are two uranium&#8211;lead chronometers. Because there exist two radioactive uranium atoms (those of mass 235 and 238), two uranium&#8211;lead ages can be calculated for every analysis. The age results or equivalent daughter&#8211;parent ratio can then be plotted one against the other on a concordia diagram, as shown in Figure 2. If the point falls on the upper curve shown, the locus of identical ages, the result is said to be concordant, and a closed-system unequivocal age has been established. Any leakage of daughter isotopes from the system will cause the two ages calculated to differ, and data will plot below the curve. Because each of the daughters has a different half-life, early leakage will affect one system more than the other. Thus there is a built-in mechanism that can prove or disprove whether a valid age has been measured. Historically it had been observed that the uranium&#8211;lead systems in the mineral zircon from unmetamorphosed rocks were almost invariably disturbed or discordant but yielded a linear array on the concordia diagram. Given a set of variably disturbed samples, an extrapolation to zero disturbance was possible (see Figure 2). More recently, it has been found that of all the grains present in a rock a very few still retain closed isotopic systems but only in their interior parts. Thus grains with a diameter comparable to that of a human hair, selected under a microscope to be crack-free and of the highest possible quality, have been found to be more concordant than cracked grains. In addition, it has been shown that most such grains can be made much more concordant by mechanically removing their outer parts using an air-abrasion technique (upper points in Figure 2).
Now am I reading this right?

Nope.  I don't know why you bother to ask that, the answer is always the same.
 
Quote
 You're tellng me that we can pretty much pitch all the mineral isochrons done on individual grains because they are open systems?

Nope.  He's not talking about isochrons. He's talking about a particular set of elements, one of which (lead) is fairly volatile as elements that are solid at STP go.  He's talking about metamorphic rocks, which are always tricky.
 
Quote
We have to strip away the outer part of the grain in order for the "dating" to be concordant?

Sometimes yes and mostly no.  That article's pretty seriously out of date.  Since then instrumentation advances and sample preparation advances have cut down the need to strip away the outer part of the grain.  Sometimes we still have to strip away the outer part of the mineral grain for the dating to be absolutely concordant (but not often) BUT you don't understand what "concordant" means in this context.  Here "concordant" means" "absolutely exact agreement", and "discordant" means that the two methods disagree. The air abrasion technique is used to get concordant samples when the discordance is very small and there's reason to suspect differential leaching of lead from different parts of the sample. Even with "discordant" results, it's clear approximately how old the rock is; the air-abrasion technique is used to take results that are already accurate to a few percent and get the accuracy down below 1%. With or without discarding the outer layer of metamorphosed zircons, the rocks are far older than you think.

One of the great things about U-Pb concordia-discordia dating is that it often returns a valid and accurate date when the sampels are discordant, sometimes even seriously discordant.  The reasons why are well understood.

And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
 
Quote
   
Quote
Bet I could guess the selection criteria, and they won't be neutral.
What have we here?  You think my selection criteria is biased or something?  Well, guess what?  You're right!!  I am biased and guess what else?  EVERYONE is biased.  That's what I've been telling you for a long time.

Yup. but you're an ignorant liar ; I make mistakes once in a while, but at least they're honest mistakes.  Are you going to post any pf the many questions you have been ducking and can't answer?  Or are you going to cherry-pick to try to give the impression that your claims stand up to casual inspection?  I know the answer ...

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:52   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,16:17)
Mike PSS--        
Quote
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Dave, you've got it exactly backwards. The fact that you think it's even possible to do an "executive summary" of an entire field of scientific investigation shows just how abysmally ignorant you really are.

You think you've shown us "lot of how [radiometric dating] actually works"? Good grief, man! What you've really shown us is that you don't have a clue how it actually works! You've made mistake after mistake after mistake in your understanding of radiometric dating techniques, which JonF has, to his infinite credit, painstakingly corrected. So you think JonF and Mike are just "pretending" to understand radiometric dating? Then where does that leave you? You don't even pretend to understand it! You admit it doesn't make any sense to you.

Mike is trying to establish that you know anything whatsoever about radiometric dating, crystal formation, or indeed anything about any relevant field, in order to determine how he can do an executive summary you can understand without leaving out crucial information. I know, from my long experience of wading through your drivel, that it's an impossible task, because you don't want to understand; your entire worldview depends on your not understanding.

