Silent Dave

Well we all have to do painful things at some points in our life. This is something Dave has to do, and I'm not going to let up until he does.

Dave Hawkins

I do not claim that there is a scientific conspiracy. That is other people pretending that this is my claim. I find it highly offensive that you seek to propagate this myth about me. I have asked legitimate questions about the Suigetsu study and I am awaiting the answers from the authors. I don't know if I will receive any answers, though.

It is a very important question to ask why only 85 results were plotted out of 250. Were they tested but not plotted? Were they not tested at all? Or what?

Constant Mews should have asked these questions himself before presenting this study. Because he did not, he can in no way claim that he has demonstrated anything.

Calilasseia

Can't be any more painful than the time I passed a kidney stone that showed up on X-ray like a meteorite stuck in my tubes. If I could do that, Dave can admit he's made errors.

Silent Dave

Okay, then. My mistake.


Wrong. He demonstrated the conscillience, and even if the Suigetsu scientists failed to answer a single one of your questions to your satisfaction, you would still have to explain why their results, however obtained, agree with all the results obtained by all the other methods.

Now, there were multiple people working on the Suigetsu study, all of whom had access to the same data, all of whom knew how to interpret it properly. If one person decided to suppress or destroy the data that did not fit whatever old earth preconceptions he might have had, then the others would have caught his error and corrected it. In order for the final results to have been deliberately suppressed, most or all of the scientists would have to have been in on it, by either spoken or unspoken agreement. That constitutes a scientific conspiracy.

However, you do not claim that a scientific conspiracy exists.

What, then, is your explanation for the conscillience?

Smullyan-esque

Revisionist history? Aren't you the one who said:
You said they have agreed upon a plan to falsify their data. That's "conspiracy to defraud". You HAVE claimed there is a scientific conspiracy.

Don't worry, afdave. Any time you try to hide from the truth, I'm here to make sure it finds you!:angel:

Silent Dave

Ahhh, he'll probably say something like, "they agree on what the end result should be, not that they should shoehorn." Rofful.

Anyway, since this post will appear at the top of a new page, let me repeat what I said in my last post so Dave doesn't skip over it "accidentally":



Okay, then. My mistake.


Wrong. He demonstrated the conscillience, and even if the Suigetsu scientists failed to answer a single one of your questions to your satisfaction, you would still have to explain why their results, however obtained, agree with all the results obtained by all the other methods.

Now, there were multiple people working on the Suigetsu study, all of whom had access to the same data, all of whom knew how to interpret it properly. If one person decided to suppress or destroy the data that did not fit whatever old earth preconceptions he might have had, then the others would have caught his error and corrected it. In order for the final results to have been deliberately suppressed, most or all of the scientists would have to have been in on it, by either spoken or unspoken agreement. That constitutes a scientific conspiracy.

However, you do not claim that a scientific conspiracy exists.

What, then, is your explanation for the conscillience?


Dave

Occam's Aftershave

OK Dave, then we're right back to where we started 420 days ago, when you first started cowardly ignoring this issue.

If there wasn't an evil worldwide conspiracy to deliberately falsify all that C14 calibration data, then

Why do the multiple independent C14 cal curves cross-correlate so closely, none show a 100X carbon spike at 4700 YBP, and all show ages much older than 10,000 YBP?

Round and round and round he goes, where Davie will stop nobody knows! :Cheeky:

mung bean

Gee, has it been on the list for that long?

For those who haven't seen it yet (and I wont post it all over the place) here's Teh Patented Occam's Aftershave Fleeing Chook List,
which hasn't been updated for about two months. I'm sure it should be longer now.

Topic............................................. ...Dave Hawkins response

C14 cal curves..........................................il logical/superficial
Cave Paintings......................................... .illogical/superficial
Vertical folded sedimentary layers.................illogical/superficial
Ark surviving all major asteroid impacts..........illogical/superficial
K/T boundary layer.....................................illogica l/superficial
Post Flood genetic bottleneck......................illogical/superficial
Historical record for early Egypt....................illogical/superficial
German oak dendrochronology......................illogical/superficial
Physics of sedimentation.............................illogica l/superficial
Sequentially buried forests..........................illogical/superficial
Well preserved fragile fossils........................illogical/superficial
Post-Flood scavengers...............................illogical/superficial
Cooling time for molten Earth.......................illogical/superficial
Australopithecus afarensis, what “kind”?........illogical/superficial
Age of Ural Mountains................................illogical/superficial
Coconino spider tracks...............................illogical/superficial
Ice cores correlate w/ historical events.........illogical/superficial
YEC timeline for Ice Ages............................illogical/superficial
Dual nested hierarchy of life........................illogical/superficial
No taurine source for cats on Ark. ...............illogical/superficial
Infectious pathogens on the Ark...................illogical/superficial
Dating of multiple Missoula floods..................illogical/superficial
How can Flood form incised meanders?..........illogical/superficial
Buried dried mud cracks form during Flood......illogical/superficial
Evidence for ZERO C14 at 7000 YBP..............illogical/superficial
Evidence non-Egyptians built the pyramids.....illogical/superficial
Humphrey's RATE 'risky predictions'...............illogical/superficial
Thermodynamic impossibility of Flood rainfall...illogical/superficial
Structural deficiencies of a wooden Ark.........illogical/superficial
Physics of asteroid belt formation.................illogical/superficial
Definition/quantification of CSI.....................illogical/superficial
Snell's law / rainbow formation.....................illogical/superficial
Flood liquid venting violates gas law..............illogical/superficial
Historical development of writing..................illogical/superficial
Meteorite chemical composition....................illogical/superficial
GULO evidence for common descent..............illogical/superficial

Silent Dave

Fleeing Chook? Is that an Aussie-ism?

Actually, phonetically speaking, it suits Dave quite well imho . . .

mung bean

Chook is an Australian colloquial term for some avians of the Gallus family.