BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:03 AM

Ya know, I've seen this movie before; Pete is just channelling Matthew Brady.


Matthew Harrison Brady: We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing!

Henry Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the capacity to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty of man that raises him above the other creatures of the earth? The power of his brain to reason. What other merit have we? The elephant is larger; the horse is swifter and stronger; the butterfly is far more beautiful; the mosquito is more prolific. Even the simple sponge is more durable. But does a sponge think?

Matthew Harrison Brady: I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge!

Henry Drummond: But do you think a sponge thinks?

Matthew Harrison Brady: If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks!

Henry Drummond: Do you think a man should have the same privilege as a sponge?

Matthew Harrison Brady: Of course!

Henry Drummond: [Gesturing towards the defendant, Bertram Cates] Then this man wishes to have the same privilege of a sponge, he wishes to think!

Matthew Harrison Brady: Remember the wisdom of Solomon in the book of Proverbs. "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

Matthew Harrison Brady: But your client is wrong. He is deluded. He has lost his way.

Henry Drummond: It's a shame we don't all possess your positive knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, Mr. Brady.

Matthew Harrison Brady: I do not think about things I do not think about.

Henry Drummond: Do you ever think about things that you DO think about?

Matthew Harrison Brady: I have been to their cities and I have seen the altars upon which they sacrifice the futures of their children to the gods of science. And what are their rewards? Confusion and self-destruction. New ways to kill each other in wars. I tell you gentlemen the way of science is the way of darkness.

Matthew Harrison Brady: I am more interested in the 'Rock of Ages' than I am in the age of rocks.

Henry Drummond: The Gospel according to Brady! God speaks to Brady, and Brady tells the world! Brady, Brady, Brady, Almighty!

Matthew Harrison Brady: All of you know what I stand for - what I believe! I believe in the truth of the Book of Genesis! Exodus! Leviticus! Numbers! Deuteronomy! Joshua! Judges! Ruth! First Samuel! Second Samuel! First Kings! Second Kings! Isaiah! Jeremiah! Lamentations! Ezekiel!... & Etc.................

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 08:28 PM

Oh..Pete... don't read my last post! It is #666!

um...never mind

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:30 PM

"..concerning other methods, ie those used to date rocks , these also rely on unproven assumptions about the past of any particular sample."

Pete... that is a double error in one sentence. They are not really 'assumptions', they are DATA, based on proven science, which are used in order to describe the 'past' of the sample!
Your continued insistence on contradictory data being associated with *some*specific samples is just a misunderstanding about how the analysis is done, plus an insinuation that this is common... it isn't! Most geologic samples do NOT have mixed results, and those which do can be examined by scanning electron microscope and in other ways to determine HOW various media became co-mingled. (I once found a piece of nut shell in a candy bar and almost broke a tooth. It made me 'careful' about eating candy with nuts, but I didn't suspect the basic procedures of the company. Sometimes, odd things get mixed due to accidents, but we can still analyze them. )

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 05:44 PM

" ... usually only one [dating] method may be used ,but if more than one is used the result is likely to be widely divergent dates."

Examples from the scientific literature, please pete (not creationist websites).

By the way, are all scientists deluded or are they engaged in a gigantic conspiracy? You keep dodging these questions, don't you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM

"I suppose evolutionists will endeavour some kind of damage control on that too. "

Because everyone is evil and deluded besides those trying to fit that data to the book?

Why haven't you answered my point about being able to prove one way or the other the effect of flood waters on carbon dating?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 04:45 PM

bill,- without re-reading all the posts, it would seem that I did confuse what you were saying about dating methods other than radiocarbon. it was certainly not deliberate, and I confess to probable carelessness there. also, I did not read that particular link, though I very often do look at them.
concerning other methods, ie those used to date rocks , these also rely on unproven assumptions about the past of any particular sample.   usually only one method may be used ,but if more than one is used the result is likely to be widely divergent dates. and even when rock formed in living memory is dated the result, amusingly ,can be millennia old!.
the details of the radio carbon in dino bones can be found on CMI but I don't know how to do a link. I seem to remember it was on you tube, on which a presenter talked about and cited the findings of the researcher concerned. it was presented at a secular conference and the talk was initially on the programmes schedule, but afterwards it mysteriously disappeared.
already observational science is being denied in the case of soft tissue finds and when radio carbon limits exceeded, become more common knowledge, I suppose evolutionists will endeavour some kind of damage control on that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:43 PM

Bill, pete accused you of saying that you tried to say that carbon dating can be used to prove that dinosaurs existed 65,000,000 years ago and snottily dismissed you as being dumber that "even Steve."

