RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,11:41   

Quote
Bob the Biologist...


ROTFLMAO! Priceless!

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,12:11   

Here's a good post by PT's PZ Meyers at Pharyngula about a Jonathan Wells piece that illustrates what drives me crazy about creationists like our own AF Dave: every time scientists talk about not knowing something, these cretins leap all over them because they don't know everything.

You've got someone like Wells, or Dave, who essentially doesn't know anything about the subject at hand, be it brain development in humans or Rb/Sr isochrons, criticizing scientists because they don't know everything about the subject.

The tiniest little uncertainty that scientists present (how many scientific papers don't contain a sentence roughly similar to "…but the cause of this particular phenomenon remains a mystery"?) is taken by Dave and his ilk as proof that science in general is bogus. By contrast, ask Dave virtually any question about his "hypothesis," and he won't have an answer. But somehow, his "hypothesis" is a "better explanation" for huge swaths of observations than the standard theories.

Sure, Dave.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2006,21:59   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 29 2006,17:11)
By contrast, ask Dave virtually any question about his "hypothesis," and he won't have an answer. But somehow, his "hypothesis" is a "better explanation" for huge swaths of observations than the standard theories.

Sure, Dave.

Wait a minute! DDTTD always has an answer for those tough questions, it's his Mantra.

Say it with me, I know you can.

MILLIONS OF DEAD THINGS
BURIED IN ROCK LAYERS
LAID DOWN BY WATER
ALL OVER THE EARTH

Amen.

I keep pointing out to DDTTD that there are plenty of places close to his home where he can explore his issues with fossils in more depth, but he keeps flying off to other locales.

Avoiding the issues?

Silver Dollar City is a bastion of scientific theory!

Granny, whomp us up a load o' possum and grits while we search for some black gold, Texas Tea, yada yada yada.

Try DRIVING out to Elmo Kansas and finding some of the absolutely amazing Permian insect fossils at that site.

WHAT catastrophe preserved the delicate features of those fossils?

It weren't a dang MASSIVE flood did that me bucko.

Enjoy your vacation in Redneck City and try again, Jethro.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,02:25   

EVOLUTIONISTS NEED DEEP TIME TO MAKE THEIR THEORY BELIEVABLE



I love this chart from Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.  Not only does it show clearly how different organisms are on a molecular level, but it also shows how utterly ridiculous it is to imagine that any organism is "transitional" to any other. (I suppose you guys don't say that anymore since molecular biology has proved you wrong, though.  You all are slippery and now I guess you say that "Oh yes, we agree that no modern forms are ancestral to any other, but there were common ancestors that lived in the past which diverged and gave rise to modern forms."  Just as ridiculous.)

We have been spending a long time on Radiometric "Dating" and I have shown you much support for my contention that ...

a) While radioactive decay has indeed occurred, it is not a reliable indicator of the age of rocks
b) Rocks are selected carefully so the "correct" dates are obtained.

Correct by what standard?  Well, of course, by the all powerful standard of the Evolution Fairy Tale.  And that is where the nice little chart from Dayhoff comes in handy.

Now of course, you object to me saying that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  But it is true.  Take a look at Incorygible's quote below.

Incorygible...  
Quote
Then we have a table, titled "Converging Evidence":

Time          Ape/human divergence date (millions of years)
              Fossils          Molecules
1980s         5-8                5-8
1970s         15                  5
1960s         30                  5

Then we have a tree, with Time -- Millions of years, illustrating:

Chimpanzee/Human: 5.5-7.7
Chimp/Human/Gorilla: 7.7-11.0
C/H/G/Orangutan: 12.2-17.0
C/H/G/O/Gibbon: 16.4-23

So, your question of how I arrived at my 1985 prediction, way back when?  Simple.  By 1985, molecular and fossil data had converged on a split between humans and other apes (i.e., chimps) at 5 million years ago (the number I used).

and ...  
Quote
Hacia. (2001). Genome of the apes. Trends In Genetics 17(11): 637-645. I've gone to the effort of adapting Table 1 into % similarity (as opposed to % difference) to make it exactly what you requested (feel free to check out the original reference). What follows then is the type of genetic sequence analyzed, % similarity between humans and chimps (HC), % similarity between humans and gorillas (HG), then % similarity between chimps and gorillas (CG), in that order.

Noncoding intergenic: HC=98.76%, HG=98.38%, CG=97.37%
Intronic: HC=99.07%, HG=98.77%, CG=98.79%
Pseudogenes: HC=98.36%, HG=98.13%, CG=97.86%
X chromosome noncoding: HC=98.84%, HG=98.53%, CG=98.5%
Y chromosome: HC=98.32%, HG=97.67%, CG=97.22%

Coding sequences:
Synonymous (Ks): HC=98.89%, HG=98.52%, CG=98.36%
Nonsynonymous (Ka): HC=99.2%, HG=99.07%, CG=99.1%
Amino acid divergence: HC=98.66%, HG=98.42%, CG=98.35%


Remember that H=Human, G=Gorilla and C=Chimp, OK?  Now if the divergence date was 5 million years ago and the genetic sequence difference is 1.5%--remember, we are talking about organisms with very similar morphologies here--how many millions of years are needed to evolve from a bacteria to a human?  Or from pond scum to the bacteria?

Well, just how different IS bacteria from, say, horses (to pick somthing from the chart)?  According to the chart, about 64% sequence difference comparing the Cytochrome C.  Interestingly, it's about the same for humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast as well, which, as Denton points out, SHOULD be one of the most astonishing finds of modern science!  But you didn't hear much about it because it was a disappointing find to Darwinists.

Alright ... back to our Molecular Math.  Incorygible tells us that 1.5% =~ 5 million years, right? So let's see ... 64 / 1.5 =~ 43.  43 X 5 million years = 215 million years.  So Evolutionists NEED a significant amount of time for their theory to work.  Remember, that these are just rough numbers and we haven't added in the time needed for the pond scum to evolve some bacteria, or for the planet to cool, the necessary elements to arrange themselves in a fashion conducive to formation of life, etc, etc.  Add all this up and you can readily see why Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to work.

