ARK Encounter opens today!

[fskimospy]

No he didn't. He continually misstated what I was saying.

If he misstated what you were saying, explain how. Be extremely, extremely specific and limit it to only the 10^9 statement.

By saying he misstated what you said you have made a declarative statement. Back it up.

 

[abj13]

No he didn't. He continually misstated what I was saying.

Everybody can read your posts, and its pretty obvious you didn't read the paper you posted on here, you don't understand (or even care) how the values you post were calculated, you were caught denying things that you clearly said in the past, and you can't even come up with a single example that fits your absurd "three mutations in one cell" claim.

But we all know where you plagiarize your postings on here:

 

[bshole]

It takes a special kind of thinking to conceive of all the races of men evolving from a few humans over the course of a few thousand years while at the same time denying evolution. The cognitive dissonance must be colossal.

The ark encounter is not about the Bible or religion, it is about Ken Ham enriching himself at the expense of gullible deluded people. Just another shyster making a buck by nefarious means.

 

[fskimospy]

Everybody can read your posts, and its pretty obvious you didn't read the paper you posted on here, you don't understand (or even care) how the values you post were calculated, you were caught denying things that you clearly said in the past, and you can't even come up with a single example that fits your absurd "three mutations in one cell" claim.

But we all know where you plagiarize your postings on here:

It is kind of amazing that people still buy Behe's crap after he was so obviously exposed as a fraud years ago.

I guess the desire to not have your beliefs challenged is extremely powerful.

 

[brycejones]

How long am I supposed to argue about lies to some calling me on my bs?

FTFY.....

You should stop lying.

 

[Subyman]

Who cares? 100k is the limit. Accuracy is unverifiable at those ranges.

Platinum alpha decays and has a half life of 1000 trillion years. Does that mean the universe must be older than that? Your logic doesn't hold up.

Rubidium has a half life of 49,000,000,000 years so it can theoretically test ages much older than you believe the universe to be. According to your logic the earth is older than 4.5 billion years. Is it?

I see, you are being disingenuous. I clearly said a few posts ago that we have items that show very old ages using carbon dating, much older than biblical ages. You've agreed that carbon dating is real, so you must accept the science behind it and the items it has shown are of a certain age.

So I ask you again, how old do you believe the earth is?

 

[abj13]

It is kind of amazing that people still buy Behe's crap after he was so obviously exposed as a fraud years ago.

I guess the desire to not have your beliefs challenged is extremely powerful.

Its unfortunate. If you want to believe in creationism, Noah and his Ark, intelligent design, reincarnation, evolution, flying spaghetti monsters, or whatever your flavor is regarding the speciation of life on Earth, go for it. But where it becomes unfortunate is people like Behe and buckshot, who distort science in a vain attempt to disprove a different approach to how life developed. From logical fallacies like irreducible complexity, to malaria mutations, to simply making up strawmen, that intellectual dishonesty is what people like Behe and buckshot like to perpetuate. It truly is a disservice to society. Believe what you want, but don't go around making crap up to sound informed/disprove something.

 

[buckshot24]

If he misstated what you were saying, explain how. Be extremely, extremely specific and limit it to only the 10^9 statement.

By saying he misstated what you said you have made a declarative statement. Back it up.

I'm talking about specific mutations on specific parts of the genome. He keeps harping on about the denominator when that is completely irrelevant. The number of coin throws don't matter to a specific coin throw. The probability doesn't change.

He keeps talking about total mutations on a genome as if it has any significance to what I've been saying. It doesn't.

He says I claimed to be an expert on the Krebs cycle when I said nothing of the sort. He says I told him that there were no instances of when 3 specific changes would need to have occurred because I didn't have an example for him.

I assumes that my statements are supposed to disprove all of evolutionary theory when they are not supposed to do that. I'm rebutting the idea that these vast amounts of time means the impossible becomes possible. He assumes on one hand that I am 100% clear and he knows what I mean better than I do but unclear as to always misstate what I've said.

