It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

[The Dude]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't blame evolutionists for expecting a higher level of substantiation than they have ever been able to provide themselves, on the back of their flawed research and history of change and falsifications.
Your ring dating is flawed as well.

Until you can demonstrate this your assertions are baseless.

Especially as you can't even decide whether you're a YEC or OEC.

[KittenKoder]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't seem to understand anything scientific or mathematical at all. How did you combine "4000 year old", "few hundred years ago", and "lived only 4,000 years" to get "4,100 years old by our time"?
You also didn't address the multiple rings in a given year possibility.

You don't get basic math.

How old is Abraham Lincoln?

[ChromiuMan]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you examined the ring sequence from about 4 to 5 thousand years ago for the flood ring?

Again (still) you have no data, no facts, no examples, no studies, no links. Instead, you challenge others to find them for you.
Submersion of a bristlecone pine tree for a month will not result in an aberrant tree ring, it will result in a dead tree.
This foray into disproving a ludicrous fairy tale is wasting everyone's time. If the Bible thumpers want to prove there was a flood, have at it - otherwise, it's just another of the *yawn* fantastical Genesis stories that never happened.

Has anyone ever heard of ANY evidence that the Earth was covered with water to a depth of at least 17,000 feet? Any whatsoever? In order for that to occur within 40 days would require a minimum precipitation rate of 212 inches of rain PER HOUR and would result in 3.3 TRILLION gallons of rainwater per square mile.

[Kong_]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Again (still) you have no data, no facts, no examples, no studies, no links. Instead, you challenge others to find them for you.
Submersion of a bristlecone pine tree for a month will not result in an aberrant tree ring, it will result in a dead tree.
This foray into disproving a ludicrous fairy tale is wasting everyone's time. If the Bible thumpers want to prove there was a flood, have at it - otherwise, it's just another of the *yawn* fantastical Genesis stories that never happened.
Has anyone ever heard of ANY evidence that the Earth was covered with water to a depth of at least 17,000 feet? Any whatsoever? In order for that to occur within 40 days would require a minimum precipitation rate of 212 inches of rain PER HOUR and would result in 3.3 TRILLION gallons of rainwater per square mile.

To be fair, I dont think you're including "The fountains of the deep" (of course there is no evidence that said fountains could produce a significant volume of water over the 40 days.....but you know what I mean).

[KittenKoder]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't blame evolutionists for expecting a higher level of substantiation than they have ever been able to provide themselves, on the back of their flawed research and history of change and falsifications.
Your ring dating is flawed as well.
Archaeologists should not submit to this system. There might be temptation to accept a tree-ring date without supporting measurements, particularly when the date agrees with the archaeologists’ hypotheses.To accept such a date, however, implies
acquiescence to a system that does not have sufficient checks to insure its integrity.
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
IOW, a creo could say a crystal ball said so, and that would have more credibility than anything you can present right now.

Are you finished making a fool of yourself?

[ChromiuMan]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
To be fair, I dont think you're including "The fountains of the deep" (of course there is no evidence that said fountains could produce a significant volume of water over the 40 days.....but you know what I mean).

I was being MORE than generous in using Mt. Ararat + 15 cubits as the level of the waters. Everest is 29,000 feet. I'll let "The fountains of the deep" take the difference, if you insist.

[The Dude]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Again (still) you have no data, no facts, no examples, no studies, no links. Instead, you challenge others to find them for you.
Submersion of a bristlecone pine tree for a month will not result in an aberrant tree ring, it will result in a dead tree.
This foray into disproving a ludicrous fairy tale is wasting everyone's time. If the Bible thumpers want to prove there was a flood, have at it - otherwise, it's just another of the *yawn* fantastical Genesis stories that never happened.
Has anyone ever heard of ANY evidence that the Earth was covered with water to a depth of at least 17,000 feet? Any whatsoever? In order for that to occur within 40 days would require a minimum precipitation rate of 212 inches of rain PER HOUR and would result in 3.3 TRILLION gallons of rainwater per square mile.

How do you like your Earth? Boiled or fried?

