Dave Hawkins

Once again ... I don't say this ... never have, never will. I just say the ones that speculate about Darwinism and Deep Time are mistaken and have poor support for their speculations. The ones that seek cures for cancer and other diseases and try to improve plants and find better energy sources, etc. are quite competent.

But I would be thrilled if CM could actually demonstrate that Lake Suigetsu proves a long time scale ... a great start would be to contact the authors of the paper and ask them the questions I posed. Remember what the debate was about? He was going to demonstrate this.

He lost. But he's on an infidel site so everyone voted for him anyway.

Constant Mews

Unfortunately, this is false. You have accused the world's scientists of gross incompetence and/or dishonesty. You claim that scientists 'shoe-horn' their data - a claim of dishonesty - and your claim that they all use the same erroneous assumptions - a claim of incompetence - need to be taken as the libel that they are. If you wish to make this sort of nonsensical claim, you need to support it.

Otherwise, you just look like a foolish creationist with an axe to grind and no grindstone.

Then you are accusing them of incompetence. There is no way to spin this, Dave: you are accusing people with far more education, intelligence, competence, ethical integrity, experience, and consilience than you have of being too stupid to hold their jobs.

Care to back that up with real evidence? You haven't been able to do as yet.

Not according to you - because these folks make use of the same data and same techniques and same theories as the ones doing things you dislike.

You simply don't understand how science works Dave - it all hangs together (unlike creationism, which is generally incoherent).

I already did. We had a debate on this topic and you lost embarrassingly. 150-1-1 or some such numbers as I recall. I also recall that you were completely unable to refute the consilience of the various dating schemes in the debate. Completely unable to do so. In fact, you didn't even try to deal with consilience in the course of our debate. Is your memory that short, Dave? Yes. And I did. Find me the passage in your posts that actually dealt with consilience. Find them. And post them here, Dave. You didn't even touch consilience.

Poor Dave: it rankles that badly? Hell, creationists would have voted against you.

You still don't get it, do you? It's about consilience. And your sole claim about consilience is that it's based on massive incompetence. That's it.

But you feel perfectly free to try to point to anywhere in our debate where you dealt with the consilience argument. Anywhere.

I'm sorry you lost, Dave - I hated to make a fellow Christian look foolish and ignorant.

But you had it coming. And I must admit I rather enjoyed eviscerating you. Unchristian of me, I suppose. But it was so easy. I could do it again. On any topic whatever. :devil1:

Gullwind

There are a number of creationists on IIDB that are regular posters. One has to wonder why they didn't vote for Dave if it really was simply a case of "an infidel site so everyone voted for him anyway."

ericmurphy

Yes, you do, Dave. You may be unaware that you're doing it, but you are nevertheless. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world who labor daily to improve the accuracy of radiocarbon calibration. Because you think they are all wrong, you either think they're dishonest or incompetent. There is no third option.
What about the scientists who labor to improve the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, Dave? They're not "speculating." They are using proven techniques (that's the "consilience" part you refuse to understand). Which do you believe? That they are dishonest or incompetent? It has to be one or the other. If they're not lying, and are merely mistaken, then they are incompetent. All of them, and there are thousands of them.
So the millions of scientists who work in fields relevant to evolutionary theory and geology worldwide, they're all either dishonest or incompetent, right? Which do you believe they are: dishonest, or incompetent?

Dave, he already has. He's demonstrated it to anyone who is capable of (or willing to) understand the argument. He doesn't need to contact the authors of the paper, because he (and the rest of us) understand what the paper says, and we're not making arguments from authority.

Meanwhile, you are either unwilling, or unable, to understand the argument concerning Lake Suigetsu's varves that demolishes the biblical claims about the flood and the age of the earth. Are you dishonest, or incompetent? There is no third option.

You lost, Dave. I didn't vote for CM because he's an atheist (since he's not). I voted for him because his argument totally destroyed your non-argument.

Constant Mews

Yes. That particular 'defense' is so childish and pathetic that I wasn't originally going to draw attention to it. As I pointed out at the very beginning of the debate I am a Christian. Why would atheists vote for me?

Dave, you lost because you presented no coherent argument; because you cut and pasted material in violation of the rules; because you paraphrased arguments that you didn't understand, couldn't defend, and have already been disproved numerous times; because you completely and spectacularly failed to even address the problem of consilience of chronological metrics; ad nauseum.

You lost because you debated badly - not because there is some 'conspiracy' here to oppress creationists. So far as I can see there is no need for such a conspiracy: creationists such as yourself destroy their own arguments. (There are NO transitionals and only a FEW transitionals comes to mind as one of your more recent leaps from the cliff of illogic.)

Occam's Aftershave

No Dave, you claimed that scientists force-fit their data into expected "Evo" preconceptions. In other words, they committed willful scientific fraud. Don't lie about what you said Dave - it's way too easy to check.

He did Dave. He showed you the independent calibration procedures, and he asked you the same question that's had you shitting your drawers for 433 days now.

Why do all the independent C14 cal curves cross-correlate?

You couldn't answer then, you can't answer now.

No Dave, you lost 118-1-1 because you were too cowardly to address the points he raised. Just like you lost 148-1-1 when you debated at RD.net. But since it makes your ego feel better to lie about the results, go right ahead. The rest of us know better.

Vagus

The true greatness of threads like this is they stand as an ongoing example of the utter ethical, intellectual and scientific bankruptcy of the creationist/ID camp.

mung bean

No you would not be thrilled if CM demonstrated to you (as opposed to the everyone else here) that Lake Suigetsu proves a long time scale. On the contrary, you would be mortified and would quite likely have a breakdown. Your desire to avoid this is why you avoid dealing with the evidence.

As for your last comment, I won't try to speak for anyone else but speaking for myself I can say that you are wrong and fucking arrogant to boot. I did not vote for CM for any reason except that he debated well and made sense while you spent your time running in circles and dribbling bullshit. As usual.
You really should learn some other tactics, Dave. Of course that would require you to stop being a YEC.

There are other Christians and creationists apart from you both here and at the Dawkins forum. None of them thought you were worth voting for.

mung bean

And while I'm on the subject, not only were you totally useless and devoid of ideas in that debate but you have been totally useless and devoid of ideas in all the threads you have posted in, which is why you always find it necessary to run away from them without dealing with the questions raised. If you wish to claim yet again that this is not true I will immediately put up a post with links to all the threads you have abandoned.

Pappy Jack

I grow weary at the overwhelming number of posts in almost limitless threads on a variety forums that have done far more than speculate but provide you with evidence in support of both 'Darwinism' and 'Deep Time'. Even this dumb ol' social scientist/historian posted some information for you about the various independent dating methods for the age of the Universe that all converged on billions of years rather than a few thousand, only to be met with a deafening silence.
I like the 'quite'. You can't be accused of lacking hubris.
But he did. Emphatically and comprehensively. That's why I voted for him. Oh, and why don't you contact the authors of the paper and ask them the questions you want answered? I think this has already been suggested to you.
No, wait. I didn't vote for him because his arguments were overwhelming, I voted for him 'cause he's one of dem pesky atheists, jus' like me. No, wait again. I didn't vote for him 'cause he presented a swathe of convincing evidence, I voted for him 'cause he's a righteous Christian, jus' like me.

Give it a rest, Dave.