The mutation rate of a single nucleotide is once out of every 10^9 cell divisions according to the paper I cited. Whether that is true or not, I'm assuming it is. If there is a better rate to cite then I'm all ears.

 

[buckshot24]

I see, you are being disingenuous. I clearly said a few posts ago that we have items that show very old ages using carbon dating, much older than biblical ages. You've agreed that carbon dating is real, so you must accept the science behind it and the items it has shown are of a certain age.

Will you at least admit that a limit of a dating method has absolutely no bearing on how old something is? Can you be honest enough to do that? I have not admitted "carbon dating is real" either. I'm not going to argue with you about how accurate carbon dating is, it doesn't matter to me.

 

[buckshot24]

It takes a special kind of thinking to conceive of all the races of men evolving from a few humans over the course of a few thousand years while at the same time denying evolution. The cognitive dissonance must be colossal.

If different kinds of people had completely new design features you might have a point. Since they don't you don't.

 

[buckshot24]

It is kind of amazing that people still buy Behe's crap after he was so obviously exposed as a fraud years ago.

I guess the desire to not have your beliefs challenged is extremely powerful.

He hasn't been refuted unless you consider strawmen of his arguments as being refuted as meaningful.

How has he been exposed as a fraud?

 

[Subyman]

Will you at least admit that a limit of a dating method has absolutely no bearing on how old something is? Can you be honest enough to do that? I have not admitted "carbon dating is real" either. I'm not going to argue with you about how accurate carbon dating is, it doesn't matter to me.

Why does that matter? Of course a limit doesn't matter in that context. I was building to, which I already said several posts ago, that we have real items that show very old ages. We use these techniques all the time to date very old items.

So you are stepping away from accepting carbon dating? You don't believe in radioactive dating techniques? Again how old is the earth?

 

[abj13]

I'm talking about specific mutations on specific parts of the genome. He keeps harping on about the denominator when that is completely irrelevant. The number of coin throws don't matter to a specific coin throw. The probability doesn't change.

The denominator matters, because it about how you calculate the rate. Rates have denomniators. How was that value calculated?

If you truly understood what you were talking about, you wouldn't have dodged that question over and over and over.

He keeps talking about total mutations on a genome as if it has any significance to what I've been saying. It doesn't.

This is why the denominator matters. You claim there isn't enough mutations to make the amount of genetic diversity seen on Earth. I point out the number of mutations made in human in each generation, and also pointed out what would happen with bacteria. If you do the math, which you refuse to do, the claim that there are insufficient mutations to make the genetic diversity fails to be supported by the math.

He says I claimed to be an expert on the Krebs cycle when I said nothing of the sort. He says I told him that there were no instances of when 3 specific changes would need to have occurred because I didn't have an example for him.

You brought up the Citric Acid Cycle. What part of the Citric acid cycle requires 3 mutations?

Unless you are willing to show anyone here why 3 mutations in one cell matters, you've made nothing but a strawman. Expert or no expert, you brought it up, nobody else did.

I assumes that my statements are supposed to disprove all of evolutionary theory when they are not supposed to do that. I'm rebutting the idea that these vast amounts of time means the impossible becomes possible. He assumes on one hand that I am 100% clear and he knows what I mean better than I do but unclear as to always misstate what I've said.

The mutation rate of a single nucleotide is once out of every 10^9 cell divisions according to the paper I cited. Whether that is true or not, I'm assuming it is. If there is a better rate to cite then I'm all ears.

Look at the backpeddling and shifting of the goal posts of the creationist. Now he claims he isn't going about disproving evolutionary theory, when he continually peddles that it is impossible for the genetic diversity found on Earth to be explained by mutations.

 

[abj13]

Will you at least admit that a limit of a dating method has absolutely no bearing on how old something is? Can you be honest enough to do that? I have not admitted "carbon dating is real" either. I'm not going to argue with you about how accurate carbon dating is, it doesn't matter to me.

