JonF

Sometimes? Yes. Not millions and millons of times, in all different disciplines, in the same way every time, in a clear and consistent pattern. Not possible.

Constant Mews

That's not what you're accusing them of. You are accusing every working scientist in physics, chemistry, biology, paleontology of being wrong all the time. We're not talking one or two mistakes - of course scientists make mistakes. But in order for your contentions to be true, everything in science must be wrong. Everything.

You are accusing tens of thousands of working scientists of being so stupid and incompetent they shouldn't be able to get jobs as latrine attendants.

If radiometric dating is wrong, then your computer doesn't work. It's that simple, Dave.

Constant Mews

I made no bogus claims. Vulcanism, which deposits ash layers over vast areas (some world-wide) is used as an independent calibration mechanism for ice cores, lake varves, such as Lake Suigetsu, and any other laminate deposition metric.Absolutely false. We have explained to you dozens of times how chronological metric calibration works. What part of it can't you understand?That is the conclusion of science - not the a priori belief of the scientist.

Since every one of your beliefs is held a priori and without reference to any science, all you are able to do is 'shoehorn' data to fit your warped and completely erroneous beliefs. But actual scientists - amongst whose number you cannot be found, since you are ignorant of scientific methodology, history, and technique - make their conclusions from the data. Only the incompetent, dishonest idiots shoehorn.Because you're wrong. You are ignorant of how scientists work, you are ignorant of their belief-systems, and you are simply projecting your own dim, limited, faith-biased view on others.

The world is full of rational human beings, Dave. I'm sorry that you don't understand them and are unwilling to join them.

It's no leap. It's a direct conclusions from your lack of logic, inability to provide evidence, continual quote-mining, shoehorning of data - to which you have admitted - and libelous accusations against others.

Pappy Jack

[QUOTE=Pappy Jack;4679725]Just to take it my initial response to this post further, think of that crime scene analogy you developed earlier. We don't have witnesses who can tell us that Tom was there and killed Dick, but:

• There is a muddy shoe-print that matches the sole on one of Tom's shoes.
• The mud on the bottom of the shoe matches the mud in the shoe-print.
• There is a fibre on the crime-scene that matches fibres from Tom's jacket.
• Dick was shot with a bullet that ballistics can confirm was fired from a gun owned by Tom.
• The magazine in Tom's gun is 'short' one bullet.
• A paraffin test shows that Tom has fired a gun recently.
• Only Tom's fingeprints are on Tom's gun.
• There is evidence that Dick has been blackmailing Tom and that Tom has been paying Dick large sums of money.
• Tom's car was recorded on CCTV footage in the vicinity of Dick's house around the time Dick was killed.
• Dick was shot from close range and spots of blood on Tom's shirt have been identified as Dick's.

....all pieces of independent evidence, any one of which may possibly be individually called into doubt, but which taken together are consilient and point towards the inescapable conclusion that Tom killed Dick.

In the same way that this hypothetical case against Tom has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, so too has the court-room case against YECism.

Silent Dave

Ah, so it's not a scientific conspiracy, it's a memetic conspiracy.

But before I bother addressing this in more detail, let me just get this on the record: Is this your response to the green words, Dave? That the conscilience is explained by the fact that all the scientists who contributed to the conscillience carry deeply held beliefs of an old earth, and that they all unwittingly allowed these beliefs to influence the outcomes of their experiments?

Are you willing to commit to this position? If not, what is a response to the green words that you are willing to commit to?

Because I've had enough of you ducking and dodging around the topic, and I intend to pin you down on this once and for all. So what say you?

Mike PSS

Interestinger and more Interestinger.

My mistake Dave. I meant Volcanism.
Got to catch a flight, I'll explain more later. But I thought you would at least try and comprehend my explanation a little.

Apparently not. Which just reinforces the "Intellectual Gutter" comment I'm afraid.

