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... > AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis

Pages: (202) < ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 ... >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,17:53    Quote Suddenly a physicist from the stands interjects. "No, if you chart what happened on a Minkowski graph of spacetime, you'll see there's no reference frame in which you could even tie, given how long you're taking to cross the finish line. So no observer could have you even tying JonF, you totally lost, for an observer anywhere in the universe." "No, clearly you just WANT to have won. You're blinded by what you want to believe."       Quote My guess is that there was a 'monkey kind' and an 'ape kind' aboard the ark, and yes, 4500 years is plenty of time for all the varieties we see today to have come about. Good lord, AFD is a Young Earth Creationist who believes that evolution happens anyway? If there was a single 'ape kind' on the ark, that means that this 'kind' in a mere 4,500 (or whatever) years evolved into Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Gibbons? That that this monkey 'kind' in a mere 4.5K years evolved into all 264 known species of monkeys? This basically means that since Noah's ark landed, a new species of monkey has developed an average of every 17.1 years. Yow. Is it still happening now? And yet:       Quote At the same time, Dave doesn't believe that three billion years is enough time to get from a bacterium to a jellyfish. My god, cognitive dissonance like that cannot be pleasant... -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,18:56    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 16 2006,22:53) Good lord, AFD is a Young Earth Creationist who believes that evolution happens anyway? If there was a single 'ape kind' on the ark, that means that this 'kind' in a mere 4,500 (or whatever) years evolved into Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans, and Gibbons? And that this monkey 'kind' in a mere 4.5K years evolved into all 264 known species of monkeys? Thanks for looking up the numbers, Arden. I usually can't be bothered to do actual research to refute Dave's increasingly desperate claims. First, it's hardly necessary, and second, I figure if I'm in the right ballpark, that's good enough for Dave, since, "I mean, isn't it obvious?" seems to be good enough for him. Quote This basically means that since Noah's ark landed, a new species of monkey has developed an average of every 17.1 years. Yow. Is it still happening now? At this rate, we'll be neck-deep in monkeys in another century… -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,19:41    AFDave finally gets around to discussing radiocarbon dating.           Quote AFDave: I know that.  I'm not using it do date anything >50,000 years.  I'm using it to date something which I suspect is less than 10,000 years old. Great!  Then you'll have no more lame excuses for ignoring the C14/C12 calibration data. First, please provide a reference for this claim you made or admit it was wrong           Quote AFDave: but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.   Even a bogus claim of 100x the biomass does not equate to 100x more C12 in the atmosphere.  Provide your evidence for this or retract. Second, please stop ignoring this critical question: You claim that radiocarbon dating is faulty based on incorrect assumptions about decay rates and C12 concentrations. You have been shown several times now how dates from C14/C12 decay rates are precisely calibrated by at least six different, completely independent methods (denrochronology, ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, speleothems, coral samples) and are accurate to within a few percent for dates back to 60,000 YBP.  You were provided the actual data, including the calibration curves themselves that all overlap almost exactly.   Those data sets and many others  - over 40 total - are available from CalPal, the University of Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package: CALIBRATION DATA SETS http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalCurveBuildFiles.htm Please don't waste our time by C&Ping some ICR or AIG argument as to why each individual calibration curve method is wrong.  I'm asking again for your explanation as to why the independent curves all agree with one another.  If you see six independent sets of data that you say are all screwed up, then how do you explain that all six are screwed up but screwed up in precisely the same way as to give precisely matching results over the whole date range? To the board and the lurkers:  Sorry for the repeat postings but AFDave has a bad habit of ignoring all tough questions that his C&P sources don't address.  I just want all the readers, especially the Christian lurkers, to see how a YEC like AFDave responds (or fails to respond actually) when he is forced to think for himself. Remember Dave, every non-answer by you is a win for evolution and a loss for AFDave. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,20:07    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 17 2006,00:41) To the board and the lurkers:  Sorry for the repeat postings but AFDave has a bad habit of ignoring all tough questions that his C&P sources don't address.  