Freethought & Rationalism Archive

amused_one · 07-05-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

It sure makes one questions afdave's motives when he:

1. Posts the Humphreys Zircon claims (copied verbatim from AIG) at ATBC, where he gets soundly rebutted by a dozen people.

2. C&Ps the exact same argument and posts it at RD.net, where he gets soundly rebutted by another dozen people in exactly the same way.

3. C&Ps the exact same argument for a third consecutive time at IIDB, where he *hopes* no one will have seen his debacle at the other two boards.

Sure doesn't seem like afdave is looking for any kind of discussion or debate, does it? Sure seems like plain old garden variety YEC proselytizing to me.

Sounds like he's beating a dead horse...to a pulp.

You would think after a while he would stop.

Or maybe he is like a bad mosquito bite. If you ignore him, he will eventually go away.

deadman_932 · 07-05-2007, 08:44 PM

Helium stuff at AtBC begins here, running concurrently with Dave's Portuguese Moment:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1080
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1260
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1410
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Main body of HE/Fenton Hill stuff:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1440
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1470
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1530
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
HE stuff at Dawkins' joint is somewhere in this thread:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13805 "Carbon 14 and the Biblical Timescale for Planet Earth

07-05-2007, 11:36 PM

Cor blimey and fukkit, that formal debate post of Davey's just about made my brain melt. I hope they perfect stem cell therapy in the near future so we can all replace the neurons destroyed by wading through this stuff. Sheesh.

Anyway, I noticed this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

So Humphreys and Co. used the straightforward chronological information in the Book of Genesis--the Ussher Chronology, which places Creation at 4004BC--and from this he formed his hypothesis that the Earth is only about 6000 years old. He then took this 6000 years and used it to predict the Helium diffusion coefficients in zircons and ...

Which I felt should be compared with this....

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

1) Smyth gives the most sensible Flood date of any creationist I have read yet because he considers all available data. He doesn't just blindly repeat the Ussher Chronology. He averages 11 leading dates including the Septuagint date, the Samaritan Pentateuch date, Playfair's date, the Ussher date and other leading sources.

in which Dave basically says the Ussher chronology is not reliable.
And this.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humphreys, 2001

Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago. The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week. Such accelerations would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth down to the 6,000 years that a straightforward reading of the Bible gives.
http://www.icr.org/article/302/

which definitely conflicts with the Ussher chronology.

So Davey, which of your preferred and contradictory chronologies are in fact accurate? All of them? None of them? Which?

Calilasseia · 07-06-2007, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Man Humphreys

Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago. The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week. Such accelerations would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth down to the 6,000 years that a straightforward reading of the Bible gives.

Ditsy creationist site link

So why isn't Planet Earth smeared all over the cosmos then?

A billion fold speed up of U²³⁸ decay gives us a half-life of 4½ years. Trouble with this is that the heat generation resulting from this, given that the equation in question contains an exponential function, results in an Earth temperature that is over one thousand five hundred magnitudes hotter than the first Planck Second of the Big Bang, which means that no matter WHEN you let this phenomenon loose, be it the so-called "Creation week" or whatever, you end up with a Planet Earth that is turned into a ball of exotic supersymmetric particles that then blast out into space at speeds that are a significant fraction of that of light.

So perhaps Humphreys might like to inform us how all this heat was safely dissipated during "Creation week" so as not to turn Earth into the mother of all particle accelerators ...

Pappy Jack · 07-06-2007, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calilasseia

.....So perhaps Humphreys might like to inform us how all this heat was safely dissipated during "Creation week" so as not to turn Earth into the mother of all particle accelerators ...

Goddidit?

d0t · 07-06-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dr. Mews asserts that the Genesis timetable is off by one million percent. A million percent??!!

At least he's 'right' about one thing. It is of course in the order of one hundred million percent.

ericmurphy · 07-06-2007, 09:19 AM

And what was Humphrey's "specific, risky prediction" about the thorium content of those zircons? Dave doesn't discuss that, because the explanation for that thorium content is "a miracle."

Great prediction, Dave.

Calilasseia · 07-06-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Dr. Mews asserts that the Genesis timetable is off by one million percent. A million percent??!!

4.5 x 10⁹ years divided by 6,000 years equals 750,000. If 6,000 years equals 100%, then 4.5 x 10⁹ years equals 75,000,000%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

And what was Humphrey's "specific, risky prediction" about the thorium content of those zircons? Dave doesn't discuss that, because the explanation for that thorium content is "a miracle."

Great prediction, Dave.

A miracle that moreover required Humphreys to manipulate other people's data to bring into being. Magodemov, anyone?

ericmurphy · 07-06-2007, 10:38 AM

And, just as everyone expected, Dave completely failed to deal with CM's claims about radiocarbon calibration curves. Dave will never deal with those curves, because no matter how many times we explain to him that they are death for his "hypothesis," he steadfastly refuses to understand how they work.

Occam's Aftershave · 07-06-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

And, just as everyone expected, Dave completely failed to deal with CM's claims about radiocarbon calibration curves. Dave will never deal with those curves, because no matter how many times we explain to him that they are death for his "hypothesis," he steadfastly refuses to understand how they work.

I think he understands them just fine. It's just that no matter how he strains his little creto brain, he just can't think up even a single semi-plausible story to explain why they all agree. And given Dave's propensity for lying his ass off and coming up with ridiculous ad-hoc reasons to hand-wave away data, that's saying something. So his only way to deal with them is to ignore them completely and hope they go away.

But they won't go away Dave, ya know?

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

07-05-2007, 08:44 PM	#232
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	Helium stuff at AtBC begins here, running concurrently with Dave's Portuguese Moment: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1080 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1260 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1410 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Main body of HE/Fenton Hill stuff: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1440 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1470 http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin...t=1958;st=1530 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HE stuff at Dawkins' joint is somewhere in this thread: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13805 "Carbon 14 and the Biblical Timescale for Planet Earth

07-06-2007, 09:19 AM	#237
ericmurphy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,027	And what was Humphrey's "specific, risky prediction" about the thorium content of those zircons? Dave doesn't discuss that, because the explanation for that thorium content is "a miracle." Great prediction, Dave.

07-06-2007, 10:38 AM	#239
ericmurphy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,027	And, just as everyone expected, Dave completely failed to deal with CM's claims about radiocarbon calibration curves. Dave will never deal with those curves, because no matter how many times we explain to him that they are death for his "hypothesis," he steadfastly refuses to understand how they work.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.