Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2

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

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,03:39    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29) 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? *sigh* No, Dave. If you read that paper, you will have read that paper. If you understand that paper, you will have a better understanding of "my position" on why the molecules point to 4-6 my. If you understand the brief synopsis of the current state of the field provided by the authors, and if you follow up on the citations they provide for a more detailed examination of work in the field, you will have an even better understanding. You were a CEO (or similar), right? You asked for an executive summary. Here it is, equivalent to an executive summary of earnings in one department in the last quarter. Read it, and you'll have a better understanding than the press releases and third-party speculations you're working from now. But, as CEO, would you assess your company's performance based purely on one executive summary for one quarter? It's a good place to start, but you might want a deeper understanding of trends, etc., right? To truly understand my position on evolution, or even on molecular phylogenetics, you would have to sit in on more than a few university-level courses, read hundreds of textbooks, read literally thousands of papers, attend dozens of conferences, have a few beers and "back-of-the-envelope" sessions with dozens of prestigious scientists actually doing the work, do some of the work yourself, publish peer-reviewed papers where you apply the same principles, use the principles in a very practical facet of your job (determining populations or units of fish species that qualify for protection as endangered species, for example), and so on. Until you do that (and do similar for the geologists, linguists, and anthropologists that you argue with here), you won't "understand" our positions in the slightest. We've given you the public, press-release version. We've pointed you to the executive summaries (and I am willing to email you the Nature paper and any others you might like to see, assuming my institutional subscription covers them -- PM me with an email address). But you simply CANNOT hope to develop the painstakingly earned depth of knowledge in these fields that the people publishing them actually have. That's okay, since you claim not to want it. However, you should realize that, when you go to toe-to-toe with them within their fields in an effort to discredit them, you are way out of your league. (Picture a dogfight between a trained military pilot and a biologist who read the "executive summary" on jet aircraft.)

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,06:00    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29) 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. Yeah, Dave, that's what you said about the Theobald paper I sent you back in May. It's a 20,000 word paper with close to 200 references, and your response was, "it's weak." Could you find any holes in it? Did you even understand it? Doubtful. I'm still doubtful you even read it. So when you say you think JonF's scathing rebuttals of your limp-wristed attempts to debunk the entire field of radiometric dating are "weak," we give that comment all the credibility it deserves. And Dave, an EB entry could have been published yesterday and still be out of date, if it doesn't reflect current research on the topic. On fast-moving topics, e.g., genomics, EB entries are out of date before they even hit the printing press. That's why you don't reference EB articles if you want to be taken seriously by professionals practicing in the field. You come off as what you are: a dilettante.   Quote 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 .... Um, no. Fossils never provide an absolute date, as has been pointed out to you a dozen times. JonF is talking about the concordances between different radiometric methods, genius. What possible connection do fossils have  with that? When two entirely different radiometric techniques provide the same age for a given sample, where do fossils fit into that?   Quote Contrary to what Eric thinks, I do not think that you and Jon do not understand RM dating. Dave, you've got to knock off this lying:   Quote 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. So you were either lying when you typed this yesterday, or you're lying today. Which is it, Dave?   Quote But my initial study seems to indicate that it is a very good theory.  I have not found any holes yet. You mean, other than the hundreds of holes we've pointed out to you again and again and again, Dave? The questions and objections we've raised that have totally stymied you? -------------- 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

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,07:57    Time to up your dose AFD. Your magical reality must require truck loads. -------------- 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