This, in my opinion, is the overiding rule which guides the Selection of Rocks for dating, the rejection of "incorrect" dates, and the acceptance of "correct" dates.  Can I prove this happens?  I have shown a very public example of how it happened at Koobi Fora.  What do you want me to do?  Go spend a year with a professional geologist and watch him date rocks?  Sorry ... haven't got time.  Is this a conspiracy?  No.  These guys don't even think about the fallacy while they are dating these rocks.  The idea of Deep Time is so ingrained in their thinking and so widely accepted that it is "normal."  "Everyone knows that the ToE is true, so why would you question it?  Of course dates that don't agree with it are wrong!"


*************************************************

Now ... a question for Incorygible.  Seeing the chart above, do you not question the Theory of Evolution even a little bit?  How can a biologist such as yourself look at a chart like that, which totally violates everything Darwin predicted, and not have any questions in your mind about the whole Theory?  I mean this chart should have some really small numbers in the lower right hand corner, but it doesn't!  Those numbers should get bigger and bigger as we move to the left on the bottom row, but they don't!  Incredible!  And yet you still do not question Darwin's theory even a little bit?

--------------
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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,03:36   

Quote
Not only does it show clearly how different organisms are on a molecular level, but it also shows how utterly ridiculous it is to imagine that any organism is "transitional" to any other.

Where does he show that? Last time I checked, my fahter was transitional between my grandfather and myself.
"Organisms on a molecular level" what does that mean?

Evolution needs some time to take place. Sure, huh... what's your point?

As Lenny says: you're, huh, blithering again.  ???

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,04:26   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,08:25)
Now of course, you object to me saying that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  But it is true.  Take a look at Incorygible's quote below.

Not at all, assuming (as you do) the numbers are arrived at arbitrarily.  Or do you have an objection to Diogenes' scenario as an accurate representation of your reality?

The only one who needs x number of years is you, Dave.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,04:50   

AFD ...
Quote
any organism
Sorry ... any organism ON THIS CHART.

Improv...
Quote
Not at all, assuming (as you do) the numbers are arrived at arbitrarily.
I do not assume that they are arbitrary ... quite the contrary ... it is obvious that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  They cannot live with short (6000 year) timescale.  Or a 60,000 year timescale.  Or even a 600,000 year timescale.  Evos routinely say that my theory is blown if  the earth is OLDER that 10,000 years or so and this is true.  And it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so.

--------------
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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,05:29   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,09:50)
I do not assume that they are arbitrary ... quite the contrary ... it is obvious that Evolutionists NEED Deep Time.  They cannot live with short (6000 year) timescale.  Or a 60,000 year timescale.  Or even a 600,000 year timescale.  Evos routinely say that my theory is blown if  the earth is OLDER that 10,000 years or so and this is true.  And it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so.

Dave, what's wrong with a two-billion-year-old earth, according to your argument? 215 million years is about 5% of the true age of the earth. Two billion years would be plenty of time for bacteria to have evolved into humans (and in fact that's roughly how long it takes). You yourself admitted you think a billion years is plenty of time! So why does everyone—geologists, paleontologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers—insist the actual figure is 4.55 billion years?

Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years. So explain, if you can, if you have the slightest clue, why all the evidence from a dozen different directions converges on that one value? Half that time would be plenty. A quarter of that time would be plenty. For all you know, a tenth of that time would be plenty. Did "evolutionists" just want to make sure they had a margin of error?

You need exactly 6,000 years, Dave, within a century or two. But you can't find any evidence that converges on 6,000 years. Your figures (to the extent you even have any figures) are all over the place!

--------------
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: Sep. 30 2006,05:46   

Quote
Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years.
Mmmm ... I actually think it does, when you consider the time required for the planet to cool, the right chemical to collect in all the little pools, the first amino acids to spontaneously form proteins, etc., etc.  How about it?  Someone besides Eric.  Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this this?

--------------
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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,06:24   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,11:46)
Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this?

I'm trying to recreate your chain of logic, Dave.  Tell me specifically where I'm getting this wrong:

1) The theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2) Other "sciences" (and you use the term loosely) either grew up around or were hijacked by evolutionists in order to support their atheistc tool.
3) The only requirement WRT age of the eart is that it be significantly longer than whatever the Bible says.
4) Observed data is irrelevant because these "scientists" can carefully select and/or alter it to match whatever evolution requires.

Now, given all that, how exactly can 4.5 billion years be a required period of time?  If that number is neither based on evidence nor arrived at arbitrarily, then how do you think it is calculated?  How would you begin to accurately calculate the "minimum time required for all of this?"  If "all of this" is completely fictional and nonsensical to begin with, how could you possibly come up with a real time frame?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,08:03   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,09:50)
AFD ...  
Quote
any organism
Sorry ... any organism ON THIS CHART.

Why would a modern species be transitional to another one?

You see evolution as a ladder, don't you Davey? That wouldn't be surprising after all, given your level of educaction in biology.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,08:29   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,07:25)
You all are slippery and now I guess you say that "Oh yes, we agree that no modern forms are ancestral to any other, but there were common ancestors that lived in the past which diverged and gave rise to modern forms."  Just as ridiculous.)

Dave, this is basically what Darwin said, and what modern "evolutionists" have always said. Every living thing on this planet is equally "evolved", as all have been evolving for an equal amount of time. Jeannot notes the same thing -- you're stuck in some uneducated "ladder" interpretation of evolution. Once you understand why this is wrong, you might understand my answers to your other questions.

     
Quote
Well, just how different IS bacteria from, say, horses (to pick somthing from the chart)?  According to the chart, about 64% sequence difference comparing the Cytochrome C.  Interestingly, it's about the same for humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast as well, which, as Denton points out, SHOULD be one of the most astonishing finds of modern science!  But you didn't hear much about it because it was a disappointing find to Darwinists.