I just want all the readers, especially the Christian lurkers, to see how a YEC like AFDave responds (or fails to respond actually) when he is forced to think for himself. Remember Dave, every non-answer by you is a win for evolution and a loss for AFDave. And this is why we say AF Dave has lost every single argument he's had on this board. Because he has failed to answer every single substantive rebuttal of every point he's ever tried to make. He's failed to respond to rebuttals of his Portuguese argument, he's failed to respond to rebuttals to his "in the beginning was the (written) word" argument, he's failed to respond to rebuttals to his "zircons have way too much helium to be more than a few thousand years old" argument; he's failed to respond to rebuttals of his "GULO gene doesn't mean anything argument." Christ, it took him three days to respond to my stupid "airplanes and helicopters" argument. In Dave's universe, points that contradict his points simply don't exist. He doesn't hear them. How many times has it been pointed out to him that the evidence for an old earth is derived from multiple, independent, mutually-reinforcing lines of inquiry? What he responded with? A few microscopic grains of zircon, a few crumbs of coal, some wild-ass speculations about a global flood for which he hasn't provided a particle of evidence, some completely unsupported claims that radioactive decay rates were high enough in the past to melt the planet, and some complete craziness about how 4,500 years is plenty of time for a "founder" species of monkey to radiate into hundreds of species of monkeys today. If this track record doesn't persuade the lurkers of Dave's utter ignorance when it comes to any branch of science at all, I don't know what will. -------------- 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

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 16 2006,20:52    Quote he believes in super-macro-humungo-evolution at blindingly-fast speed. Duuuuuhhhh! It's called extreme mutation. X-Men UNITE! Hey, I read all about it in this peer-reviewed comic book I was perusing the other day. I won't go into the details though, it's all too sciency for you guys. Quote My god, cognitive dissonance like that cannot be pleasant... I rather think it's gone way beyond that.  the dissonance has caused permanent brain damage, AFAICT. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,02:14    Eric... Quote So—Dave thinks 4,500 years is "plenty of time" for one species of proto-monkey and one species of proto-ape to have radiated into the dozens of species of apes and hundreds of species of monkeys (New World and Old World, I wonder?) we have today. In other words, Dave doesn't just believe in macro-evolution; he believes in super-macro-humungo-evolution at blindingly-fast speed. I wonder if Dave is surprised that we don't find a new species of monkey every couple of years, and a new species of ape every couple of decades. At the same time, Dave doesn't believe that three billion years is enough time to get from a bacterium to a jellyfish. Hmm… Do you guys really not understand this?  That is astounding.  Is no one familiar with dog breeders?  Or horse breeeders?  Do you not understand what a short time it takes to get radically different looking dogs and horses?  This is not evolution, friend.  It's artificial selection and it's quite similar to natural selection and works very quickly--the only difference is with artificial selection there is a breeder making the selection.  But you could give a breeder a billion years and he could not breed a jellyfish from a bacterium.  Or a human from an ape.  Or a bird from a dinosaur.  Sorry! -------------- 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

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,02:28    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,07:14)  But you could give a breeder a billion years and he could not breed a jellyfish from a bacterium.  Or a human from an ape.  Or a bird from a dinosaur.  Sorry! Let's see your evidence and/or calculations. You ain't got any. Your inability to comprehend reality is not evidence.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,02:38    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,07:14) Do you guys really not understand this?  That is astounding.  Is no one familiar with dog breeders?  Or horse breeeders?  Do you not understand what a short time it takes to get radically different looking dogs and horses?   Well, as a horse owner, I understand quite well.  There is one problem, dude.  A breed is not the same thing as a species.  The four year old AWS registered Percheron-Arab cross out in my pasture is Equus caballus.  Just like her sire and just like her dam.  Funny thing, the race-bred quarter horse, paint horse, and Section A Welsh out grazing with her are a pretty diverse looking lot, but are all Equus caballus too. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,04:42    Just for the record AFDave; the only reason you are doing this is to brainwash your children. A crime against humanity if ever there was one. Remember there is no greater God than God.......Allah Akbar!!! Die Crusader Fundy Scum!! -------------- 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: June 17 2006,05:22    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,07:14) Do you guys really not understand this?  That is astounding.  Is no one familiar with dog breeders?  Or horse breeeders?  Do you not understand what a short time it takes to get radically different looking dogs and horses?  This is not evolution, friend.  It's artificial selection and it's quite similar to natural selection and works very quickly--the only difference is with artificial selection there is a breeder making the selection.  But you could give a breeder a billion years and he could not breed a jellyfish from a bacterium.  