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,08:55    I'd looked over AirHead's posts the last few days and thought about responding, but then decided not to -- the truth of the matter is that Stupid's ideas won't make a bit of difference except to those kids whose college entrances he manages to screw up, in which case, they'll resent him and his lies even more, which is fine with me. But I was amused enough by a couple of things to make a comment today. First: Dave's stupid claim about   Quote Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now. Except when no fossils at all are used, eh, AirHead? Like with lunar samples? Meteorites? Ancient prebiotic rocks? Thousands of dates don't rely on fossil calibration, hundreds of thousands. Little things like those that you haven't managed to come close to discrediting -- and instead just showed how truly stupid you are? Here's another wonderfully stupid claim from Stupid, perfectly illustrating how far from reality his "10,000-foot view" is:   Quote 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 problem with your claim is immense here, AirHead. In regard to your claim about all fossils, everywhere, and all strata, everywhere being part of the same deluge, you have been questioned and found wanting. Your "hypothesis" here doesn't even come close to dealing with the reality of strata and fossil data. Your claim is that it's ALL part of the same deluge, remember? Yet it's sorted...and like the question from the young person on page 2 on this section of your thread about HOW they got sorted....you can't explain it. Nor does the ICR...in fact, the "study" by the French "scientist" who has no degree (remember?) showed that even in the artificial setting he concocted, he couldn't get grains of 3 kinds to do what he needed them to do. Furthermore, you couldn't show how eolian layers got in the mix, AirHead...shown by those terrible little spider tracks in the Coconino sandstone that you still can't explain. Nor can you explain the limestone layers preferentially deposited in the midst of this raging flood...limestones that are over 95% pure. Nor can you explain ( and you haven't even tried explaining) the paleosols in the Grand Staircase ( and don't try to play even more stupid than you are and say you haven't been shown examples...yes you have, Jon cited a ton of them)...and on and on and on, dozens of questions that negate your claim that the mere existence of lots of layers and lots of fossils supports your view. It doesn't support your hypothesis..it supports the idea of deep time and a succession of fossils.   And speaking of those fossils, I see you're still claiming that layers in the Grand Staircase are not radiometrically dated, despite the fact that I gave you dozens of dates on the Morrison alone. Do you really think lying so blatantly helps you? You began your original thread on your "hypothesis that is better than any other" by lying...and you continue it still. Bravo! You can lie for months at a time. Great. Now how about dealing with all the questions asked you about your hypothesis? Oh, yeah, you can't answer those, so you just puke up more ICR and AIG nonsense ( despite being lied to BY THEM...BWAHAHA, there's a turnaround...liars lying to each other). So...how's about that Barringer meteor crater that is radiometrically dated at 49,000 years old and penetrated the layers of the Grand Canyon that you say are only 2300 years old? How about those civilizations that had writing and wrote continuously before and after your alleged flood? And they didn't DIE!!.Bwahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN. Questions are being asked...RUN!!!! -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,09:16    Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 27 2006,14:55) Quote 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," And get doctorates in biology while virtually never rejecting evolution. And get astrophysics PhD's while NOT understanding that all the light they're looking at aren't really from far off galaxies, but were miracled into place. And get MD's while NOT understanding that you can drink any poison and not be harmed as long as you believe in Jesus... Clearly, the dumbest people in the world are all the experts.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,09:20    Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 27 2006,08:39)  To truly understand my position on evolution, or even on molecular phylogenetics, you would have to sit in on more than a few university-level courses, read hundreds of textbooks, read literally thousands of papers, attend dozens of conferences, have a few beers and "back-of-the-envelope" sessions with dozens of prestigious scientists actually doing the work, do some of the work yourself, publish peer-reviewed papers where you apply the same principles, use the principles in a very practical facet of your job (determining populations or units of fish species that qualify for protection as endangered species, for example), and so on. Or, Dave, you could recognize that you don't begin to have the necessary intellectual toolkit to understand this sort of highly-technical information, forget about your methodologically-dubious attempts to do end-runs around the hard parts, and accept the fact that the guys who have spent their careers studying this stuff (and the other guys who review their work to make sure it represents solid science) know it way, way, way better than you ever have a prayer of knowing it, and take their word for it. When the entire scientific community (i.e., the relevant part of that community, not the engineers, the mathematicians, the astronomers, or the biblical scholars, for crying out loud) accepts that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas, maybe it's time for you to accept it as well. After all, guys who are way smarter than you are, e.g., Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Ed Witten, or Lisa Randall, accept the fact that they don't know nearly enough about primate evolution to critique the work of recognized experts in the field. What make you think you're qualified to do so? If you were really interested in evidence supporting the (HC)G) phylogeny, you'd actually study that evidence (and not rely on the non-specialist critiques on AiG). You'd delve into the actual original research, and in order to do that, you'd need to have a pretty good understanding of the underlying science, which you most emphatically do not have. Remember way back in May, on the very first day of this thread, when I admonished you about saying  you would "forgive scientists if they admit their errors and fix them"? You think you're going to find "errors" in Incorygible's, or JonF's, work, to say nothing of scientists of international reputation? This is exactly the kind of arrogance that drives people crazy around here, because God, Dave, no one I have ever seen in any Internet forum discussing science has less right than you do to be arrogant when it comes to science. You're still laboring under the misapprehension that science is easy, Dave, and reading a few websites like AiG and ICR (which are not intended for even a scientifically-literate audience, let alone an audience of scientists) is enough to get you up to speed on topics like radiometric dating, primate genetics, stratigraphy, astrophysics, etc. But science isn't easy. It's extremely hard. Just getting knowledgeable about one tiny little subspecialty (Lake Victoria cichlids, and you'll note that the first paragraph of that abstract contradicts your young-earth "hypothesis," which should once more give you an idea of what you're up against in trying to disprove and old earth) can take an entire career. But you have the monumental arrogance to think you can take in all of science in one big year-long gulp from the muddy puddle of creationist websites, and get anywhere disproving all of science. And you still can't come up with any actual support for your own hypothesis! -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,09:26    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,08:29) 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. So AFDave.  