Freethought & Rationalism Archive

07-05-2007, 12:32 AM

I've noticed Dave hasn't been posting as enthusiastically these last few days and I suspect the reason is that he has been searching for a comeback to this part of CM's last debate post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

The Fundamental Problem for a Young Earth Creationist
I alluded to this issue in my last post, I will now state it explicitly: the varve chronology of Lake Suigetsu has been shown to be in correspondence with multiple, independent chronological metrics. Even if one metric is questionable, it is virtually impossible for all the metrics to be wrong in different ways and yet produce similar results. And so my challenge for Dave is really quite simple:

Show how and why each of the multiple, independent dating methods agree on the same, creationally-impossible dates. That is what is necessary to disprove the varve chronology of Lake Suigetsu. The significant term here is agree. Showing that one or the other method is invalid is insufficient. They still agree.

As a reminder, the dating methods include varve counts (I will address Oard's issues later); the European and American dendrochronological records, both oak and bristlecone pine; the GRIP and GISP2 ice cores, C14 radiometric dating, speleotherms, forminifera laminae, and coral U/Th dates. Each and every method yields dates that are not only far too old to support any YEC scheme, but synchronized dates.

That is what needs to be done, Dave: Explain the synchronization.

Is anyone willing to bet that Dave will actually address this point in a substantive manner? I'm willing to bet that he won't, but it's a bet I really would like to lose. It would demonstrate remarkable progress on his part if I could lose such a bet.

akki007 · 07-05-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

I've noticed Dave hasn't been posting as enthusiastically these last few days and I suspect the reason is that he has been searching for a comeback to this part of CM's last debate post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

The Fundamental Problem for a Young Earth Creationist
I alluded to this issue in my last post, I will now state it explicitly: the varve chronology of Lake Suigetsu has been shown to be in correspondence with multiple, independent chronological metrics. Even if one metric is questionable, it is virtually impossible for all the metrics to be wrong in different ways and yet produce similar results. And so my challenge for Dave is really quite simple:

Show how and why each of the multiple, independent dating methods agree on the same, creationally-impossible dates. That is what is necessary to disprove the varve chronology of Lake Suigetsu. The significant term here is agree. Showing that one or the other method is invalid is insufficient. They still agree.

As a reminder, the dating methods include varve counts (I will address Oard's issues later); the European and American dendrochronological records, both oak and bristlecone pine; the GRIP and GISP2 ice cores, C14 radiometric dating, speleotherms, forminifera laminae, and coral U/Th dates. Each and every method yields dates that are not only far too old to support any YEC scheme, but synchronized dates.

That is what needs to be done, Dave: Explain the synchronization.

Is anyone willing to bet that Dave will actually address this point in a substantive manner? I'm willing to bet that he won't, but it's a bet I really would like to lose. It would demonstrate remarkable progress on his part if I could lose such a bet.

Hasn't Dave missed his time slot for posting a reply?

Also, HEY EVERYBODY!! :wave:

akki007 · 07-05-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akki007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

I've noticed Dave hasn't been posting as enthusiastically these last few days and I suspect the reason is that he has been searching for a comeback to this part of CM's last debate post:

Is anyone willing to bet that Dave will actually address this point in a substantive manner? I'm willing to bet that he won't, but it's a bet I really would like to lose. It would demonstrate remarkable progress on his part if I could lose such a bet.

Hasn't Dave missed his time slot for posting a reply?

Also, HEY EVERYBODY!! :wave:

In answer to my question, no, he hasn't!

Sven · 07-05-2007, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

I've noticed Dave hasn't been posting as enthusiastically these last few days and I suspect the reason is that he has been searching for a comeback to this part of CM's last debate post:
[snip]

Another reason is that he took a day of for the 4th of July, as he said in another thread.

deadman_932 · 07-05-2007, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Teh Mungster queried plaintively:
Is anyone willing to bet that Dave will actually address this point in a substantive manner?

Nope, I can't imagine taking THAT bet...

Occam's Aftershave · 07-05-2007, 07:00 AM

Dave just posted his latest his latest <edit> on the FD thread, and guess what?

