Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Constant Mews · 08-16-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by mitschlag

Maybe we have an equivocation here on the word "demonstrate." It might help us move off the pot if afdave would stipulate the properties of a demonstration that would satisfy him.

Just answer the questions posted in the debate satisfactorily. And PJ, I did attempt to do CM's work for him and contact the authors ... no response.

I did answer your questions, Dave. And when you made this baseless accusation in another thread, I invited you to post the questions again specifically to me so that I can re-answer them.

Your stupid comments are preserved digitally, Dave. You should be aware of this and stop making so many of them.

Constant Mews · 08-16-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

I have no sympathy for any authors -- creationist or not -- who do sloppy/dishonest work.

I find this remark particularly amusing in light of Cali's excellent reminder of Dave's own sloppy work:

Quote:

Several of us dissected your own errors here in the Peanut Gallery during the debate and our dissections of those errors are a matter of public record. Such as that débacle over "anomalous C14 in coal", where you posted snippets from a paper by Nadeau that did not even mention coal at all, but dealt with marine foraminiferans and which was totally irrelevant to whatever point you were trying to make about coal. The ONLY reason you posted that paper was so that you could make a trite remark about "evolutionists being stumped", which upon further dissection (which again, is a matter of public record here) proved to be every bit as specious as so many of your other offerings in that debate and in many subsequent exchanges on a whole range of issues here. (emphasis added)

I might also call attention to the fact that in an entire debate that hinged on the concept of date consilience, you never once addressed consilience. Not one single comment of yours attempted to deal with the problems involved.

Sloppy? Absolutely. I warned you not to debate, Dave. You're not good at it at all.

Occam's Aftershave · 08-16-2007, 07:58 AM

Dave, have you called Walt Brown and asked him to explain to you the physics behind the 100 MPH "1 day continental drift" phase of his Hydroplate theory yet?

WHY THE FUCK NOT?

For a guy who constantly claims to seek THE TRUTH^tm , you sure run screaming from every chance you get to investigate.

stp2007 · 08-16-2007, 08:50 AM

Geez, afdave threads are starting up and getting closed faster then I can read them. If afdave didn't exist it would have been necessary to create him to demonstrate creationist thinking in all its glory.

08-16-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

Dave, have you called Walt Brown and asked him to explain to you the physics behind the 100 MPH "1 day continental drift" phase of his Hydroplate theory yet?

WHY THE FUCK NOT?

For a guy who constantly claims to seek THE TRUTH^tm , you sure run screaming from every chance you get to investigate.

Absolutely. Dave, several of us are willing to take Brown to pieces anytime. If it doesn't happen it'll only be because he's too scared to front up.
If he insists on staying in hiding with his precious theory like Gollum in his cave then as I said I'm perfectly happy to debate you on his hydroplate nonsense.
The only reason I originally raised the subject of debating him directly was because you are no challenge, but if Brown won't show up and you're willing to defend his theory then bring it on.

Silent Dave · 08-16-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

And Dave still owes us evidence to support his contention that every working scientist in the world is either dishonest or incompetent.

Once again ... I don't say this ... never have, never will. I just say the ones that speculate about Darwinism and Deep Time are mistaken and have poor support for their speculations. The ones that seek cures for cancer and other diseases and try to improve plants and find better energy sources, etc. are quite competent.

My god, you're so desperate to reject the evidence that you can't even keep your story straight within the same fucking PARAGRAPH!! Your first sentence implies that evolutionary biologists and mainstream geologists are competent, and your second and third imply that they're incompetent!

Which is it? Are they competent or incompetent? Pick one or the other, and do it RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

Mike PSS · 08-16-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

But I would be thrilled if CM could actually demonstrate that Lake Suigetsu proves a long time scale ... a great start would be to contact the authors of the paper and ask them the questions I posed. Remember what the debate was about? He was going to demonstrate this.

Dave,
Ignoring your rhetoric about "Deep Timers", I've already shown you HOW Lake Siuigetsu proves the earth is older than 6000 years.