When you said something like this but only 15hours 12minutes before you said this...           Quote (afdave @ Sep. 26 2006,17:17) 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.  {my bolding in both blocks} what was your point?  Ad Hominums are easier than addressing the issues.  AND what does Eric have to do with this?  Those are totally your words and quotes?   Moving on.... I'll work with you on your request.  I'll try and summarize the following statement.  BUT first we have to agree upon the statement.  Do you agree to address the issues behind my summary of: 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. My summary will serve as my attempt to refute your claims of: Whole rock Isochrons result in only single points from a sample (argued by Arndts and Overn also). All whole rock Isochrons are better described as mixing lines. After my summary you can review and respond to my summary as you see fit.  But first.... Do you agree to the above statement? WARNING TO AFDAVE:  I am not indicating ages, time, or half-lives in my argument so any counter-arguments about time are not allowed.  I'm only trying to show the natural, physical processes for crystal formation as it relates to Rb/Sr testing and how these processes form the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron graph.  My only contention is that Rb87 atoms decay to Sr87 atoms following published nuclear physical processes over some unspecified time (OR you can think of this numerically, some quantity of Rb decays to Sr after crystal formation but the quantity has no relation to the time involved if you want to bend your mind this way).  I can elaborate on this warning more if you don't understand ALL the implications related to this warning. Mike PSS p.s. AFDave, remember you can accept ALL Isochron graphs right now.  Just admit your argument against the Isochron testing was wrong (you can even say MISTAKEN).  You can STILL argue about time scales while accepting that the METHOD of whole rock Isochron testing is valid (in other words the data and graphs are correct but those funky time stamps on the side are wrong).  I'll stop pummelling you with this boring crystal stuff if you move your arguments to half-lives and accellerated nuclear decay rates.  Don't say I didn't warn you though   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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,09:29    Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 27 2006,14:55) I'd looked over AirHead's posts the last few days and thought about responding, but then decided not to -- the truth of the matter is that Stupid's ideas won't make a bit of difference except to those kids whose college entrances he manages to screw up, in which case, they'll resent him and his lies even more, which is fine with me. But I was amused enough by a couple of things to make a comment today. First: Dave's stupid claim about   Quote Fossils are your guide for keeping or throwing away dates as we have seen quite clearly now. Except when no fossils at all are used, eh, AirHead? Like with lunar samples? Meteorites? Ancient prebiotic rocks? Thousands of dates don't rely on fossil calibration, hundreds of thousands. Little things like those that you haven't managed to come close to discrediting -- and instead just showed how truly stupid you are? Here's another wonderfully stupid claim from Stupid, perfectly illustrating how far from reality his "10,000-foot view" is:     Quote 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 problem with your claim is immense here, AirHead. In regard to your claim about all fossils, everywhere, and all strata, everywhere being part of the same deluge, you have been questioned and found wanting. Your "hypothesis" here doesn't even come close to dealing with the reality of strata and fossil data. Your claim is that it's ALL part of the same deluge, remember? Yet it's sorted...and like the question from the young person on page 2 on this section of your thread about HOW they got sorted....you can't explain it. Nor does the ICR...in fact, the "study" by the French "scientist" who has no degree (remember?) showed that even in the artificial setting he concocted, he couldn't get grains of 3 kinds to do what he needed them to do. Furthermore, you couldn't show how eolian layers got in the mix, AirHead...shown by those terrible little spider tracks in the Coconino sandstone that you still can't explain. Nor can you explain the limestone layers preferentially deposited in the midst of this raging flood...limestones that are over 95% pure. Nor can you explain ( and you haven't even tried explaining) the paleosols in the Grand Staircase ( and don't try to play even more stupid than you are and say you haven't been shown examples...yes you have, Jon cited a ton of them)...and on and on and on, dozens of questions that negate your claim that the mere existence of lots of layers and lots of fossils supports your view. It doesn't support your hypothesis..it supports the idea of deep time and a succession of fossils.   And speaking of those fossils, I see you're still claiming that layers in the Grand Staircase are not radiometrically dated, despite the fact that I gave you dozens of dates on the Morrison alone. Do you really think lying so blatantly helps you? You began your original thread on your "hypothesis that is better than any other" by lying...and you continue it still. Bravo! You can lie for months at a time. Great. Now how about dealing with all the questions asked you about your hypothesis? Oh, yeah, you can't answer those, so you just puke up more ICR and AIG nonsense ( despite being lied to BY THEM...BWAHAHA, there's a turnaround...liars lying to each other). So...how's about that Barringer meteor crater that is radiometrically dated at 49,000 years old and penetrated the layers of the Grand Canyon that you say are only 2300 years old? How about those civilizations that had writing and wrote continuously before and after your alleged flood? And they didn't DIE!!.Bwahahaha. RUN, Dave, RUN. Questions are being asked...RUN!!!! It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,10:08    Re "and yet NOT understand that "massive quantities of water-laid sedimentary rock got laid down by massive quantities of water,"" Wonder if the phrase "water cycle" would ring any bells here...