Wrong. Both you and Denton are wrong here. This is a vindicating find to "Darwinists". The eukaryotic ancestor of all of the above (e.g., humans, pigeons, silkworms, wheat and yeast) diverged away from the prokaryotes (bacteria) probably over a billion years ago. After that initial divergence, the eukaryotic line itself then split (at vastly different times) to form all the groups you list, each of which has been evolving independently of bacteria for the same amount of time (once again, probably over a billion years). This is standard evolutionary theory. If you (or Denton) understood it, you wouldn't expect any of a horse or a human or a silkworm or yeast to be "more" genetically diverged from bacteria. You would expect them to be equally (but differently) diverged. They are. This is only an astonishing find of modern science if you've never heard of (or never understood) evolutionary theory.

     
Quote
Alright ... back to our Molecular Math.  Incorygible tells us that 1.5% =~ 5 million years, right? So let's see ... 64 / 1.5 =~ 43.  43 X 5 million years = 215 million years.  So Evolutionists NEED a significant amount of time for their theory to work.  Remember, that these are just rough numbers and we haven't added in the time needed for the pond scum to evolve some bacteria, or for the planet to cool, the necessary elements to arrange themselves in a fashion conducive to formation of life, etc, etc.  Add all this up and you can readily see why Evolutionists Need Deep Time for their theory to work.


Faster mutation rates would work just as well (for example, the ones you inevitably require when you propose all primate species diverged since the Flood). Plus, even if we did need Deep Time, we have it, and we had it well before Darwin.

     
Quote
Now ... a question for Incorygible.  Seeing the chart above, do you not question the Theory of Evolution even a little bit?  How can a biologist such as yourself look at a chart like that, which totally violates everything Darwin predicted, and not have any questions in your mind about the whole Theory?  I mean this chart should have some really small numbers in the lower right hand corner, but it doesn't!  Those numbers should get bigger and bigger as we move to the left on the bottom row, but they don't!  Incredible!  And yet you still do not question Darwin's theory even a little bit?


Not in the slightest. Most of those numbers look like exactly what I would expect from established phylogenies, and all are within the margin of error and uncertainty found within any particular selected region of DNA. Trace the horse (or any other) row along the matrix and you will see increasing genetic divergence with increasing estimated time since evolutionary divergence. The fact that you focus on the bottom row (which is evolutionarily equidistant from all other groups, and is therefore genetically equi-divergent), where you instead expect decreasing numbers from left to right, tells me you don't understand this. So does the fact that you expect very small numbers in the lower right hand corner, presumably meaning you think yeast (for example) is very similar to bacteria. Dave, whether you believe in or understand evolution or not, that is a grave error in basic biology. Fundamentally, yeast is no more similar to bacteria than humans.

The fact that I don't see a challenge to evolutionary theory here is not "incredible" at all. What is incredible is that you (and Denton) don't see how the table you have just presented is excellent evidence FOR evolutionary theory.

EDIT: Dave, just to be perfectly clear, IF you presented the data that YOU (erroneously) think that evolution predicts (i.e., decreasing genetic divergence from bacteria when moving from mammals to yeast), THEN you would have given me cause to doubt something about evolutionary theory. You've got this bass ackwards (yet again).

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,08:50   

Improvius...
Quote
I'm trying to recreate your chain of logic, Dave.  Tell me specifically where I'm getting this wrong:

1) The theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2) Other "sciences" (and you use the term loosely) either grew up around or were hijacked by evolutionists in order to support their atheistc tool.
3) The only requirement WRT age of the eart is that it be significantly longer than whatever the Bible says.
4) Observed data is irrelevant because these "scientists" can carefully select and/or alter it to match whatever evolution requires.



1)   No no no no.  You have projected this idea onto me.  I DO NOT believe that the theory of evolution began as (and continues to be) a tool for atheists to disprove the existence of the Christian God.
2)  Wow.  No again.  Most of the modern sciences were founded by creationists.

First, most scientists I think do not care how the earth came into existence.  They just go about their business inventing the next widget to make mankind's life easier.  And thank God for 'em!

Secondly, evolutionary geologists and biologists seem to be the ones who are so concerned about the age of the earth (here are all of you Thumbsters getting irate at me for being a creationist ... so it is apparently very important to you).  And you guys are very adamant that it is old.  Admittedly, we creationists are also adamant that it is young.

Thirdly, I do not think that geochronologists sit around dreaming up ways to bash Christians and "exalt Satan."  

I think they simply have not considered the Bible.

Let me say that again ... louder.

I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

And people who have never considered the Bible and its supernatural claims, simply operate in the material world.  They never even consider that there is an immaterial world out there.  They are naturalistic simply because ALL of us are BORN naturalistic.  In other words, we do what comes natural.  What comes natural?  Well, you eat, sleep, work, play, you go to school, get married, have kids, get old and die.  And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?  

Of course he would think this.  What else CAN he think?  He has no other outside information.  He's not conspiring to defeat the Christian worldview.  The truth is that he is walking in "Comfortable Oblivion", just as many Jews were in Germany.  "Bonhoeffer, you're an alarmist!  Hitler's a decent president.[oops!  I violated that rule what's it called? ... oh well] What are you guys getting all worked up about?  Hitler's a peach!"

Same thing here ...

COMFORTABLE OBLIVION

This will be my new catch phrase to describe evolutionary biologists and long age geologists.

--------------
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

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,09:00   

Quote
Same thing here ...

COMFORTABLE OBLIVION

This will be my new catch phrase to describe evolutionary biologists and long age geologists.


So what's your take on Glenn Morton?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,09:01   

Dave, good, you're still here.

As requested, I am going to send you that Nature paper (the "executive summary" of ape phylogenetics) on Monday. However, this recent post of yours gives me good cause to believe you cannot yet understand it, seeing as how you do not even have a rudimentary understanding of phylogenies. (Indeed, you get this so wrong that you're calling black white.)

So here is an exercise for you.

Take that table you have just posted. Pick any row (horses  for example). Draw a "tree" based on the % divergence (e.g., a 5% divergence between your chosen animal and another in the table would have a "branch" near the top of the tree and a 65% divergence would have a branch near the bottom). Look at your finished tree as representing time since evolutionary divergence. Compare it against a similar tree in any basic evolution text (e.g., Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale has exactly what you're looking for at the beginning of each chapter). Are they the same? Different? How should they compare if this incredible "finding" of yours (and Denton's) were, as you suggest, a revolutionary discovery that evolutionists suppress because it is disappointing?