VULCANISM??!!!??!

And you haven't answered me yet that you understand what this implies.

No answer.

Yet.

About Vulcanism.

Nothing.

Stephen T-B · 08-17-2007, 04:36 AM

This is such a gem: "...I like pure science because it is supposedly a pursuit of the truth about reality" (afdave).

Which, as he knows without engaging in any pursuiit, is to be found in Genesis.
God revealed this truth which includes the astonishing fact that Heaven is the filling in a sandwich - water forming the top layer and water and dry land forming the bottom.
That the "filling" contains the sun, the moon and all the stars.
That day and night were created before there were either a sun (to cast any light), or an earth to receive it. God didn't bother to explain that the earth is a spinning sphere, with a sunward side bathed in the sun's light ("day") and the other side quite dark ("night"). In fact this god appears to be as ignorant of why we have "day" and "night" as would have been the Bronze-Age authors of this tale.
That plants appeared on Earth before there was a sun to allow them to photsynthesise. (Did god know about photosynthensis. Well yes of course. but didn't have to bother with it becausxe all he had to do was work a miracle).
That all the creatures on earth popped out of the ground, fully formed and ready to go.
That the First Man was formed in clay, and the First Woman was made from one of his ribs.

Is this what afdave means by "pure science"?

Does his version of "pure science" (ie Genesis) explain how crocodiles, leopards, spiders, wolves, eagles, moray eels and other modern-day predators got a living before the Fall?
Does it explain what Noah fed them on during the Flood?
Does it explain what the herbivores found to eat after the Flood?
Does it explain how a bunch of rather primitive people could build a tower so high that it might reach heaven - which, had they got it as high as the Empire States building they'd have found wasn't there yet?

Does it explain anything about the truth of reality?

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

08-16-2007, 07:58 AM	#753
Occam's Aftershave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: California Posts: 2,215	Dave, have you called Walt Brown and asked him to explain to you the physics behind the 100 MPH "1 day continental drift" phase of his Hydroplate theory yet? WHY THE FUCK NOT? For a guy who constantly claims to seek THE TRUTH^tm , you sure run screaming from every chance you get to investigate.

08-16-2007, 08:50 AM	#754
stp2007 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 59	Geez, afdave threads are starting up and getting closed faster then I can read them. If afdave didn't exist it would have been necessary to create him to demonstrate creationist thinking in all its glory.

08-17-2007, 04:36 AM	#758
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	This is such a gem: "...I like pure science because it is supposedly a pursuit of the truth about reality" (afdave). Which, as he knows without engaging in any pursuiit, is to be found in Genesis. God revealed this truth which includes the astonishing fact that Heaven is the filling in a sandwich - water forming the top layer and water and dry land forming the bottom. That the "filling" contains the sun, the moon and all the stars. That day and night were created before there were either a sun (to cast any light), or an earth to receive it. God didn't bother to explain that the earth is a spinning sphere, with a sunward side bathed in the sun's light ("day") and the other side quite dark ("night"). In fact this god appears to be as ignorant of why we have "day" and "night" as would have been the Bronze-Age authors of this tale. That plants appeared on Earth before there was a sun to allow them to photsynthesise. (Did god know about photosynthensis. Well yes of course. but didn't have to bother with it becausxe all he had to do was work a miracle). That all the creatures on earth popped out of the ground, fully formed and ready to go. That the First Man was formed in clay, and the First Woman was made from one of his ribs. Is this what afdave means by "pure science"? Does his version of "pure science" (ie Genesis) explain how crocodiles, leopards, spiders, wolves, eagles, moray eels and other modern-day predators got a living before the Fall? Does it explain what Noah fed them on during the Flood? Does it explain what the herbivores found to eat after the Flood? Does it explain how a bunch of rather primitive people could build a tower so high that it might reach heaven - which, had they got it as high as the Empire States building they'd have found wasn't there yet? Does it explain anything about the truth of reality?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.