Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Calilasseia · 08-14-2007, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirley knott

Well precisely,
But isn't that the point -- to make it abundantly obvious to even the most dim-witted and/or casual of observers that dave's got nothing, not even a cue as to what the challenges, challenges he rejects as false, are about.
Nothing so clearly shows the meaning of dave's frequent protestations of being interested only in THE TRUTH than his behavior when asked for some of that truth he alleges to have acquired.
We may be discouraged from pointing out the many many (exponentiated factorial) questions he's avoided, ignored, misunderstood/mis-answered, but we can certainly keep raising the questions.
They're obvious questions.
Any two-bit idiot can figure out an answer.
The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader...

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Still wondering where in the Ucatan, Egypt, and China I can find the same 1 mile thick layer of sediment from the flood. But I guess I'll find out after he figures out which of the Grand Canyon strata are pre, and which are post, flood...

Shirley, I still have the infamous Where Is The Flood Deposit? thread waiting for him. He's never visited it. Must be about 6 weeks old now.

Constant Mews · 08-14-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

CM, is there a big pile of computers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu? No? Well then they aren't relevant, are they? Sheesh.

Actually, yes. The first, primitive fossilized chips appear in the early pleistocene; from that we have gradual develop of monitors and peripherals. Lake Suigetsu is crammed full of stray fossilized silicon. Of course, for that we require Silicon-dating.

Constant Mews · 08-14-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirley knott

Well precisely,
But isn't that the point -- to make it abundantly obvious to even the most dim-witted and/or casual of observers that dave's got nothing, not even a cue as to what the challenges, challenges he rejects as false, are about.
Nothing so clearly shows the meaning of dave's frequent protestations of being interested only in THE TRUTH than his behavior when asked for some of that truth he alleges to have acquired.
We may be discouraged from pointing out the many many (exponentiated factorial) questions he's avoided, ignored, misunderstood/mis-answered, but we can certainly keep raising the questions.
They're obvious questions.
Any two-bit idiot can figure out an answer.
The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader...

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Still wondering where in the Ucatan, Egypt, and China I can find the same 1 mile thick layer of sediment from the flood. But I guess I'll find out after he figures out which of the Grand Canyon strata are pre, and which are post, flood...

I think it is safe to presume that even the dimmest, most creationist-minded lurker at IIDB will see that Dave has no evidence, no theory, and no logic to offer on any point. His flagrant avoidance of discussing consilience is a key motif in this.

As long as Dave refuses to explain, discuss, or deal with C14 calibration, he will continue to appear uninformed, illogical, and fundamentally unequal to dealing with science.

He has met his Waterloo, and it is him.

Mike PSS · 08-14-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

As long as Dave refuses to explain, discuss, or deal with C14 calibration, he will continue to appear uninformed, illogical, and fundamentally unequal to dealing with science.

He has met his Waterloo, and it is him.

Dave's Waterloo is.....

VULCANISM??!!!??

shirley knott · 08-14-2007, 09:34 AM

I love it so ;-)

hugs,
Shirley Knott

Constant Mews · 08-14-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Constant Mews

As long as Dave refuses to explain, discuss, or deal with C14 calibration, he will continue to appear uninformed, illogical, and fundamentally unequal to dealing with science.

He has met his Waterloo, and it is him.

Dave's Waterloo is.....

VULCANISM??!!!??

The Olympians are clearly disturbed by Dave's lack of faith.

ericmurphy · 08-14-2007, 11:48 AM

At least half a dozen people have tried to get Dave to explain how the consilience of radiocarbon calibration curves is supposed to work (regardless of whether he thinks it does work), just to see if he knows enough about the topic to be able to criticize it.

Dave has never been able to do so.

The only inference one can draw is that Dave does not understand the consilience of radiocarbon calibration curves. I disagree with CM; I believe that Dave is theoretically capable of understanding it (it's not rocket science, after all). I believe that Dave will not allow himself to understand it, because he knows that it will demolish his worldview with one blow. He would be forced to accept the reality of an earth at least 60,000 years old.

Steviepinhead · 08-14-2007, 01:31 PM

Consiliently speaking, he'd have to accept that the earth is a good deal older than the 60,000 years for which C14 is reasonably accurate.

The cross-correlating methods don't just calibrate C14.

They all support each other. And some of them go a lot further back than 60kya...!

Yet more reasons for assiduous avoidance on davey's part.

Calilasseia · 08-14-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

At least half a dozen people have tried to get Dave to explain how the consilience of radiocarbon calibration curves is supposed to work (regardless of whether he thinks it does work), just to see if he knows enough about the topic to be able to criticize it.

Dave has never been able to do so.

The only inference one can draw is that Dave does not understand the consilience of radiocarbon calibration curves. I disagree with CM; I believe that Dave is theoretically capable of understanding it (it's not rocket science, after all). I believe that Dave will not allow himself to understand it, because he knows that it will demolish his worldview with one blow. He would be forced to accept the reality of an earth at least 60,000 years old.

Hence that utterly bizarre episode about conflating time and space coordinates. Which, if it was seriously intended as a debating point, is a sign of epic desperation.

Constant Mews · 08-15-2007, 07:09 PM

And Dave still owes us evidence to support his contention that every working scientist in the world is either dishonest or incompetent.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2007, 09:34 AM	#725
shirley knott Regular Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 416	I love it so ;-) hugs, Shirley Knott

08-14-2007, 11:48 AM	#727
ericmurphy Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,027	At least half a dozen people have tried to get Dave to explain how the consilience of radiocarbon calibration curves is supposed to work (regardless of whether he thinks it does work), just to see if he knows enough about the topic to be able to criticize it. Dave has never been able to do so. The only inference one can draw is that Dave does not understand the consilience of radiocarbon calibration curves. I disagree with CM; I believe that Dave is theoretically capable of understanding it (it's not rocket science, after all). I believe that Dave will not allow himself to understand it, because he knows that it will demolish his worldview with one blow. He would be forced to accept the reality of an earth at least 60,000 years old.

08-14-2007, 01:31 PM	#728
Steviepinhead Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,642	Consiliently speaking, he'd have to accept that the earth is a good deal older than the 60,000 years for which C14 is reasonably accurate. The cross-correlating methods don't just calibrate C14. They all support each other. And some of them go a lot further back than 60kya...! Yet more reasons for assiduous avoidance on davey's part.

08-15-2007, 07:09 PM	#730
Constant Mews Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: California Posts: 1,395	And Dave still owes us evidence to support his contention that every working scientist in the world is either dishonest or incompetent.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.