If you're still unconvinced, do another tree for a different species. Make the branches as parsimonious as possible. For example, you might notice that all of the animals within the boxes in the table tend to have similar values. Does this give you any clue for how your tree might look? Why might this be? Do you perhaps have cause to group some o them together in a single branch? What does this tell you?

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,09:04   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?

--------------
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!)

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,09:15   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
First, most scientists I think do not care how the earth came into existence.  They just go about their business inventing the next widget to make mankind's life easier.  And thank God for 'em!

How delightfully patronizing.  Scientists don't think about any deep questions, eh?  Just concerned with widgets?

Quote
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.


I could match you verse for verse, Dave. I've read it (and when I read something, I inevitably "consider" it, unlike some) cover to cover many times over. I was baptized United, went to a Catholic shool, and was a Baptist youth counsellor for many years. I've also considered the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, and many others. Can you say the same?

Quote
And people who have never considered the Bible and its supernatural claims, simply operate in the material world.  They never even consider that there is an immaterial world out there.  They are naturalistic simply because ALL of us are BORN naturalistic.


You might want to read up on some more educated opinions about exactly how "naturalistic" all of us are born, Dave. I might suggest Dennet or Pinker or...

Quote
COMFORTABLE OBLIVION


All this new touchstone phrase of yours conveys to me is that I would be better served playing a cool computer game right now than interacting with you.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,09:32   

Quote
You see evolution as a ladder, don't you Davey?
Of course he does--with a little picture of Dave at the "top."
Stupid's current conspiracy theory is even more amusing than his previous blitherings. (1) He pulls up a chart of cytochrome distances and proclaims that it shows how (a)transitionals are impossible and that (b)evolution "needs" deep time, proudly pulling a figure from his well-reamed spincter and saying: "it is also true that the ToE is blown if the earth is YOUNGER than ... mmm ... a billion years or so." Evidence? Well, the CHART!! That chart alone gives his cunning mind the key to the vast global conspiracy that was begun back in the 1800's by all those theistic scientists that he's fond of mentioning.        
He moves from that to (2)
Geologists have all been secretly brainwashed into the conspiracy, so they only select rocks that fit the "secret" time frame. But he says THEY don't view it as a conspiracy.  
Quote
Is this a conspiracy?  No.  These guys don't even think about the fallacy while they are dating these rocks.  The idea of Deep Time is so ingrained in their thinking and so widely accepted that it is "normal."  "Everyone knows that the ToE is true, so why would you question it?  Of course dates that don't agree with it are wrong!"
Of course, as with many "conspiracy" theories, there's huge gaping holes in this, but Dave presses on, undeterred by reality. He cites Koobi Fora again, convinced that here is PUBLIC evidence of the vast cabal at work. But the Koobi Fora KBS Tuff is only about 2 million years old. He ignores that the dating method was relatively new at the time. He ignores the statements of the lead geologists on the matter, because Dave knows their dark secret: they are all mindless drones, zombies working for the Great Atheist Conspiracy. THEY MUST HAVE DELIBERATELY altered the dates to FIT their theory...but would it have made a difference in science if the remains were 2.6 million years old instead of 1.87? No, not really. Pushing Homo habilis back to 2.6 might be surprising, but not any more so than a 4 MYA date for australopiths. Again, the lead geologists and paleontologists are all alive and have all described their experiences at this time, in various media outlets. While it shows how messy science can be, it certainly doesn't show a conspiracy. But Dave, and AIG says it does, because they were all under the evil spell of Evilushuns, unknown even to them. But Jack Miller, Ian McDougall, and Jim Aaronson, even Kay Behrensmeyer have all written about or given interviews on the subject. As have the lead paloeanthropologists, and the lead paleontologists. Even though they were all secretly fighting for an older date (so evolution could be accomodated) they all secretly agreed on a younger date to throw the noble God-loving creationists off the track and hide the vast atheist conspiracy. It all makes sense if you just look at it with a "10,000-foot view" that starves your brain of oxygen.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,09:41   

Quote
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

And yet I know the bible at least as well as you do, Stupid. In fact, you've been tested ON the Bible in this very forum and found less informed than your rivals. Ironic, eh?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,09:57   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,14:50)
And if that's all that Joe the Geologist or Bob the Biologist ever does and never considers the Bible, then of course, why would they ever think anything BUT that life evolved, and that the radioactive decay we see is a true age indicator?

It seems that somehow, Dave, you've come around to agreeing with nearly everyone here.  You've done a complete about-face and are now acknowledging that evolution and deep time make perfect sense and fit observed data perfectly well.  And the only thing getting in the way of all of that is a belief in magic and/or miracles.

All right then.  So I guess we're done?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,10:03   

OK AFDave,  Here comes the summary....

Ready????

I'm going summarize "How crystallised olivine, originating from a homogeneous source, that contains Rb and Sr constituents can be tested using the Rb/Sr whole rock Isochron method and result in a data set forming a linear relation."

First let's find out what Olivine really is.  I think the 72nd Edition of my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has some mineral tables.  I won that book in freshman chemistry with the highest grade in the class.  Chapter 4 - Page 4-150 - Physical Constants of Minerals.
Olivine has a chemical formula of (Mg,Fe)SiO4.  It must be a polymetalic mineral with an SiO4 crystal backbone.
The X-Ray Crystallographic Data of Minerals on pg. 4-157 lists all the different chemically pure crystaline minerals, but the geologic mineral olivine is made up of numerous different crystaline minerals.  Starting on pg 4-167 we have the following crystals that ALL are classified as Olivine since they ALL have an (xx)SiO4 chemical make-up.
Forsterite  Mg2SiO4
Fayalite    Fe2SiO4
Tephroite  Mn2SiO4
Lime Olivine  Ca2SiO4
Nickel Olivine Ni2SiO4
Cobalt Olivine  Co2SiO4
Monticellite  CaMgSiO4
Kerchsteinite  CaFeSiO4
Knebelite  MnFeSiO4
Glauchroite  CaMnSiO4

A chemically mixed homogenous melt that contains, say, Mg Fe and Ni (and Rb and Sr of course) will solidify with a crystal structure that is not only uneven in crystal size but also crystal distribution.  I won't go into the mechanics of this right now.  It is easier to show you a pertinent example of this.  Review this advertisement for an elemental analysis machine.  The pictures on page 2 clearly indicate        
Quote
XGT-5000 analysis of a 4x3 cm² section of kimberlite quickly allowed the rock’s mineral distribution to be visualised. The rock contains abundant crystals of olivine (Mg,Fe,Ni)2SiO4 and one zoned, partially altered crystal of garnet. The garnet crystal is immediately identified by its alteration rim comprised of potassium rich mica. High potassium content also shows the locations of mica crystals within the matrix.