How old is the planet Earth?

 

[buckshot24]

Why does that matter? Of course a limit doesn't matter in that context. I was building to, which I already said several posts ago, that we have real items that show very old ages. We use these techniques all the time to date very old items.

So you are stepping away from accepting carbon dating? You don't believe in radioactive dating techniques? Again how old is the earth?

I don't know how old the earth is. Dating methods measure ratios, they do not measure dates. Please keep that in mind.

 

[Subyman]

IMO it's a mistake to assume that every human can process longer compound statements (eg. if X and not Y then Z). If you look carefully at buckshot's comments, such logical leaps never really occur.

Thus, if you take what he says only as individual simple statement it starts making a sort of sense.

Here he's saying that 1. carbon decay at too many years is inaccurate, which is true enough.
2. Platinum alpha decays and has a half life of 1000 trillion years. True enough
3. Statement 2 doesn't mean universe is billions of years old, true enough on its own.
4. Rubidium has a half life of 49,000,000,000 years, true enough.
5. According to your logic the earth is older than 4.5 billion years. True enough.

Taken as a compounded argument or in any sort of context it makes no sense, but as simple assertions they are true enough, and that's why he righteously believes their veracity. My previous observation that to some people science is simply a collection of simple facts fits exactly this situation.

This appears a primary reason why buckshot has such a hard time with the simplest of "explanations", because they tend to include compound leaps spanning more than a sentence. And when pressed, he just posts one line for every line he's replying to, because that's the extent of his operating space without prolonged effort.

In retrospect as I write this, I kind of feel bad for excessively mocking someone who by all evidence is relatively handicapped.

Good assessment. He'd drive professors absolutely insane if he ever went to college. We realized in another thread that you have to speak to him in propositional calculus otherwise he won't understand the jumps or implied logic in normal speech.

 

[Subyman]

I don't know how old the earth is. Dating methods measure ratios, they do not measure dates. Please keep that in mind.

What do we use those ratios to do?

*A good example of buckshot missing the point due to getting hung up on an implied step.

 

[buckshot24]

We realized in another thread that you have to speak to him in propositional calculus otherwise he won't understand the jumps or implied logic in normal speech.

Sigh... not buying your arguments doesn't mean I don't understand them.

 

[buckshot24]

What do we use those ratios to do?

*A good example of buckshot missing the point due to getting hung up on an implied step.

What point am I missing? I'm done talking to you about the age of anything. Don't care and my arguments assume long ages. If you'd like to address them then please do.

 

[Subyman]

What point am I missing? I'm done talking to you about the age of anything. Don't care and my arguments assume long ages. If you'd like to address them then please do.

You argued with my use of the word "date" when discussing carbon dating. You said they measured ratios not dates/times, but what are the ratios used for? You started the discussion. So what do they use the ratios to do?

I'm pushing this because this is a core reason people find you insufferable.

 

[buckshot24]

You argued with my use of the word "date" when discussing carbon dating. You said they measured ratios not dates/times, but what are the ratios used for? You started the discussion. So what do they use the ratios to do?

I'm pushing this because this is a core reason people find you insufferable.

You know what they use the ratios for, I know what they use ratios for. What is the point? The date is a derived value not a measured value.

 

[Subyman]

You know what they use the ratios for, I know what they use ratios for. What is the point? The date is a derived value not a measured value.

Thank you for demonstrating why you are insufferable. You know what people mean yet you play semantics.

 

[buckshot24]

Thank you for demonstrating why you are insufferable. You know what people mean yet you play semantics.

I'm not playing semantics. They don't measure dates, just something that you should keep in mind.

 

[Subyman]

I'm not playing semantics. They don't measure dates, just something that you should keep in mind.

You are arguing against phantoms.

Please read your post and mine:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38347258&postcount=340

 

[buckshot24]

You are arguing against phantoms.

Please read your post and mine:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38347258&postcount=340

I remember what I just wrote.