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,10:17    After a 4 month dry spell, AFDumdum has a new post up at his blog.   Quote Monday, September 25, 2006 THE BOOK OF GENESIS: EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM THE DAWN OF TIME Today I will do a book review of a book entitled "Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis." What this book does is show clearly that Genesis is "Eyewitness History" re-establishing the pre-JEDP view of the Book of Genesis. The book was written by Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman and edited and updated by his son, Professor of Assyriology Donald J. Wiseman. This material has been referred to by some Bible commentators including Henry Morris and R.K. Harrison, but I had never personally examined the book. I found a used copy (had to pay $85! and what a treat it has been. Absolutely fascinating book! 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/

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,10:30    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29) It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body. Which would be kind of sad entertainment, really, if said 6th-grader's headless corpse didn't then get up, time after time, and prance around the playground with his arms upheld in victory. At which point you feel compelled to grab another handful of popcorn. Hit 'im again, Mike! Or even knock his block off yourself a few times. He doesn't even realize it's gone, so it's easy to excuse as a victimless crime, despite the obviously shameful mismatch.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,11:47    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29) 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! No, Dave. By far the dumbest thing I've ever heard said here is that 5,000 (or 50,000, of 500,000) feet of water could have laid down 5,000 feet of sediment, to say nothing of 17,000 feet of sediment. You simply refuse to address this bone-simple problem that completely blows your "global catastrophic flood hypothesis" away. You simply don't have nearly enough water to accomplish what you need to accomplish. (In actual fact, you don't have any water, let alone enough water.) Do you think no one has noticed this glaring problem with your "hypothesis," Dave? So what's your answer (for easily the twentieth time)? How do account for the 5,000—15,000 feet of sediment, when you yourself have only proposed 5,000 feet of water? What's your explanation for this glaringly obvious discrepancy between your "hypothesis" and reality? And this is only one of many, many, many problems with just the "global catastrophic flood" part of your "hypothesis." The rest of the elements of your "UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis" are similarly at odds with observation. In other words, your whole "hypothesis" is bleeding not from a thousand cuts, but from a million sucking chest wounds, 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

