Calilasseia

Same here. Moreover, I dissected the Nadeau paper independently of any attention applied to it by Constant Mews. My posts on this subject are a matter of public record here - indeed, the dissection I posted was in this very thread and can be found here. That dissection demonstrates that I read the contents of the paper in detail, and determined for myself why that paper was irrelevant to Dave's argument on alleged 'anomalous' coal dating results. In doing so, I discovered that Nadeau et al alighted upon an interesting problem with respect to the business of dating marine foraminiferans that they stated in that paper required further work to resolve (in accordance with good scientific practice). Basically, in that paper, the presence of contaminating material attaching itself to the foraminiferan shells complicates the use of C¹⁴ dating on some of these organisms, and means to eliminate sources of error need to be developed. Now, on the basis of Dave's own posts on the subject, which again are a matter of public record in the Formal Debate, one is left concluding that Dave simply skimmed the paper, searching for a minable quote, which was then deployed in a manner familiar to those of us who have experienced the aetiology of "professional" creationists. Consequently, any assertion that I, as one of those voters in that poll, was voting on the basis of preconceptions is not only insulting, but provably wrong as a matter of public record as demonstrated above. I alighted upon reasons for the paucity of Dave's arguments independently and on more than one occasion, including that infamous incident at RDF where Dave abrogated to himself the right to tell me to "educate myself" and "go and read some creationist literature" - when I did so, I found a page which made a statement about the critical constants of gases that was in flagrant violation of basic laws of physics that I had learned at school at the age of twelve, and was able to demonstrate that this was the case by reference to the UK National Physical Laboratory's Kaye & Laby website. Likewise, I was able to dissect several other 'flood' arguments by reference to their violations of basic physical laws - thermodynamic exchanges in the vapour canopy model leading to ridiculous Earth temperatures, RATE's accelerated nuclear decay nonsense leading to Earth core temperatures over one thousand five hundred magnitudes hotter than the first Planck Second of the Big Bang, and others. Again, all a matter of public record. Therefore I would respectfully suggest that Dave owes me a retraction of that cheap and nasty little insult contained here:

and probably quite a few other people too, because many other individuals arrived at the conclusion that he was wrong independently as well.

Meanwhile:

Ditto.

Dave has made an assertion that, as Ericmurphy succinctly encapsulated it, "scientists make shit up". Associating as I do with individuals in my Entomology Society who have international reputations in their field, I take that somewhat personally. These people do NOT "make shit up", they spend DECADES sweating over their work in some instances, and this flippant and slanderous dismissal of their labours is, in my view, an utter disgrace, all the more so when seen in the light of Dave's uncritical acceptance of the words of Russell Humphreys, a man whose proven malpractice is again a matter of public record. That Dave considers a man such as Humphreys of all people to be a better scientist than the thousands of decent, hard working individuals he dismisses in such cavalier fashion is, in my view, nauseating. I shall go on record as looking forward to the day when that flippant libelling of the honesty and integrity of genuine accredited scientists is punished in the law courts.

ofro

Dave,
You don’t need to think very hard to come up with an explanation for this 29cm-thick flocculent layer that was not further analyzed by Dr. Kitagawa’s group: The varves take a long time to settle into a material with sufficient mechanical strength that it can be removed from the lake without destroying it. Personally, I would be embarrassed to ask this question because for me this betrays a certain level of ignorance. And if I were Dr. Kitagawa, I would be insulted to the point that I wouldn’t bother replying. So you’ll likely have to settle with my explanation.

deadman_932

Allow me to quote Isaiah 57:4 about SOME people living in Oz (In my interpretation) ---

Whom are you mocking ?
At whom do you sneer
and stick out your tongue?
Are you not a brood of rebels...?

Pukana! Oh, it's ON!

ericmurphy

Instead of just "remembering" it, Dave, why don't you go out there in the big wild world and find some actual evidence to support your wild-ass claims.