Mike will eventually come to the same conclusion, but hopefully not before he's done a lot of interesting and informative posts. Interesting and informative posts for the rest of us, at least; I doubt you'll get anything out of them.

And speaking of "defending" things—would you care to estimate what century it will be before you get around to defending your own hypothesis, which is ostensibly what this thread is all about?

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

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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,11:53   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,11:49)
AFDave, eventually the only argument you will have left in this whole Isochron fiasco will be the "accellerated decay rate in the past" position.  Why not skip all the pretense and start arguing this position.  Here's the initial counter argument you will have to address in your first post about decay rates.

And The Constancy of Constants, Part 2

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,12:03   

Dave, thanks for the reference concerning the theory of eyewitness account of genesis.  I see some problems with it but that was the view from 10,000 feet so I'll get back to you after closer inspection.  I did notice in that post your refernce to me and the wish that I embrace the truth of YEC.  I feel I must respond to that.  To start with I have two quick questions:

Do you know the actual origin of the 6,000 years chronology?

Would it be any less miraculous if God had created the universe in 6,000 years, 6 billion years or 60 billion years?

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,12:03   

The first thread, with all images removed:

AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (no images) PDF.zip 8.75 MB, 13.1 MB unzipped.

AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis (no images) HTML.zip, 3.8 MB, 27.5 MB unzipped.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,13:12   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 26 2006,14:12)
incorygible,
Good third-person paragraph.  How many mistakes before you clicked your brain into third-person typing? :)

More than one! :) I think it only comes naturally to cranks and other assorted crazies (such as the one to whom I was replying in kind). ;)

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,13:25   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17)
Mike PSS--        
Quote
I can simplify it for you but you have to show me what YOU know first.  So far you have exhibited little knowledge of HOW radiometric dating is actually done.
I have shown you a lot of how it actually works.  And JonF has done as good a job of fighting for the Deep Timer cause as can be expected of anyone, given the impossibility of the task.  My theory is that you really don't know what you are talking about and that you are just pretending you do.  Asking you to do an executive summary simply allows me to determine whether you really understand the things you are talking about or not.  And whether you are serious about debating anything or not.  My guess is that you are not.

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!

Ad Hominum Ad Nausium from AFDave.

Can I call "shenanigans" and get AFDave back on track?

Dave,
Nowhere in your quoted reply do you address the pertinent information regarding Olivine crystal formation.  Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Mike PSS

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,13:33   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,14:21)
Incorygible ... you give me a link to Google Scholar with "evolution" as the search term?  Come on.  How am I going to narrow that down.  I realize that I am also guilty of this sometimes, but I will repeat that it is much more conducive to having someone read your reference if you can select the concise portions which are applicable to the point being argued.

The body of scientific understanding pertaining to evolution, or even just the evolution of humans and other great apes, is not concise. Period. The Google search was meant only to illustrate this. You can take the Coles Notes version you've been supplied. Or you can put the time and effort into achieving something closer to the education that specialists (like those you routinely argue with) have, beginning with the appropriate papers that we have laid out for you. Your choice.

 
Quote
Now we are getting somewhere ... this is what I have been trying to get out of you for months.  Can you distill all this complicated genetic stuff into an executive summary so that my pea brain can understand it?


First: Dave, as Eric points out, you "got this out of me" as soon as you asked. Before you asked, actually -- I brought it up.  I cited this paper right around the time you were discovering (for the first time, apparently) that genetic research has conclusively demonstrated that humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps to gorillas. Remember that, Dave? Liar.

Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields. The data summarized in these executive summaries is found in the specialist journals and (in even more abundance) in the databases, drawers and minds of those actually doing the work. If you can't count yourself a member of the "scientific" audience, well, tough titty said the kitty. If you don't even understand the language, don't bother arguing fundamental science with those who do possess such a background because you simply don't meet the minimum requirements. There's nothing wrong with that (we all possess specialized knowledge), unless you are in the vain habit of arguing entire fields of science with specialists therein. And (before you pull out any analogy involving church history) practically ANYONE can learn the language, if they are so inclined, with enough time and effort. You haven't done this yet. Come back and argue science when you can comprehend it.

You may think think this is elitist (as much as any meritocracy is). Fine. You may point out that this elitism is the reason your brand of "evidence" is more popular among the lay public. You'd probably be right. Regardless, it is what it is. After trying very hard to encourage you to begin to understand some of this stuff at an appropriate level, I don't care care what you think. Science is indeed a tough titty and you, Dave, are just another displaced runt.

