Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ericmurphy · 07-10-2007, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Then why are you even reading this thread? The SUBJECT of this thread is whether or not ancient humans had improbably extended lifetimes... (snip)

You may certainly request administrator action if you think that I am in some way violating forum etiquette.

But perhaps you might find it useful to reread what I wrote in response to the OP. The issue that I raised seems to me much more interesting than simply reiterating slogans.

My point is not that you're wandering off topic. My point is that you're criticizing people for discussing what is the topic of this thread. No one cares if you think the topic is boring or not worth discussing. If you don't like the discussion, why are you here?

And you think requesting evidence to support a wild-ass assertion is "reiterating slogans?" What?

Occam's Aftershave · 07-10-2007, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

The massive quantities of buried vegetation suggest that the pre-Flood world had much more lush vegetation, some have suggested 100X or more the modern inventory of carbon in the biosphere. (See the journal Origins from GRISDA, particularly R.H. Brown) What effect would this have had on the atmosphere and organismal longevity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

But you have never presented anything which in any way refutes Brown's discussion of pre-Flood biomass ... that's what I referred to in THIS thread. .

Then why do you continually avoid explaining the 12 independent C14 calibration curves:

1. ALL of which cross-correlate with a high degree of precision
2. ALL of which show dates well older than your claimed Creation date
3. NONE of which show your claimed 100X carbon spike at your Flood date of 2750 BC

You were shown the empirical data at ATBC and you ran away.
You were shown the empirical data at RD.net and you ran away.
You were shown the empirical here at IIDB and you ran away.
You were challenged to explain the empirical data at RD.net during a formal debate and you ran away.
You were challenged to explain the empirical data here at IIDB during a formal debate and you ran away.

You keep making the same empty claim, and we keep showing you the empirical data that blows you out of the sky.

WHY DO YOU KEEP RUNNING AWAY FROM THE EMPIRICAL DATA DAVE?

ericmurphy · 07-10-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

All I have left to do is a little more extensive literature search on "ageing" then I'll be done.

Will that "literature search" come up with any empirical evidence of any human anywhere who ever lived more than 150 years? Seems doubtful.

ericmurphy · 07-10-2007, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

So, contrary to the settled opinion of people like Eric Murphy who like to say "No, no, no ... there's not one scintilla of evidence for anything you say, Dave ... this is so elementary, a third grader would know this" ... there IS scientific evidence for both genetic and environmental factors which affect the ageing process.

Dave, I'm going to challenge you to find a post anywhere on the Internet where I say aging is not effected by genetic or environmental factors. If you cannot find such a post, i demand that you retract this statement which attributes to me a position that borders on mental retardation.

What I did say, and have been saying all long, is that you do not have the tiniest twig of empirical evidence that any human being has ever lived more than 150 years. This post contains no such evidence either.

Quote:

Consider the following ...
1) The hydrologic cycle was different pre-Flood.

Why? There was no flood.

Quote:

A "mist watered the earth", there was no rain, and there was something referred to as the "waters above" (Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 2:5, 6). Some writers have suggested that this "waters above" might have caused a higher atmospheric pressure and have asked if this would have any effect on longevity. Some have suggested that the large flying reptiles we see in the fossil record would not have been able to fly without a much higher atmospheric pressure. I have not researched the science behind this suggestion, but it would be interesting to do so.

Which even if true has nothing whatsoever to do with the longevity of humans. Do humans in the tropics live longer than humans elsewhere? Do humans at high altitude have shorter lifespans than other humans?

Quote:

2) The massive quantities of buried vegetation suggest that the pre-Flood world had much more lush vegetation, some have suggested 100X or more the modern inventory of carbon in the biosphere. (See the journal Origins from GRISDA, particularly R.H. Brown) What effect would this have had on the atmosphere and organismal longevity?

Dave, tropical rainforests currently cover 1% of the total surface area of the planet. Explain how they could once have covered 100% of the surface (not land) area of the planet. And explain why you think even if true this would mean humans could live for a thousand years.

Quote:

3) Biblical inferences lead us to believe that humans were vegetarian prior to the Flood, but began eating meat after the Flood. (Genesis 1 & 2, Gen. 9:3 and various non-Biblical references) What effect on longevity could this have had?

My brother is a vegetarian. Is he going to live to be a thousand years old? Half the people I know are vegetarians.

Quote:

So come on, all you evolutionists! Open your minds up and set your imaginations free. Don't say "No, no, no ... we can't, we can't, we can't." Start thinking like a creationist and saying "Imagine if ... Could it be? ... I wonder if ... What if we tried ..." and so on.

Who knows what wonders we might discover!

Whatever we would find, it would be a product of our imagination. Not a product of the real world. If you want us to believe this crap, you're going to have to find some evidence to support it.

ericmurphy · 07-10-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Mike PSS ...

Quote:

Dave,
There is an active discussion at RD.net on this very subject. 108 pages so far of me showing how the model R.H.Brown proposes cannot have happened according to the starting conditions (flood, timing, carbon contents, etc.) that Brown supposes. I've shown this conclusively and you have agreed that R.H.Brown's model is lacking in detail and substance. We even had a phone conference with the man. And afterward you stated that you've abondoned R.H.Brown's description because Brown invokes invariant decay rates of C14 and doesn't like that RATE uses these. Brown also believes that there may have existed a lifeless earth and that creation week was God providing the push to life on an existing old rock. You didn't like that idea and decided to go with the RATE explanation and accellerated nuclear decay.

SO WHY DO YOU BELIEVE R.H.BROWN HERE AT IIDB???

Wow ... what a spin job! The only thing you have accomplished on the thread you refer to is that R.H. Brown's curve shape may be wrong in the early portion soon after the Flood. I quit posting on that discussion because there is really no further data available to decide if you are correct or not. If you disagree, you may want to start a new C14 thread here, but I'm not interested in discussing C14 on this thread.

