Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::forastero's thread

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,12:51

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)

Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate. This is a forum. It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it. The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim. Back it up with evidence (for once in your life). Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang? And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims. You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,12:54

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:03)

Sediment cores assumed older than 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods.

But you believe the earth is younger then that, so what gives?

And speaking of sediment cores, there must be quite the layer of sediment that the global flood put down. Where is it?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,12:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)

Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate. This is a forum. It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it. The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim. Back it up with evidence (for once in your life). Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang? And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims. You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Here's a hint, just look at the billions of tons of coal and petroleo

Hey ogre so what is your big bang theory?
And when you gonna list all these so called geologic columns you keep harping on?

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,13:00

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,12:54)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:03)

Sediment cores assumed older than 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods.

But you believe the earth is younger then that, so what gives?

And speaking of sediment cores, there must be quite the layer of sediment that the global flood put down. Where is it?

Well you are taking it out of context and notice I said "assumed"; and not by me but by your church mates

Yep and 99.9 percent of fossils are laid down in water

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,13:09

i missed it, did we get some sweaty wrestlers? i knew they were coming

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,13:37

forastero:

The questions (still unanswered - who'd a thought?) are:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old? By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

Come clean now. Cleanliness is next to Godliness.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,13:49

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:32)

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,08:35)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)

Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)

You mean mot, not mute.

Or possibly "moot".

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

Quote

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.

Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it? Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.

Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.

“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......th.html

http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

Hee hee hee! You dug up one of the unusual isochron methods!

In the quote from the isochron page at T.O., which is what we are discussing, there is one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope element. You were wrong.

But Pb-Pb isochrons involve many radioisotopes and daughter isotopes and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope, I hear you whine!

I'm way ahead of you. As usual. Back on page 27 I responded to you:

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,14:28)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)

Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.

You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

Note that you said "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes". Not "A few isochron methods involve taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes".

You were wrong. In general, isochron dating involves one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter element. The T.O. page on isochrons, which the subject of this side discussion, that's the kind of isochrons that are covered.

But I carefully wrote "In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used". Note "...almost all the isochron methods...". I know about Pb-Pb isochrons, which are not at all typical of isochron methods. I was correct. Again.

Wotta maroon!

blipey

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,15:06

forastero,

try to grasp the simple concepts first. In your population equation (that's generous, but we'll call it population), how do you derive your growth rate?

A correct answer to this question will involve A) but not B)

A) these assumptions are starting points and these factors affect the growth rate

B) a stand alone number

Thanks for clearing things up.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,15:55

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,13:49)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:32)

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,08:35)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)

Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)

You mean mot, not mute.

Or possibly "moot".

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

Quote

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.

Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it? Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.

Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.

“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......th.html

http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

Hee hee hee! You dug up one of the unusual isochron methods!

In the quote from the isochron page at T.O., which is what we are discussing, there is one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope element. You were wrong.

But Pb-Pb isochrons involve many radioisotopes and daughter isotopes and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope, I hear you whine!

I'm way ahead of you. As usual. Back on page 27 I responded to you:

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,14:28)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)

Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.

You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

Note that you said "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes". Not "A few isochron methods involve taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes".

You were wrong. In general, isochron dating involves one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter element. The T.O. page on isochrons, which the subject of this side discussion, that's the kind of isochrons that are covered.

But I carefully wrote "In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used". Note "...almost all the isochron methods...". I know about Pb-Pb isochrons, which are not at all typical of isochron methods. I was correct. Again.

Wotta maroon!

The following popular isochron parent to daughter elements involve a parent radioisotope decaying to a daughter radioisotope that in turn almost always decays either beta, alpha, Isomeric,electron capture, or fission radioactivity

K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,15:57

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 13 2011,15:06)

forastero,

try to grasp the simple concepts first. In your population equation (that's generous, but we'll call it population), how do you derive your growth rate?

A correct answer to this question will involve A) but not B)

A) these assumptions are starting points and these factors affect the growth rate

B) a stand alone number

Thanks for clearing things up.

I just picked a very conservative .5% for sake of argument

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,16:04

forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html

Quote

Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,16:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)

forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html

Quote

Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,16:59

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)

forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html

Quote

Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

For certain values of "answered" that is certainly true.

So, you've been able to answer every question asked.

When are you writing your book then, the book that'll put the world straight as to how things really are?

Or are you one of Dembski's "undercover" students out for their 4000 words or whatever it is?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,17:04

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:51)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)

Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate. This is a forum. It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it. The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim. Back it up with evidence (for once in your life). Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang? And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims. You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies

Sorry to burst your bubble forastero

But you see this:

Quote

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2011,09:31

This statement will appear on any post edited. So, IF the post where I claimed to already know about something was edited, then you would be able to tell.

But whatever.

It still doesn't change the fact that you don't have a clue.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,17:05

Btw,

I recall The Flood: In the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology and Henry Morris Genesis record being good

Christian Research Institute is good

..but I am sure there are better ones

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,17:23

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:56)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)

Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate. This is a forum. It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it. The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim. Back it up with evidence (for once in your life). Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang? And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims. You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Here's a hint, just look at the billions of tons of coal and petroleo

Hey ogre so what is your big bang theory?
And when you gonna list all these so called geologic columns you keep harping on?

Really forastero? There is a single coal formation that covers the entire world. Really? Which one? What's the name of it and IS IT PRESENT IN ALL 26 LOCATIONS WITH A COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD?

You see, your claim is that a flood existed. Your claim requires that there be ONE formation of sediment (which it barely is, because of the metamorphic properties that must happen to produce coal).

