Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 11:34 AM
75 online now:
Chatting now:  Jon
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,066 Year: 24,907/28,606 Month: 2,208/1,786 Week: 423/647 Day: 28/79 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 6 of 126 (544689)
01-27-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
01-27-2010 8:35 PM


...
...so evolution CAN't be true and the flood obviously happened.

I'd like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt and say he's just any old creationist whack-job regurgitating AIG crap. But his post just seems to scream, "TROLL!!!" to me.

Am I giving him too much credit?

Maybe...


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2010 8:35 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 12:03 AM Apothecus has responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 18 of 126 (544810)
01-28-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
01-28-2010 12:03 AM


Re: ...
Hey Slevesque.

Sorry for the unsupported misattribution. Sometimes it's difficult for me to not use a brooooooad brush when attributing such things to AIG. Usually it's a pretty accurate method.

My mistake.

Have a good one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 12:03 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 47 of 126 (546339)
02-10-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by caffeine
02-10-2010 5:42 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
Hey Caffeine.

Where are they doing away with claims about changing decay rates?

If you read a bit further, you'll find a section that deals more with this "scrunching" of all the evidenced billions of years of radioactive decay and the heat which would have had to have been generated from said decay. And at the end of it, you'll find a passage (which I'm sure the authors wish could just go away) which can be summed up in Randy Isaac's analysis of the RATE project:

The RATE team has honestly acknowledged that even if their technical claims were accurate, there remain unsolved problems that cannot be reconciled with any known scientific process. In his summary at the RATE conference in Denver on Sept. 15, 2007, Don DeYoung noted the need to invoke divine intervention in order to circumvent these problems. However, the oft-stated summary by the RATE team, that their results provide assurance of the biblical interpretation of a young earth, leaves the average listener with the mistaken impression that these problems are nonexistent, trivial, or soon to be resolved. Rather, the RATE team acknowledged overwhelming evidence for hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity [12] and admitted that compressing this activity into a few thousand years would generate more than enough heat to vaporize all granitic rock. [13] They state that no known thermodynamic process could dissipate such a large amount of heat. [14] Their expressed hope in solving heat dissipation by cooling via enhanced cosmological expansion [15] has not been realized and is not consistent with our knowledge of the expanding universe. [16] Thus, the RATE team has provided solid evidence that, scientifically, the earth cannot be thousands but must be billions of years old.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-pscf.htm#1

Emphasis mine.

Seems as if they've come to the same conclusions as the rest of us but would rather not believe their own evidence. That they discovered that our earth and everything on it would have, in fact, vaporized in their scenario (without magick, that is) will probably discourage any other "creation science" attempts to debunk the theory of an old earth.

Have a good one.

Edited by Apothecus, : added bolds


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 02-10-2010 5:42 AM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 84 of 126 (546789)
02-13-2010 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Coyote
02-12-2010 8:55 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hey Coyote.

What you are trying to argue is that trees absorbed carbon differently pre-flood vs. post-flood.

And what's funny about that is that even if they did absorb C14 differently before the flud, after the flud they'd be dead, thus unable to absorb much at all.

Just sayin'.

buzsaw writes:

...(as Bus sips his glass of cheap nevertheless good upstate NY red wine).

Like they say, Buz, the best wine is the wine you like to drink.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2010 8:55 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 02-13-2010 9:58 PM Apothecus has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 10:18 PM Apothecus has responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 90 of 126 (546851)
02-14-2010 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
02-13-2010 10:18 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hey Buz.

... and the pre-flood trees being low 14C they would date older than indicated.

But we don't see considerably less C14 prior to the date specified for the biblical flood (or any of the other various flood stories). As stated ealier, there is a difference, but one that is accounted for via calibration.

What I do find interesting, though, is not necessarily all the different correlations that soundly refute your position, Buz. Young earth creationists often crow about the fact that the acceptance of carbon dating requires "assumptions" due to the fact that no one was around a half life of C14 ago to be able to quantitatively test this.

But, see, it's kinda like we were. How? Well, looking back at the bristlecone pines (or the European Oaks, etc...) we can use instruments to measure (not date, Buz, measure) how much C14 is in any one tree ring. Then (get this), we count 5730 (appr.) rings back in time (which may require more than one tree) and guess what? If you measure (not date) the amount of C14 in this ring (5730 years ago), we get....surprise!....half the amount of C14. Wow! What another amazing coincidence! No assumptions required.

Sorry, Buz, but I do believe you've exceeded your weekly quota of "perhapses", "maybes" and "what ifs". All in one post.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 02-13-2010 10:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2010 12:36 PM Apothecus has responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 92 of 126 (546880)
02-14-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
02-14-2010 12:36 PM


Re: tree rings vs 14C correlation
Hey RAZD.

