Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: atheism's gadfly.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages -

No they tried that in China remember? The trees died.

But you said trees make it rain.
Surely you can just plant trees to make it rain? ;P
To further emphasise just how completely shite your "evidence" is, just answer this one question, Dave. If someone gives you the geological strata observed in a location, can you define the top and bottom of the flud sediments?

The answer is, I suspect, no, because as soon as you commit to anything you will be refuted. Part of the reason you post lots and lots of words without saying anything.

So, as I said. Cut the crap. Come back when you can, at the very least, commit to what forms the top and bottom of the flud sediments.
Dave. Cut the crap.

We're all very familiar with your usual effort of finding some simplistic representation of the earth's geology and claiming that as evidence. This is invariably followed by people bringing up all the other features of those rocks that refute your claim.

We've got lakes orders of magnitude older than your flood, in just the uppermost layers of strata, and you badgered from those threads, or hid behind your ridiculous "scientists hide the real numbers" claim.

How about you wait till you have an explanation for how your flud can account for all geological observations before you try and claim them as evidence. We know that you don't have an explanation, because once we try and dig deeper than "millions of dead things, laid down in layers", then you fall back on abuse, hand waving and sales techniques, before finally something along the lines of "I'm not sure. I need to do further research".
No. See previous thread on the subject. You don't get to ignore the previous threads you dishonest schmuck.

6th law!!!
Problem is Dave, even if you have an idea that's reasonable, your 'method' of studying it, and demonstrating it's effectiveness is pretty well guaranteed to fail. At the core of all your efforts is a desire not to understand, not to quantify, and not to be clear. People don't get remembered for hustling with piss-poor salesmanship.
Here lies Flat Earth Dave.

Reality wins again.
Dave's throwing a tantrum again. :D
Its part of Daves's routine, and something that really confuses me.
Dave will say that he doesn't lie,
Someone shows that Dave has been caught lying a number of times,
Dave ignores the proof, showing how deeply dishonest he is,

What I don't understand is what Dave gets out of this behavior?
Does he not know how to use the SITE: function that google encourages, making searching a site as easy as <Ctrl> "F" an entire domain?
Including this one?
Is he hoping that no one will call him out, leaving his lies as part of the record?
Does he, through some dysfunction or organic brain damage, simply nor remember telling lies?

He has no choice. Morton's demon applies to everything. Not just his YECism.
What would be required for Dave to be honest?
He'd have to own every thrashing he gets every time he wheels out one of his irrational beliefs.
He'd have to discard or at least complete compartmentalise his beliefs.
He'd have to own the fact that he's spent 50+ years of life, being wrong.

I think he knows he's dishonest but with the choice between dishonesty and denialism, or accepting that he's spent his entire life in servitude of stupidity, ignorance, and irrationality, I think there's always going to be only one option.
Of course I do.

Why don't you?

You'd have to be an idiot not to.
Ha ha ha.
There's no proof  of a global flood. 
I could debate the science with you, but you would run.

No, my friend, I'm afraid it's you guys that ran away ... I'm still waiting for someone to show me a process operating today that could possibly have laid the Tapeats Sandstone and it's equivalents.

You dishonest little shit. I've done that multiple times. I've also tried to get you to engage with it and you badger every time.
Now take this fact ... call it Fact #1

Combine with Fact #2 ... that it's common knowledge now that overgrazing helps create deserts ...

Combine with Fact #3 ... that Paul Ehrlich claimed that the Sahara Desert was caused in part by overgrazing.

And voila! you have a case (weak though it is) for "Overgrazing Caused the Sahara."  (Lots of evidence from ancient history is weak for obvious reasons.)

Was there any other information about fact 1, that may help refine your case? Perhaps the time of the paintings? Were they recent, or perhaps at the end of the last glacial period?

Given that fact 3 is simply an argument from authority, is there any reason for anyone to consider it meaningful?
We just did that. Even when explained to him in terms a 5 year old could understand he still "didn't get it". Which is why he's "not lying" now, about never quote mining.

Dave is never going to be able to be honest. His beliefs require him to be dishonest.
It was Fenrir.

Article. Paper. Whatever.

Also, Rick, I don't quote mine. Never have. Never will.

Dishonest Dave. Ahhh, reality really has it in for you, doesn't it. :D
Lol. Dave, maybe one day it will dawn on you that asserting something (even very loudly) is not an effective argument.

