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) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... >

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,09:56    Quote Until then, all you've got is a mildly interesting possible anomaly. Hmmm ... that's the closest anyone here has ever gotten to saying a creo is right. I guess that means we're making good progess.   Quote No, I don't have it, but I  have seen several of his other columns, and they are all entitled "Scientific Speculation".  It was a regular series.  He came up with several other wacko ideas, for which there was no evidence, and which loony creationists seized on. So tell me about this guy.  Is he an Evo gone mad?  He's not a Creo himself?  Why would that publication let a loony write a column?   Quote Why don't they test more zircons? They're going to.   Quote Dembski often makes these posts. I work with several engineers and physicists who study biological systems, and use engineering principles to study them, and they all think creationism and ID are a load of nonsense. Poor guys!   Quote Quote (stevestory @ June 03 2006,11:24) Hey Dave, I'm still waiting for you to explain relativity to me. AF Dave's Definition of Relativity:  Steve Story is a close relative of chimps.  Or is it gorillas?  Nah ... chimps.  They're like 1/2% closer I think.  Or is it the other way around?  I forget.  Let me get my handy dandy 'Evo tree' and I'll get back to you. -------------- 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

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,10:04    Quote Kepler won the day over the lemmings of his time and I predict that today's creationists will also win the day over the  lemmings of our time. Oh, and Dave?  You're having another PORTUGUESE MOMENT: Lemmings don't thrown themselves off of cliffs. That's an urban myth. Like Christianity.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,10:49    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 02 2006,15:46) I wonder if we can really blame AFDT2 for his f*cked up mental state.  It seems he was taught as a child by his Missionary father that it is OK to lie in order to push your religious agenda. Someone needs to do a study to see if fundamentalism causes brain damage. I'm not joking. Has anyone ever investigated whether their logical abilities fail only in certain areas or if they are more broadly brain damaged? It's blindingly obvious that afdave cannot process evidence and logic.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,11:45    Quote (normdoering @ June 03 2006,12:59) The zircons in question may indeed never have gotten very hot, as Dave suggested. It doesn't take a young earth, however, to imagine scenarios where clumps of material can remain cool even in a molten lava flow. Think of dumping some ice cubes into a pot of boiling water. The ice cubes still take awhile to melt (how long? I don't know - but half a minute later you'll probably still have some ice cube left) - the larger the ice cube, the longer it lasts. I don't like your scenario much.  The zircons are eentsy-weentsy, ranging from about 25-75 micrometers long and around 15-20 micrometers wide.  A human hair is about 75 micrometers diameter. Without doing any calculations it seems likely to me that the zircons were always at or very near to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings,  even if the creationist time-frame is correct. Pretty much everyone agrees that the zircons never approached their melting point of 2200-2500 C.  The current temperatures of the sample sites are all less than or equal to 313 C.  You may or may not call that "very hot". But I think there are some temperature issues, even if they're not enough to completely explain the results.  Humphreys et al explicitly assumed that the temperatures were always today's temperatures, and "justified" that with a discussion claiming that the alternative was worse for "uniformitarians" and some discussion of temperature spikes.  They never discussed poossible lower temperatures, even though Henke brought up some studies that indicate temperatures were lower in the past.  Diffusion typically depends exponentially on temperature, and knowing the thermal history of the samples is key for accurate results.  Henke writes:   Quote Harrison et al. (1986) and Sasada (1989) clearly refute another major assumption in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8), which states that subsurface temperatures at Fenton Hill have been constant over time.  Using 40Ar/39Ar dates from feldspars at depths of 1130, 2620, and 2900 meters in the Fenton Hill core samples, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899, 1901) concluded that the temperatures for these samples fell below approximately 200°C about 1030 million years ago and below about 130°C around 870 million years ago.  Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899) also identified a noticeable thermal event in the Fenton Hill core samples within the past few tens of thousands of years. Figure 9 in Sasada (1989, p. 264) shows the variable thermal history of the GT-2 well core at a depth of 2624 meters (compare with my Figure 5).  According to Sasada (1989, p. 262-265), a warm period occurred sometime ago. The warm period was followed by a cooler event, which included the emplacement of fluids (see my Figure 5).  In particular, Sasada (1989) argues that fluids were trapped in secondary inclusions within the granodiorite at depths of 2624 meters when temperatures were at least 26°C cooler than present (about 152°C rather than the current value of 178°C). RATE has yet to address the issue of temperatures lower than their assumed value. Personally, I think the most likely explanation is invalid extrapolation of lab results under vacuum to calculate diffusion rates under known subsurface pressures.  