If he knew better. He was lying. If he didn't know better he lied by pretending to know what he was talking about. Either way, he is not honest. He is playing a game, Ken Ham's game, where rule one is spew Bullshit, rule two, when you are cornered, feign innocence.

He is polite. He is not honest.

pete, 70,000 is more than 6,000, there is no known process whereby a year underwater can make 6,000 year old biological material look like it has spent 70,000 years in a dry place. If you want to, you can scientifically test that for a few hundred dollars. So could Ham.

You need a stick, a bucket, some water and some money for lab fees.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:19 PM

Thanks for the 'heads-up', Stim. These are, indeed, dangerous people. So far, they don't appear to have too much influence here in the UK. Nevertheless, they do appear to have succeeded in brainwashing at least one hapless wretch - who, by the way, is not really interested in the evidence for evolution (otherwise he would have read 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by now).

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 12:55 PM

Fine Greg... we knew that.

Jack.. I've been doing a search and find articles such as this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/

In it they note that 'deeptime' is the commonly used term to refer to geologic time when it is accepted as being millions & billions of years.

Pete, I think, is just referring to that concept (a mistaken one in his view) when he characterizes our view.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 12:52 PM

In the US, Creationists and Fundamentalists have significant political influence, and they have powerful lobbying organizations that work to influence not only science education, but scientific and medical research, and even medical treatment.

The idea of "Intelligent Design" has been advanced by an organization called The Discover Institute, which was founded by Bruce Chapman, who served in the Reagan White House. It was created as part of "The Wedge Strategy", which is a well funded public relations effort which the Wikipedia articles says is "to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values."

Things may be different across the pond, but here in the US, the threat to science is not only very real, it is well armed and well funded.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

Pete has, for several years, remained basically consistent

Absolutely!. Consistently wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 12:29 PM

aww, Jack... I see Pete's use of "deep time" terminology as just his shorthand for a concept he doesn't believe in anyway. To him, anything over 7000 years is a fantasy.

He misunderstood the idea that not all radiometric dating is radiocarbon...(probably didn't even read the link I offered). He believes (MUST believe in order to maintain his thesis) that all presumed dates of millions of years are based on errors, therefore ANY idea that you & I present about such dating is defined according to that "deep time" phrase.
If you want to suggest that Pete is in effect 'lying to himself' first by ignoring basic data & research... *shrug*... I see that, just as I see various far-right-wing politicians in the US 'lying to themselves' about Obama, abortion, guns, 'rights', race... etc. They, like Pete, have a basic attitude they feel they MUST project, and it's hard to know absolutely whether they **truly believe** that nonsense, or are just using it in a calculated way.

Pete has, for several years, remained basically consistent and calm although careless in his reading and phrasing, and I only continue to debate him because he seems to me to be honest.

(I DO wish Pete had a membership so I could say certain things privately...how about it, Pete?)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:42 AM

There is certainly a strong connection between CHRISTmas and Santa. Did you know that "santa" is Spanish for "Saint?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:30 AM

I think they start by reading the whole post. Then they consider the context. Then they see if there is anything they can contribute themselves that might improve on the position of not replying.

Clever buggers these tooth fairies, not to mention Santa.

I bet they're not creationists, even though their pretend existence requires it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:20 AM

"Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. On a subject nothing to do with superstition, but using them as an extreme example of talking bollocks and craving respectability."

How can Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy crave anything? Or "talk bollocks"?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:16 AM

>>From: Bill D - PM
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:30 PM

Accusing someone of outright lying is serious. I offer Pete **corrections** of what seem to be incorrect remarks regularly, but I doubt he engages in outright lying. He is a victim of his mindset where, perhaps unconsciously, he rationalizes, distorts & misunderstands the remarks of others. Pete believes in a narrow religious view which requires him to doubt even widely accepted science. <<


Here is my case the pete is lying.

Bill, pete said that you and I were saying that carbon dating can be used to date things in "deep time." So where did the idea come from that we were saying that? Steve was agreeing with me that you can't use carbon dating to date fossils. pete must have made it up. Or he pretended to know something that he didn't know and presented that pretended knowledge as fact. Either way, he bore false witness. Pretending to be innocent only lasts so long. pete has eaten the fruit which is the knowledge of good and evil. He is attempting to make us believe things he knows not to be true. He is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 10:10 AM

There are isotopes of carbon.
Carbon is not an isotope.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 09:52 AM

Pete's confused again. Radiometric dating has been correlated across a range of isotopes and carbon is one of these with, as has been mentioned, a relatively short half-life.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:46 AM

"Nobody takes them seriously". That's tricky: even if 99.99% of people dismiss them, it is obviously the case that if they get into the right positions, such as Education Boards in the case of creationism, or BBC-standard-spokesmen, like Nigel Lawson on climate change, then they can have effects far out of proportion to the number of people who agree with them. To that extent, they need to be taken very seriously indeed.