 
Quote
This is what I try to do for you all with creationist info.  (I don't always achieve it, admittedly.)


Does that "evolution" Google Scholar search give you any reason to suspect your job is easier than mine? Or should I thrown in "or geology", "or radiomentric dating", "or cosmology"...

  
stevestory



Posts: 10394
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:01   

Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 26 2006,19:33)
Or you can put the time and effort into achieving something closer to the education that specialists (like those you routinely argue with) have, beginning with the appropriate papers that we have laid out for you. Your choice.

LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

Making up that imaginary data to refute real data was pretty close, though.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:18   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

For your viewing pleasure:

Quote
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...


--------------
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.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:30   

eric:
Quote
Dave, the only way you're going to "know" how it was derived is to go out and get a freaking education in the relevant fields to the point where you can understand the "how." Incorygible explained to you, in exquisite detail, the "how" of the matter, and you're blaming your own inability to understand the "how" on his explanation, rather than your own ignorance.

If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want!


Dave, I've argued with Eric about many subjects, and I've never seen him this angry. Why do you tease him so?  :D  :D

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

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:40   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 26 2006,19:18)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 26 2006,20:01)
LOL I remember him saying something like "I don't want to learn to be an expert, I just want to prove them wrong!"

Which might be the all-time dumbest thing he's said.

For your viewing pleasure:

Quote
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...

Indeed. Actually, not "speaking the language" is as apt an analogy as any.

I'm natively fluent in English, and will debate in English (or even debate its proper usage) with any native English speaker. I could get by pretty well with French in either France or Quebec (even know how to adjust accordingly), but would know to ask for clarification (in French) and would accept correction graciously from its native speakers. I might even be able to eek out an existence in (tee hee) Portugal, based on its Latin roots. Put me in China and I wouldn't know where to begin (but I probably wouldn't start by demanding they all speak English instead).

That's where Dave is. China. And he don't speak no Chinese. So he's busily demanding (in English, no less) that the entire country switch to the revealed truth of English because he can't find the fucking bathroom. The inevitable result is, of course, that Dave will shit his pants. Repeatedly. As he has.

Dave, you really stink by this point.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2006,14:55   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 26 2006,19:30)
eric:
   
Quote
If you would read the fucking links, and read the fucking original research papers that Incorygible has supplied you, you would know "stuff like "Well, we have 1.5% sequence difference and we know that neutral mutation changes at the rate of 10 bazillion nucleotides per year so you multiply blah blah blah X blah blah and presto! you get 5 million years."  What else do you want, Dave? Direct implantation of the information into your brain through osmosis? Those links Incorygible provided to you give you exactly the information you say you want!


Dave, I've argued with Eric about many subjects, and I've never seen him this angry. Why do you tease him so?  :D  :D

Bill, for all our disagreements, and my belief that you're mistaken about virtually all of science, most of history, and all of politics, you've never acted as absolutely bone-stupid as Dave is. And Dave is not, as far as I can tell, actually stupid. He's that way on purpose, i.e., he's deliberately obtuse. I've just never seen anyone behave so deliberately idiotically. (But I have to admit; it's strangely entertaining to watch, kind of like watching a slow-motion train-wreck.)

When Dave complains over and over about how no one has ever shown him something, and then three people demonstrate with actual links to their actual posts that they have indeed shown him, and he still insists that they never showed it to him, it gets exasperating. But Dave's not teasing; he actually thinks he's being honest.

And that's the scary part.

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

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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,02:29   

I did not bother with an answer to most of JonF's "rebuttals" today because they are weak.  I particularly liked the one where he said my 2006 EB article is "out of date" ... also, EB is not accurate because it is "dumbed down."  Fine Jon, let's call up the author and see if he likes that characterization.

But I will answer this one ...

JonF...
Quote
And, of course, the truth that Davie dare not address; different methods are susceptible to different possible problems, but the observed concordance between different methods that are not susceptible to the same problems is one of the many reasons we can be sure that the vast majority of our dates reflect reality.
I DO "dare" address this.  I've been addressing it for a long time.  There is a reason why you have "observed concordance between different methods.  The answer is ...

FOSSILS ....

Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

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

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Mike PSS...
Quote
Your "Theory of Mike PSS not knowing what he's talking about" has to be proven by counterring the information I presented.
Where did I make a mistake in my argument?  Please be precise.
Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating.  I'm quite sure you do.  But that is an entirely different thing than being able to defend it reasonably and convince me that the "dates" obtained are real.  And I don't think you have made any mistakes in your arguments other than the fact that I really don't know what your argument is or what your point is.  But I am happy to hear it.  Now ... I do know what olivine is and I understand crystal formation somewhat.  What does this have to do with RM Dating being a valid indicator of true age.

Incorygible...
Quote
Second: No. Dave, a Nature article of about 4,000 words IS the "Executive Summary". Top-tier, broad-spectrum journals like Nature and Science are written for those with a passable scientific background to keep abreast of the major findings in other fields.
So you are telling me I need to go buy this particular copy of "Nature" and then I will understand your position on why the molecules point to 5 my?  Which issue is it again?  I assume we are talking about a $10 or less copy, right?  It's not availabe for free  online?

Me...
Quote
I'm not interested in getting a geology degree ... by an internet flame war or any other way ...

I'm interested in showing that those who DO have geology degrees are grotesquely mistaken when they say that sedimentary rock layers were laid down over millions and millions of years by the same well-understood processes which are in operation today (the present is the key to the past) ...
Thanks.  And I'll say it again and again.  It stands as the dumbest things in modern science that people can go all the way through 8 years of school and get PhD's in geology and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"  (The second dumbest thing is that people like Steve Story say people like me are dumb for pointing this out.  Oh well!;)

Skeptic...
Quote
Dave, thanks for the reference concerning the theory of eyewitness account of genesis.  I see some problems with it but that was the view from 10,000 feet so I'll get back to you after closer inspection.  I did notice in that post your refernce to me and the wish that I embrace the truth of YEC.  I feel I must respond to that.  To start with I have two quick questions:

Do you know the actual origin of the 6,000 years chronology?

Would it be any less miraculous if God had created the universe in 6,000 years, 6 billion years or 60 billion years?
I have only known about the 2 references I gave you for 3 months or so, so I could use some time to inspect the whole thing closer myself.  But my initial study seems to indicate that it is a very good theory.  I have not found any holes yet.  I did not intend to reference any individuals in my post on my blog.  I will search that out when I have time and delete it.

Origin of the 6000 year chronology:  Not much time right now, but off the top of my head, I think there are several people groups who have historically kept track of years in a way closely resembling the 6000 year chronology.  If I recall, the Jews have something called "Anno Mundi"  ... I'll check into this and get back to you.  In any case, my chronology comes from Bishop Ussher.

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

Gone for 3 days to Silver Dollar City!  Don't know if I will have time to post 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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,02:46   

Dave - presumably you believed this 6000 year old guff last year? In that case, is the earth now 6001 years old then? Or in your world, is gawd holding back the age of the earth and keeping it steady at 6000 years? Or taking off a year at the start instead?

So, what is the age of the earth then as you see it? 6000 years? 5999? 6001?
If it's 6000, presumably there must be a point where it tips over to 6001? Would that be new years day? If so, why? If not, what day does it flip over to 6001 years on? Simple  questions, but i dont expect a reasonable answer. Prove me wrong! Give me a date/time when the earth will be 6001 years old instead of 6000.

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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,03:04   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29)
Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now.

You have not shown one iota of evidence for your fossil overlord conspiracy theory.

--------------
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.

  
notta_skeptic



Posts: 48
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,03:13   

I know this is off-topic, but I just found out this morning that I have the opportunity to go to a public lecture by Dr. Kenneth Miller this afternoon at the National Institutes of Health. He's speaking to researchers, medical professionals, and interested parties on evolution. You can see the webcast at NIH webcast (I have no idea if this is available for all or just over NIH intranet, but I think it's freely viewable by anyone.) And tomorrow, I'm going to be participating in a national 'convocation' in DC on science eductation across the US and helping to develop national policy on strengthening science teaching K - 16. It's people like Dave who give me the impetus to stand up in these meetings and explain exactly why we need better educated science teachers. If Dave had ever had a good teacher, he/she might have been able to explain to him the difference between a "guess" and a "theory". Dave shows little evidence of knowing what either one means in a scientific context.

--------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

  
notta_skeptic



Posts: 48
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,03:17   

Oops! Forgot the time for the Miller webcast: 3 - 4 PM Eastern Daylight Time. Sorry.

--------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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