mung bean

Well Davey boy, if Lake Sushiguts aint enough for ya try this. They've just found a comet-like tail behind a binary start that's travelling through our galaxy. They know how fast the start is moving and they know how long the visible tail is.
It represents 30,000 years of travel, boyo, unless your god is deliberately playing tricks on us. Your god isn't dishonest is he, Dave?
http://space.newscientist.com/articl...hind-star.html

cajela

Not to mention that we also know that CM is a Christian. So we can't be simplistically voting against the Christian, now, can we?

Pilsboy5

The way dave is posting all over the place it's difficult to pin him down, so this thread seems like as good a place as any to post this.

Dave if you want to see how science works and how it links together in so many fields may I recommend you read a book called Magic Universe (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Nigel Calder. Not only does it go in details of nearly every branch of science you can think of, the book also shows how one branch of science impacts on another.

mitschlag

Maybe we have an equivocation here on the word "demonstrate." It might help us move off the pot if afdave would stipulate the properties of a demonstration that would satisfy him.

Dave Hawkins

Just answer the questions posted in the debate satisfactorily. And PJ, I did attempt to do CM's work for him and contact the authors ... no response.

mitschlag

That's not a response to my question. It clarifies nothing because you just substituted another ambiguous term for the first one. What would you consider "satisfactory?" What would it take to satisfy you?

Would the absence of a reply to your email be a deal breaker for you? Despite the answers you've already been given in this thread?

Calilasseia

Once again, it's time to break out the toolkit ...

You launched an entire thread - namely this one - in which you offered up this little gem:

Just the first example I found from a search of instances where you used the word "preconceptions" in your posts. We also have this post in which you said:

You were roundly spanked on those and other occasions that are a matter of public record here over blind assertion that genuine accredited scientists were perpetrating fraud.

Moving on, we have:

Trouble for you Dave, is that those "speculations", as you dismiss them to be, are all too often supported by that annoying little entity you handwave away, ignore or subject to egregious elisions known as evidence. You were subjected to an [avalanche of evidence in the Archaeopteryx thread from professional scientists who know what they are talking about, but simply refused to acknowledge its validity for one reason and for one reason only - failure to conform to doctrine. A more blatant example of "pot, kettle, black" would, I suspect, be harder for a reasoned observer to find.

Oh dear. Slight problem with this Dave (apart from the "quite competent" jibe - which many here regard as deeply insulting to people who give blood, sweat, toil and tears for decades in pursuit of their work, up to and including Nobel laureates). Quite a few of the discoveries and advancements that those scientists provide us with are founded upon - guess what? Evolutionary theory. Do I have to repeat "Perinatal Rhesus Haemolytic Disease" yet again?

That's the LAST thing you want. Because if you actually accepted the evidence that is staring you in the face and which Constant Mews delivered with considerable finesse, it would mean the end of your world view. Which is why you will do anything to avoid accepting the validity of that evidence.

You never posed anything substantive that would be worth wasting those scientists' time with. Your entire case was effectively null and void from Constant Mews' first post.

He DID. To the satisfaction of many here, including professional scientists who know a great deal about the relevant fields. I think their views count for something here. You're fond of 'argument from authority' Dave - why aren't the professional scientists here who have laboured hard in their respective fields 'authoritative' enough for you? A rhetorical question - the answer is known.

Oh, the 'groupthink' slur raises its head again.

I and many others voted for Constant Mews in the debate because we considered that he had established a rock solid case. Several of us dissected your own errors here in the Peanut Gallery during the debate and our dissections of those errors are a matter of public record. Such as that débacle over "anomalous C¹⁴ in coal", where you posted snippets from a paper by Nadeau that did not even mention coal at all, but dealt with marine foraminiferans and which was totally irrelevant to whatever point you were trying to make about coal. The ONLY reason you posted that paper was so that you could make a trite remark about "evolutionists being stumped", which upon further dissection (which again, is a matter of public record here) proved to be every bit as specious as so many of your other offerings in that debate and in many subsequent exchanges on a whole range of issues here.

Not "groupthink" Dave, examination of the evidence led us to vote for Constant Mews. Examination of the evidence and the robustness of CM's arguments led us to conclude that his case was rock solid, and that you had nothing to offer. Why would I, a committed scientific rationalist, and moreover one who has gone on record in my posts as possessing a truly fulminating distrust of "revealed truth" (a concept I consider to be largely an oxymoron) and who has demonstrated repeatedly complete and utter scorn and derision for faith-based world views (it's not that hard to find things I've said that exhibit this in spades) vote for an individual who publicly professes to hold Christian belief if my voting was based solely upon "atheist groupthink"? If you're going to try and argue that I voted for him as somehow "the lesser of two evils", you're going to have a hard time with that one, because once again, reasons for my voting as I did are not difficult to find elsewhere in this thread and are a matter of public record. The same is true of many others here - they posted reasons for their voting, substantive reasons that are all traceable to the same consideration of evidence and robustness of CM's presentation of the arguments. You think that, for example, ericmurphy was somehow engaging in "groupthink" with his vote? You engaged in a formal debate with him on RDF and lost there too for the same reasons - your case was not so much weak as positively gelatinous. You lost because your arguments failed to withstand the most elementary levels of scrutiny - you STILL do not have an answer as to why dating metrics can be consilient with each other and yet still produce incorrect dates as you claim that they do. You have NEVER demonstrated even the most basic of arguments for this. So, once again, Dave, here's what you have to demonstrate:

[1] That all the dating metrics are somehow "wrong", but "wrong" by the same amount and reproduce the same systemic errors despite being based upon widely divergent physical phenomena;

[2] That all the dating metrics are somehow "wrong" in giving ages for Earth based material older than 6,000 years, but give correct answers for more recent material of known historical provenance against which many were directly tested in the first place in order to establish the initial validity of the underlying theory.

Address THAT question, Dave, and deliver a ROBUST and RIGOROUS answer as to why [1] and [2] happen to apply to all our dating metrics, and you stand a chance of being listened to. If you cannot, then the continued whingeing about "Darwinism and Deep Time is wrong" will continue to be regarded as precisely that, and will continue to be regarded as bereft of substance.

ofro

When you contacted the authors, you had a question concerning what seems to be the most recent 300 years of sedimentation, whereas the study dealt with layers reaching way more than 10,000 years!

If I remember correctly, you asked the authors about the nature of the top 29 centimeters of a column that was over 30 meters long and contained tens of thousands of varves. You didn't do CM's work; you bothered the authors with an idiotic question about the last 300 years when the brunt of their study was to analyze painstakingly the last 13,000 years and more.

So what question did you have about the layers deeper than 29cm?

Faid

If Cali agrees, I intend to save this part of his post:

And smack dave upside the head with it, every time he gets all uppity. Is that OK?

ericmurphy

Dave, every question you asked was answered in the debate. You didn't like those answers. That doesn't change the fact that they were answered.

In the meantime, you utterly failed to address the issue of the consilience of multiple dating methods all corroborating the figures given by the lake bed varves. It's like you refuse to even acknowledge the issue.

That's why you lost, Dave.