On the other hand, there was a post earlier where someone was implying they were a threat to science in toto: that seems to be wildly over-stating the risks, even if, as the poster suggested, the level of scientific understanding in the general population is very low. I am sure we have all heard breathtaking statements from people who you would expect better of (my favourite, from someone with a humanities degree, was that the wind was caused by trees waving their branches...), but there are reasons why society and business need a good number of scientists that are, I feel, more powerful long term than a few people on an education board.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 05:32 AM

Interesting letter in The Independent this morning about climate change.

The contributor pointed out the recent UK floods etc and asked what deniers of climate change had to say? The interesting part was a throwaway line that said that society learned to stop taking creationists seriously a long time ago, so why do we still entertain climate change deniers? Both can be dangerous in their own way if we take them seriously.

Not wanting to thread drift to climate change, but interesting to read a view that nobody takes creationists seriously, and puts them in the same cave as the bogey man, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. On a subject nothing to do with superstition, but using them as an extreme example of talking bollocks and craving respectability.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:56 AM

" ... as to your other question[s]...I have enough to counter without extra challenges."

But they're just teensy-weensy questions, pete. Just to refresh your memory, here they are again:

Why do you think that so many scientists, from so many countries, have got it so wrong. Are they ALL deluded, or are they ALL involved in some sort of giant conspiracy (to discredit the Bible, perhaps)?

Just 'yes' or 'no' answers would do.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:30 PM

Accusing someone of outright lying is serious. I offer Pete **corrections** of what seem to be incorrect remarks regularly, but I doubt he engages in outright lying. He is a victim of his mindset where, perhaps unconsciously, he rationalizes, distorts & misunderstands the remarks of others. Pete believes in a narrow religious view which requires him to doubt even widely accepted science.

(sorry Pete, but that's as close as I can come to giving you the benefit of the doubt about some points. Example: you said "...bill ,and jack were apparently looking to radio carbon for their millions of years"... but I very specifically did NOT say that. I said they change to another type of "**radiometric dating** using the rocks where the fossils are found". I even gave a link to the details. "Radiometric" is a wider term, and in this case uses minerals 'near' the fossils. It is NOT radiocarbon. You missed my point, and in the process, missed the scientific point.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 06:36 PM

For once, I have to agree with Steve, pete is lying about what I said.

Bill said carbon14 was good for dating up to 70,000 years, I said it was good up to 68,000, we both said that those figures are more than 6,000

Pete, you can cut a stick in half, put one in water and one in a dry place and compare the results after a year, have them tested for carbon 14 dating If the one in salt water appears to be thousands of years older, you can win the Nobel Prize in Creation science.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 05:44 PM

You are being very unfair, Messiah S. He doesn't know he is lying. I have just had a lovely 4 days with my 3 and 4 year old grandsons. Their reasoning is identical. You just need to treat him with love and, when the occasion warrants, make him sit on the naughty step.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:09 PM

there are reports of radio carbon in dino bone, though last I heard that information had been censored

Well pete, I have highlighted for you the weasel words (google it) in that sentence. Apprise us immediately of these "reports" and tell us how you know they've "been censored". You're just a snivelling liar, aren't you, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:01 PM

" ... there are reports of radio carbon in dino bone, though last I heard that information had been censored,"

Who is censoring scientific data, pete? Are they the same people who, between them, have devoted millions of man-hours to the development of modern science - just so they can discredit the Bible?

You know, I used to be paranoid - but now I know they're out to get me!!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 02:46 PM

You certainly do have enough to counter pete. Reality can be a bugger of a challenge eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 02:34 PM

thankyou ,keith..very fair of you, and snail for link that mentioned complications. the argument just hinges on whether the effects of the year long upheaval of the flood would be sufficient to account for the extra "read"" years". obviously most of you will say it is not, but are quite happy to conjecture that totally impossible things happened.
bill ,and jack were apparently looking to radio carbon for their millions of years, but even steve corrected that idea.
and there are reports of radio carbon in dino bone, though last I heard that information had been censored, but I expect eventually it will be acknowledged, just as soft tissue in supposedly millennia old bone once was denied.. seems jack and stu agree to the circular reasoning of .......because we "know" they are 60 and more millions of yr old therefore soft tissue can last that long!.
bill- just to clarify...yes I believe the genealogies are accurate, but I think it a perfectly reasonable belief.      even ,for sake of argument there were errors, as in your family research, there were a margin of error in genesis, it still pans out as man created only thousands of years ago. I presume you think your ancestral records essentially trustworthy.
what evidences are they, shimrod?
have you read greatest hoax on earth yet?
as to your other question...I have enough to counter without extra challenges.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:16 PM

I reckon that if Max meant the words Jack uses, he got it wrong.