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,11:56    Wow. I just checked out Dave's blog for the first time, and what a feeling of déja vu that precipitated. After looking at it, I can pretty much guarantee he will never, ever turn on comments. Can you imagine what would happen over there to his "Creator God Hypothesis" if he ever did? It would look just like this thread. I think it's a testament to Dave's believe in the strength of his own arguments that comments are disabled on his own blog. If he really thought he was obliterating our arguments left and right, why would he not want those same arguments on his own blog so he could show them to all his friends? So it really is just braggadoccio, Dave. You don't even believe you're winning any arguments here; you just pretend you do. [edit] I just noticed that in the picture of Dave's family on his blog, there are six individuals. Shouldn't there be seven? DAve + Wife + Five Kids = ? Or is this one of those "Portuguese" things? Or maybe someone just couldn't make it to the photo op? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,12:09    Unfortunately, Dave felt compelled to turn off comments (and erase those already there) after BWE said the poop word or something. But Dave, why did you erase all the existing comments, such as mine? -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,13:54    Quote (incorygible @ Sep. 27 2006,15:30) Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 27 2006,14:29) It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body. Which would be kind of sad entertainment, really, if said 6th-grader's headless corpse didn't then get up, time after time, and prance around the playground with his arms upheld in victory. At which point you feel compelled to grab another handful of popcorn. Hit 'im again, Mike! Or even knock his block off yourself a few times. He doesn't even realize it's gone, so it's easy to excuse as a victimless crime, despite the obviously shameful mismatch. A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,13:57    Quote A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves. Don't worry, it was a legally sanctioned fight. The sixth grader just has a bad promoter.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,14:13    Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 27 2006,18:54) A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves. What do you mean? Dave thinks he's winning! -------------- 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. 27 2006,15:19    Quote It's impressive watching you guys take down AFDave. It's kind of like watching Mike Tyson knock a 6th-grader's head completely off his body. Quote A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves. I feel great about it all   Considering that Dave had the temerity to call my ancestors "devolved," I'm glad to kick him in the huevos when I get the hankerin'. Steve is just making fun of my lisp, the bastard...Signed, Drederick "deadman" Tatum. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,16:29    AFDave got me thinking (note to self; check expiration date of my medication) and one of his primary arguments has one more hole {glaring inconsistency, logical gap, sucking chest wound, whatever}. One of his primary (there's that word again) arguments against RM dating is:       Quote If certain rocks are not qualified for RM dating, then how can we qualify ANY rock legitimately? JonF, deadman, ericmurphy and others have said quite clearly that proper sample selection for testing counters this argument.  Another counter used is how does AFDave explain the date ranges that DO result from the proper samples. But Dave's argument is ALSO against the METHOD of RM testing along with the results.  From his statement, he believes that ALL samples, no matter what their position or origin should give concordant results otherwise the technique of RM testing is somehow not worth anything.  I can hear AFDave saying right now; "Unless and until RM testing can atain this level of performance, I can't believe it." I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,17:49    Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29) I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. Which will be a great idea, once he actually starts presenting it. But Dave's whole premise that you can't trust any testing methodology unless it's 100% accurate is facially absurd. No testing methodology is 100% accurate, but that doesn't stop Dave from going to the doctor. If the doctor came to Dave and said to him, "I've got bad news: your test results come back, and it looks like there's a possibility you've got colorectal cancer" (no tasteless jokes, please), would Dave's response be, "I don't need any exploratory surgery, because your test isn't 100% accurate and therefore is worthless"? Doubtful. But Dave's issues with radiometric dating are psychological, not methodological. Dave is well aware of the fact that radiometric dating (among zillions of other things) is the death knell for his worldview, and therefore he simply cannot accept that it is accurate. Therefore, it's imperative that he try to find some way to discredit in his own eyes, which initially I thought he was able to do, but given that he does not allow comments on his own blog, I'm starting to think otherwise. I think Dave realizes he's been defeated here (don't worry, Dave; I'm not expecting you to admit it), but he can't ever stop fighting, which means he'll be our favorite Creationist piñata for some time to come. -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,17:52    Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. " You'll have to find it, first. Henry

Crabby Appleton Posts: 250 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2006,20:03    Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 27 2006,21:29) I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. AFDave is Luddite and doesn't like those RM machines. The only evidence DDTTD has presented here is that he's a liar and a willfully ignorant moron (as well as a coward). From his own blog; Quote I actually enjoy getting comments from people who DISAGREE with me. The stronger your disagreement and the more intelligent you sound, the better! He thinks he's being clever by making statements like this. His sole purpose here is to be (symbolically crucified) banned. He's too cowardly to die for what he believes (like the apostles supposedly did), he won't take a physical beating for what he believes. He won't even take an intellectual/psychological beating on HIS OWN BLOG! That's why comments are turned off on his blog and why I'm sure he hasn't shown any of his friends this website. Our Radical Diletantte Dave is merely tolerated by those in his life because he's a competent taxi driver.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,03:56    Quote Our Radical Diletantte Dave is merely tolerated by those in his life because he's a competent taxi driver. Yeah I'll bet that's the one time when he doesn't make people pray when they are in his company...just before take off. -------------- 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