Did I hit a nerve?

ericmurphy

Dave, how many times do we have to explain this to you? The coral and the ice cores and the tree rings do not all have to be in the fucking lake. If all these different dating methods apply the same correction to the same uncalibrated 14C date, then anywhere we find an object that generates that uncalibrated date will calibrate to the same date. If you find a twig somewhere in lake Suigetsu that you can get a 14C date from, you look that uncalibrated date up and see what the calibrated date is. Is this so utterly beyond your intellectual ability that there is simply no hope that you can be made to understand it?

ericmurphy

All of them, Dave? You think every single fucking scientist who has ever worked in either 14C, tree ring, coral ring, ice core, lake-bed varve, or marine sediment dating, along with all the fucking scientists who work in the other three dozen radiometric dating techniques, are all mistaken? Jesus fucking Christ, Dave, you're talking about tens of thousands of individuals, all of whom have training and expertise in the relevant fields, and you think every single last one of them is wrong?

But you, who have zero training in any relevant field, who doesn't even understand what the term "falsifiable" means in a scientific context, you think you're the one who's right.

And you wonder why you get ridicule here.

mung bean

Dave, if you can't understand the relevance of volcanism in this context then you really should not be attempting to debate the topic.

ericmurphy

Dave, it beggars the imagination that you could be this fucking stupid. You CANNOT be this stupid, you HAVE to be faking.

Let me take an example. You want to know what the price of a book is. You go to the Borders website, and you look up the Price of, e.g., "The Genesis Flood" by Morris. Then you go to the actual brick-and-mortar Borders store, and you find out—holy shit!—the book at the store is the exact same price as the one on the website! How can this be? The website isn't even anywhere near the store! It's back at your house, inside your computer! How could the two prices be even remotely similar? What are the chances?

Dave, if you can calibrate a particular value for 14C as being a particular date using an ice core from Greenland, a tree-ring value from the Black Forest in Germany, and a coral growth ring from Indonesia, then you know that anywhere you find an object that produces that value for 14C anywhere on the planet, it's going to have the same fucking calibrated date! You think you have to find an ice core value and a coral growth ring and a tree ring in the fucking lake in order to calibrate 14C value?

All of these dates track each other, Dave. Time doesn't run at different rates in different places on earth.

Let me give you an example. You find a piece of organic matter at the base of Vesuvius. You get an uncorrected C14 date of, e.g., 65 A.D. That organic matter is embedded in a layer of volcanic ash that you know, for multiple different reasons, was deposited by the Vesuvius eruption in 79 A.D. You look at the published fucking calibration curves for 14C, apply the listed correction to the piece of organic matter, and to your utter and comprehensive lack of surprise, you find that the correction leads to a calibrated date of—wait for it—79 Anno fucking Domini.

Now. You catch the next JAL flight to Lake Suigetsu. You count back down the layers of lake varves until you find a layer that you believe dates to 79 A.D. Guess what? You find minute traces of volcanic ash there. And guess what else? You find that those minute traces of volcanic ash are chemically identical to the ones you found back in Italy at the fucking base of Mt. Vesuvius. And, you find a fragment of a leaf that's embedded through several layers of varve, including the one you find that you think is from 79 A.D. You pull that leaf fragment out, and you date it using 14C, and you get an uncorrected date of 65 A.D. Which, astonishingly enough, is exactly the same uncorrected date as the piece of organic matter you found at the base of Vesuvius. Again, you apply the correction that is derived from tens of thousands of, what? Dave? What is it derived from? I can't hear you? What did you say? Did you say—

Calibration Curves

?

Yes, I believe that's what I heard you say.

Now. For all this cross-checking, did any of these other things need to be physically present in Lake fucking Suigetsu? They didn't, did they?

So what kind of asinine question is this, Dave, where you're asking what vulcanism has to do with Lake Suigetsu? Can you now see, at long last, how utterly brain-dead such a question is?

Or are you still simply incapable of figuring stuff out like this that I, an uneducated lout, don't even have to think about in order to understand?