Joined: April 2006
MORE WILD SPECULATION ABOUT MANY THINGS AND STILL NOTHING CONVINCING ON ISOCHRONS
Mike PSS ... I have not claimed much of anything about mineral isochrons yet, other than the quotes from EB that show how "selective" one must be to get concordance. Neither I nor Arndts nor Overn have claimed that whole rock isochrons only form a single point. We have only claimed that you (Deep Timers) cannot show that they are not merely mixing lines. Combine this fact with the fact that discordances are the rule not the exception, and what do you have? Well, you have ...
a) radioactive decay has indeed occurred
b) it is not a reliable indicator of true age
Now if you would like to show me how this is false and explain to me why mineral isochrons are the "magic bullet" that really show a true age for the earth, fine. Be my guest.
I see someone was surprised that I said that if you have to be selective to get "datable" rocks, then this throws ALL rocks into question. The reason for this is simple. What is the criteria for "correct" dates? I have said it is fossils which is actually not specific enough. It is actually Fossils plus the whole Fairy Tale of Evolution. This answers Deadman's objection. It appears to me that Deep Timers "need" the earth to be billions of years old, thus rocks are "dated" by keeping dates which fit in with the Grand Evo Fairy Tale. If the rocks have fossils, all the better because "dates" can be selected more easily.
I also see that Deadman is continuing in his fallacious thinking that me not answering all his questions somehow means that I am "losing." This is interesting and betrays Deadman's misperceptions about my goals (he thinks I am trying to "win"), and he thinks "winning" is gauged by how many of the opposition's questions one can answer. What he may never understand is that I am on a Truth Search regarding Origins and Human Nature. And it is a fascinating search.
Every once in a while you all give me a glimpse into your minds and how you determine truth for yourselves. I get these opportunities every time you speculate about some aspect of my life. It is interesting because I know the truth about my own life far better than Origins issues, so it is quite obvious and funny when I see some of you making some wild speculation about some aspect of my life. I've had people think I claimed to be a fighter pilot, had people say I washed out of pilot training in the Air Force, people that said I couldn't make rank, and got helicopters forced on me because I couldn't fly anything else and on and on. I had Deadman speculating that my dad never contacted the Wai-wai Indians in Brazil and that I am getting rich off of Kids4Truth.
The latest fun has been Steve Story speculating about my blog site ...
Actually, my family gets a kick out of reading this thread (ATBC) sometimes ... they (and many of my friends) have had access to it since the beginning. As for comments on my blog, it's too much work right now. I'm spending my forum time here. But your comment provides an interesting parallel to the Evolutionist Approach to Truth. What you WANT to believe seriously clouds your thinking and causes you to arrive at erroneous conclusions.
|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/ |
Another good one is Eric counting my family members ... he has heard me say there are seven people in my family, but he only counts 6 in my family picture. Hmmmm ... he says, "a Portuguese moment for poor Dave?" (betraying that he still thinks I was wrong about Portuguese) I'll leave this one hanging and see if there are any rocket scientists here who can figure this one out.
I also find it funny that some people think I need to get advanced degrees in 10 different areas to be able to refute Evolution. And of course, there is the persistent notion that since "95% of the scientists in the world believe something, it must be true." (**cough cough** forget about Galileo and Copernicus) And one final zinger is the erroneous notion that Evolution supports the real world of business, but Creationism does not.
I see that Aftershave finally got slapped down for his foul mouth (er ... keyboard) ... I remember admonishing him and others in this regard months ago. I said that all he was really accomplishing was making Evos look bad. Steve Story apparently agrees now. I guess I should have kept my mouth shut since it is to the advantage of my cause for Evos to look bad. But I do feel sorry for the underdog and I can't help but wish for him to have a sporting chance. Seriously, my true goal for ALL is that you would come to the knowledge of the truth. I have no interest in "winning" a personal war. I only want others to benefit from the knowledge of the Truth in their lives as I have benefitted. I do realize that the odds of hardened skeptics coming to a knowledge of the truth are slim, which is why I take my message to kids, but nevertheless, you all will never forget what you have learned here, whether you accept it now or not.
No time right now to give you any more info on RM Dating. If anyone wants to try to convince me why Mineral Isochrons prove Deep Time, I'm all ears. Hopefully, I will have time next week to dive into this topic a little more.
I will also be taking "The Best of ATBC" over to my blog site over the next few months. I will let you know when new articles appear there.
No disagreement here. I just don't think it proves Deep Time. As for my claims, you got one of them very close to right, but the other is wrong. Now ... convince me of something if you can.
|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.|
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.