My second most likely scenario is a combination of relatively impervious surroundings combined with some retardation of diffusion, or even reversal of diffusion, by uncommonly high helium concentration in the surroundings.  Of course, both these could be partially true. I think it's worth pointing out that Humphreys et al can't come up with any mechanism for accelerated decay other than magic; they obviously know more of the evidence and relevant physics than Davie-poo does. In Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay they write:   Quote The charter for RATE was to make a focused investigation of the problem posed by two large bodies of geoscience evidence for (A) large amounts of nuclear decay having occurred, and (B) a young world. From the start, several members of the steering committee were convinced that episodes of greatly accelerated nuclear decay rates had occurred within thousands of years ago. For the preservation of life, such episodes seem possible only under special circumstances: (1) before God created living things, (2) after the Fall but well beneath the biosphere, and (3) during the year of the Genesis Flood, when the occupants of Noah's ark would be safe from most radiation (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 340-341).  ... Figure 9 illustrates the contrast between this helium age and the radioisotopic age. It shows two different "hourglasses," representing helium diffusion and uranium-to-lead nuclear decay. These hourglasses give drastically different dates. ... One way to reconcile these two hourglass readings is to suggest that one of them has a "valve" at its bottleneck controlling the trickling rate, a valve that was adjusted drastically in the past, possibly by direct intervention from God. ... Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. For a feasibility study of this hypothesisincluding God's possible purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars, see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333-379). The last three problems are not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future papers. I just don't understand that last sentence.  If God magicked alpha, beta, and electron capture decay processes so as to make the Earth appear billons of years old and correlate essentially perfectly each other and with stratigraphy and other indications, why couldn't He just magic away the radiation and heat too, and magic the spectra of stars while He's at it?  Maybe He's just absent-minded ... apparently He forgot to magic diffusion so as to keep it consistent with radiometric results.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,11:55    Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,08:42) In fact, if you actually read the RATE Group's documents (instead of just the mudslinging papers ABOUT the RATE Group), you will see that more experiments are planned. In which document is that, Dave?  I just went over the news releases and "papers" available on the Web and none of them mention further experiments ... but several of them do mention a final report planned for 2005.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,11:59    I hate this board software. Dave, I see you've abandoned discussion of your sily claims.  Wassamatter, getting tired of making stuff up? Plese don't ignore my question about where the RATE group says further experiments are planned. Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56) Quote No, I don't have it, but I  have seen several of his other columns, and they are all entitled "Scientific Speculation".  It was a regular series.  He came up with several other wacko ideas, for which there was no evidence, and which loony creationists seized on. So tell me about this guy.  Is he an Evo gone mad?  He's not a Creo himself?  Why would that publication let a loony write a column? He didn't appear to be a creationist or "evolutionist", just a guy who liked to speculate about wild physics for which he had no evidence.  I don't know why the magazine gave him a column; maybe they thought he was entertaining, maybe some of his columns were worthwhile, maybe he had pictures of the publisher in bed with animals. See Frederic Jueneman's Books.  The list of titles is fascinaating.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,12:01    I am related to chimps. Now are you going to explain relativity to me, or not? You're starting to look like Ghost of Paley, making claims you can't support.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,12:01    I was referring to this paper ... Quote A theoretical creationist model, based on observed helium retention, of diffusion rates of helium over a period of 6,000 years was reported by Humphreys [8] and Humphreys et al. [9]. It compares well with laboratory measurements in Jemez zircons, as shown in Fig. 2. The solid dots show the diffusion coefficient as a function of inverse temperature for the measurements with the Jemez zircons and the solid lines through empty squares show the theoretical predictions from the theoretical model. There is a five-order-of-magnitude difference (100,000x) between the predictions of diffusion for the evolutionist and creationist models. The measured diffusion rates of He predict that helium would leak out of a zircon/biotite matrix in a period of time on the order of thousands of years, not hundreds of millions of years. This is consistent with the high concentrations of helium still found in the Jemez granodiorite. Additional laboratory measurements and modeling studies of helium diffusion in zircon are expected to lead to a further refinement of the creationist model. The data of Fig. 2 indicate an age between 4,000 and 14,000 years since the helium began to diffuse from the zircons. This is far short of the 1.5 billion year evolutionist age! We believe that the final results will resoundingly support our hypothesis concerning diffusion and radiogenic helium. found here http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf -------------- 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

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,12:02    AFDaveTard2, why do you keep cowardly avoiding the questions about your claims? Who peer reviewed the RATE results Dave?  No one?  Who do you think is qualified to peer review their results, and why? Dembski says ID has nothing to do with religion, yet you keep quoting him as evidence for your literal Christian God.  Both of you can't be telling the truth, but you both can sure be lying.  Which is it Davey? Did your father teach you to lie for your religion like you so often do Dave, or is that a skill you developed on your own?  Is it genetic - do you come from a long line of liars? Did you f*ck up in the air to get yourself demoted from flying supersonic jets to flying Vietnam era Huey choppers, or did your arrogant big mouth get you busted? -------------- "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 03 2006,12:25    Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,17:01) I was referring to this paper ...   Quote A theoretical creationist model, based on observed helium retention, of diffusion rates of helium over a period of 6,000 years was reported by Humphreys [8] and Humphreys et al. [9]. It compares well with laboratory measurements in Jemez zircons, as shown in Fig. 2. The solid dots show the diffusion coefficient as a function of inverse temperature for the measurements with the Jemez zircons and the solid lines through empty squares show the theoretical predictions from the theoretical model. There is a five-order-of-magnitude difference (100,000x) between the predictions of diffusion for the evolutionist and creationist models. The measured diffusion rates of He predict that helium would leak out of a zircon/biotite matrix in a period of time on the order of thousands of years, not hundreds of millions of years. This is consistent with the high concentrations of helium still found in the Jemez granodiorite. Additional laboratory measurements and modeling studies of helium diffusion in zircon are expected to lead to a further refinement of the creationist model. The data of Fig. 2 indicate an age between 4,000 and 14,000 years since the helium began to diffuse from the zircons. This is far short of the 1.5 billion year evolutionist age! We believe that the final results will resoundingly support our hypothesis concerning diffusion and radiogenic helium. found here http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf Dave, Dave, Dave.  You are so slow. That does not explicitly say they are going to carry out more experiments, although it's possible to interpret it as such.  But the same paper includes: Quote This article summarizes the purpose, history, and intermediate findings of the RATE project five years into an eight-year effort. ... The second and final book is planned to be published in 2005 and is expected to be titled Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Report. It will report on the findings of the five-year research phase. Two remaining years in the research phase will be needed to complete the analysis of samples yet being processed and theoretical studies still being made. By the end of the research phase the final report should be based on a larger data set than was available for this paper. A few research projects within RATE such as Fission Tracks and Biblical Word Studies which have not been discussed in this paper are also expected to contribute to the final report. It is apparent that significant progress has been made in explaining the presence of large quantities of nuclear decay products in a young-earth timeframe. The evidence should be stronger and more convincing by the time the research project is completed in 2005. We also hope that by then a more detailed young-earth creationist model of the history of radioactive decay will also have been developed. That's pretty clear; research ends in 2005.  It's 2006, Dave.   But I find that they are planning RATE II.  From What Comes after RATE?: Quote RATE II is a continuation of research on selected subprojects from RATE which need additional documentation. For example, RATE studied only rocks from the earth, and yet some important estimates of the age of the universe come from meteorite analyses. RATE II will include meteorites and also expand the data set collected by RATE on helium diffusion, isochron discordance, carbon-14 in diamonds, radiohalos, fission tracks, and potassium-40 in pre-Flood insects. So maybe they actually will do some more research!  I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a reasonable quantity of data and justification of their assumptions, though. Get back to us when they come up with enough data to be interesting.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,12:30    Quote (JonF @ June 03 2006,16:45) I don't like your scenario much.  The zircons are eentsy-weentsy, ranging from about 25-75 micrometers long and around 15-20 micrometers wide.  A human hair is about 75 micrometers diameter. Without doing any calculations it seems likely to me that the zircons were always at or very near to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings,  even if the creationist time-frame is correct. The zircons may indeed be eentsy-weentsy, but the rocks they are in might not be. Don't think of the zircons as the ice cubes, but as flakes of pepper or such inside the ice cubes. The zircons may always be at or very near to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings, but their surrondings could be cool rocks gradually melting in lava flows. By the way, doing a search on zircon and age of the earth turned up this interesting article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0101/14earthwater/

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,12:45    Dave, I've got evidence for an earth hundreds of thousands to billions of years old from: radiometric data (real radiometric data), fossil evidence, dendrochronology, arctic ice cores, plate tectonics, paleomagnetic studies, theories of planetary development, tidal data, stratigraphic data, particle physics, astronomy, cosmology, and others too numerous to mention. What do you have? Two anomalous results, based on helium data, which aside from the fact that they fail to match up consistently with any other data, are based on a dating technique that has been known to be inaccurate for a century. But you, Dave, would rather rely on two results, out of millions upon millions of other results…why? Because they show what you want to believe anyway. You deliberately go with results that are known to be unreliable, because every other result leads you in a direction you don't want to go.   Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,08:42) Eric ...       Quote RATE looked at an extremely limited sample of zircons, and even the results they got were equivocal. Why don't you tell Dr. Farley that his results are equivocal and get back to me with his answer. I don't need to. Even if his results were not equivocal, they would be two anomalous results against millions of other results that all agree with each other. If you measured the mass of the electron 15 million times and came up with half a MeV every time, and then twice you got results that were 1.5 grams, would you take the two anomalous results?     Quote   Quote Against that we've got millions upon millions of samples that support radiometric dating. Finding a few samples here and there which give erroneous results does not, not not not justify tossing out an entire methodology. As the article points out, the RATE group should have wondered why their results were at odds with all the other results out there, and they should have tried to duplicate their results, which they failed to do. This is why the RATE group is not doing science, Dave. You don't just stop your research whenever you get a result or two that you like. Here's the deal, Eric.  Some long agers say that Creos tried for years to discredit radiometric dating, but failed, so now they have to try the He-zircon gig.  The truth is that long agers make assumptions to fit the dates they had already decided they needed to make evolution work way back before radiometric dating was discovered.  No Creationist denies that decay has occurred, we just deny the long ages that are inferred from this decay because of arbitrary assumptions.  The problem though is the best that creationists were able to do until RATE was criticize assumptions, which by definition is a negative activity.  With RATE and He and zircons, creationists have a positive physical process to show what the age of the earth really is.  Of course there are also the 14 non-radiometric processes that Humphreys lists as well which pretty much dismantle the 4 billion year nonsense anyway. No they don't, Dave. As I pointed out above, all the evidence I spoke of is interlocking and mutually reinforcing, and it all points in the same direction. Time after time creationists try to refute this tsunami of data with a few wrong results here and there, using methods that are known to give inaccurate results, but you prefer the wrong results, because they let you think your wrong ideas are supported by evidence. But, as usual, you're wrong.       Quote   Quote It might be obvious to you, Dave, but since you have absolutely no training in geology or radiometric dating, why should we give you more credibility than someone who does it for a living? Well, I can read a report from a smart guy from Sandia, and I can read the lame rebuttal of a part time geologist also, just like you can. Except you don't understand at all how science works, Dave, so you don't have the intellectual toolkit to make credibility assessments. You take results you agree with anyway for ideological reasons, and simply ignore any results that contradict your view. That's why you keep thinking you're winning arguments here, and it's why we keep laughing at you.   Quote   Quote Is that your objection, Dave? That you didn't see the criticisms of the RATE data where you expected to see them? Perhaps you could contact Dr. Henke and ask him yourself? It can't be that hard to get his e-mail address, if you actually could be bothered to do any actual research. Your guy, Christman said he conferred with Henke.  This REALLY makes me wonder why Henke didn't include his material.  The only reason I can think of is that it is garbage.  Isn't Talk Origins like the hallowed site for Evolutionists to sell their wares? No. TalkOrigins is a website intended for non-specialists. The "Hallowed" source of information for evolutionists is the peer-reviewed literature, written by scientists who are experts in their fields. TalkOrigins is intended as a convenient source of information for non-specialists. This doesn't mean it's not reliable; it means it doesn't have the detail and sophistication of the actual literature. And the problem is, Dave, you don't read the information at the TalkOrigins site anyway. You skim enough of it to realize you don't agree with it, and then you go back to AnswersInGenesis and Creation Research, where you get lied to repeatedly by people with an agenda.   Quote   Quote Where do you get the idea that General Relativity predicts that space and time are finite, Dave? That both are bounded in the past does not indicate that they are also bounded in the future. How would you know that it is not bounded in the future?  My hypothesis says that God will someday do away with time -- its the concept of eternity.  But I don't claim to be an expert on relativity.  I just think it is something interesting for further study.  And I certainly don't claim this as a 'proof' for God or anything. I just told you why time and space are not bounded in the future. Didn't you understand my post? If the deceleration parameter is negative, then the universe will not only continue to expand in spacetime forever; the rate of expansion is accelerating. You don't have a "hypothesis" that God will stop time eventually. You think He will because that's the only way you'll ever get to take part in the Rapture. You're not basing this belief on any evidence, because the available evidence contradicts you. You're basing it on wishful thinking. -------------- 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

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,13:02    Quote (ericmurphy @ June 03 2006,17:45) ... and then you go back to AnswersInGenesis and Creation Research, where you get lied to repeatedly by people with an agenda. And part of that agenda is making money from fundies: http://www.icr.org/index.p....ate_ii0 Quote Table 2 shows the estimated budget for the various research projects for FY2005/2006 and in total. The amounts shown were selected based on donations to the RATE project and a realistic estimate of the amount of time each researcher has available to work on the research. If more funds become available more time could be focused on a given project. The last column in table 2 shows the total cost for each project if it were conducted over the next five years. The schedule of time is heavily dependent upon the timing of donor investments. The dollar amounts for the full effort include costs of travel, per diem, and overhead. Prospective donors are encouraged to write ICR and request a research prospectus for these projects. The estimates for several different projects are over a hundred thousand dollars each. The total is over a million dollars. They apparently get donations for this "science."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,14:14    Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56)   Quote Until then, all you've got is a mildly interesting possible anomaly. Hmmm ... that's the closest anyone here has ever gotten to saying a creo is right. I guess that means we're making good progess. Actually, dave that's the closest you've ever come to understand that it's you YECs who are mildly interesting anomalies. Which is, not at all.         Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56)     Quote Why don't they test more zircons? They're going to. Can't wait... But don't hold your breath.     Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56)   Quote Dembski often makes these posts. I work with several engineers and physicists who study biological systems, and use engineering principles to study them, and they all think creationism and ID are a load of nonsense. Poor guys! Yeah, it really sucks to be blinded to the Truth™ by science and rational thinking, eh dave?     Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,14:56) Quote Quote (stevestory @ June 03 2006,11:24) Hey Dave, I'm still waiting for you to explain relativity to me. AF Dave's Definition of Relativity:  Steve Story is a close relative of chimps.  Or is it gorillas?  Nah ... chimps.  They're like 1/2% closer I think.  Or is it the other way around?  I forget.  Let me get my handy dandy 'Evo tree' and I'll get back to you. dave, on the other hand, seems like a closer relative of chickens. YEC? More like BEC-BEC.. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,14:26    Quote (normdoering @ June 03 2006,17:30)   Quote (JonF @ June 03 2006,16:45) I don't like your scenario much.  The zircons are eentsy-weentsy, ranging from about 25-75 micrometers long and around 15-20 micrometers wide.  A human hair is about 75 micrometers diameter. Without doing any calculations it seems likely to me that the zircons were always at or very near to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings,  even if the creationist time-frame is correct. The zircons may indeed be eentsy-weentsy, but the rocks they are in might not be. Don't think of the zircons as the ice cubes, but as flakes of pepper or such inside the ice cubes. The zircons may always be at or very near to thermal equilibrium with their surroundings, but their surrondings could be cool rocks gradually melting in lava flows. Still doesn't ring my bell.  The calculations were based on the measured temperature of the rocks immediately surrounding the zircons.  Maybe it's hotter farther away, but that's irrelevant.  As Henke pointed out, there's evidence for temperature variation, but it doesn't indicate a steady climb from a significantly low temperature.   Quote By the way, doing a search on zircon and age of the earth turned up this interesting article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0101/14earthwater/ Yeah, those are the oldest known terrestrial minerals.  Several primary papers available at Zircons are Forever.  Click links on the first page, a lot of the sub-page ones are broken.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,14:36    Quote (JonF @ June 03 2006,19:26) The calculations were based on the measured temperature of the rocks immediately surrounding the zircons. Who's calculations and from which link? I'm talking about the unknown history of the zircons, not the current temperature of the rocks. How can you have their measured temperature from a thousand or more years ago except from theoretical history? How can that actually be measured?

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,15:02    Quote (normdoering @ June 03 2006,19:36)   Quote (JonF @ June 03 2006,19:26) The calculations were based on the measured temperature of the rocks immediately surrounding the zircons. Who's calculations and from which link? Humphreys et al.  Probably http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf is the best reference for the calculations.   Quote I'm talking about the unknown history of the zircons, not the current temperature of the rocks. How can you have their measured temperature from a thousand or more years ago except from theoretical history? How can that actually be measured? Of course, how well we really know the thermal history is a key element.  It depends on how indirect a measurement you are willing to accept.  Henke includes the following figure: Figure 5.  Thermal history of a granodiorite at 2624 meters depth (Fenton Hill cores) and hypothetical relationships with extraneous helium (based on Figure 9 in Sasada, 1989).  Humphreys (2005) ignores the consequences of the thermal and fluid history in this diagram to his "models." The reference is to Sasada, M., 1989, "Fluid Inclusion Evidence for Recent Temperature Increases at Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Test Site West of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A., J. Volc. and Geotherm. Res., v. 36, p. 257-266. I haven't looked it up.  According to Henke, Sasada does not provide any estimate of the number of years over which this temperature change occurred. Henke also writes "Using 40Ar/39Ar dates from feldspars at depths of 1130, 2620, and 2900 meters in the Fenton Hill core samples, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899, 1901) concluded that the temperatures for these samples fell below approximately 200°C about 1030 million years ago and below about 130°C around 870 million years ago.  Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899) also identified a noticeable thermal event in the Fenton Hill core samples within the past few tens of thousands of years."  The refernce is to Harrison, T. M.; P. Morgan and D. D. Blackwell, 1986, "Constraints on the Age of Heating at the Fenton Hill Site, Valles Caldera, New Mexico," J. Geophys. Res. v. 91, n. B2, p. 1899-1908, which I also have not looked up.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,16:44    Quote (JonF @ June 03 2006,20:02) http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf is the best reference for the calculations. Additional emplacement of helium is possible? How? Where does it come from? Can you get enough helium from other rocks leaking it? I don't understand geochemistry enough to figure out how crazy that assumption is. The addition of more helium seems far fetched to me. But, as I said, this isn't my area. It's up to others to debunk these creationist claims.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,17:07    Hey OA ... I asked for helicopters ... got tired of flying T-38's believe it or not.  I've never washed out of anything ... I have always been near the top of my classes--in EE and in UPT... go do some FBI work and you'll find that out.  I have also been successful in business--built two businesses from nothing and sold them both.  Now I do charity work almost full time and I dabble in aircraft charter and alternative fuels.  I know that hearing that a Creationist is intelligent and successful comes as a disappointment to you, but it's true.  As for those who think I'm 'profiting off of lying to kids,' I have never made a dime of my Kids4Truth work and I never will.  I am a donor to them.  And whoever it was that thinks I'm 'padding my resume' for a gig with ICR, I'm not.  I just LIKE arguing with you guys. As for Dembski, he is not lying when he says ID has nothing to do with religion.  Religion is all about robes and rituals and candles and homina-hominas.  ID is about the possibility of an Intelligent Designer creating the universe.  Do you see the difference?  Dembski acknowledges that some might see this Designer as God or ET or The Force or whatever.   Now ... do you want to keep practicing your 4 letter words on me?  There's only so many of them.  Or do you want to show me that you know something about science?  You are one of the few here that has said almost nothing scientific yet. -------------- 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 03 2006,17:15    Rilke said ... Quote Lemmings don't thrown themselves off of cliffs. Smarter than Evos then, are they? (Just kidding ... calm down, Rilke) (I'm sure you are very knowledgable about lemmings so I won't challenge you there ... but I did like the Disney flick ... gives a good mental image of Evolutionists mindlessly following the crowd.) -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,17:20    can i get that relativity explanation now, dave? Will I need to go to the shelves and pull off the six or so textbooks I have which discuss Special Relativity at various levels of sophistication, or will you be deriving everything from the Lorentz transformation?

Drew Headley Posts: 152 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,17:22    Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,22:15) (I'm sure you are very knowledgable about lemmings so I won't challenge you there ... but I did like the Disney flick ... gives a good mental image of Evolutionists mindlessly following the crowd.) This coming from a guy who practices a religion whose adherents refer to themselves as sheep.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,17:38    Quote (Drew Headley @ June 03 2006,22:22) Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,22:15) (I'm sure you are very knowledgable about lemmings so I won't challenge you there ... but I did like the Disney flick ... gives a good mental image of Evolutionists mindlessly following the crowd.) This coming from a guy who practices a religion whose adherents refer to themselves as sheep. And who went willingly to the gladitorial circus to feed Roman lions.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,17:56    Quote but I did like the Disney flick ... gives a good mental image of Evolutionists mindlessly following the crowd.) now why doesn't that surprise me? one - that's another great example of projection and two - like i said, Dave learned all his biology from disney films. I guess it's too much to ask him to take a gander at how disney made those "nature" films. hey dave - I don't think your stupid, per sae (we already hashed that out), i just think your nuts. and you should seek treatment. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,18:19    Washout Dave says         Quote Hey OA ... I asked for helicopters ... got tired of flying T-38's believe it or not.  I've never washed out of anything ... I have always been near the top of my classes--in EE and in UPT... go do some FBI work and you'll find that out.   Sure thing Washout – whatever you say.  Of course, you’ve lied about just about everything else you’ve posted here, so why should anyone believe you now? Do you get it yet?   You whine like a schoolgirl when someone questions your credentials and qualifications in an area you spent years training in.  However, you feel that it is perfectly acceptable for you to say that thousands of professional scientists with PhDs and decades of experience who are recognized as leaders in their scientific fields are incompetent, and that their work is shoddy and all wrong.  The only reason I give you so much grief about your professional skills is to make you aware of your hypocrisy.  Tell me about the Golden Rule Dave – have you ever heard of it?  What does it say?         Quote As for those who think I'm 'profiting off of lying to kids,' I have never made a dime of my Kids4Truth work and I never will.  I am a donor to them. No one said you are profiting from your lies.  Many here, including me, think you are practicing a form of child abuse by willingly teaching children the same anti-science lies you were taught when you know they are lies.   The U.S. is already losing its technological and scientific edge to countries that emphasize science education, namely China and India.  Why do you want to hurt the U.S. by giving our students the extra burden of having to overcome the unscientific horseshit you are feeding them?         Quote Now ... do you want to keep practicing your 4 letter words on me?  There's only so many of them.  Or do you want to show me that you know something about science?  You are one of the few here that has said almost nothing scientific yet. Idiot is a five letter word, Washout.  AirFarceDaveTard has sixteen letters.  Take off your shoes and socks if you need to count that high. And BTW Washout Dave, I’ve been trying to get you to discuss your asinine anti-science claims ever since you came here.  Problem is, you’ve been way too much of a chickenshit to answer.  I have asked you these questions seven times already... 1. Should all scientific findings be required to undergo a critical peer-review process before being deemed acceptable for teaching in schools? 2. Who are the best qualified people to do rigorous critical scientific peer-reviews? 3. Why should the opinion of an ignorant layman about scientific findings carry more weight than the opinions of well trained professional scientists in the relevant fields of study? ...and am still waiting for your first answer. I also asked you how do explain the human cultural artifacts that date back over 30,000 years, like the Lascaux cave paintings? And since you champion a literal Bible, I asked if you believed in the Geocentric theory. Then, I asked you who peer reviewed the RATE results?  And who do you think is qualified to peer review the RATE results, and why? He11, I even started a whole separate thread just for you to post your YEC scientific evidence on.  I listed four separate "literal Bible" topics I wished for you to discuss, but you were too much of a dickless wonder to even post anything there. You haven't answered a single one of these - not one dammed answer from Washout Dave. Now tell me again who is unwilling to discuss scientific issues? -------------- "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.

Crabby Appleton Posts: 250 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,19:42    Quote (Faid @ June 03 2006,19:14) dave, on the other hand, seems like a closer relative of chickens. YEC? More like BEC-BEC.. NOOO, please don't tell me Dave's flavor of Christianity tastes like chicken! I LIKE chicken. I prefer to think Dave's flavor of Christianity will taste like weasel.

Crabby Appleton Posts: 250 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,21:03    Quote (afdave @ June 03 2006,22:07) Hey OA ... I asked for helicopters ... got tired of flying T-38's believe it or not.  I've never washed out of anything ... I have always been near the top of my classes--in EE and in UPT... go do some FBI work and you'll find that out.  I have also been successful in business--built two businesses from nothing and sold them both. Hmm, NEAR the top of your class in EE and UPT, the pipeline you were in leads to fighters/bombers. Bummer, all the F-15/F-16 slots were filled by the studs above you in UPT. You admit you thought bombers were boring (Heysoos, killing Soviet tanks in an A-10 would have been a BLAST compared to tooling around in a T-38 and would net you OPERATIONAL aircraft time). You don't always get what you want even if you are the TOP of your class in the military. It happens. You ended up a T-38 instructor and got bored. So you ASKED for choppers and got assigned the Huey! Another trainer for the Air Force. Then you finish your AF career "flying" B-2 simulators. Do you see why your bragging about your Supersonic 30,000 Foot View of the World causes BS detectors to go off? It's similar to why people are hollering at you about all the other BS you keep quoting. To give you the benefit of the doubt, all I can say is you were probably good at teaching others how to fly at the initial stages of advanced flight training. Nothing to be ashamed of there. But there was something going on that kept you from flying what you wanted and doing 30. Dogmatism? Anybody smell a weasel? Musky sort of smell, not like a lemming or a lamb at all.

Crabby Appleton Posts: 250 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 03 2006,21:12    Anybody here ever eaten a mustelid? Musky, skunky, what? I have eaten rats, they kinda taste like chicken, if you're hungry enough.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,00:51    Quote As for Dembski, he is not lying when he says ID has nothing to do with religion.  Religion is all about robes and rituals and candles and homina-hominas.  ID is about the possibility of an Intelligent Designer creating the universe.  Do you see the difference?  Dembski acknowledges that some might see this Designer as God or ET or The Force or whatever. Well, since he's acknowledged it, that's just how it is, I guess...   Dave, maybe you should check your new mentor's record a bit. Especially his "street theatre" techniques, his lame attempts at self-promotion in Amazon, and his repeated slanderous actions against people he doesn't know based on hearsay (if even that). Maybe that will somehow shake you out of your usual state of denial. Although I doubt it. Oh, and, speaking of denial: Did you check why you got lied to about fusions- again? No? Din't think so...   Quote (Ichthyic @ June 03 2006,22:56) two - like i said, Dave learned all his biology from disney films. And his genetics from Marvel comics. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Bruce Beckman Posts: 6 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 04 2006,01:54    Low level military training such as AF pilot training is geared toward the unquestioning adherence to authority. The boss tells you that compressor stalls are bad, he tells you the situations that lead to this bad event, he tells you not to do it...don't ask me why...just don't do it! He tells you if you screw up, do this in the following order a), b), c), d),...,z) and maybe you can save the hardware that the taxpayers paid for. Successful pilots follow training and authority, and innovation is punished. There is no need for newbee pilots to reinvent the wheel. The authorities have this all worked out already. Follow the instruction and training and you can be a valuable asset, question the orthodoxy and you are a liability that can easily be replaced by a more compliant recruit. Perfect occupation for a fundy.

Pages: (202) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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