The olivine crystals are black in the potassium and calcium images but have various shades in the iron and nickel images. These variations indicate the remarkable extent to which the compositions of these elements vary from crystal to crystal. In the Fe image, the olivine grains are seen to have thin Fe-rich rims. Notice also the additional information on physical structure provided by the transmission x-ray imaging.
Since the crystal distribution is somewhat randomized, and the Rb and Sr atoms are substitued in different quantities depending on if the crystal is Forsterite, Fayelite, or Nickel Olivine then we can clearly see how even a whole rock sample can give various Rb/Sr ratios if tested.  There is no part of that 4x3cm sample that has the same crystal distribution as any other part (unless you gerrymander the sample like congressional districts, which geologists don't do).  Also, I feel confident in stating that another 4x3cm sample will have a different crystal distribution and compisition that would give a different Rb/Sr ratio if tested.

There's my summary.  Pick it apart if you can OR drop your statements about mixing.  I think the above summary is enough to counteract Arndts and Overns argument that  
Quote
What is needed but missing in the whole rock isochron is a mechanism to establish initial homogeneity, and then to extract heterogeneous samples. The mineral crystals do the job in an elegant way. Each type accepts a different level of contamination of the parent isotope, chemically determined. One cannot rationally extend this process back to the whole rock. It has been tried, but there is a fallacy .
 I don't think they, or you, were looking critically on how crystal formation is actually done.

We could actually use the analysis machine to identify and extract the seperate minerals and accomplish a mineral Isochron analysis too.  Neat!!!:D

Mike PSS

p.s. AFDave,  Just say you were mistaken about the whole rock thingy and start arguing about radioactive decay.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,10:16   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 30 2006,15:04)
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,13:50)
I think they have simply never considered the Bible.

How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?

I have a copy from The Church of Jebus Chrizt of Latter Day Saints.

Is this the one I should consider?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,11:12   

I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution.  I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream.  I will look into this.  Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views.  

Notice, Cory, that I did not say "all scientists disregard the Bible."  I just said that probably most of them have not considered it's claims.  Yes, you are here arguing with me ... this makes you unusual.  I am here arguing with you ... this makes ME unusual.  So we are both unusual folks.  My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.

Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.

Quote
How can they use the Bible, Dave?  You have yet to give us a method for determining which parts of it are literal and which are figurative.  Are you prepared to do that now?
I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?  Let's just consider the book of Genesis now (we introduce too much controversy to even discuss the other books now).  Compare the Book of Genesis (a history book) to any other historical text.  What rules do you apply to the OTHER texts?  Why not apply the same rules to Genesis?

--------------
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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,11:29   

Mike : That was nicely done. Now watch Dave run. Run, Dave, run. Evilushuns are after you! Eeeeeeee...

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,11:36   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
I'm finding it quite difficult to believe that Michael Denton doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution.  I actually think he still believes in some form of it, though his book obviously questions the form he believes to be in the mainstream.  I will look into this.  Far be it from me to intentionally misrepresent mainstream ToE views.

I'm glad to hear that. Personally, I don't really care what "form" of evolution Denton "believes". Doesn't matter in the slightest. Because by "mainstream", you don't want to be arguing against any misconceived public or individual perception of evolution here (evolution as a ladder of increasing complexity or perfection, for example, or "if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys"). You have your sights trained on the mainstream SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution. And (as Denton should be aware, unless he's aiming at a different target) that's the one that postulates a single divergence of prokaryotes and eukaryotes (and therefore roughly equal % genetic divergence between bacteria and all eukaryotic forms, as in your table). It postulates similar divergences among many of the groups identified by boxes in your table (hence the similar values within boxes). If you want to really understand the "mainstream" interpretation of evolutionary descent  (and how we have determined it), I'd recommend Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale as a good introductory, 700-page introductory "exectuive summary".

Quote
Notice, Cory, that I did not say "all scientists disregard the Bible."  I just said that probably most of them have not considered it's claims.  Yes, you are here arguing with me ... this makes you unusual.  I am here arguing with you ... this makes ME unusual.  So we are both unusual folks.  My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.


Fair enough. I know scientists for whom the Bible would be mostly Greek. I know vociferous Christians with no better understanding. I know plenty of other scientists who could also go verse-for-verse (for or against). In terms of "consideration" of the Bible, they are in no lesser or greater number than the population at large, as far as I can tell (though the number of disbelievers in a personal god certainly tends to be greater).

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,11:44   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:12)
My new "COMFORTABLE OBLIVION" catch phrase simply describes most scientists and refutes Improvius' view that I am a conspiracy theorist.

I like it.  It shows just how far you've come from some of your earlier posts:

Quote
Quote
Gee, then how come there are so few molecular biologists  who know about that? They're all still talking about molecular evolution.
Blinded by what they want to believe.


Quote
It appears to me that people come to Panda's Thumb looking for justification to be a skeptic.  They are looking for scientific sounding reasons to reject the Bible and set up their own morality and it helps to have some like minded people that affirm what they want to believe.  Now as sure as I say this, I will piled on with denials like "We come here to discuss science, you moron!  What in the world are you talking about?"  Well yes.  Part of it is science, but there is a very subtle thing going on here.  The subtle thing is that you have a lot of truth, but its mixed in with a lot of error concealed in sometimes inconspicuous places.  Combine this with a blindness which all humans are subject to when they want to believe something, and you have a very powerful deception.