Thanks for the reply. You should probably know that this admitted amateur spent quite some time poring over your lengthy and information-packed correlations thread(s). I have to admit I checked and cross-referenced a lot of your conclusions, and found them all bulletproof, but in searching for the truth, shouldn't we always fact-check? Anyway, you should also know that your posts pretty much sewed up my personal contention against anything flood-related.

Thanks again for your work.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2010 12:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2010 6:43 PM Apothecus has acknowledged this reply

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 98 of 126 (546988)
02-15-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
02-15-2010 11:45 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Hey Buz.

I harp on corroboration incessantly, yet nobody pays any attention to the fact that there are numerous corroborating factors relative to the veracity of the Biblical record.

You say corroboration, when I think what you actually mean is self-validation. But correct me if I'm wrong here.

For example, regarding the account of creation, biblical literalists will cite the beginning of the book of John, specifically vs. 1-3:

1.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.He was with God in the beginning.
3.Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Forgive me if I'm being presumptuous, Buz, but is this what you meant? Attempting to verify the truth of the bible with...the bible? John (supposedly) said Jesus was present at creation, so this corroborates the Genesis account, correct? I'll let lie the various theories about who actually wrote the gospel of John, but if you're intending to be taken seriously here, you'll need to bring a little more to the discussion than, "This part of the bible says this other part here is true, so there's your corroboration."

I'll be straightforward here, though Buz, there's not much in the good book that'll strengthen your case, scientifically speaking or otherwise. Like Dr. A said, there's some OK history if you look hard enough, but as far as science goes, bupkus. The closest anyone associated with creation came was when the RATE crew spent all those creationist-donated dollars and just ended up strengthening the old-earthers' case.

Sorry.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2010 11:45 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by DrJones*, posted 02-15-2010 5:58 PM Apothecus has responded
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2010 9:46 PM Apothecus has responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 101 of 126 (547022)
02-15-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by DrJones*
02-15-2010 5:58 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Basically Buz's position is that the actual historical stuff in the bible prooves the mythical stuff.

Ah. I do remember reading about those remains. Found on a beach somewhere, yes? Some beach where no one except for Egyptian bad-guy pursuers would ever dare to take an ancient pleasure-trip?

Never mind, then.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DrJones*, posted 02-15-2010 5:58 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 110 of 126 (547133)
02-16-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
02-15-2010 9:46 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Thanks for the reply, Buz.

By corroboration I'm talking about stuff you appear to have no knowledge of.

Admittedly, I have less knowledge than you when discussing the Exodus event and evidence. In the limited reading I've done on it, however, I found the "evidence"...wanting. I understand this is a free for all, but as I can see from the past threads on this board, it's all been hashed out multiple times, so I see no need to go through it again. Rest assured, though, your contention of my complete and total ignorance on this subject is mistaken.

Let's set aside, for the moment, whether there was actually a real, historical exodus from Egypt, or if the walls of Jericho were actually brought down with the trumpets of the Israelites, etc, etc, etc...(insert your questionable historical biblical scenario here) How, exactly, when presented with the mountains of evidence, can you extend the (tiny) possibility of the above events to then conclude that the flood must have been an actual event?

Seems like you're reaching here a bit, to me.

Have a good one.

Edited by Apothecus, : grammar


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 02-15-2010 9:46 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 7:23 PM Apothecus has acknowledged this reply

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 113 of 126 (547912)
02-23-2010 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by lyx2no
02-23-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Bump for Buzsaw
Hey lyx2no.

How did the trees not record a different number of years between the 14C dating and the annual growth rings?

He also has to explain how those trees lived through that massive deluge.

So, Buz, without spewing incessant BS about how such and such tropical swamp tree lived after being submerged for such and such amount of time blah blah blah...can you tell us, Buz, short of amazing magick, how Bristlecone Pines, English Oaks, et al showed anything, ANYTHING, except exceptional deadness after remaining underwater for the better part of a year?

Even a, "I'm not sure, but it'll all be revealed to me in the afterlife," would be preferable to your endless string of "maybes", "perhapses" and "what ifs". It's tiresome to read. How can you bring yourself to type it?


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 02-23-2010 6:33 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 02-23-2010 10:15 PM Apothecus has not yet responded
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2010 10:52 PM Apothecus has responded
 Message 117 by lyx2no, posted 02-23-2010 10:53 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 125 of 126 (547981)
02-24-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Buzsaw
02-23-2010 10:52 PM


Re: Bump for Buzsaw
I already offered my 2 cents worth on that some place in this thread.

Yes, Buz, I read that post. Forgive me, but I found your explanations ... wanting.

However, your imagination is impeccable.

How is it, again, that you as an admitted scientific layperson can draw such striking parallels between Amazonian swamp trees and dry-climate mountain pines with regard to whether or not they could survive long-term immersion and expect reasonable folks to take you the least bit seriously? I understand your dogma is on the line here, but c'mon! Irrationality helps your case not at all.

Edited by Apothecus, : added final paragraph


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 02-23-2010 10:52 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014