Or a human from an ape.  Or a bird from a dinosaur.  Sorry! Dave, Dogs are all the same species. Are baboons the same species as macaques? Are Chimps the same species as orangutans? If there's anyone here who doesn't know what they're talking about, it's you. Are you saying getting from some "founder kind" kind of monkey to both baboons and macaques is the same as getting from some "founder kind" of dog to both chihuahuas and mastiffs? It's simply amazing how you can continue to churn out the same dreck that ignorant yahoo creationists have been spouting for 150 years. It's like creationists are simply incapable of learning from errors. By the way, Dave. I probably shouldn't assume this: do you really understand the difference between 4,500 years and 3 billion years? Is your brain capable of understanding the enormous gulf of time between the two? Don't just reflexively say "of course I do!" because you clearly don't. Really think about it. Spend an hour or two reflecting on how long a billion years really is. -------------- 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: June 17 2006,05:23    Eric... Quote He (or, more accurately, the sources he C&Ps from) take a technique, apply it in a situation where it is known not to work (like using radiocarbon to date 250-million-year-old coal deposits), Interesting, isn't it, Eric, why C14 dating "doesn't work" on coal or diamonds.  There is no reason why it should not.  There's plenty of measurable C14 there, 10X and 5X the AMS threshhold.  Enough to get the AMS labs scratching their heads going "Where in the world did that come from?  It shouldn't be there! Maybe our instruments are messed up!  Maybe we have contamination!  Ohmigod!  What do we do!  The Creos are going to jump all over this!" Jonny-wonny... Quote I already explicitly answered your question, Davie-poo.  Go back and read my posts for comprehension. No you didn't.  You dodged it.  You have not answered my question of 'On what basis do you reject C14 dating of coal and diamonds, but you accept it for dating wooden artifacts and cave paintings?'  An answer of 'Well, everyone knows you can't date coal and diamonds with C14' won't do. Quote Thinkk "cross-checking" and what level of contamination is required to change the calcluated date of a sample of, say, 30K years age.  Remember exponentials, Davie-wavey? I think you are trying to say it doesn't take much.  But I think you are mistaken.  Takes quite a bit, there Johnny-wonny. Going from 50k to 20k is .24% to almost 9%.  Here's the formula for you, Jonny-wonny.  It's logarithms, not exponentials, Jonny-wonny.  Remember logarithms?  A = [ ln (pMC) / (-0.693) ] x 5730  Your MIT arrogance is blinding you and now you are confusing logarithms with exponentials. Eric... Quote But you're not dating anything that's less than 10,000 years old, Dave. You still haven't grasped the fundamental point here: radiometric dates correlate extremely well with figures derived from multiple other independent methods. Your phony radiometric dates don't correlate with anything else, other than your desire to have a young earth. Your "suspicions" are, quite simply, wrong. Yes I am dating something less than 10,000 years old.  And my C14 dates correlate extremely well with many other lines of evidence, 14 of them listed right here.   http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp We have yet to go over these in detail, but we will go over many of them. Also, just consider the very few things I have shown you ... * You have NO explanation for how civilization appeared so abruptly just 6000 years ago, 194,000 years after H. Sapiens was living on earth.  I do. * You have no believeable explanation for why there is so much Helium retained in zircons.  I showed you the Fenton Hill zircons, and you said, 'Yeah, well that's not enough data.'  OK.  So I showed you the Gold Butte zircons.  And you had no answer. * There is a revival of the U/Th/4He geochronometer taking place as we speak. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec102004/1519.pdf Of course they are not looking for a 6000 year old earth, but no doubt we will obtain much more data on high helium retentive zircons over the next few years.  The RATE Group themselves will be doing other zircon tests as well. * You have no explanation for why there is so much C14 in coal and diamonds.  These should be C14 'dead' according to mainstream science.  JonF's assertion of contamination is bogus because then you would have to throw out the whole method for wood artifacts, cave paintings, etc. StephenWells... Quote It's hilarious that he brings up this paper as if it supports him, when in fact the entire methodology of the paper completely trashes what Humphreys did with his zircons. You're missing the point of bringing up the article as usual.  The point is that there are probably MANY HRZ's out there.  Of course, conventional geologists are not going to be testing them the same way Humphreys did because they are looking for different things. Carlson... Quote Well, as a horse owner, I understand quite well.  There is one problem, dude.  A breed is not the same thing as a species.  The four year old AWS registered Percheron-Arab cross out in my pasture is Equus caballus.  Just like her sire and just like her dam.  Funny thing, the race-bred quarter horse, paint horse, and Section A Welsh out grazing with her are a pretty diverse looking lot, but are all Equus caballus too. Yes.  And the apes are a pretty diverse looking lot as well and anyone that knows anything about breeding should know that it doesn't take long to get a lot of very different looking apes. My head just spins at some of the blindness on this thread! -------------- 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