[KAB]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
I am actually surprised Dude is game to show his face here. I am still waiting for his big hero reply re the deteriorating genome.
I have presented many papers that suggest the scientific method is flawed. It appears these evolutionists do not have a scientific approach to anything so we can forget expecting it.
Everything evolutionists use is flawed. Any idea will be moulded to suit the evolutionary paradigm, regardless of it being factual or not. Uranium and samarium 146 carbon dating, they are all flawed as well. I am not a YEC but they have some very good points.
"In what follows, much of the work that has been done in Anatolian tree-ring matching is reviewed. The conclusions are disturbing, and have implications for treering studies generally."
http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf
"Two of the solar system's best natural timekeepers have been caught misbehaving, suggesting that the accepted ages for the oldest known rock samples are off by a million years or more."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21644-a...
Dating methods are no better than the other flawed research that gets presented here KAB.
We know, many scientists know, I have presented research from many well credentialled evolutionists as well as peer reviewed pubications so these evos here should know, and still we can hear the background noise of evolutionary faith. Go figure!
Evos publish, therefore they think they exist. Too bad nothing else verifies their existence.

I recommend eliminating the vitriol (name-calling, subjective characterizations, etc.) from your posts. Leave all of that to their side. It does nothing to advance the truth, and that seems to be our common objective here. Let's stick to providing the best objective data we can from non-Creationist sources. You have provided some good stuff, the tree ring study being an example. Unfortunately, you let them not address the data and draw you away from it into the vitriol sinkhole. Keep the data in their face until they respond with data. If they don't/can't then your data stands, and they stand defeated even if they never acknowledge it. Meanwhile, we must always respond to their data with data identifying weaknesses/errors when appropriate. Also, always acknowledge the valid parts of whatever they present. Give credit where credit is due.

[KAB]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
In the amount of time you typed that, the entire solar system moved millions of miles through the galaxy. The galaxy moved millions of miles through the universe. That's not very permanent. If we draw too close to one of the black holes near us, we're gone before we know it. For a plan, this was the worst planet in the universe to put life on. There are many better ones we can see with our telescopes already, all capable of supporting life, and some probably already have it. If your god did plan this, it's one really bad plan.

And the dataless beat goes on.

[KAB]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Astronomers have determined that as our Sun is in its later stages of life (+/- 5Billion yrs), it will become a 'red giant' star, and expand to engulf the orbit of the earth, and our planet will be vaporized.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php...
So much for 'permanence'.

Have astronomers ever been wrong?

[MikeF]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>And you are still unable to refute it. I'm showing myself to be correct about the myth of human from non-human evolution everyday, and you are showing yourself unable to scientifically refute me.

{yawn}

[KittenKoder]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
And the dataless beat goes on.

So where is your data?

[ChromiuMan]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I recommend eliminating the vitriol (name-calling, subjective characterizations, etc.) from your posts. Leave all of that to their side. It does nothing to advance the truth, and that seems to be our common objective here. Let's stick to providing the best objective data we can from non-Creationist sources. You have provided some good stuff, the tree ring study being an example. Unfortunately, you let them not address the data and draw you away from it into the vitriol sinkhole. Keep the data in their face until they respond with data. If they don't/can't then your data stands, and they stand defeated even if they never acknowledge it. Meanwhile, we must always respond to their data with data identifying weaknesses/errors when appropriate. Also, always acknowledge the valid parts of whatever they present. Give credit where credit is due.

I see that you made a couple slight errors in your post. But I won't nitpick - it's merely all of it.

[KAB]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes you do, its in the JW's blue book

The "date" "in the book" is only a year, and that is a conclusion based on the best available data which is not necessarily conclusive.

[KAB]

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you thinking there would have been LIVING trees after your (nonexistant) flood?

Yes, trees surviving thru the flood seems like a distinct possibility, especially extremely hardy trees like bristlecone pine high on mountain slopes.

[KAB]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>If it died 100 years ago, and was 4,000 years old at the time...
Think, boy, THINK!
And the "multiple rings in a given year possibility" is valid only or certain species in certain environments. These are NOT the species of choice for dendrochronologists.

Why did you not include the "few hundred years ago" data in your analysis? One of the best ways to arrive at a wrong conclusion is to leave some of the data out of the analysis, boy. Your side is especially adept and consistent at doing that. One could be led to wonder if it's intentional or just technical ignorance?

[KAB]

MADRONE wrote:

<quoted text>
Then there wasn't a Flood. Now we can move on.

How is a flood identified in a tree trunk?

[KAB]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>Yes.
That's extremely unlikely.
Therefore...

See if we can identify the "flood ring".

[KittenKoder]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, trees surviving thru the flood seems like a distinct possibility, especially extremely hardy trees like bristlecone pine high on mountain slopes.

Not a flood that prevents them from getting light for anymore than a few days.

[KittenKoder]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
How is a flood identified in a tree trunk?

If the tree is submerged, it would begin to die. If a tree is submerged in salt water, it would die almost right away. That's how.