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,04:27    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 27 2006,23:52) Re "I'm going to start holding AFDave's evidence to the same level of expectation. " You'll have to find it, first. Henry But in AFDave's mind, he has produced at least two pieces of evidence. 1) MASSIVE amounts of water-laid sediment. 2) A book. Everyone else on this board has ripped this evidence to shreds.  I'm just saying that if AFDave wants to present these (and other) items that he terms as evidence for his arguments that he hold it to the same standards he holds for RM dating. I'm purposefully avoiding any direct attacks on Dave's character.  I know this leads to (what I think are) boring posts, and I could cut loose any minute, but it doesn't serve MY purpose here.   His last bit of theater, accusing me of "pretending to know this stuff" caused me to walk away from the keyboard and think before I typed.  I don't want AFDave to have any "outs" in my present discussion about crystal formation and Isochrons.  The evidence is rock solid   and everyone knows that AFDave has only one option, to argue against the actual age results.  If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,04:37    Mike PSS Quote If anyone sees another "out" that I'm missing then bring it up now and I can patch my argument accordingly. For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory. You can lead an loony to a psychiatrist but you can't make him listen, as long as he holds his fingers in his ears and jumps up and down and screams lalalalalalalala. -------------- 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. 28 2006,05:48    Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37) For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory. …But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated. And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too. -------------- 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

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,06:17    ericmurphy said. Quote …But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated. I certainly don't want to discourage Mike PSS from further posts..,EXCEPT for AutisticFartDave the rest of the posts have been very enlightening. But to give AFD his due.... without him we wouldn't be treated to a full scale pathological cognitive dissonance of biblical proportions, he's like a huge fridge to which little magnetic snippets of real science have been attached, except the light doesn't go on when you open the door...we just get the dank smell of rotting jesus fish. NPD? we should donate this thread to the American Psychiatrists Association as an example and AFD you should respond in kind by donating your body to science, I'm truly interested to see if there is *ANYTHING* inside your skull. Now don't forget, in your will don't say “Donate my body to pseudoscience!” -------------- 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

Mike PSS Posts: 428 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,07:33    Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 28 2006,11:48)     Quote (k.e @ Sep. 28 2006,09:37) For AFD ignorance is bliss .....and no one has as much bliss as him..so he will ignore you...post a massive long pile of dog do doos to push your post off the page so he doesn't have to look at it, change the subject and claim victory. …But you should continue nevertheless, Mike. Dave won't learn anything (his worldview depends on his not learning anything) but the rest of us probably will, and personally, I'm fascinated. And, in truth, watching Dave try to wriggle around your evidence is fascinating, too. Wriggle around.   AFDave tried both barrels of a shotgun approach.  But thanks to stevestory's disarming reply that turned into a slapstick comedy moment.  Cue clown car and circus music. Ahhhhhh....   Good times....

Diogenes Posts: 80 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,08:42    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 27 2006,07:29) [massive snippage] 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! [snip] For me, this pretty much sums up the entire debate.  Dave is of the belief that the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, in Geology, Astronomy, Physics, and Biology, from different countries, different backgrounds, and different religions, all to a man are either liars or idiots.   Furthmore he is of the belief that a laymen armed with a Bible in one hand and the Encyclopedia Brittanica in the other can easily with a single picture, or a quick phrase destroy the founding principles of a branch of science, even when competing against experts in the individual fields who have dedicated their lives to understanding the field, and can do so for all the branches of science.  The fact that he often asks for help understanding a principle before he rhetorically rapes that principle is not a problem apparently. Everyone else that posts on this thread appears to disagree with Dave.  Given the rather large chasm between the view of reality between the two parties, I'd guess the odds are against either changing the mind of the other. -------------- :)

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2006,08:50    Quote (Diogenes @ Sep. 28 2006,13:42) Given the rather large chasm between the view of reality between the two parties, I'd guess the odds are against either changing the mind of the other. 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! -------------- 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

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

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard