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) < ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... >

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,18:15    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 09 2006,23:01) meh, screw this noise, the season finale of Dr. Who is on! My roommate threw a boot through the picture tube.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,19:07    Dave the Cowardly Lyin’ wriggles with       Quote Short answer- the fossil record has massive quantitites of fossilized organic material: coal, oil and chalk beds to name just 3.  This is evidence that there was far more organic matter prior to the Flood of Noah--ICR estimates 100X the present amount of organic matter.  If this was the case, the C-14/C-12 ratio would be much lower, resulting in much younger actual dates when using the C-14 dating method today. But Dave, you didn't say that there was 100X more organic matter present.  You claimed there was 100X more C12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere Here are your exact words       Quote You are correct that the RATE findings only say coal and diamond can’t be more than 58,000 years old with conventional asumptions on C-14 dating, which of course, the RATE Group does not accept.  We will get into this in further detail, but there is much evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 in the pre-Deluge atmosphere.  This would significantly affect conventional interpretations of c-14 amounts found in coal, diamonds, fossils and what have you. Please provide the evidence that there was as much as 100X more C-12 (but not a corresponding higher level of C14) in the atmosphere. I have to thank you in advance Washout - by attacking radiocarbon dating you are going to make yourself look like the biggest chump going, even worse than your helium/zircon debacle.  Want to know why? Radiocarbon dating is an extremely well known and well researched branch of science.  It is one of the backbones of archaeology, especially paleoarchaeology.  The scientist who pioneered it, Willard Frank Libby, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1960 for his work.  Today there are over 130 labs worldwide providing radiocarbon dating services, doing millions of dollars in business.  The science even has its own peer-reviewed journal, Radiocarbon, to keep up on the latest developments. C14 dating does have limitations, but these are understood and accounted for. It is well known that the level of C14 in the atmosphere can vary due to external factors – cosmic ray level due to solar activity, climate change that disrupts the carbon flow between the ocean / organic matter into the atmosphere.  It is also know that the C14 level in individual samples can vary due to external factor such as sample contamination.  That is why radiocarbon dating has been subjected to rigorous multiple independent calibration methods.  These methods include denrochronology (tree-ring dating), ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, and speleothems (cave deposits).  All these methods combined have provided calibration curves accurate to +/- a few percent for dates up to 60,000 years old. Go do your homework now Davie Girl, because we will be addressing all of these methods in detail. See, you’re got a really tough job ahead Washout You can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 ratios being 100x different You can make up some unsupported fantasy about C14/C12 decay rate being not constant You can lie about trees growing 10-20 rings a year instead of 1 You can lie about all the ice core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10. You can lie about all the ocean core samples being off by greater than a factor of 10. You can lie about all the lake varve samples being off by greater than a factor of 10. You can lie about all the cave deposits being off by greater than a factor of 10. But what is really going to tax your lying circuits is explaining how all the above methods are wrong due to completely different causes but still all give dating results that agree precisely with each other. It’s gonna be great fun watching you fall on your lying face again Washout. -------------- "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 09 2006,20:43    Heysoos, I have a job and grandkids to dandle (and I'm building a hot rod to boot) so I come to this party late everyday. By the time I get here you guys have flogged Dilettante Dave the Taxi Driver (You talking to me, you talking to me?) like a penitent in a Monty Python movie. There's not much left for me to wale on (red mist indeed). I'll give it a try though. DDTTD, why is this guy trying to lead you and the other sheep down a primrose path with this statement? Henke wants “fluids” from the magma to carry helium through the mineral interfaces in the granodiorite, through the biotite, and into the zircons. It is doubtful that such fluids could travel very far. First, the granodiorite is presently dry and well-consolidated, even at the surface. 'splain it to us in sciency terms stud. Linda Hall Library DDTTD. O3 after ten years, pfft,  if you hadn't resigned, they'd have shown you the door and given you a FIRM shove.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,02:31    Um, sorry guys... I know this dead Portuguese horse has been reduced to a morphless pulp already, but I just had to bring it up... You see, thanks to Britannica Concise, I found the passage from EB dave snips this little bit from-       Quote Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon So here it is, for your viewing pleasure:       Quote Portuguese language Romance language spoken by about 170 million people in Portugal, Brazil, and other former Portuguese colonies. The first literary works in Portuguese date from the 13th–14th century. Standard Portuguese is based on the dialect of Lisbon. Dialectal variation in Portugal is limited, but the differences between Brazilian and European Portuguese are more extensive, including changes in phonology, verb conjugation, and syntax. The four major dialect groups are Northern (Galician, spoken in northwestern Spain), Central, Southern (including the Lisbon dialect), and Insular (including Brazilian and Madeiran) Portuguese. http://concise.britannica.com/ebc....=lisbon Soooo... As it's plain for all to see, the "dialect of Lisbon" mentioned here is a dialect of Portuguese. The whole paragraph has nothing to do with any supposed medieval local dialects of Spanish, with an imaginary French influence, that led to Portuguese: It has practically nothing to do with the history of the language itself. It's about Portuguese dialects. Under the light of this data, one can't help but find dave's selective quoting of that snippet... interesting. Got anything to say for yourself, HonestDave? -------------- 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."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,03:04    ...dave? since you are online, maybe you could shed some light on this? -------------- 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."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,03:35    dave... Since you are still online, check what your quoted authority, Encyclopedia Britannica, actually says about all Romance languages: http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377118/Romance-languages   Quote The major Romance languages—French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian—are national languages. French is probably the most internationally significant, but Spanish, the official language of 19 American countries and Spain and Equatorial Guinea, has the most speakers. Languages spoken in smaller areas include Catalan, Occitan, Sardinian, and Rhaeto-Romance. The Romance languages began as dialects of Vulgar Latin, which spread during the Roman occupation of Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, and the Balkans and developed into separate languages in the 5th–9th centuries. <all emphasis mine> Hey dave, here's a new emoticon for you: -------------- 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 10 2006,03:41    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 10 2006,00:07) That is why radiocarbon dating has been subjected to rigorous multiple independent calibration methods.  These methods include denrochronology (tree-ring dating), ice core samples from glaciers, ocean sediment core samples, varve core samples from freshwater lakes, and speleothems (cave deposits). And U-Th dating of corals, that's a significant portion. Here's a calibration curve: (from CALPAL 2004 January).  The axes are unreadable but are each 60,000 years long.  See Calibration Data Sets for plots of the individual data sets.  Here's the lake Suigetsu varves: And here's the Barbados corals:

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,04:53    ANOTHER RATE GROUP OBJECTION UP IN SMOKE Well, let's see ... where are we?  We've shown excellent evidence for a Super-Intelligent Designer by observing Cosmic Fine Tuning and Biological Machines.  We've had some fun speculating about Relativity and how it might relate to some of the Bible's claims about God's different time scale and supposed omnipresence.  We've shown a very powerful argument by C.S. Lewis about Universal Morality and how it shows that an Originator of Morality must exist.  Hmmm ... I wonder if this Originator of Morality could be one and the same with the Super-Intelligent Designer?  Nah, probably not.  I mean look at all the thousands of scientists that say 'No!'  How could all those guys be wrong!!  Oh, and there's a religious book that's been around for thousands of years, probably copied from tablet records from the very first civilization that mentions a Creator God.  Hmmm...I wonder if this could be the same Person we are discovering in our observation of nature? Nah, probably not again.  I mean look at all the thousands of scientists that say 'No!'  How could all those guys be wrong!!   Let's see ... what else have we done.  Oh ... we've looked at Whale evolution, I suppose the current best 'evolutionary' progression available.  Wasn't very convincing to me.  But to each his own I guess.  Who am I to mess with a person's beliefs no matter how weird they are?  Then we looked at all the problems of trying to say that Apes and Humans have a common ancestor.  After much effort and conflicting information, I found out that Gorillas, Chimps and Humans have about 98% genetic similarity, they share a common defect, and that evolutionists get very excited about Humans being a hair closer to gorillas than Gorillas are to chimps.  1/2% closer.  Pretty exciting stuff, to be sure!  Never mind all those HUGE differences ... we're 98% similar!  Let's give 'em minority status and voting rights!  Yippeee!  There was some intriguing info about chromosomes, but again, nothing which requires common ancestry. I had a lot of fun with the supposed 'Bacteria Evolution' when I found out not only that this is not supporting evidence for 'upward evolution' as I have been told because the antibiotic resistance is caused by LOSS of info, not a gain, but also that many evolutionists don't even know that Oxford professors and Talk Origins are using this argument to support macroevolution! We had some fun with Portuguese ... I see that Arden has given up trying to help Rilke, but Faid is still at it.  Keep trying, Faid.  Maybe when you figure out how abiogenesis happened, you'll also run across a good argument that people will buy about your Portuguese theory--pretty maps, by the way.  Great emoticon, too! While you are helping Rilke, maybe you could help her come up with some more fanciful stuff about my career ... maybe like I flunked  my senior year three times, and oh ... I don't know ... maybe I could never get any dates in high school and never really got married ... that picture is of someone else's wife and someone else's kids.  How about this one?  I faked my engineering degree and my business I built and sold really was a slave trading business overseas and I was involved with the Mafia and in reality I'm bankrupt now and trying to get recognition with ICR so I can write books and sell them and get back on my feet.  Just some ideas. Now we are well into 'Age of the Earth' and we have been through the RATE Group's Helium-Zircon experiment.  No 'long age' scientists can figure out how Humphreys and Co. managed to pull off such a remarkable prediction and publish one year before there were any reliable published data for Helium diffusion!  JonF has been trying his best to refute Humphreys mainly with the 'Unknown Temperature' argument (a whopping 26 degrees!, but he also thinks the 'Vacuum Testing' and the 'Extraneous Helium' arguments have merit.  Deadman has joined the fray and says that if Humphreys would have tested for the 3He/4He ratio, he could have eliminated the possibility of extraneous Helium once and for all and been shooting off fireworks now.  I take this to mean that Deadman doesn't really go for JonF's temperature objections.  I'm not certain if he goes in for the 'Vacuum Testing' objection, but maybe this will help him ...     Quote Age determinations were also performed on Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte zircons, the latter from a range of pre-exhumation paleodepths, from 4-16 km. Euhedral zircon crystals (~60-120 µm width and ~150-300 µm length) were picked from aliquots prepared by standard mineral separation techniques (crushing, sieving, magnetic and density separations).  He diffusion experiments were performed at Caltech and used approximately 10-15 crystals that were rinsed in cold 10% HNO3 to remove potential adhering phosphates.  One aliquot of Fish Canyon Tuff zircons was crushed and sieved to a size range of 44-74 µm to examine the effect of grain size on diffusivity. The second aliquot consisted of grains with typical radii and lengths of 60 µm and 150 µm, respectively. The experimental apparatus and procedures followed those described by Farley et al. (1999), involving cycled step-heating of the crystals in an ultra-high vacuum chamber by a lamp projected through a sapphire window. Reiners, Farley & Hickes: Helium-Zircon Vacuum Testing OK.  So there you have it.  JonF says Humphreys and I are liars and he wouldn't trust what we say about vacuum testing.  OK.  So don't trust me or Humphreys.  Trust Farley. Now, if we can get Deadman happy about 3He/4He ratios, we are home free and you should all be singing 'Amazing Grace,' right?  (OK.  I know it will take a little more than that ... I'll keep at it.) That's all for now ... gotta take kids to baseball, then church tomorrow (you know ... that evil Creo indocrination) Norm, Deadman and Incorygible ... I have copied off your posts about Helium Reserve, Outgassing and Chromosome Fusion.  No more time now, but I'll probably get to them Monday. Then ... off to C14/C12 ... OA, I did copy off your question and will answer it with this discussion. And I leave you with this nugget from Deadman ...     Quote You start answering direct questions put to you by people and you get treated with civility. A YEC treated with civility?  Ever? At ATBC?  You DO think I'm gullible, don't you! Have a great day! -------------- 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

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,05:18    Quote But to each his own I guess.  Who am I to mess with a person's beliefs no matter how weird they are? That's rich, Dave. If you're going to charaterize our "beliefs" at least get them right!   Quote evolutionists get very excited about Humans being a hair closer to gorillas than Gorillas are to chimps.  1/2% closer.  Pretty exciting stuff, to be sure!  Never mind all those HUGE differences ... we're 98% similar!  Let's give 'em minority status and voting rights!  Yippeee! First, it's "humans are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas", you dolt! Second, where do you get the "let's give them voting rights" bit from? Who believes that? Third, your "excellent evidence" wasn't convincing to me either, about anything.

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,05:27    Ved... Quote First, it's "humans are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas", you dolt! Oh, of course!  I got it backwards!  How could I be so stupid!  This is soooo obvious! -------------- 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

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,05:33    Fourthly, I didn't learn anything interesting in the slightest from Dave either, except from a psychological case study of a modern IDist. Contrast this with the volumes of interesting things I've gleaned from pretty much everyone else. Thanks everyone. This place has gotten a lot cooler in the last few months. (it is obvious, Dave. How could you get it wrong? Bad memory. Too much spouting off about zircons and Helium diffusion and special pleading, and all the other hoops you're jumping through. Too much typing to remember what was said.)

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,06:20    ANOTHER NUGGET OF WISDOM FROM ANSWERS IN GENESIS AIG Weekly News         Q: Is evolution religious in nature? A: Philosopher of science Dr. Michael Ruse has said, “evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.” In fact, evolution underpins the religion of humanism. The people who composed the Humanist Manifesto, which claims that humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view,” built their entire way of thinking on the basis of evolution. Julian Huxley and his humanist friends were very clear in claiming that the evolutionary story was the foundation for their new humanist theology. They knew that the long evolutionary past of millions of years, if accepted by society, would remove the Judeo-Christian God from the culture. In place of God would be the “time and chance” of evolution! Sadly, though, when taken to a logical conclusion, if there is no God, people are free of divinely sanctioned laws and codes. In other words, they can do what is right in their own eyes … and justify the selfish desires of their hearts, just as the Bible describes in Proverbs 30 and Romans 1. These humanists understood that evolution was really an anti-God religion, and they said so in their Manifesto. Evolutionary scientists don’t want to admit that they are also very religious people, who put a blind faith in time and chance, instead of a real faith in a loving and infinite God. --------------------------------------------------- Evolutionist quote of the week “A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism. “Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally.” – Ed. Sir Julian Huxley, Growth of Ideas. The evolution of thought and knowledge. 1965, pp. 99, 336. -------------- 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

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,06:33    Well thanks half a Dave. Not only do I get to learn new interesting stuff about things you find impossible to understand due to your stupidity, I get them explained over and over in ever finer detail ...due to your stupidity.. But that's not all folks. Not only does half a Dave's denial provide a perfect case study of Christian Fundamentalist parallels with other diabolical mind control experiments carried out through the ages, he provides quotes for a Huxley. Thank you D/2 I appreciate a little intellectual excursion once in a while, it makes a nice change from your verbal diluvial wanking. -------------- 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

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,06:37    Quote (Rilke's Granddaughter @ June 09 2006,22:28)   Quote (afdave @ June 09 2006,21:57) Deadman is comparing zircons to tennis balls now ... mmm ... yes, quite similar in their ability to hold their Helium no doubt ... :-) I note with considerable amusement that Dave is no longer even able to pretend to be able to adress the various arguments now pending. What a lovely joke you are Dave; what an exquisite laughing stock you have become. Washed out of the af. Failed in business. Too stupid to even attempt to engage in scientific discussion. You like Lewis, don't you Dave? Gentlemen, I give you 2nd Lt. "Child abuser" Dave: Loser. Liar. Lunatic. My Bolding Sorry, but for me that goes beyond the pale. If you are going to accuse somebody of that, then be #### specific about what you are claiming. Child abuse is not a matter to joke about, nor is it something to just toss about without direct and specific information. EDIT: I am not taking AFDaves side on anything here, but accusations of child abuse should either be made to the legal authorities as facts or shut up. No way should that be a debating technique. As bad/obnoxious a tactic as anything Dave Springer ever did.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,07:05    Dave, for the second time, what does you theory say about plate tectonics? Thanks. PS: I haven't done the calculation, but the distance between us and chimps is more like 50% lower than the distance between chimps and gorillas. I know your not familiar with maths, but when comparing 0.02 and 0.03 (for instance), the relevant difference is +50%, not +0.1%. Think hard Dave, you can understand. Using AFDave's logic : "G. W. Bush is only 2% closer to me than to a chimp (1-0.98)? Man, 2 ridiculous percent? Are you kidding?" See how stupid you can look Dave?

Ved Posts: 398 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,07:11    Stephen Elliott, it was easy to miss in the 100 pages of dave threads, but I believe Rilke is referring to the brief discussion of the possibility of considering what he teaches children to be a form of abuse. While I could agree that it is a form of abuse, I don't think it's in the same realm as what is usually implied when calling someone a child abuser. Therefore, I wish she'd quit doing it (too). There's plenty of other fodder for comebacks to dave.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,07:30    Interesting that AFDave has chosen to cite the " Julian Huxley Lie." Dave...look at the  alleged Title of the "Julian Huxley" book cited. Now find that "book" listed anywhere online or otherwise. You won't find it. As to the canard (this also means "lie," AirHead) about Julian Huxley and any claims of a "new humanist theology"...please show me those quotes. The ones you cited are faked....lies, in a word, AirHead.  http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html  has a good description of trying to seek out the sources of these Creationist lies, and having Christians like you, AirHeadDave...pile lies upon lies in an effort to avoid responsibility. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,07:47    Quote And I leave you with this nugget from Deadman ...       Quote You start answering direct questions put to you by people and you get treated with civility. A YEC treated with civility?  Ever? At ATBC?  You DO think I'm gullible, don't you! I've looked over this thread from beginning to end, AirHead, and I've read your other crap. YOU CAME INTO THIS FORUM INSULTING. Now you want to play martyr? The same passive-aggressive mind games that you tried to apply throughout your posts? I was not initially insulting to you, AirHead, but you saw fit to insult everyone who disagreed with your ridiculous claims...now you want to pretend that it could not have been avoided. You're a real piece of work. You're supposed to be a grown man, AirHead. The attempt to imply that I disagree with Jon on the temperature/data claims of Humphrey is another one. What possible good do these childish manipulation games do you, AirHead? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,07:48    He's an arrogant idiot, but there's no reason to call him a business failure or a child abuser. Stick to the fact that he understands science as well as a brain-damaged monkey.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,08:06    Quote (deadman_932 @ June 10 2006,12:30) Interesting that AFDave has chosen to cite the " Julian Huxley Lie." Dave...look at the  alleged Title of the "Julian Huxley" book cited. Now find that "book" listed anywhere online or otherwise. You won't find it. As to the canard (this also means "lie," AirHead) about Julian Huxley and any claims of a "new humanist theology"...please show me those quotes. The ones you cited are faked....lies, in a word, AirHead.  http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html  has a good description of trying to seek out the sources of these Creationist lies, and having Christians like you, AirHeadDave...pile lies upon lies in an effort to avoid responsibility. The source is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home....ion.asp The wikipedia entry on Julian Huxley lists his books, note that the one afdave mentions, "Growth of Ideas. The evolution of thought and knowledge" is not on the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley The quote does indeed seem to be a bald-faced lie that distorts Julian Huxley's views in ways that delusional people like afdave could not detect if they did read Huxely. However, I found this: http://www.anybook.biz/si/85364.html Huxley, did consider humanism a replacement for religion which was destined to die out as scientific discoveries invalidated it. The lie is that Humanism "does away with traditional Christianity." No, his view was that it was dying and didn't need to be "done away with." Perhaps it is a quote out of context from a little known  work not listed on Wikipedia?

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,08:33    Quote You DO think I'm gullible, don't you! You mean you're just figuring that out now? not only gullible, but very, very, ssssllllllloooowwwww..... -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,08:52    Thanks Norm! I sure couldn't find that one, but since one of my hobbies is tracing quote-mining/ fake quote sources, I'll trace this. The habit of creationists in not supplying publishing companies is annoying. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:15    Quote (deadman_932 @ June 10 2006,13:52) The habit of creationists in not supplying publishing companies is annoying. The company listed on the anybook site was "London, Macdonald & Co 1965" Here are some other books they published: http://froogle.google.com/froogle....t=title It's starting to look suspicious again, considering the other books they publish that they would publish Huxley. They may have gone out of business in 1989.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:16    Quote My roommate threw a boot through the picture tube. funny, that's pretty much how i feel when i read AFDave's idiocy. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:20    AFDave: On the Helium 3/ Helium 4 issue, I think this is where their rat-like minds were scurrying:         Quote Helium-3 was trapped in the planet when it was created. Some 3He is being added by meteoric dust, primarily collecting on the bottom of oceans (although due to subduction, all oceanic tectonic plates are younger than continental plates). However, 3He will be degassed from oceanic sediment during subduction, so cosmogenic 3He is not affecting the concentration or noble gas ratios of the mantle. Helium-3 is created by cosmic ray bombardment, and by lithium spallation reactions which generally occur in the crust. Lithium spallation is the process by which a high-energy neutron bombards a lithium atom, creating a 3He and a 4He ion. This requires significant lithium to adversely affect the 3He/4He ratio. All degassed helium is lost to space eventually, due to the escape velocity of helium exceeding that of Earth. Thus, it is assumed the helium content and ratios of Earth's atmosphere have remained essentially stable. It has been observed that 3He is present in volcano emissions and oceanic ridge samples. How 3He is stored in the planet is under investigation, but it is associated with the mantle and is used as a marker of material of deep origin. Due to similarities in helium and carbon in magma chemistry, outgassing of helium requires the loss of volatile components (water, carbon dioxide) from the mantle, which happens at depths of less than 60 km. However, 3He is transported to the surface primarily trapped in the crystal lattice of minerals within fluid inclusions. Helium-4 is created by radiogenic production (by decay of uranium/thorium-series elements). The continental crust has become enriched with those elements relative to the mantle and thus more He4 is produced in the crust than in the mantle. The ratio ® of 3He to 4He is often used to represent 3He content. R usually is given as a multiple of the present atmospheric ratio (Ra). Common values for R/Ra: Old continental crust: less than 1 mid-ocean ridge basalt (MORB): 7 to 9 Spreading ridge rocks: 9.1 plus or minus 3.6 Hotspot rocks: 5 to 42 Ocean and terrestrial water: 1 Sedimentary formation water: less than 1 Thermal spring water: 3 to 11 3He/4He isotope chemistry is being used to date groundwaters, estimate groundwater flow rates, track water pollution, and provide insights into hydrothermal processes, igneous geology and ore genesis. [my emphases] Of course, if the ratio shows no contamination, the evos will just spin another fairy tale or just screech, "But look at this bit of evidence!!" Falsification only applies to our side..... -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

The Ghost of Paley Posts: 1703 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:24    Sorry for the interruption. The software's not letting me modify my posts. -------------- Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:24    I'm still stunned by how completely he won that poll. Who's dumber? Skeptic 1 Ghost of Paley 1 AFDave 35 Salvador 12

Rilke's Granddaughter Posts: 311 Joined: Jan. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:33    Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2006,14:24) I'm still stunned by how completely he won that poll. Who's dumber? Skeptic 1 Ghost of Paley 1 AFDave 35 Salvador 12 It also beautifully enforces the notion of Dave as a 'creobot'.  It's eerie, the way that no actual mind or thinking is displayed in this posts.  When he loses something big time; when he makes a complete and utter ass of himself such that he is unable to recover, he simply reboots his brain and starts repeating the same, refuted, irrelevant, non-arguments over again. It's fascinating.  And it's actually quite sad in a way, since he'll die and have his God bitch-slap him for being such a complete moron (if his God exists, which seems to be pretty much impossible based on the non-evidence that he's given). But I think it's clear that here we have a real winner: more fun that Larry; less monomaniacal than Thordaddy; more useful as a MacGuffin than Skeptic; and far, far stupider than Ectowhisp. Gentlemen, I give you Dave "Lying for Christ" 2nd. Lt. Washout Hawkins: Loser. Liar. Lunatic.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:38    And he actually argues science, which we're more interested in than Ghost's political comments.

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 10 2006,09:40    Quote (afdave @ June 10 2006,09:53) Well, let's see ... where are we?  We've shown excellent evidence for a Super-Intelligent Designer by observing Cosmic Fine Tuning and Biological Machines... blah blah blah.... Is he talking to himself?

Pages: (202) < ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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