|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PRATT Party and Free for All | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Is this thread about refuting PRATT's for the 1001'th time, or is it about ripping on a sad, confused, creationist who doesn't understand his own arguments?
I have to agree with you though slevesque. I didn't think I'd ever find anyone who's arguments made less sense than AiG's (except Hovind), but there it is... I predict a 0.01% chance that this guy will last a week. Respectfully, -Meldinoor Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
hawkes nightmare writes: Message 52 but i'm estimating that we were approximately where mercury currently is, and the days would be going as fast as you can snap your fingers. one hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now. i just did the math(on a calculator) and the days at the beginning of earth's history would be 252.2222..... hours faster. that's about ten minutes. so evolution CAN't be true and the flood obviously happened. Well at least he did the math! So a day was 252.2222 hours faster than 24 hours....huh??? Talk about whip-lash! This guy has got to be spoofing us. No one could really believe the gibberish he is spouting. Normally, that nonsensical "rate the earth is slowing down" claim is based on a rate of one second every 18 months or so. That originated from an actual honest mistake made by a creationist, most likely Walter Brown since he seems to have been the original source circa 1979: having read that because of the slowing of earth's rotation we would add a leap second every 18 months or so and, completely misunderstanding what leap seconds are about, he assumed that to be the rate of slowing. But the weird thing here is that hawkes has instead cited the correct rate while still coming up with a completely bonkers bogus conclusion. Interestingly, a former forum member, Minority Report, had done the same thing; I wonder if they both used the same crappy creationist source. I request -- no, insist -- that hawkes nightmare present his detailed calculations to support his conclusions. For example, in an earlier thread I presented these calculations:
quote: Oh yeah. This particular PRATT was soundly refuted in 1982, twenty-nine years ago! Personally, I suspect that this PRATT was refuted long be hawkes was even born. Interestingly, if we do the math then we find that about 400 million years ago, in the Devonian, the year would have been 400 days long instead of our current 365.2524 days long (approx). Coral forms in daily layers which vary seasonally, such that by examining coral you can determine how many days were in the year that that coral was formed. Fossil coral from the Devonian shows that the year back then was indeed 400 days long. Two independent lines of evidence coming together to give the same results. Again, hawkes, show us the math! PSOh yeah, that 1982 article: As the World Turns: Can Creationists Keep Time?, William M. Thwaites and Frank T. Awbrey, Creation Evolution Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, Summer 1982, pp 18-22, reposted at As the World Turns | National Center for Science Education Edited by dwise1, : Added bibliography Edited by dwise1, : added mention of leap seconds
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2410 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
lyx2no writes:
Slaps forehead... Without gravity things don't need supporting. Its called a facepalm, get it right!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Hawkes Nightmare,
Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design, Message 127:
ok here's another. going back to the origional topic- can an evolutionist please explain where the bombardier beetle came from? Yawn. This is OLD creationist junk, already refuted a thousand times. An Index to Creationist ClaimsCB310: Bombardier beetle evolution quote: CB310.1: Bombardier Beetles and Explosions.
quote: Not worth spending any more time on. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • • |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: One of the first things I learned in archaeology class was "if you want to find 10,000 year old sites, look for 10,000 year old dirt." So, all we have to do is find dirt that is about 4,350 years old and see what the evidence shows, simple, eh? Fortunately dirt that age is common, and probably exists in most back yards unless there has been a lot of grading during construction. Archaeologists deal with deposits of that approximate age on a daily basis, and have for over a hundred years. Hi Coyote. This dirt dating thing intrigues me. Is there a website chart and other data where one can read up on this as to the continuity of it etc? Thanks. (Perhaps others may have something on this as well. ) BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Is this thread about refuting PRATT's for the 1001'th time, or is it about ripping on a sad, confused, creationist who doesn't understand his own arguments? Your question epitomizes the phrase "A distinction without a difference".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hi Coyote. This dirt dating thing intrigues me. Is there a website chart and other data where one can read up on this as to the continuity of it etc? Thanks. Yes, Buzsaw. Yes, there are indeed websites that explain the dating methods of geologists. Of course there are. Yes. Of course there are. Duh. There is also this wonderful website, I don't know if you've heard of it, where you can look up the answers to this and other similar questions that might perplex you. It's called Google. * bangs head repeatedly on desk * You sit there at your computer with an inconceivably vast source of information literally at your fingertips and you're asking us to do your research for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Buz - "dirt" can very often be dated by carbon-14 dating of charcoal, from forest fires or campfires, or by methods like thermoluminescence that essentially measure how long sand grains have been shielded from sunlight. There are plenty of good threads on this forum on carbon-14 - and carbon 14 reflects the "correct" date for King Hezekiah's tunnel from the spring at Gihon into Jerusalem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Thanks for the responses, but what I'm looking for is data relative to researched dirt dating as per Coyote's message attempting to refute the flood by dirt dating.
I'm particularly interested in charts which show data relative to say, the last 15,000 years, beginning from around 3,000 years. My apologies for not specifying. Since Coyote said dirt dating would tell the story. I want to see that data relative to continuity. If I was as dumb as some (I say some) try to portray I'd be kissing the door and slamming my wife when I come home, like they said on Hee Haw about the guy who was loosing it. Bear with the ole man. I'm not there yet. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
DrAdequate writes: There is also this wonderful website, I don't know if you've heard of it, where you can look up the answers to this and other similar questions that might perplex you. It's called Google. * bangs head repeatedly on desk * You sit there at your computer with an inconceivably vast source of information literally at your fingertips and you're asking us to do your research for you? Doc Adequate, (sometimes inadequate, but thanks anyhow), FYI, I did a google search before I made the original request to Coyote in response to the claim and found nothing that would help. That's not saying it isn't there. That's why I asked. On the side, is so much banging of the head what makes you so cranky? I'm very sorry about that. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dwise1.
dwise1 writes: This particular PRATT was soundly refuted in 1982, twenty-nine years ago! 2010 - 1982 = 28 Edited by Bluejay, : Code problem -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzz.
Buzsaw writes: Doc Adequate... Do you realize that, by shortening his name, you actually made it longer? -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Hi Coyote. This dirt dating thing intrigues me. Is there a website chart and other data where one can read up on this as to the continuity of it etc? Thanks.
I doubt if you can learn this from a website. It took me six years of graduate school and decades of practice to get a good feel for it. Little things are important: stratigraphy (superposition); dating of individual layers by many different means; geomorphology, and a host of other -ologies. Little things can help. Some layers can be dated by radiocarbon dating of faunal remains (rodent bones or pollen). Others can be dated by volcanic ash layers through various techniques. Cultural materials make it easy, as there are a lot of different ways to date those. Some layers may be hard to date directly, but maybe you can date the layers above and below them and get a good estimate. One of the first things one might do is look up the Geological Survey soil maps. Those folks have spent decades identifying and categorizing soils. Their maps have a lot of good information and detail. Check into this and let me know of any questions. But--check the web first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Doc Adequate, (sometimes inadequate, but thanks anyhow), FYI, I did a google search before I made the original request to Coyote in response to the claim and found nothing that would help. You ... searched ... the ... Internet ... and couldn't find anything about geological dating methods?
How? I cannot conceive by what possible ineptitude someone can search the internet for information about dating methods and not find any information about dating methods. Do creationists have some special secret version of Google all of their own which is guaranteed not to expose them to any factual information whatsoever? If so, that would explain a lot.
On the side, is so much banging of the head what makes you so cranky? I'm very sorry about that. I attribute my crankiness to the lamentable proliferation of bleedin' idiots. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024