--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,11:48   

As usual, SFBDave can't type two consecutive sentences without lying

         
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.

Note that we had a whole separate thread about Glenn's conversion from YEC and AFDave here, which I know Davie-dufus read because it named him.  Davie and I have also discussed Morton many times (although usually it was me telling, and Davie pretending to ignore).

Topic: AFDave’s Psychosis and Glenn Morton’s 'Demon'

     
Quote (AFDave @ Sep. 30 2006,16:12)
I've explained this already.  But let me turn this around.  How does anyone determine the literalness or figurativeness of ANY text?


And we've already been through this before Davie, about a hundred pages ago.  Everyone else on the planet determines the literalness of a book account by looking for independent evidence that either confirms or rebuts the story.  Having *part* of a book be literal or historical (like the Bible) does not mean the WHOLE FRIGGIN' THING is literal.

Is King Kong really real Davie?  NYC is a real place, and the Empire State building is a real structure.  However, there is no historical record of a tower climbing giant ape in NYC taking place besides in that book,  More importantly, the laws of physics and biomechanics make it impossible to scale up a 6' creature into 100' size with the same relative dimensions.

You're getting boring with your repetitiveness Davie.  Why don't you move on to a new topic, like C14 calibration, or limestone formation, or sequentially buried forests?

--------------
"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.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,11:51   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,17:12)
Don't know much about Glenn Morton.  Maybe he encountered somebody obnoxious like those redneck creationists Steve Story grew up with and got turned off of YECs.

Morton didn't encounter a bunch of AFDaves, he was an AFDave. Except that he became an expert in geology and was a smart guy. So eventually he could no longer sustain the kind of hairbrained fantasies that AFDave can easily believe.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:04   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 30 2006,10:46)
 
Quote
Evolution doesn't "need" 4.55 billion years.
Mmmm ... I actually think it does, when you consider the time required for the planet to cool, the right chemical to collect in all the little pools, the first amino acids to spontaneously form proteins, etc., etc.  How about it?  Someone besides Eric.  Can anyone confirm the minimum time required for all of this this?

Nope, actually it doesn't, Dave. The oldest known fossils (bacterial mats called stromatolites) are approximately 3.8 billion years old. Let's say the first life on the planet is 200 million years older than that. Some evolutionary biologists believe life could have arisen as little as a few hundred million years after the earth formed. And there was essentially no other life on the planet for almost another three billion years after that.

But none of this helps your young-earth hypothesis, Dave, and all of it hurts it. We already know it would take almost a hundred million years for the earth to cooled from a completely molten state to a point where liquid water could exist at the surface. How does your "hypothesis" explain the earth cooling to the point where Adam could walk around on it in less than a week?

Yet another question you've never even acknowledged, Dave, let alone answered, which brings us to…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2006,12:07   

Well, it’s coming up on the five-month anniversary of Absolutely Fraudulent Dave’s UPDATED Creator God “Hypothesis,” and now seems like a good time to take stock of Dave’s progress in supporting his “hypothesis.” Naturally, Dave thinks he’s won every debate he’s engaged in here, but anyone who troubles to read this thread can judge for themselves how true that claim is. And naturally Dave, being a creationist, has spent virtually no time supporting his own “hypothesis,” but rather has attempted, in a floundering and ineffectual fashion, to discredit thoroughly supported and solidly-verified science, everywhere from biology and genetics to paleontology to chemistry to geology to quantum physics to astronomy and cosmology. And he's attempted this feat without making the tiniest effort to actually educate himself on any of these topics, but instead seems to believe that any layman can pick this stuff up in an afternoon on the AiG website.

In the meantime, Dave has left a not-inconsiderable number of questions about and objections to his “hypothesis” unanswered and un-responded to—many of them never even acknoweldged. Now, on the five-month anniversary (more or less) of Dave’s circus act, I thought it would be good to reprise the list of them. This is far from an exhaustive list, so feel free to add as necessary, and of course thanks to Deadman_932 for compiling the original list, which has grown significantly since he last posted it.

So, without further ado:

Dave’s Unanswered Questions, Sorted by Category

Problems with the Creator God “Hypothesis” Generally

  • Why can't you provide a means of falsifying your "hypothesis?" This is your job, not that of others.
  • Why are you bothering? Most people here don't deny that God may exist.


Problems With Biblical Inerrancy

  • You admit you've never seen the supposedly "inerrant" originals of the bible . So-first-how do you know they're "inerrant"? Because the admittedly flawed copies tell you so? And you believe them why? From PuckSR, p.124

  • I asked you what was equivocal about the clearly discounted Tyre prophecy, and you all you have done is ignore my questions...for thirty days (from 7_Popes) p.124

  • You claim that  humans have been literate since your flood. How come none of them had anything to say about an ice age that froze most of the planet solid? How come there's no independent evidence of it from any written source?

  • You claim that humans have been literate since Adam. If Adam and the origin of the universe are coeval, i.e., 6,000 years ago, then why don’t we have written records dating back to 6,000 years ago? You claim Adam’s “secretaries” followed him around with stone tablets taking dictation. Whatever became of those stone tablets, and why is it that the oldest written records are less than 5,000 years old?

Problems With a Young Earth

  • Why are there so many profitable companies that use the Old Earth paradigm as the basis for a successful business case?

  • Why is there not a single company anywhere in the world that uses your 6000 year old Young Earth paradigm as the basis for a business case?

  • What evidence do you have independent of the Bible that converges on an age of 6,000 years for the age of the earth?

  • If the universe were only 6,000 years old, there could be no visible stars, or galaxies, or quasars, or galactic superclusters, that are more than 6,000 light years away. But numerous methods of determining distances which all result in similar values demonstrate that the closest galaxies are several hundred thousand light years away, and the most distant visible objects are almost 14 billion light years away. How do you explain the observation of these objects?

