Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Silent Dave · 08-05-2007, 02:23 PM

Dave has been online multiple times, most recently less than three hours ago, since I posted the green words; I find it unlikely that he's missed them. However, since a whole new page is about to start, let me repeat the green words so that Dave can't possibly miss them:

IF ALL THE DATING METHODS FAILED FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, THEN THEY WOULDN'T AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER!!!

BUT THEY DO, SO THEY DON'T!!!

AND THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY ALL FAIL FOR THE SAME REASON!!!

THEREFORE, THE DATING METHODS WORK, AND THE EARTH IS OLDER THAN YEC PERMITS!!!

Still waiting for Dave's response.

Constant Mews · 08-05-2007, 02:38 PM

Dave's response is that every single scientist in the world who is not a rank creationist is an idiot.

That's really his bottom line: those who disagree with him are fools, despite Dave's inability to present any evidence whatsoever that supports his case.

It's a most interesting example of cognitive dissonance.

Silent Dave · 08-05-2007, 02:45 PM

Is Constant Mews correct, Dave? Is your explanation for the conscillience that all non-YEC scientists are idiots, and are you unable to present evidence to that effect?

If so, then your explanation is rejected due to lack of supporting evidence, and you'll have to come up with something else.

If not, and given that you don't claim a scientific conspiracy, then what, at long last, is your explanation?

Constant Mews · 08-05-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Dave

Is Constant Mews correct, Dave? Is your explanation for the conscillience that all non-YEC scientists are idiots, and are you unable to present evidence to that effect?

If so, then your explanation is rejected due to lack of supporting evidence, and you'll have to come up with something else.

If not, and given that you don't claim a scientific conspiracy, then what, at long last, is your explanation?

It is quite simple, really. Here is Dave's current stated position - given Dave, this will change within hours, so read swiftly.

Quote:

1) There is no scientific conspiracy. The scientists involved no doubt are thoroughly convinced of the truth of what they write.

In other words, the scientists must be incompetent. Must be. There are no other possible explanations, given Dave's contention that they are both wrong and not consciously making these catastrophic errors.

Dave is here engaged in his usual practice of libel: he is accusing every scientist on the planet of being a moron. Anyone who makes mistakes of this magnitude does deserve to be employed - think of the potential catastrophes that we're on the brink of because of the incompetent idiots manning our nuclear power plants; after all, they must idiots because they don't agree with Dave.

And the computer on which I type this - built with exactly the same scientific method that produced those 'erroneous dates' for the earth - must be a piece of junk, quite likely to rip out my carotid artery when I turn my back on it.

According to Dave, all these scientists are morons, and their work must therefore also be moronic.

Quote:

2) Consilience of what? Are you making the claim, as Constant Mews was, that the dates assigned to the Lake Suigetsu rhythmites are consilient with dendrochronology and coral dating and ice core dating? Is that what you are claiming? If so, please explain what in the world you mean. Where is the coral or the ice cores or the tree rings that had anything to do with Suigetsu?

There are only two possibilities here, since this matter has been explained to Dave dozens if not hundreds of times: he is making a dishonest pretense of not understanding the problem; or he lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the problem.

But I am basically a decent chap, a devout Christian who doesn't wish to see Dave founder in darkness and sin forever. So I'll give him a simplistic model to work with.

World-wide climatic changes, such as the dreaded 'year without a summer' connected with the Tambora eruption of 1815 leave evidential traces over the entire planet. In particular, tree rings are minimized, varve formation is minimized, and forminifera fail to flourish. All of these occur because the decrease in incident solar radiation during this time of atmospheric ash.

When we count tree rings, forminifera layers, and varves, and find that they all approximately agree in their count with an 1815 date, then we can note that the varve count is calibrated by the dendrochronological count. Similarly, we note that C14 dating of biological detritus embedded in the varves can also be dated to 1815.

We don't need the trees, the forminifera, etc. to actually be in Lake Suigetsu.

Dave, pretending that you don't understand what we're discussing only leaves the possibility that you're simply too dumb to understand it. Which do you wish us to consider you: dishonest? Or stupid? It's entirely your choice.

Dave Hawkins · 08-06-2007, 05:36 AM

Quote:

In other words, the scientists must be incompetent. Must be. There are no other possible explanations, given Dave's contention that they are both wrong and not consciously making these catastrophic errors.

No. Just mistaken. Are you telling me that it is your opinion that scientists are incapable of being mistaken?

Dave Hawkins · 08-06-2007, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

1) There is no scientific conspiracy. The scientists involved no doubt are thoroughly convinced of the truth of what they write.

2) Consilience of what? Are you making the claim, as Constant Mews was, that the dates assigned to the Lake Suigetsu rhythmites are consilient with dendrochronology and coral dating and ice core dating? Is that what you are claiming? If so, please explain what in the world you mean. Where is the coral or the ice cores or the tree rings that had anything to do with Suigetsu?