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,05:31    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,07:14) Is no one familiar with dog breeders?  Or horse breeeders?  Do you not understand what a short time it takes to get radically different looking dogs and horses? Looks aren't everything. Dog breeding is shallow and forced. The traits breeders have selected for were much narrower than nature selects for. Many pure breed dogs have all the symptoms of inbred human families with lots of genetic diseases. Dog breeders haven't really created a new species, not quite. In fact, dogs and wolves can still be bred together to create a hybrid. http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v5n4/5n4wille.htm http://www.apetsblog.com/dogbreedinformation/wolf-dog-hybrid.htm Dog breeding is now improving because of what we've learned about genetics and evolution. The genetic variability in monkeys is much wider. They can't all breed together and create hybrids. The genetic differences between wild canines is greater than that of dogs.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,05:32    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,10:23) Eric...     Quote He (or, more accurately, the sources he C&Ps from) take a technique, apply it in a situation where it is known not to work (like using radiocarbon to date 250-million-year-old coal deposits), Interesting, isn't it, Eric, why C14 dating "doesn't work" on coal or diamonds.  There is no reason why it should not.  There's plenty of measurable C14 there, 10X and 5X the AMS threshhold.  Enough to get the AMS labs scratching their heads going "Where in the world did that come from?  It shouldn't be there! Maybe our instruments are messed up!  Maybe we have contamination!  Ohmigod!  What do we do!  The Creos are going to jump all over this!" Dave, your ignorance and inability to reason evidently knows no bounds. "No reason why it should not?" Are you smoking crack? We've already told you, multiple times, why it doesn't work. There's not enough C14 left after 10 half-lives to stand out from background contamination! How much clearer can you get? As an electrical engineer, do you understand what signal-to-noise ratios are? It's simply amazing how repeating the same things to you over and over and over again has no discernible effect. You're really starting to remind me of Thordaddy. JonF, an expert in this area, has already gotten to the finish line, and you're not even out of second gear yet. -------------- 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

Bing Posts: 144 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,05:36    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,10:23) And the apes are a pretty diverse looking lot as well and anyone that knows anything about breeding should know that it doesn't take long to get a lot of very different looking apes. My head just spins at some of the blindness on this thread! Not just different looking but really different.  As in they cannot breed with each other and produce fertile offspring.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,05:37    Well, since as predicted AFDave is doing his best tap dance to avoid his embarrassment over facing the C14/C12 calibration evidence, I'll ask another question       Quote AFDave: Do you guys really not understand this?  That is astounding.  Is no one familiar with dog breeders?  Or horse breeeders?  Do you not understand what a short time it takes to get radically different looking dogs and horses?   Which of these two are more close to each other, and why? 1. Red Mazda Miata convertible 2. Red BMW Z3 3.0i convertible 3. Blue BMW 330i sedan? By AFDave's logic, if must be 1 and 2 because hey, they superficially look alike, right? Never mind that 2 and 3 share the same engine, drive train components, suspension design, electronics, cabin styling, etc.  Those are all internal similarities, but that evidence doesn't count. Did I get your reasoning correct on that one Dave? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,05:49    After seeing ericmurphy's astute comment to AFDave   Quote Dave, your ignorance and inability to reason evidently knows no bounds. "No reason why it should not?" Are you smoking crack? We've already told you, multiple times, why it doesn't work. There's not enough C14 left after 10 half-lives to stand out from background contamination! How much clearer can you get? As an electrical engineer, do you understand what signal-to-noise ratios are? I will add: Dave, you claim to be an EE with background in telecommunications, right? What do you see when you try to measure a -80dBm signal on a spectrum analyzer that has a noise floor of -70dBm? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,06:00    Quote Yes.  And the apes are a pretty diverse looking lot as well and anyone that knows anything about breeding should know that it doesn't take long to get a lot of very different looking apes. (Who 'breeds apes'? ? ?) Dave, your refusal to admit you don't know what you're talking about is pathological. The 264 species of moneys are DIFFERENT SPECIES. That means they have significant genetic differences and CAN'T INTERBREED. The different breeds of dogs are just varieties that all look different. They're all the same species. They can all breed no problem. Their genetic differences are negligible. Differences of the former kind take FAR LONGER to develop. What is more, the different breeds of dog were developed under direct human pressure, not by natural selection. Do you REALLY not understand the difference between dog breeds and species of monkeys? Stupidity is not a Christian virtue, Dave. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,06:22    Eric... Quote By the way, Dave. I probably shouldn't assume this: do you really understand the difference between 4,500 years and 3 billion years? Yes.  And 3 billion years is not anywhere near enough to make a jellyfish from a bacteria (your example).  3 billion X 3 billion X 3 billion isn't enough.  New information simply does not arise by chance, Eric. Eric... Quote There's not enough C14 left after 10 half-lives to stand out from background contamination! How much clearer can you get? As an electrical engineer, do you understand what signal-to-noise ratios are? And you keep closing your eyes to the fact that there is MUCH more C14 in coal over and above the 'background C14' ... there is 0.24 pMC Eric.  The 'background C14' is 0.077 pMC.  Let me do the math for you Eric, since you and Aftershave are trying to say I don't know anything about SNR's.   Look ... 0.24 - 0.08 = 0.16.  That's DOUBLE the supposed 'background C14'. And it's not like we are pulling this stuff out of thin air.  The LAB, Eric, the LAB (you know, those non-YEC, conventional labs?) analyzed this coal and everyone knows you can date things up to 60,000 years old with C14.   Well guess what.  The coal comes out to 50,000 using YOUR assumptions of C14 concentration. Forget for now the difference between this 50,000 year date and my 6000 year old hypothesis.  That is a separate issue, which I will explain to you later. How do you not see that this 50,000 year result is a really big problem for your scenario that this coal is supposedly 50-350 million years old? Are you so blind as to see this?  Does this not for a second give you pause about all those supposedly reliable radiometric dating methods? JonF apparently is the only one on this whole thread that recognizes that the carbon is really there in the quantities we say it is in. And the only explanation he has is "contamination." The problem is that if you go with contamination, you have to throw the whole dating method in the trash, because ANY sample could have contamination.  You cannot have it both ways. ******************************** It's interesting to me to note how desperate some of you are becoming ... Here's k.e ... He is frustrated that I am making sense and he really wants those precious lurkers to not get 'tricked by my nonsense' and he has nothing scientific to say himself so he says ... Quote Just for the record AFDave; the only reason you are doing this is to brainwash your children.  A crime against humanity if ever there was one. Remember there is no greater God than God.......Allah Akbar!!! Die Crusader Fundy Scum!! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,06:36    Quote Do you REALLY not understand the difference between dog breeds and species of monkeys? Of course I do.  And the reason you do not see ape breeding is because there is no commercial market for it like there is for dogs and cats and horses, etc.  My hypothesis says that the 'ape breeding' already occurred within the last 4500 years.  And the various species are now relatively fixed.  Can I prove this scenario?  I don't know yet.  I have not gotten into this very deeply.  I'm into C14 right now.  We shall see.  I rather doubt I can.  But what I can do is argue that my hypothesis is entirely plausible from what we know of species that we DO have experience breeding. -------------- 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

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,06:43    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,11:36)   Quote Do you REALLY not understand the difference between dog breeds and species of monkeys? Of course I do.  And the reason you do not see ape breeding is because there is no commercial market for it like there is for dogs and cats and horses, etc.  My hypothesis says that the 'ape breeding' already occurred within the last 4500 years.  And the various species are now relatively fixed.  Can I prove this scenario?  I don't know yet.  I have not gotten into this very deeply.  I'm into C14 right now.  We shall see.  I rather doubt I can.  But what I can do is argue that my hypothesis is entirely plausible from what we know of species that we DO have experience breeding. You're avoiding the main question, big surprise. Answer me this: you really believe that evolution operates so fast that a NEW SPECIES of monkey, so genetically different from others that it cannot interbreed with them, appears on average every 17 years? Gosh. Nothing I've ever read on monkeys or primates has ever mentioned this. Yet another one of those amazing factoids that ONLY AFDAVE KNOWS. (And yet a bacteria cannot become a jellyfish in 3 billion + years.) Quote But what I can do is argue that my hypothesis is entirely plausible from what we know of species that we DO have experience breeding. Wrong, pinhead. No 'breeding' that anyone has ever done has ever resulted in different species. Just to recheck, you DO know the difference between species, and breeds, right? Right?   Quote  My hypothesis says that the 'ape breeding' already occurred within the last 4500 years. Oh really? Who bred them? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,06:45    Quote Forget for now the difference between this 50,000 year date and my 6000 year old hypothesis.  