Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 16 of 126 (544725)
01-28-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by slevesque
01-28-2010 12:03 AM


Re: ...
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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 8:00 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 17 of 126 (544734)
01-28-2010 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tanypteryx
01-27-2010 9:47 PM


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:
So, to answer your question of how long a day would have been one billion years ago:
1 billion years / (100 years/century) = 10 million centuries.
10 million centuries * 2 milliseconds per day per century = 20,000 seconds shorter.
20,000 seconds = 5 hours 33 minutes 20 seconds.
Therefore, one billion years ago, one day should have been about 18 hours, 27 minutes, 40 seconds long.
Thwaits & Awbrey {the authors of that 1982 article} performed the same calculation for 4.5 billion years ago and arrived at a 13-hour day. They then pointed out that Jupiter has a ten-hour day and does not suffer from the extreme shape distortion that Brown predicted for the ancient earth ("The earth would have been shaped like a very rapidly spinning pizza crust." -- indirectly quoted by Thwaites & Awbrey).
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!
PS
Oh 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-27-2010 9:47 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 02-07-2010 10:39 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 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 replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 126 (544831)
01-28-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tanypteryx
01-27-2010 10:32 PM


lyx2no writes:
Without gravity things don't need supporting.
Slaps forehead...
Its called a facepalm, get it right!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-27-2010 10:32 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 126 (545294)
02-02-2010 9:08 PM


At it again.
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 Claims
CB310: Bombardier beetle evolution
quote:
Claim CB310:
The bombardier beetle cannot be explained by evolution. It must have been designed.
This is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997).
...
(see link for stages)
...
All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.
CB310.1: Bombardier Beetles and Explosions.
quote:
Claim CB310.1:
The bombardier beetle would explode if the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone that produce their ejecta were mixed without a chemical inhibitor. Such a combination of chemicals could not have evolved.
That description of bombardier beetles' physiology is inaccurate. It is based on a sloppy translation of a 1961 German article by Schildknecht and Holoubek (Kofahl 1981). Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when mixed (Dawkins 1986, 86-87). What actually happens is this: Secretory cells produce a mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals), which collects in a reservoir. To produce the blast, the beetle releases some of this mixture into a reaction chamber, where catalases and peroxidases cause the mixture to oxidize in chemical reactions that generate enough heat to vaporize about a fifth of the mixture. The pressure of the released gasses causes the heated mixture to be expelled explosively from the beetle's abdomen (Aneshansley and Eisner 1969; Aneshansley et al. 1983; Eisner et al. 1989).
...
(more)
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


Message 21 of 126 (546039)
02-07-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
01-27-2010 9:15 PM


Re: Dating dirt
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2010 9:15 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 8:13 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 24 by Coragyps, posted 02-07-2010 8:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2010 11:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 126 (546045)
02-07-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
01-28-2010 12:36 AM


Re: ...
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 12:36 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 126 (546048)
02-07-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Dating dirt
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 7:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 24 of 126 (546052)
02-07-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Dating dirt
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 7:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 126 (546054)
02-07-2010 10:05 PM


Re: Dirt Dating Data
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


(1)
Message 26 of 126 (546055)
02-07-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
02-07-2010 8:13 PM


Re: Dating dirt
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 8:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Blue Jay, posted 02-07-2010 11:04 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2010 12:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 27 of 126 (546056)
02-07-2010 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by dwise1
01-28-2010 2:20 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by dwise1, posted 01-28-2010 2:20 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 28 of 126 (546060)
02-07-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 10:25 PM


Re: Dating dirt
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 10:25 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 5:41 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 29 of 126 (546061)
02-07-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Dating dirt
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 7:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 7:20 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 126 (546062)
02-08-2010 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
02-07-2010 10:25 PM


Re: Dating dirt
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 02-07-2010 10:25 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by bluescat48, posted 02-08-2010 12:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 02-08-2010 6:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024