ericmurphy

I've got news for you, BT: the Bible is just as much a creation of man as science is, and is even more flawed.

And frankly, Dave is doing more to advance the cause of evolutionary theory than any other creationist. And he's done more harm to creationism than anyone I've ever even heard of.

KnightWhoSaysNi

The formal debate is now complete. Constant Mews and afdave may now post here if they wish to.

- KWSN, FD Moderator

The Evil One

Oh my word. The stupid in that last post really hurt. Well, not stupidity so much as wilful ignorance, I suppose.

However, since we have established in informal debate threads that afdave is incapable even in principle of recognisising truth from falsehood, it shouldn't be surprising that his attempts at debate include truckloads upon truckloads of the latter.

Occam's Aftershave

Holy shit. That last post of Dave's was an idiot's tour de force. I don't think he got a single solitary scientific fact or conclusion right. Dave in his infinite wisdom references the recent Nature study showing the English Channel was carved by a massive lake wall breaking between 200,000 and 450,000 years ago to support his 6000 year old Earth claim. (aside - Dave is famous for shooting himself in the foot like this. He once offered up AIG's claim that the Ural mountains were 5 million years old to support the same 6K figure. )

And to absolutely nobody's surprise, Dave weaseled, squirmed, went all the way through the 'debate' and completely ignored CM's simple but devastating question about C14 cal curve synchronicity. The maraschino cherry on the tard sundae was Dave's claim that CM lost because CM didn't prove 'deep time'. I guess Dave totally forgot that the topic of the debate was Is Genesis Historically False, which CM demonstrated in spades.

Now, when do we get to vote on who won the debate? I wonder if Dave will do better than his previous 146-1-1 DAVE LOST shellacking. He sure can't do much worse...or can he? :grin:

ericmurphy

Dave still doesn't get this whole "consilience" thing. He doesn't seem to understand that if you want to demonstrate that the earth is 6,000 years old, you need to find lots of evidence that all converges on 6,000 years (and not any older).

Dave, you can't find evidence that the earth is 100,000 years old, 49,000 years old, 5,000,000 years old, 700,000 and 15,000 years old, and then use that evidence to demonstrate that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I wouldn't think I'd need to explain this sort of thing to a third grader, but it seems necessary to explain it to you.

Why is that?

hecate

.

That is not an explanation, but just a story.

Jayco

I feel infinite sadness for Dave.

mung bean

Yeah, nice one boyo. We're used to cleaning up your mess.
Dave, forminifera are deep_sea_plankton. They are not shallow water freshwater organisms. To say the forminifera laminae and freshwater varves are not different metrics is bloody ridiculous. Then again since you tout Batten, who equates plantation grown radiata pines with bristlecones, I suppose we shouldn't expect you to be able to tell the difference.

Here I was thinking your previous post was pathetic. It was, of course, but it's possible you've exceeded even that level of ignorance in your latest.

So you found that article about the English Channel? I saw that in the latest New Scientist yesterday and thought to myself "Dave would love this."
Only one little tiny problem,Dave. It's dated to way older than 6,000 years.
Sorta makes Genesis look historically inaccurate, Dave. Not exactly the best evidence for making your case, me ol' bucket of batshit.

Tell me, after shooting yourself in the foot so many times over such an extended period are you still able to walk?

Dutch_labrat

When Dave wants to attack the dating of the English Channel Catastrophe he is going to run into a little problem.

You see, I am sitting on the tons and tons of marine and alluvial deposits that form Holland. Was the channel formed after the flood it would have washed most of The Netherlands away down to the bedrock, and that is pretty deep here.

Dave, we know through Roman written historic records (I know you love those) that this land existed about 2000 year after your flood. How can normal rivers and sea tides have dumped this massive amount of several hundreds squares kilomers of deposists in 2000 years to form Holland?

And that is not only sand but there is also peat, wood, plant remains, Mammoth remains and all kinds of stuff. We have layers of peat, marine deposits and river deposits.

Now if you claim that the English channel was formed by this massive wash about 4000 year ago and we know this land was already formed when the Romans came here 2000 ago all this was formed post-flood in what most here would consider a short time.

How?

Gressil

I'm glad I'm not a creationist, I think I would be seriously doubting my faith after this show.

I was wondering if Dave has actually ever seen the Grand Canyon? I can't say I have personally either but just by looking on Google Earth I can see a great difference between the basic shape of the English Channel (which I have seen on numerous occasions) which is basically long and straight and the GC which meanders somewhat.

Dave also seems to have forgotten to mention how in this catastrophic flood the fossils all got nicely sorted.