That is a separate issue, which I will explain to you later. How do you not see that this 50,000 year result is a really big problem for your scenario that this coal is supposedly 50-350 million years old? This is your hypothesis thread, afdave. Don't worry about our "problems" with carbon dating. Get to your problem of 50,000 year old coal.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,06:46    AFDave, please explain for the Christian lurkers how your YEC 'theory' accounts for all the many different, independent C14/C12 calibration curves that precisely overlap with one another. http://www.calpal.de/calpal/manual/CalCurveBuildFiles.htm Your continued evasion of this critical piece of evidence says as much about your intellectual honesty as it does about the emptiness of your claims.  A good Christain would not continually avoid facing the evidence, ALL the evidence. Every non-answer = loss for AFDave, win for evolution -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,06:50    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,10:23) [qquote]Interesting, isn't it, Eric, why C14 dating "doesn't work" on coal or diamonds.  There is no reason why it should not. Yes, Davie-wavie, there is a reason why it should not.  It's the same reason C14 dating doesn't work on marine organisms; the C14 in the samples is not derived from the atmosphere or a source in equilibrium with the atmosphere when the sample formed.     Quote There's plenty of measurable C14 there, 10X and 5X the AMS threshhold. A necessary but not sufficient condition.   Quote   Quote I already explicitly answered your question, Davie-poo.  Go back and read my posts for comprehension. No you didn't.  You dodged it.  You have not answered my question of 'On what basis do you reject C14 dating of coal and diamonds, but you accept it for dating wooden artifacts and cave paintings?'  An answer of 'Well, everyone knows you can't date coal and diamonds with C14' won't do. I never provided an answer anywhere near "everyone knows you can't date coal and diamonds with C14", and I did answer your question, but I suppose you're just too stupid to see what's in front of your face. There are several sources of C14.  When we have good reason to believe that the overwhelmingly major source of C14 in a sample is the atmosphere at the time the sample was formed, that sample can be dated by the C14 method.  If dating by the C14 method agrees with other methods, so much the better. A same that has far too much C14 for it to be the result of in-situ formation due to radiation (there'd have to be enough radiation around to make us all sick), that on inspection shows to have been well-protected against groundwater-borne contamination, is valid.  A sample that has very little C14 and is not likely to have derived that C14 from the atmosphere is not valid.     Quote     Quote Think "cross-checking" and what level of contamination is required to change the calculated date of a sample of, say, 30K years age.  Remember exponentials, Davie-wavey? I think you are trying to say it doesn't take much. Nope, wrong again.  It takes a lot.  Lots and lots more than we find in the coal and diamonds. You can't even understand your own numbers. And you forgot to think about cross-correlations.  Corals, tree-rings, ice-cores, varves (me hearties! ), ... all demonstrate the validity of the method.     Quote But I think you are mistaken.  Takes quite a bit, there Johnny-wonny. Going from 50k to 20k is .24% to almost 9%.  Here's the formula for you, Jonny-wonny.  It's logarithms, not exponentials, Jonny-wonny.  Remember logarithms?  A = [ ln (pMC) / (-0.693) ] x 5730  Your MIT arrogance is blinding you and now you are confusing logarithms with exponentials. Logarithms and exponentials are two sides of the same coin, Davie-poo.  I know the numbers, and I know that 9% is 37 times larger than 0.24%.  Your own numbers are telling you that the amount of contamination that makes a contaminated diamond appear to be 50K years old is totally insignificant if it appears in an organic sample that was in equilibrium with the atmosphere 20K years ago; therefore the contamination won't affect the result significantly and dating the 20K year old sample gives the corect result. That's the power of exponentials and the reason why minuscule amounts of C14 in coal and diamonds is not a problem for the entire field of C14 dating.   Quote And my C14 dates correlate extremely well with many other lines of evidence, 14 of them listed right here. The only C14 dates you have presented are on the order of 60K years, which is far more than 10,000 years and does not correalte at all with the fantasies at AIG.    Quote * You have no explanation for why there is so much C14 in coal and diamonds.  These should be C14 'dead' according to mainstream science.  JonF's assertion of contamination is bogus because then you would have to throw out the whole method for wood artifacts, cave paintings, etc. Wrong as usual, Davie-poo. The contamination is significant only for items that "date" to 50-60K years, and even then it's not always significant.  Because of the power of exponentials, younger dates are not affected.   Quote My head just spins at some of the blindness on this thread! Well, try opening your eyes to reality.  Nobody here but you is blind.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,06:54    Quote A necessary but not sufficient condition. From long hard experience here, I can assure you AFD does not understand that phrase. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,07:05    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,11:22) Eric...     Quote By the way, Dave. I probably shouldn't assume this: do you really understand the difference between 4,500 years and 3 billion years? Yes.  And 3 billion years is not anywhere near enough to make a jellyfish from a bacteria (your example).  3 billion X 3 billion X 3 billion isn't enough.  New information simply does not arise by chance, Eric. A common, and long-dubunked, loon claim. Quote Eric...     Quote There's not enough C14 left after 10 half-lives to stand out from background contamination! How much clearer can you get? As an electrical engineer, do you understand what signal-to-noise ratios are? And you keep closing your eyes to the fact that there is MUCH more C14 in coal over and above the 'background C14' ... there is 0.24 pMC Eric.  The 'background C14' is 0.077 pMC. You guys are talking about different meanings of "background", and Eric's is the more relevant meaning. The 0.077 pMC is the portion of the background noise that is due to inherent limitations in the lab's measuring equipment.  Eric's speaking of the total background noise relative to the signal (which signal is the atmospherically-derived C14 if there is any).  The 0.077 pMC is only a part of the overall background noise, which is due to equipment limitations, possibly groundwater contamination, possibly in-situ formation, possibly something else. Quote Well guess what.  The coal comes out to 50,000 using YOUR assumptions of C14 concentration. Nope.  You need your assumption that the C14 is derived from the atmosphere.  Using our "assumptions", the age comes out to be un-measurable. Quote The problem is that if you go with contamination, you have to throw the whole dating method in the trash, because ANY sample could have contamination.  You cannot have it both ways. Yup, any sample could have contamination; that's why we cross-check and look for possible contamiantion sources. The correlations with other methods and observations wouldn't come out as they do if we're just measuring contamination.  And, due to the power of exponentials, there's no way to get enough contamination into samples 30K years old and younger to mess up the results.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,07:06    "Look at this amount of genetic difference. Scientists say it happened in a few million years." "No way, not enough time." "Not enough time for chimps and apes to split?" "Chimps and apes? Oh, I thought you were referring to humans and chimps. Well, in that case, that amount of genetic difference could have happened in 4,500 years."

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,07:14    I wonder, is a new species of monkey evolving every 17 years an example of microevolution or macroevolution? Actually, I think it'd require a new category, megaevolution. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,07:17    AF Dave Precious ......my precious. One ring for all ..eh Dave Tolkien bored my knickers off ........Catholic apologetics reached its high point with Evelyn Waugh in my opinion. Someone  finish this .....please! Otherwise I will be forced to medievil taunts ....and it will not be pretty. -------------- 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

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,07:42    JonF... Quote Nope.  You need your assumption that the C14 is derived from the atmosphere.  Using our "assumptions", the age comes out to be un-measurable. This one is going to be very easy, JonF.  I think it is almost time for us to move on to evidence for a Global Flood.  Because it has now become quite clear that the massive coal beds of the world were formed catastrophically in the Flood, not over millions of years as you claim. When one understands this, it is quite easy to see how the organic material which formed coal was in contact with the pre-Flood atmosphere, hence the detectable C14. I am glad of one thing with the C14 discussion.  You (not others, but you) came at me with really the only shred of wood that can possibly keep your long age scenario afloat -- contamination.  So thankfully I didn't have to spend a great deal of time explaining the basics to everyone else. I'm tempted to insert a discussion about the text of the book of Genesis in here just before the Flood discussion.  It is obvious that no one here has an appreciation of the archaeologically proven fact that this is a reliable document of eyewitness testimony. I'll think about it over the weekend. -------------- 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

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2006,07:49    Quote (afdave @ June 17 2006,12:42) it has now become quite clear that the massive coal beds of the world were formed catastrophically in the Flood, not over millions of years as you claim. Dave: I would like you to read this website: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm ...and explain to me why these Christians, who are far far more knowledgeable about Geology than you, have come to the conclusion that YEC is impossible, based on geological facts. Because once again, this looks to be one of those cases where everyone with expertise in a subject disagrees with you, who has absolutely no claim to any expertise in a subject. Doesn't it trouble you that this seems to happen every 5 minutes? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Pages: (202) < ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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