So, which coal formation is it. For example: this website http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR3....n.shtml

lists a minimum of 42 coal beds (just in one are of VA) (I stopped counting there) that are interspersed with limestone, shales, and sandstones.

So is it your contention that all coal was formed in the flood? That is obviously impossible to square with reality.

So which coal bed should we be looking at?

Why do you think it is a coal bed?
Considering the amount of sediment of all kinds that would result, why not a sandstone? Obviously siltstones are right out.

I know you'll get right on that, since your previous answer was so detailed. BTW: How do you know or is that just a Wild-Assed Guess from someone with no knowledge of geology, coal formation, or correlation?

You know my Big Bang theory. It's the same as what modern cosmologists have come up with. What's yours... you made a claim that you say is supported by scientists that something actually exploded to cause the big bang, what was it? C4? A mini-nuke? antimatter? quark-gluon plasma? what? And how do you know?

The geologic columns I keep harping on the ones where you need to do your work to support your claims. It should be very easy, I've given you several hints, or do you just need someone to do your work for you? Because I'm not interested.

Comon, 26 geologic columns, spread all over the world, contain complete sequences from precambrian to tertiary. First, I believe you claimed that was wrong... so it should be easy to prove my claim is wrong. Just find out if they exist or not.
Second, your claim that a great flood that buried the entire Earth existed would result in a single layer of sediment that should be visible all over the world (we do have one example of a layer that appears all over the world). Where is it? What layer and how do you know?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,17:48

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,18:04)

Sorry to burst your bubble forastero

But you see this:

Quote

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2011,09:31

This statement will appear on any post edited. So, IF the post where I claimed to already know about something was edited, then you would be able to tell.

Actually, that is only true for administrators and moderators, not serfs like you and me.

ETA: Hence it is polite form to include a note like this when you've substantively edited a post.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,17:51

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,17:26)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)

forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html

Quote

Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

When it happened? Not so much.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,17:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)

forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html

Quote

Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

Absolutley untrue.

Quote

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)

Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking you about

I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.

And still waiting.

Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions

Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,18:10

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,17:04)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:51)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)

Quote me, liar.

And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count

See forastero, you are not in a debate. This is a forum. It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it. The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim. Back it up with evidence (for once in your life). Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang? And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims. You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.

Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies

Sorry to burst your bubble forastero

But you see this:

Quote

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2011,09:31

This statement will appear on any post edited. So, IF the post where I claimed to already know about something was edited, then you would be able to tell.

But whatever.

It still doesn't change the fact that you don't have a clue.

Nov. 07 2011,10:14 For example, the decay rate of radioactive materials and the speed of light. The energy released in H-H fusion. None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so).

Nov. 07 2011,14:33 My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun. The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.

Nov. 08 2011,12:10 “We aren't dismissing the gravity (ahem) of the fluctuations. We're dismissing your claim that they exist.”

See, Scientific flipflopping

forastero

Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,18:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2011,17:53)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)

forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html

Quote

Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

Absolutley untrue.

Quote

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)

Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking you about

I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.

And still waiting.

Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions

Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.

Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.

Again, the ancient cultures of the Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic peoples claimed to have got it passed down from Noah or a Noah-like hero or imposter

Richardthughes

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,18:19

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,18:16)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2011,17:53)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)

forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html

Quote

Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.

Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!

Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...

Absolutley untrue.

Quote

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)

Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking you about

I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.

And still waiting.

Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions

Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.

Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.

Again, the ancient cultures of the Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic peoples claimed to have got it passed down from Noah or a Noah-like hero or imposter

By your 'logic', these can't be cultures destroyed by the flood, as they are descended from Noah. So, try again.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

khan

Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,18:43

just sewing more lies

I think you mean "sowing".

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,19:05

Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2011,19:43)

just sewing more lies

I think you mean "sowing".

he doesn't really care

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

khan

Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,19:07

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 13 2011,20:05)

Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2011,19:43)

just sewing more lies

I think you mean "sowing".

he doesn't really care

It is difficult to take someone seriously when they can not communicate in complete sentences.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,19:10

Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2011,20:07)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 13 2011,20:05)

Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2011,19:43)

just sewing more lies

I think you mean "sowing".

he doesn't really care

It is difficult to take someone seriously when they can not communicate in complete sentences.

if anyone is taking this dipshit seriously they themselves should not be taken seriously.

now, mocking the poor dumb bastard, yes by all means we can all take that seriously. the only worthwhile purpose the muppet can serve is as a dancing spittoon.

dance, muppet! and answer RB's question you pussy

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,19:57

forastero: The questions are:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old? By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

Come clean now. Floss regularly.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,20:55

"the lard works in mysterious ways" aint no answer neither

or is it? that's about what you got left to reach for. consilience is a wicked bitch eh

hey i know, "the vapor canopy angels came down and fucked with the rates of radioisochromowhatsis your evilutionsit never consdier taht", right fourass? throw some capslock up in there for giggles and shit

Hey, listen, how about you tell reciprocating bill exactly how wrong the estimates are, or go fuck yourself.

we all get that you think radiometric estimates are wrong. how wrong?

you are saying you know they are wrong, and here you have the very most people in the whole world who you can prove this too, you, not-athiestocyst, but some other similarly disordered rebel without claws. well now explain.

you've got five orders of magnitude to wave away now with your profuse gyrations about the point and the truth. so dance, muppet!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 13 2011,22:01

two men are arguing. perhaps they are lovers. one says they together owe a third man, a dollar. the other man says that they owe this man 227,000 dollars. one of the men is lying. ????

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009