ericmurphy

And while you're reliving the glory-days of your "flood debate," Dave, I would remind you that I expect you either to find a quote where I expressed disbelief that genetic and/or environmental factors effect the aging process, or retract your claim. I do not wish to be associated with such a brain-dead position that I'm confident no one on this thread has ever held to.

The problem isn't that environment and genetics have no effect on aging. The problem is that YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT ANY HUMAN HAS EVER LIVED MORE THAN 150 YEARS.

Cege

One of my great aunts used to say that it seemed like she'd been married to Uncle Rufus for a thousand years.

I heard her say it myself and now that I've written it down in this post it becomes literary evidence of something. Not sure what exactly, but there you have it!

Mike PSS

Dave,
You abondoned the discussion when you realized that the ONLY ammunition you had was if R.H.Brown agreed with you. Brown didn't and you bailed. My C14 model is accurate and clearly devestates anything that Brown claims.

Then why do you keep bringing up points that have been refuted elsewhere. C14 happened to be the discussion around which R.H.Brown was refuted. I only indicated that your original claim was refuted and why. I'm not arguing C14 right now because it's clear you have nothing more to say about the present accuracy, consiliance, and calibrated method of C14 as used in labs across the world. If and when you decide to continue this discussion (here or at RD.net) then you will start it at the same claiment starting point you left off a month ago. Your words, claims, and positions are written across the web and you cannot run from them.

By the way. Why don't you tell the mods at RD.net to close that C14 thread if your finished with it. It's your own thread you know.

Specious claims like the flood, or Brown's story, have been refuted and you have zero factual statements to support your position. If Brown's story about C14 is false then his supposition about 100x biomass is false because that is part and parcel of his papers at GRISDA. Knock out the C14 data like I did and you knock out the 100x biomass claim along with it. The two claims are connected and the C14 claims of Brown are debunked so the 100x biomass claim is therefore debunked.
Dave,
I'm not arguing the flood. YOU ARE!!!
I'm only pointing out that you can't use the flood as fact to support your claim. Why? Because it has been shown in other threads TO YOU that the flood didn't happen and has no evidential support.
Note that YOU were shown conclusively that the flood was false.

What you believe is one thing. But you cannot sling around the flood as fact in front of everyone else when you've been clearly refuted.

Argue about long ages of biblical mention. But don't use the flood, or R.H.Brown's GRISDA papers, or anything else you have been shown to be false, as supporting your age arguments.

***************************************
As a final slightly O/T, but personal request. Please go back through what you quoted above to tell me what was spin.

1. There is an active discussion at RD.net on this very subject.
2. 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.
3. I've shown this conclusively and you have agreed that R.H.Brown's model is lacking in detail and substance.
4. We even had a phone conference with the man.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. You didn't like that idea and decided to go with the RATE explanation and accellerated nuclear decay.
8. SO WHY DO YOU BELIEVE R.H.BROWN HERE AT IIDB???

Stop flinging generalized accusations around and get specific. I even numbered my sentences. So start deconstructing them.

Oh, and to be honest, you should indicate which sentences you actually agree with. Truth and honesty you know (or, maybe, you have trouble with this sometimes)

ericmurphy

Dave doesn't seem to understand that many of the people who post here also post at rd.net. He doesn't seem to understand the consequences of the fact that many of the posters here followed him from rd.net, which he appears to have abandoned.

You can't hold one opinion here and another, directly contradictory opinion at rd.net, Dave. If you accept RATE's position in contradiction to Brown's on rd.net, you can't accept Brown's position in contradiction to RATE's here.

Constant Mews

Interestingly enough, Dave has now adopted a new, patently foolish tactic: any references to past discussions which show him to be wrong, dishonest, confused, evasive, or merely nasty are now automatically labeled 'spin-jobs'. I suspect that he has been reading the news about the current administrations claims for the 'surge' operations.

I think it more likely, however, that Dave is preparing to do a bunk and abandon most of these threads. Since he has offered no evidence for most of his contentions, and the little that he has proffered has been shown either to contradict his claims or be completely irrelevant, he appears to be running out of steam. Recycling arguments that have been soundly refuted elsewhere is unlikely to gain any converts.

What I do question is Dave's intelligence, for lack of a better word. He has made it quite clear that he is not presenting any actual scientific arguments; he is merely offering for our consideration various pieces of "creation science" in order to get us to think.

But as a creationist, a non-scientist, an incoherent thinker, and a frequent employer of less than honest tactics, he is the least likely person to convince actual working scientists - who appear here as wildebeasts to a watering-hole - to take anything he says seriously.

Why are you here, Dave? Why are you - the sort of person least likely to command any respect on this forum - trying to present this material? Would it not be more intelligent to present it folks who might give it some consideration? Why this passionate devotion to what is by definition a lost cause?

Dave Hawkins

<Deleted off topic response to "men in robes">

mitschlag

• No empirical evidence for 1000 year-old men.
• No empirical evidence for a global flood.
• No empirical evidence for talking snakes, magic fruit, six-day creation...

What else is new?

Sauron

Uh, no. Not so fast.

1. No one said that individuals couldn't live longer, if their environment - food, medicine, water, - were improved.

2. These sources do not demonstrate a genetic (inheritable) component to these advancements. If you took a modern human and put them in the wilds of Papua New Guinea, their lifespan would go back to 40 years or so. Without the modern advances to prolong their lives, they're the same as a cave man.

3. These articles don't give you nearly enough runway to go from modern advancements (add, maybe, 30 years to a lifespan) to the 900+ years you would need to support the genesis fairy tale.

There was no flood.

But there was no flood.
We already know how the buried vegetation got there.

But there was no flood.

As soon as you provide some evidence for any world-wide flood.

Seven Popes

I do not ask why Dave does this, this is his gift to science, and one should not look this particular gift horse in the mouth.
Does he wonder why others have not gone before him and gained converts among scientists? Does he think that his arguments are so persuasive that he can convert en mass? I don't know. But to the curious, to the fence sitters, his behavior must be off-putting. He crows about overwhelming evidence, but when challenged, he has none. He talks about believing in 95% of science, and then has to disagree with all of the basic tenants of science because they contradict his literal interpretation of the Bible and his YEC views. He uses quote mines of papers he hasn't read, and champions this dishonest tactic on his website, while denying that he quote mines.
I would think that any honest person might be persuaded by his arguments and actions to give his opposition a more sympathetic reading. I think that Dave is an inadvertent Loki Troll.

Julian

[MOD]
This is a general warning with a few points:

1) Extended discussion of someone's behavior on other boards is not appropriate.

2) Extended discussion regarding carbon dating as it relates to geology, evolution, and other such topics, properly belongs in the E/C forum, possibly S&S.

This is the Biblical Criticism & History forum so please keep your points within the boundaries of those topics as much as possible. Also, and this should not need pointing out, keep your comments to the arguments and not the poster.

If this thread doesn't develop some sort of salient point and/or useful discussion, it will be closed.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]