Your latest claim—that the scientific community has engaged in a pervasive, decades-long campaign of deliberately falsifying evidence on a global scale—is just the latest in a long list of claims you've made that we're all wrong, and is just another in a long string of evidence-free assertions.

So stop threatening to prove us wrong, Dave, and actually do it.

mitschlag

Another thing:

Those chaps to whom you refer were breaking new ground.

Your conceit is that you are trying to equivocate a retreat to the ground that existed prior to Galileo as an advancement to new ground.

Galileo: No one has been here before. Isn't that exciting?

afdave: I don't like it here. I want to go back to the way it was.

Steviepinhead

Dave, somewhat to my astonishment, you have dropped in on this page at least a couple of times since I extended my "pick your own spot" invitation for the "identifiable Flood-depositied sedimentary layers" question.

Of all the "hands-on," easily-observable evidence which ought to exist for such an UltraMega Event, one that happened only 6kya, why is it that you are bothering yourself about the top 29 cm layer in Lake Shigetsu, when what you ought to be doing is tripping over yourself in your hurry to get out the door to lay hands on that two-flippin'-mile thick layer that you keep claiming that the Flood laid down.

Why is it, dave, that the "problematic" 29 cm in the lake seems to be perfectly observable and reportable by Dr. Kitagawa, while you just can't seem to locate and identify the alleged 3218.688 meters (that's 32,1868.8 cm, dave!) of "Flood" layers?

your two mile-layer is over 11,000 times as thick as Dr. Kitagawa's 29 cm layer, dave!

How come he can find a little teeny layer like that, even though you think it's a problem for him that he would've been better off not even mentioning, yet you can't seem to find a GI-frickin'-NORMOUS layer that would seal the whole deal for you, dave?

Don't you see the 11,000-times discrepancy* in the quantity of evidence here, dave?

Is it any wonder that our snickering is increasing with every second that you continue to dodge this months-old question? You literally shouldn't be able to walk out your door--or any door in the world--without tripping over your layer, much less have to actually work to identify it.

Yet you don't seem to be even working on this gigantic mystery. Instead you're indulging yourself in puzzling over something almost infinitisimal in comparison.

*Yeah, I realize the true discrepancy is between Kitagawa's 29 cm and dave's zero, since that's all that dave's produced to date, so the true ratio is infinite, but I'm trying to give dave a little encouragement to front up to his problem here.

ck1

So you think that we are just blindly voting against your god?

Not so - there are quite a number of theists here, and others of us who respect thoughtful theistic arguments.

Dave, you chose to come to a site named "infidels" to make your case. It sounds like you are using that label as an excuse for your failure to convince anyone here.

Remember, the fact that you had to come here is because your side offers no place for us to openly argue with you. Including your own blog.

If you find such a place let us know and we will come. I tried recently to post to a creationist discussion blog and all my substantive posts were blocked, so I see no reason to continue there.

Calilasseia

Strange that isn't it Dave?

You can come here and present all the material you wish to. The only price you pay is that we examine it and determine whether or not it withstands critical analysis.

If, on the other hand, any of us tries to take our arguments to your creationist chums, we are shut out. Your creationist chums cannot tolerate dissent. More to the point, they cannot tolerate any argument that might pose a threat to their world view. If we are so frightened of having our Vast Atheist Conspiracy™ rumbled, why do we let people like you come and post freely on our bulletin boards, while your fellow Warriors For Truth™ slam the door shut in the face of anyone who dares to question their world view?

Could it be that - gasp - the Vast Atheist Conspiracy™ is actually a figment of your imagination? That we are secure in our thinking because we can cite evidence to back up our claims? And that your creationist chums are so scared of contrary opinion precisely because they cannot?

Well blow me down. Who would have thought it?

Silent Dave

No, of course it couldn't be -- because that's not what God says in the Bible! And we know that the Bible is sound, because God said so! And what God says is always right! The Bible says so!

Dave Hawkins

Where did you try to post?