  • 6,000 years is not nearly enough time for a solar system to form, to say nothing of a galaxy, or a galactic cluster, or a galactic supercluster. How does your “hypothesis” explain the existence of these objects?

  • It would take at least several million years for the giant molecular cloud that birthed the sun to undergo gravitational collapse to the point of self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion. How do you explain this happening in only 6,000 years?

  • It would take at least another few millions years for the planets to have formed through a process of gravitational accretion. How did this happen in only 6,000 years?

  • Photons produced in nucleosynthesis in the sun's core take a minimum of several tens of thousands of years to reach the photosphere, and an appreciable quantity would take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to reach the photosphere. Why don’t we see the sun’s power output increasing noticeably from one year to the next if it is only 6,000 years old?

  • Why isn't plutonium-239 found to naturally occur? It has a good 20,000 year half-life, or thereabout, and could easily exist from the point of creation. Certainly we have any number of radioactive elements, but other than the ones that are produced by ongoing processes, we find none that would have disappeared to undetectable levels within 4 and a half billion years.

  • The half-life of Uranium 235 is 704 million years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, essentially none of this U-235 should have decayed by now. U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. If the earth were only 6,000 years old, it should be essentially impossible to detect any decay products of U-238. Why does observation demonstrate that an appreciable fraction of both has decayed since the earth was formed?

  • Please explain the Oklo natural nuclear reactor.

  • How do you cool an iron sphere massing over 10^24 Kg in less than 6,000 years?

  • Did the earth cool down several hundred degrees in 6000 years or so? Please explain the thermodynamics of such a cooling process.

  • For any of these things to have happened in 6,000 years or less would have required multiple miracles, Dave. But you say you believe in science. In fact you claim, overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, that you accept "90-95%" of science. So if you believe in science, Dave, why do you also believe in miracles? Isn't that just a little bit inconsistent? And a little bit useless, in that you can wave away any phenomenon with an unknown cause by appeal to miracles?


Problems with Noah’s Ark

  • How did 35,000 or fewer "kinds" on the ark end up proliferating into over ten million species in less than 5,000 years? How is this not ultra-mega-supendo-fantastico-enormo-macroevolution?

  • Who do you think had syphilis on the ark?

  • If Noah and his little group were the only humans left, can you calculate for me the average number of children each female would have to have in order to achieve the population levels we have today...in 4,356 years??

  • Why on earth do you want living dinosaurs in your timeline at the end of the flood ? When did they die out?

Problems with the “Global Catastrophic Flood Hypothesis”

  • Identify precisely the source for the "waters of the deep" Dave. point to any geology references that show this "layer of water" existed under the crust.

  • How much water was involved in the flood, Dave? Estimate of the amount of water that was underground, and how deep was it? Was it spread uniformly under the crust, or was it in localised (and deep) reservoirs?

  • Where did all that sediment come from? (Hint: it didn't wash down from the mountains.)

  • Where did all that water in your “global flood run-off”---run off to?

  • Eric (p.129) notes: The continents are covered by an average of 2,600 meters of sediment. How does your 5,000-foot deep flood produce 2,600 meters of sediment?

  • Dave, since this is supposedly your "hypothesis" we're talking about here, how do you date the Grand Canyon?

  • Since the Bible makes no mention of the Grand Canyon, nor any other canyon, nor North America for that matter, what is your justification for assuming the Grand Canyon was carved by the Noachian flood? You’ve admitted you know of no way to date the Grand Canyon; therefore how do you know if the Grand Canyon was formed before, during, or after the “flood”?

  • Which sediment layers were laid before the “flood,” Dave? Which were laid during the “flood”? Which were laid after the “flood”? Or do you still maintain that all sedimentary layers worldwide (all several kilometers of them) were laid during the flood?

  • How did those tracks get in the coconino sandstone in the midst of a raging flood that deposited billions MORE tons of sediment on top of the sandstone? Sandstone can't "dry" in the middle of a flood that continues to deposit layers under a "water canopy", Dave. Nor would those animals survive UNDERWATER, nor would their tracks survive the pressure of the layers above on the wet sandstone during the "flood year"

  • Explain the presence of eolian and evaporite deposits between fluvial or marine deposits, carbonate and dolomite deposits, coal, and why there are clear cycles of regression and transgression present in the rock record allowing for things like sequence stratigraphy to be done.

  • Why are large shale formations consistently oxidized and red while others are consistently black and unoxidized?

  • How did the Mile-High cliffs of the Grand Canyon harden enough in ONE YEAR so that they didn't SLUMP under the weight of the deposits over them?

  • I'm incredibly interested in how the Kaibab was formed in your model, Dave. Tell me how limestone was preferentially deposited in that layer. How is it that calcium carbonate was deposited in a flood, with the turbidity of a flood?

  • Explain the Paleosols we see in the Grand Staircase

  • Explain the buried vertical Yellowstone forests that have paleosols between them.

  • Explain PRECISELY how the incised meanders, oxbows and the steep sides of the Grand Canyon were formed, given that these meanders are not in Mississipian-type soils, but through rock, including the igneous base schist (obviously , that is not "soft ")

  • If there was extensive volcanic activity following the flood, why are there no large ash layers or igneous layers in the upper Canyon stratigraphy showing it?

  • The Arizona Barringer Meteor penetrates the Permian Kaibab and Toroweap Formations and has caused shock effects on the Coconino Sandstone. Because the crater penetrates Permian strata, it is Permian or younger. And since the crater contains some Pleistocene lake deposits, it is Pleistocene or older. The Geomorphology of the crater itself indicates only a small amount of erosion. The Crater is dated at 49,000 years old. Explain this, DaveStupid.

  • How was a  canyon is carved in limestone and buried under 17000 feet of sediment in the Tarim Basin in far western China?That's over three miles deep of overlying rock and soil for the mathematically challenged Fundies out there.

  • Why don't we see evidence of your massive flood and "tsunamis" in the deep-sea cores?

  • Why don't we see evidence of your massive volcanic activity, and carbon dioxide levels and HEAT in the ice cores?

  • Why don't we see disruption of the varves?

  • How did the iridium layer between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary appear within flood waters... the iridium layer is especially interesting, since it is global. How could iridium segregate markedly into a single thin layer...and why does the iridium layer "just happen" to date to the same time as the Chicxulub crater?

  • Explain why it's more likely that all the hundreds of billions of fossils worldwide were laid down by a single gigantic flood (even the ones in sediments that were not laid down by water), rather than in innumerable smaller events over the last few billion years.

  • Layers should have SOME animals in them jumbled up *everywhere* dave. There should be dinos with modern rhinos, with deinotheriums and giant sloths, with Devonian amphibians...yet we don't see that. "Hydraulic sorting" won't do, Dave..or claims that mammals are "more mobile"-- this is utter nonsense.

  • Why are certain species of animals (fossilized trilobites) found in the lowermost layers, while others of the same approximate size and shape (fossilized clams) can be found at the top layers, even at the top of Mt. Everest? Did the clams outrun the trilobites in the race uphill from the flood waters?

  • Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Groupof the Grand Canyon. How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?

  • If "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?

  • You said that there was only one land mass before the Flood, correct? this would mean that Africa and North America moved away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer per HOUR per the Morris/Austin scenarios, Dave. What would that heat do? Where did that energy go? Why do we still have ANY oceans?

  • Why don't we see evidence of fast sea-floor spreading paleomagnetically? Remember, Africa and the Americas have to be FLYING away from each other at the rate of 1 kilometer PER HOUR.

  • JonF noted that such rapid movements of plates and "sudden stopping" would melt the rock. Dave doesn't give a response or answer to that little problem.

  • Why are mountains near each other differentially eroded if they were all formed at the same time in your "hypothesis?"

  • Precisely how were the Vertebrae Ridge mountains you posted...metamorphosed?

  • Dave said that as the continents shifted the layers were folded, heated (and metamorphosed) and uplifted, all in a very short time span. He claimed "These are all very well-understood processes and this is a very plausible scenario". I asked Dave to show me references for this "well understood process " in regard to the Vertebrae Ridge gneiss. He failed to answer (p.125)

  • Dave says that the rocky mountain- andes form a north-south chain that was created by rapid movement of the plates.
    Quote
    I say they moved away from the Mid-Ocean Ridge, then stopped rather suddenly. This caused folding and thickening onthe leading edge of the plate and generated massive quantities of heat and pressure leading to metamorphism.

    This does not explain the east-west tending ranges of the Americas, Eurasia and Africa (himalayas, atlas mts., transverse ranges). Dave was asked: Did those continents STOP TWICE? IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS? IN ONE YEAR?

  • Why does the magnetic dating of oceanic basalts show a longer period of time than your flood claim, Dave?

  • Why is the basalt cooler the further away you move from the rift zones? Calculate rates of cooling for basalt.


Problems with Attempts to Refute Standard Dating Techniques

  • How do you plan to refute every single age ever given by any dating method (and there are least 40 radiometric dating methods, and multiple other non-radiometric methods) that is in excess of 6,000 years? How will you explain even one date in excess of 6,000 years?

  • Are discordant dates published, or is the observed concordance between methods an artifact of hiding all the discordant dates?  If the discordant dates are hidden, how come the program managers and accountants haven't noticed?
    How's that inquiry to the Menlo Park dating lab coming along?

  • Exactly how many of the dates given to you by deadman (for far more than four of the layers of the Grand Staircase) are argon dates?

  • Is Snelling's inclusion of xenoliths in his Ngauruhoe dating study fraud?  If not, would it have been fraud to inject argon into the samples?  Is there any difference between the two scenarios?

  • There are hundreds of thousands to millions of dates derived from both radiometric and non-radiometric techniques that range from more than 6,000 years to ~4.55 billion years. Note that no object that is known to have originated on the earth has ever been dated beyond ~4.55 billion years. I.e., nothing has ever been found that dates to 10 billion years, or a hundred billion years, or a trillion years. Why do you think this is? “Evolutionists” have no reason to believe it takes 4.55 billion years for life to evolve.

  • You believe that isochrons are meaningless—invalid. Would you care to compute the probabilities that isochrons [I]ever converge on any particular values? Why is it that rock formations that are expected to be of Precambrian provenance due to their location in the geologic column all date to—wait for it—the Precambrian? Why is it that rock formations that are expected to be of Triassic provenance due to their location in the geologic column all date to—wait for it again—the Triassic?

  • There is no reason to believe that life would have taken more than several hundred million years to evolve. Why don’t scientists claim that the earth is 700 million years old (20% of its currently-accepted age)?


  • How is the dendrochronology for Catal Huyuk wrong?

  • Dave claimed ( p.138, this thread) that only 3 radiometric dates had been given him, then that only three layers were dated. I asked:
    Quote
    Okay, dave shithead...you said that I only provided three radiometric dates...want to make a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll bet you that I have given you much more than that. I will leave this forum and proclaim your victory if I am wrong."

    And:
    Quote
    Okay, let's switch it to your claim that only three layers have been dated, DaveShithead...want a gentleman's agreement on that? I'll not only leave this forum, but I'll pay for my plane ticket to your church and proclaim in front of them how I was wrong...IF I am wrong. In return--if you are wrong, you will get in front of your group at church and film it while you say you were wrong, begging my forgiveness, and post it on the internet here.

    Cowardly Dave refused to answer.


Theological Problems with a Creator God “Hypothesis”

  • Dave, do you understand the difference between these two statements?
    A) I believe that there is a Creator who takes an interest in the welfare of human beings;

    B) I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal lord and savior.

    [ ] Yes

    [ ] N
  • Why did God need a "global catastrophic flood" just to murder all the bad people in the world? Couldn't he come up with a more elegant solution that didn't involve wiping out 99.99999999999% of the life on the planet, the vast majority of which was completely innocent?

  • Why does God lie by making the earth look like it's 4.55 billion years old, and why does He lie by making the universe look like it's 1.37 billion years old? Is it to set an example for you, Dave?
  • What did God think he was accomplishing by nailing his own son to a tree?


--------------
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

  
  4989 replies since Sep. 22 2006,12:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (167) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]