You're not interested in discussing it on the thread at rd.net, either. Everything Mike said in this post is 100% accurate, Dave. You have abandoned Brown in favor of RATE's AND claims. You've said so yourself. If you disagree with that assertion, I invite you to say so on the thread you yourself started at rd.net.

Quote:

But you have never presented anything which in any way refutes Brown's discussion of pre-Flood biomass ... that's what I referred to in THIS thread.

Dave, Brown's biomass claims are thoroughly refuted. You cannot have 100X biomass pre-flood, because a) your flood never happened, and b) the planet isn't big enough to contain such a biomass.

Quote:

Please don't derail the topic. You can argue that there was no Flood if you like, but please argue elsewhere.

Dave, if you bring up your "flood" as "evidence" for long-lived ante-diluvians, people are going to point out your "flood" never happened. Explain to me how pointing that out would be off-topic. You are determined to ram your "flood" down people's throats, and it's not going to work.

Quote:

I made my case here ... http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10675 and I invite you to begin a thread here which attempts to make a convincing case for a ...

Non-Flood Explanation for the Geological Record.

Have at it. Love to see it.

If that's your "case" for your flood, Dave, are you surprised no one believes it ever happened?

If you want a "non-flood explanation" for the geological record, pick up any high school textbook on geology.

Seven Popes · 07-10-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

HANDY LINKS TO THE LONG-LIVED PATRIARCH DISCUSSION
Roger Pearse on the value of written documents
"The Evil One" analyzes Josephus' sources
Petrie and Langdon: Early Egyptians were monotheists
More on Early Egyptian Monotheism
Faber on Long Lived Patriarchs
Faber citations decoded
Literature search on the "ageing process"

If I have time, I would like to look around a little more to see if I can find some of those writings referenced by Josephus and Faber. Also, I want to investigate TEO's claim that Manetho "doesn't help me."

So don't close the thread quite yet, please.

Congratulations Dave, It appears that you are beginning to learn to use Google. It will open new vistas!
(Dear mods, I am not being sarcastic. at Richard Dawknins website, in this post:http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...asc&start=1897
Dave seemed suprised that google can index websites. He was unfamilure with search terms like "InUrl". In order not to send any traffic away from your website, I will post the following excerpt of the exchange.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sudo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sudo

AFDave1 Breaks a gentleman's agreement.
Would YOU consider this welching?

Dave made a bet, and a poorly thought out one at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave1

Would you like me to catalog all the false charges of dishonesty leveled at me? I won't take the time, but I would bet large sums of money that they outnumber mine 100 to 1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sudo

Dear AFDave, you admit that you called two textbook authors liars, which you retracted. I have not been able to count 200 instances of others calling YOU a liar. You posted a wager claiming that the ratio of false claims were 100 to 1. I bet 50$ American.
Now I want my money.

I PM'ed the above to AFDave1, hoping to collect on a debt. He replied that I haven't counted them all. And it was going to take me a LOOOONG time.

AFDave1 doesnt know how to Google. I returned with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sudo

Actually, no. I did a simple dictionary search,and came up with 126 charges of lying, liar, mistruth, untruth, mislead, false, ect.
Just send me your email, and I will send you the paypal information. Or I can up the ante, if you wish. Remember, you can use google to do a coarse search of this site.

His response?
I shouldn't waste my time. I should notice if i was reading carefully that he wrote "would" not "will" ... that is "he would bet someone" if he had the time to go count them all up.

AFDave1, was that honest of you?
If your neighbor told your kids that he would pay them to clean his gutters, and then told them "I said would, not will" when the came to collect after hours of work, would you think less of your neighbor? I would.

Dave replied with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave1

"Would" is different than "will". I said I would not take the time, but that if I did, I WOULD find this. Sorry ... you'll have to find a new way to get cash.

Completely ignoring my question.

Again, I hope that others will help me celebrate Daves intellectual milestone!

VoxRat · 07-10-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I invite you to begin a thread here which attempts to make a convincing case for a ...

Non-Flood Explanation for the Geological Record.

Have at it. Love to see it.

Would you?
Really?

Why don't you just mosey down to your local library and check out any standard work on geology?

The Evil One · 07-10-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven Popes

(Dear mods, I am not being sarcastic. at Richard Dawknins website, in this post:http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...asc&start=1897
........

Should point out that those without an RD log in can't actually view any of these old debates in any case, so there's no need to worry about directing traffic away from iidb.

Occam's Aftershave · 07-10-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

You can argue that there was no Flood if you like, but please argue elsewhere. I made my case here ... http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10675 and I invite you to begin a thread here which attempts to make a convincing case for a ...

Non-Flood Explanation for the Geological Record.

LOL! Yeah Dave, you made your case all right.

You spent six weeks in a formal debate presenting your Flood 'evidence' which consisted of your C&Ping every crappy article from AIG you could find.

Deadman and then Eric dismantled your inane and self-contradictory claims so thoroughly it would take an electron microscope to see the pieces.

When you were through, the board took a vote on who's arguments were persuasive. Do you remember the results Dave? I do

146-1-1 DAVE LOST

Seven Popes · 07-10-2007, 08:05 AM

Quote:

LOL! Yeah Dave, you made your case all right.

You spent six weeks in a formal debate presenting your Flood 'evidence' which consisted of your C&Ping every crappy article from AIG you could find.

Deadman and then Eric dismantled your inane and self-contradictory claims so thoroughly it would take an electron microscope to see the pieces.

When you were through, the board took a vote on who's arguments were persuasive. Do you remember the results Dave? I do

:wave::wave::wave::wave::wave::wave:

The single vote for Dave appeared only after he was reminded that he could vote.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.