deadman_932

When it's suggested that Sanford should take his work to a proper journal, Dave says "Don't make me laugh"

Dave says Sanford wouldn't get published if he submitted to a refereed/peer-reviewed journal.

But Dave mentions that Crow and Kondrashev have had their work questioning mutation accumulation published. And they aren't ALONE, the strength of science and the history of science lies in people questioning the established order...BUT THEY DO IT WITH DATA TO BACK THEMSELVES UP.

Odd, that Crow and Kondrashev DO get published...given that Dave believes such things would be quashed by the dark evolutionist hidden masters.

So..why should Dave say "don't make me laugh" when people suggest Sanford COULD publish...

I suggest it's because Kondrashev and Crow point to things like epistasis and sexual recombination --- whereas Sanford is seemingly offering nothing more than "goddidit"

Withered

If there were a world wide flood, and everyone died. Eight people had to rebuild the entire civilization of Egypt, China, and every other culture on the planet that somehow managed to carry on after the alleged flood date.

Eight people, a handful of newborns that require constant attention, and the remaining individuals are so busy gathering food, replanting, herding animals for immediate needs, and just dealing with every little thing that would come up.

The ark's passengers, and that first generation would not have the time to do anything but survive.

Add to that the list of things they would have to have accomplished in order to maintain illusion that there had been no flood, and that every culture in the world had been destroyed, and you not only strain credulity, but out right snap it in half and toss it's poor, unbelievable corpse over your shoulder like so much rubbish.

While merely striving to survive, eight people, a handful of newborns, and a crap load of wild animals somehow have to travel the entire world and:

*carefully burying the dead so as to leave no archeological trace of the near extinction of the human race

*using heiroglyphics to maintain a flawless record of what could have happened if all those egyptians had lived,

(which seems oddly dishonest of noah and the others, writing all that down, under the pretense of being innumerable egyptian clerks and priests, deliberately creating a record that would make no mention of the massive flood they had just survived, or the glory of the god that had spared them. Damned liars noah and his family.)

*And of course, repairing all of the buildings damaged by the weight of water deep enough to hide the moutains of the world, again leaving no archeological evidence of world wide structural collpases.

*replanting all of the farmland ruined by the flood.

*and laboring to clear an entire geological layer from the earth so as to leave no trace of the flood.

No amount of genetics can account for that afdave.

No handful of people could have pulled that off, and even if you claim that they had, there is not one shred of evidence to support such claims...
So why the genetics/measurement smokescreen?

ck1

OK, I did. Your turn.

Back up your accusation that scientists/editors/publishers block publication of creationist papers.

deadman_932

I'm sorry, I know this thread should exclusively be about Pyramid power and how those dull ancient Egyptian Hamites couldn't pile rocks on rocks or know pi, but I have one other thing to add on mutation accumulation.

Haldane published HIS critique in 1957. As one of the "anointed" NeoDarwinians, (to Dave)...why would he do that, Dave? Perhaps it's because he was interested in resolving scientific problems.

To that end, people have been looking at the problem and offering tentative suggestions about it for decades. They've published hundreds of papers on the topics involved, Dave.

Sanford doesn't publish about his views in open, peer-reviewed journals because he has nothing by way of a model to explain his tripe. In fact, what he DOES suggest runs counter to what we know in wide swaths of science, not just genetics.

That's why he doesn't publish, Dave...he's offering nothing but unsupported mystical crap.

Asha'man

Maybe, if you want to talk to a geneticist, you should take this discussion out of the forum where our Historians are and move to the forum where all our Biologists are?

Any discussion of genetics, especially in the context of a ancient flood, really should be moved to the Evolution/Creation subforum.

Dave Hawkins

OK, Asha'man ... this has been done. Everybody can now comment on my new thread in the Ev/C forum ...

Cornell Geneticist: Degenerating Genomes Disprove Evolution

Now returning to the OP, I am curious to know what Dean thinks about my answers to his points. Also, I am interested to know how Pappy Jack thinks that MikePSS' explanation for the GP slope was 'overwhelmingly convincing.'

Again, I think Smyth has been vindicated in his conclusion that the GP is a repository of advanced scientific knowledge, which includes my 5 numbered points given earlier, but does NOT include and prophetic inferences. My next inquiry into the GP will be to obtain works by Herschel and Proctor to investigate their claims that the GP is dated astronomically to 2170 BC.

Amaleq13

I agree and would be willing to create a split but several of Dave's responses to the Crow discussion are within posts that would stay.

Perhaps a fresh start?

I've provided just that in this new S&S thread:
Does Crow support superior ancient DNA?


ETA: I cross-posted with Dave so I've reported my S&S thread for their moderators to handle.

Mike PSS

Dave,
And I've asked you half a dozen times....

"Why did these ancients hide all this knowledge so well only to be discovered by someone (Smyth) who already had all this knowledge?"

"Who were the intended recipients of this hidden knowledge?"

Do you have ANY comments on this?

Also Dave. You have the referenced articles about Pyramid slopes and measurements. These articles are a direct counter to Smyth. I think it's up to you to show us those parts that you disagree with by reading and fisking said articles. Enough to say that Smyth's findings are suspect by more than these referenced articles, but these will do for now.

angelo

Argument from authority has kept this planet in the dark ages for at least an extra thousand years, both medically and scientific.

We could have had a colony on Mars by now, cured cancer and who knows what other wonders. Dave I blame you and your kind for the mess this planet is in.:banghead:

Dave Hawkins

I don't know if this knowledge was "hidden" except maybe from the common people. I have no idea if the builders had any intended recipients of their knowledge.

If you want me to fisk your counters to Smyth, please present them here in your own words. I remember being given "arguments by links" at RD.net, but I never recall that you explained the argument. At least, I never understood it ... maybe I'm just dense. I can probably get some agreement on that here for sure if I cannot get agreement on anything else! :-)