I don't swear often Dave. But FUCK.
Not only have people explained this to you ad nauseum but they have shown graphs, charts, doodles, books, and every other piece of fucking evidence you could think of to describe the consiliant nature of the different dating methods.
The primary method is with vulcanism. We know when volcanoes erupted in modern and ancient times. We even have some weather correllations that are documented.
When Vesuvius blew its top we have some Vesuvius dust in ice cores in Greenland. "How?" do you say? By fucking testing the dust at the 79AD (or what the experimenters think is the 79AD point) in the ice core and verifying that the chemical composition of this dust is the same as the ash field found in fucking Sardinia (airborne volcanic dust is different in composition than the actual paraclastic flows). But you still stick your ignorant neck out and say "But there could be other sources of that dust or other times when Vesuvius blew its top." Well Sherlock, what do you think a database is used for. Why do scientists test different layers. Each volcanic eruption event has chemical markers that make its ejecta unique from other events even from the same mountain.
So what does this mean for consilliance? Just that the dust layer in the Greenland ice core can now be "NAILED DOWN" to 79AD. And also since the scientists know how many years back to 79AD it is (simple arithmatic) they can also verify that their counting method of layers is valid (one layer every year).
So how does a dendrochronologist work this magic? Why the same fucking way by looking at known historic events that can affect the tree ring. The year without a summer from Krakatoa is a classic marker for dendro counters. And it also shows that the one ring per year standard is supported because on a living 500 year old tree you only need to count back 191 rings to find the narrow ring related to 1816 Krakatoa event.
So how does a Lake Varve specialist use this consiliance thing? Well, you should start and get the idea, but you probably won't. :Cheeky:

You disappoint me Dave. You are so deep into the intellectual gutter that I fear there is no getting out for you anymore.

Very interesting. I ask the following

Quote:

Are you making the claim, as Constant Mews was, that the dates assigned to the Lake Suigetsu rhythmites are consilient with dendrochronology and coral dating and ice core dating? Is that what you are claiming? If so, please explain what in the world you mean. Where is the coral or the ice cores or the tree rings that had anything to do with Suigetsu?

and you respond with ...

VULCANISM??

What in the world does "vulcanism" have to do with CM's bogus claims I listed above? Lake Suigetsu has nothing to do with tree rings, ice cores or coral dating EXCEPT in your minds. And that only because YOU THINK that they all represent nice, annual sequences back to 40,000 YA which agree pretty closely. But if they agree ONLY because of deeply held beliefs by scientists who carry these deeply held beliefs into their experiments and whose experiments undoubtedly are influenced (albeit unwittingly) by these beliefs, then how can you say that this is independent consilience?

Then you make the leap that I am in the "intellectual gutter"???!!

Dave Hawkins · 08-06-2007, 05:45 AM

Meetings this morning ... Sorry ... I'm gone until this afternoon or later.

Pappy Jack · 08-06-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

..........Very interesting. I ask the following

Quote:

Are you making the claim, as Constant Mews was, that the dates assigned to the Lake Suigetsu rhythmites are consilient with dendrochronology and coral dating and ice core dating? Is that what you are claiming? If so, please explain what in the world you mean. Where is the coral or the ice cores or the tree rings that had anything to do with Suigetsu?

and you respond with ...

VULCANISM??

What in the world does "vulcanism" have to do with CM's bogus claims I listed above? Lake Suigetsu has nothing to do with tree rings, ice cores or coral dating EXCEPT in your minds. And that only because YOU THINK that they all represent nice, annual sequences back to 40,000 YA which agree pretty closely. But if they agree ONLY because of deeply held beliefs by scientists who carry these deeply held beliefs into their experiments and whose experiments undoubtedly are influenced (albeit unwittingly) by these beliefs, then how can you say that this is independent consilience?

Then you make the leap that I am in the "intellectual gutter"???!!

More disingenuousness or do you really not get it?

Faid · 08-06-2007, 06:19 AM

He doesn't WANT to get it.

Because, if he does, he'll have no other option than to admit what he really believes.

Faid · 08-06-2007, 06:31 AM

Quote:

But if they agree ONLY because of deeply held beliefs by scientists who carry these deeply held beliefs into their experiments and whose experiments undoubtedly are influenced (albeit unwittingly) by these beliefs, then how can you say that this is independent consilience?

Dave, your own words betray you.

Is DATA constructed by BELIEFS, dave?

Are EXPERIMENTS influenced by BELIEFS?

:angry:

Do you have absolutely no idea of how honest scientists conduct legitimate science, or are you twisting and turning because you are still too embarrassed to openly admit you believe in a global scientific conspiracy?

My guess is, a little bit of both.

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

08-05-2007, 02:23 PM	#601
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Dave has been online multiple times, most recently less than three hours ago, since I posted the green words; I find it unlikely that he's missed them. However, since a whole new page is about to start, let me repeat the green words so that Dave can't possibly miss them: IF ALL THE DATING METHODS FAILED FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, THEN THEY WOULDN'T AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER!!! BUT THEY DO, SO THEY DON'T!!! AND THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY ALL FAIL FOR THE SAME REASON!!! THEREFORE, THE DATING METHODS WORK, AND THE EARTH IS OLDER THAN YEC PERMITS!!! Still waiting for Dave's response.

08-05-2007, 02:38 PM	#602
Constant Mews Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: California Posts: 1,395	Dave's response is that every single scientist in the world who is not a rank creationist is an idiot. That's really his bottom line: those who disagree with him are fools, despite Dave's inability to present any evidence whatsoever that supports his case. It's a most interesting example of cognitive dissonance.

08-05-2007, 02:45 PM	#603
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Is Constant Mews correct, Dave? Is your explanation for the conscillience that all non-YEC scientists are idiots, and are you unable to present evidence to that effect? If so, then your explanation is rejected due to lack of supporting evidence, and you'll have to come up with something else. If not, and given that you don't claim a scientific conspiracy, then what, at long last, is your explanation?

08-06-2007, 05:45 AM	#607
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Meetings this morning ... Sorry ... I'm gone until this afternoon or later.

08-06-2007, 06:19 AM	#609
Faid Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,057	He doesn't WANT to get it. Because, if he does, he'll have no other option than to admit what he really believes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.