You can't debate in the abstract without getting argumentative. At least it would be bloody boring if you could.

You can't educate the colonies without being just a wee bit snooty, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 11:41 AM

...several hops... get it? Several hops! Hahahaha........

oh, never mind... carry on with your jousting.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:01 AM

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:56 AM

I forget which poet said this, and whether these lines are quite right, but they resonate with me anyway:

"He was too big to be nailed to a cross
But still they tried to crush him between the pages of a black book."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:41 AM

Do Christians have problems understanding complex reality? Looking at yer Jerk?

Just wondered, what with replacing it with something so limiting, so basic and so unimaginative that it can fit in a book. If the book is so good, how many stars does it get on Amazon?

Four. Four and a bit for one printing to be fair.

You'd think it could get five if it were anything like its fans claim. Curiously, the Q'ran gets about the same rating.

The latest Ian Rankin novel however gets five stars. I wonder which ends up on my Kindle?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:32 AM

Sorry Steve, My mistake, obviously you have no such ability and you are honest about your handicap.


Sorry if I offended you when I asked if you were drinking. It was an honest question.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:14 AM

You claim to have the ability to read complex sentences

And I'm still waiting for you to tell us when I said this.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:11 AM

Well, whited sepulchre Wacko, we've had this sort of thing before, haven't we? If your lying, misrepresentations and sarcasm don't work for you, you can always, as the last resort of the desperado you truly are, accuse someone you disagree with of drinking, taking drugs or being mentally ill or in need of therapy. I suggest that what you have just done is a far worse breach of those "rules" you keep preaching at us than anything the rest of us have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:09 AM

I think that's a fair question. Drinking gives posters an unfair advantage, and we need to monitor it, sort of like the Olympics or bicycle racing.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:13 AM

I'll beat Steve to it.

Do you post when you drink?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:49 PM

"You're lying, Wackers. Such a claim has never passed my lips. I told you before, wazzock: I have trouble understanding the plot of The Adventures Of Spot The Dog. The only "complexity" in your sentences lies in the difficulty you give us in having to mentally process your quaint grammar and sentence construction. "

Do you drink when you post?

http://mudcat.org/member/EntryForm.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:46 PM

Sorry Keith, I misread. You don't have it backwards. But it can't really be used to date fossils.

I imagine that you meant dead plant and animal materials from the point of death from the point the plant or animal has died.

Its all covered in theSnail's Oxford U link.

Sorry about the mixup. My mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:34 PM

You claim to have the ability to read complex sentences

You're lying, Wackers. Such a claim has never passed my lips. I told you before, wazzock: I have trouble understanding the plot of The Adventures Of Spot The Dog. The only "complexity" in your sentences lies in the difficulty you give us in having to mentally process your quaint grammar and sentence construction.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM

"biological samples" is what I meant. The substantive is unaffected.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:22 PM

I hate to tell you this, Keith, but Wacko has you by the balls here. Even your "biological materials" is open to question, as some may consider chalk and limestone to be "biological materials", and there are examples not far from you near Hertford that are over 65 million years old. That's over a thousand times beyond the useful scale of radiocarbon dating.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:16 PM

http://mudcat.org/member/EntryForm.cfm

Your feedback has been noted Mr. Shaw.


Your attempt at humor has also been noted.

Better luck next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:06 PM

carbon dating only works with biological samples, not rocks or planets.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 07:05 PM

you must have learned that the rate of radioactive decay of an element doesn't change unless God tells it to.

Yes, Wacko, you know that, I know that, but it is a point consistently raised by creationists in order to undermine the validity of dating by radio-isotope. In my view it is a perfectly good challenge (innocent from children, disingenuous from creationists, but still a troubling question) and it needs a better response than "it doesn't change unless God tells it to". So tell pete where he's wrong. Throw evidence at the bugger!

(Oh God, what have I asked...)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 06:59 PM

"... the great kangaroo migration from Ararat to Adelaide."

It wasn't too hard- they did it in several hops....



Ok...got my hat, dodging carbon-laden missiles as I leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:51 PM

pete and Ham are not likely to pull that one frogprince, as they already have used the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in their explanation of the great kangaroo migration from Ararat to Adelaide.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:25 PM

"the passing of oral and written history down generations is testable and observable in living memory."

Have you ever heard of a game called "Chinese Whispers"?

Nuff said!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Feb 14 - 03:00 PM

"In any case, it can only date fossils, not rocks or planets.
There are other methods that are used."

Sorry Keith you have it backwards. Carbon dating can only date plant and animal materials or remains from the death of the plant or the animal.