Dave TOTALLY IGNORED CM'S question about C14 cal curve synchronicity. :banghead:

Instead we get the same ol' same ol' from Davie-doo: A regurgitation of a bunch of RATE Zircon crap that he's already seen thrashed on other boards

The repeated whine that CM hasn't explained how C14 dating works

The repeated complaints about the Lake Suigetsu varves, while completely ignoring all the other C14 cal methods and data.

The appeal that we all should read the Bibble more to educate ourselves on scientific matters, like talking snakes and magic fruit

Finally, Dave tries the disingenuous evasion tactic of trying to redefine the debate criteria: Dave now claims that CM must demonstrate ALL of Genesis to be false, not just parts of it, in order to 'win'

All in all, another typical post by Dave: lots of evasion, lots of assertions, lots of bullshit, ZERO scientific content.

akki007 · 07-05-2007, 08:58 AM

If the guy cannot even structure a paragraph, what hope does he have.

ck1 · 07-05-2007, 09:54 AM

And the other odd claim - the books of the Bible are different and independent sources, and therefore can be used to provide confirmation of each other!

The Bible is true because the Bible says so! Not circular at all!

Mike PSS · 07-05-2007, 10:06 AM

I liked the part where Dave says that parts of Genesis could be historically false but this doesn't prove that Genesis was false. And then in another breath he will say that the Bible is the innerrant word of God.

I don't even need to make this stuff up, just c&p what Dave says.

Oy Vay!

Pantrog · 07-05-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

And I say that the fact that they are currently unexplained by science does not constitute a demonstration that they are false, any more than the fact that we cannot explain OOL constitutes a demonstration that the statement that life originated WITH NO intelligent input is false. We cannot say that either situation is false, based on things we do not know. And remember what the debate is about. It's about you being able to demonstrate that things like magic fruit and talking serpents and a short time scale, etc. are false.

Well I have a +5 Vorpal Kiwi fruit (+6 vs. undead) and a Pear of invisibility.

Seriously, does Dave think that CM needs to show that there are no (and have never been) magical fruit on earth? Are scientists expected to conduct a series of carefully controlled experiments to detect residual magical activity in the full range of global fruit (and do they have to include tomatoes?)

:banghead:

I'm worried for Dave - that last paragraph looks like the textural equivalent of Pressure of Speech. The cognitive dissonance maybe inducing some form of break.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-05-2007, 07:00 AM	#216
Occam's Aftershave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: California Posts: 2,215	Dave just posted his latest his latest <edit> on the FD thread, and guess what? Dave TOTALLY IGNORED CM'S question about C14 cal curve synchronicity. :banghead: Instead we get the same ol' same ol' from Davie-doo: A regurgitation of a bunch of RATE Zircon crap that he's already seen thrashed on other boards The repeated whine that CM hasn't explained how C14 dating works The repeated complaints about the Lake Suigetsu varves, while completely ignoring all the other C14 cal methods and data. The appeal that we all should read the Bibble more to educate ourselves on scientific matters, like talking snakes and magic fruit Finally, Dave tries the disingenuous evasion tactic of trying to redefine the debate criteria: Dave now claims that CM must demonstrate ALL of Genesis to be false, not just parts of it, in order to 'win' All in all, another typical post by Dave: lots of evasion, lots of assertions, lots of bullshit, ZERO scientific content.

07-05-2007, 08:58 AM	#217
akki007 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 12	If the guy cannot even structure a paragraph, what hope does he have.

07-05-2007, 09:54 AM	#218
ck1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: US East Coast Posts: 1,093	And the other odd claim - the books of the Bible are different and independent sources, and therefore can be used to provide confirmation of each other! The Bible is true because the Bible says so! Not circular at all!

07-05-2007, 10:06 AM	#219
Mike PSS Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 656	I liked the part where Dave says that parts of Genesis could be historically false but this doesn't prove that Genesis was false. And then in another breath he will say that the Bible is the innerrant word of God. I don't even need to make this stuff up, just c&p what Dave says. Oy Vay!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.