In fact, it's not an argument. It is however, hilarious. Are you going to stamp your feet lots too?
Majorities ARE right in many cases ... for example, a majority believes that the earth circles the sun, not vice versa ... it's just surprising to me how often majorities are wrong about some pretty dang huge and pretty dang important topics.

I'm more baffled by why Dave agrees with the majority that earth circles the sun. :D
I don't see how that changes anything other than it's a little more polite because it acknowledges your calculation about bacteria.  you do believe that Don battens number is Bonkers and you believe that your number is much more reasonable so my post simply Echoed that fact.
Because it acknowledges the existence of a counterargument relevant to the number I calculated. Because it acknowledges the context, rather than deliberately and dishonestly pretending there is no counterargument there.
okay well you and I have a very different idea of what quote mining is. I think quote mining is taking a select snippet out of context and using it to try to make the person say something that he does not believe and would not say. You on the other hand, do believe that that number that you calculated is a reasonable number so I'm not misrepresenting you by using it. You seem to just be ticked off that I did not acknowledge your bacteria argument and that's fine. We sometimes do get ticked off when people don't acknowledge us, but it's not quote mining.
Dave, think about it. How would they "not say" it if they had actually said it?
What quote mining does is, like I patiently explained to you, creating an implied false narrative by taking a quote out of context. Let me give you yet another example of a quite famous quotemine, one that you are very familiar with: Popper's "Darwinism is a metaphysical research program".

Now remember: Popper DID say that, and he believed it when he said it. So why is this a quotemine? Because of context. By "Darwinism", Popper was not referring to the ToE in general, but specifically to the concept of natural selection (which, at the time, he thought of as tautological). Dishonest creationist schmucks (and the gullible rubes who parrot them) take that comment out of context, and do not "care" to explain what Popper's actual argument was and what he was referring to.
That creates the false impression that Popper was talking about  the theory of evolution in general, and later "changed his mind" because he just couldn't keep away from those sherrys. In truth, Popper ALWAYS considered ToE as scientific, and was heavily influenced by it.

Popper thought that 'darwinism' was a "metaphysical research program" at the time. He did think it was "reasonable" to say so (even if he later changed his mind). But his quote is taken out of his context and is given a different meaning, making it look as if Popper had once claimed that ToE is unscientific.

That's quotemining.

It is essentially lying by omission, and the omission is that of the actual context.

Get it?
Actually, the classic quote mine is the one citing Darwin's opening paragraphs in the chapter on the human eye.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
sure sounds like even Darwin didn't accept his own theory.

But when the context is included
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility. 
that no longer seems the case.

And of course, given that scientific writing is often quite boring, a rhetorical florish like "It seems impossible", followed by the "and yet, explanation ensues........", can be quite "fun", but also easy to quote mine.
For that claim to be true, there would have to be no herbivores in that particular location. And if there are not any, then of course this system will not work. Again it only works where herbivores already exist in a particular location.

But there are! I told you that pasture has supported cows and horses. But definitely not by bunching them up. It would destroy the pasture in no time flat. Listen,  a 25 kilo kid can create a mini-bog there in 20 minutes of stomping around in the spring.
That's 1
2 - not all soils will support grasses etc appropriate for feed.
3 - short season areas
I just refuted 1 in my previous post.  2 - IF the herbivores are there now, they are eating something, 3 - again, if herbivores can survive there now, then they will survive even better under HMG

Actually no. That wasn't a refutation. It was merely a counter claim, based on an assumption - that equal traffic per area per day is equivalent, that's probably false.

As an actual refutation, let's take your argument, 10 cattle per acre, and 1/10th of a day, and push it a bit further. Let's say 200 cattle per acre for 1/200th of a day. Basically this would be like driving a herd of cattle across a clay drumlin. 200 cattle in an area of an acre, for 7 minutes.

Well, that would likely trash the place pretty well.

So, while the traffic per area per day would be the same between the three scenarios, the results would be quite different. Therefore, you're missing something.
Dave has to be confused. Reality will smack him upside the head otherwise.
Chess with a pigeon.

So, having been told that snipping just a bit of the post that he liked while ignoring the main argument is dishonest, Dave goes and does exactly that again.
I suspect the reason that Dave has taken to not quoting posts, but using creative paraphrases instead is because he's been caught quote mining so much.

FFS, you advocate for that behaviour on your blog, Dave.
Bullshit. I never quote mine people.

I would like to see your side become honest and admit that you don't have any explanation. Just as you don't have any explanation for how life got started on Earth. Just as you don't have any explanation for the origin of diversity of species.

That's two absolute corkers in just over a day, plus his pathetic attempt to label me a liar.