ericmurphy

Explain to me what the fuck the English Channel has to do with radiocarbon calibration curves, Dave. This is subject-changing on a monumental and obvious scale.

That you had to ask how coral growth rings and ice cores have anything to do with lake-bed varves, after having had it explained to you in minute detail over and over and over again indicates that yes, it very much is a matter of mental horsepower. Or a feigning of lack of mental horsepower, which amounts to exactly the same thing.

No. Wrong. Wrong again. Wrong for the twentieth time. WE DO NOT ASSUME THEY REPRESENT ONE YEAR. WE KNOW THEY REPRESENT ONE YEAR BECAUSE THEY CROSS-CORRELATE WITH OTHER DATING METHODS THAT RESULT IN EXACTLY THE SAME DATE

It is beyond clear that this point that you simply wilfully refuse to understand this extremely simple point.

It is not a freaking assumption. It is a FACT based on cross-correlating dates from multiple different methods.
No. We select tens of thousands of samples out of tens of thousands of samples which ALL FREAKING CORRELATE TO THE SAME FREAKING DATES.

Explain the consilience, Dave. The consilience is an established fact, beyond all dispute. Explain, for the freaking hundredth time, how if all these dating methods are wrong, THEY'RE ALL WRONG IN TOTALLY DIFFERENT WAYS BUT BY EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT.

ericmurphy

NOWHERE have you ever addressed the consilience of multiple different dating methods, Dave. That is a flat-out lie. That they agree with anyone's preconceptions is not the issue. If you think any of these dating techniques are inaccurate, you have to accomplish at minimum one of two things: you need to show that they do not, in fact, cross-correlate (which is an impossibility, since they clearly and unambiguously do), or you need to come up with some mechanism by which the cross-correlation is due to some reason other than that they all point to the same dates.

You haven't done that, you haven't even attempted it, you haven't even recognized it as a problem for your position.

They only need to report one radiocarbon date: the earliest one. Since that date can be cross-correlated with other dating techniques, it is the only one necessary to completely destroy your young-earth creationism.

ericmurphy

Constant Mews showed unambiguous evidence that Lake Suigetsu is in excess of 40,000 years old. You now have the burden of proof to demonstrate that that evidence is incorrect. You have failed to do so, you haven't even attempted to do so.

You simply cannot get around the fact that all the various dating techniques (lake bed varves, coral growth rings, tree rings, ice cores, marine sediments) agree. Until you can either show that they don't agree (good luck) or that they agree for some other reason than being accurate dating methods, your argument is DEAD.

The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders, Dave, where it will stay until you can somehow show that the dates derived from Lake Suigetsu varves are incorrect. You have not done so, and cannot do so.

Silent Dave

CM did address this in your debate, Dave: it's standard practice to select the samples that are most intact and show the least likelihood of contamination, and date only those samples, because dating is an expensive process. So those 165+ samples were not reported because they were never dated -- and therefore could not have been selected for exclusion based on an "incorrect" date.

I would assume that the other 165+ samples are in storage somewhere, however, and I'd imagine that the scientists would be happy to date them for you, provided you pay for it. (And don't look at me -- I don't have forty thousand dollars to spare right now.)

mitschlag

Wow, "just for me." I'm honored. (From past experience I surmise that when I dangle "logic" bait before afdave, he's inclined to take a nibble. Thank you very much: I'll take any attention I can get.

Here's the skinny:

* It's irrelevant to the logical analysis whether "conventional" (translate: real-world) geologists were wrong or not. Indeed, whether anyone gave the matter a thought is irrelevant.

* It's also irrelevant as to whether "conventional" geologists might be wrong about the Flood of Noah. Of course they might be wrong. Anybody might be wrong. The test is bloody, bloomin' evidence. And what's written in a book, tablet, encyclopedia, sermon, post by afdave, etc., etc., ain't evidence. (But you knew that already, din't ya?)

*"Open-minded" geologists (you may have guessed that I'm not a geologist, but I swear on a stack of bibles that I'm open-minded; for god's sake, I live to learn) are persuaded by evidence.

So, just present that evidence, and we of the open minds will consider it. (Rhetoric don't cut it.)

Is that really so difficult?

Silent Dave

Dave, I should add that accusing a scientist or group of scientists of fabricating the results of an experiment for ulterior motives (such as to bolster their "deep time theory preconceptions") is tantamount to accusing them of fraud. Such an accusation can be harmful to their reputation -- real science isn't like creation science, where fabricating results is acceptable. And since you are making your accusation with reckless disregard to its truth or falsehood, that is legally considered acting with malice.

In other words, you are in danger of a civil suit for libel.


Edited to add: Of course legally, you have an absolute defense against such a suit if you can prove your claim to be true. Can you?

ofro

Not only did Constant Mews use Lake Suigetsu to provide unambiguous evidence for an Earth older than 6000 years, but he also used a handful of additional independent methods. You tried (quite miserably) to argue against the varves but never addressed, just for one example, how it is possible to get so many layers in ice cores that one is forced to go back way beyond a few thousand years ago. Each method by itself disproves a young earth. Consilience is just the icing on the cake. I call CM's arguments the mother of all coup(s) de grâce.

Steviepinhead

Much less finding layers in ice cores, lake bottoms, etc., that include chemical "fingerprints" for distinct, historically-dateable ash-spewing events like volcanic eruptions (Vesuvius, Hekla, Krakatau, anyone?) which just so happen to align with the number of distinct layers counted back that far, and then extending using the same methodology--

--and more than one of these dating methods can be historically correlated that way

--most of them aren't impacted at all by dave's ditzy C14 arguments

--and, whaddaya know, they all turn out to be consilient with and cross-correlate with each other and the C14 dates.

Dave's never dealt with those inconvenient little facts, and never will, because he simply can't.

Viva la evolucion! Hic! :jump:

mung bean

Actually I remember seeing photos of either those fossilised tracks or similiar ones. If, as Dave claims to believe, the mountains of the world were all formed in a brief period at the end of the Flood when all the sediments were still soft then how, pray tell, did a nice selection of dinosaur tracks in sediment get tilted to the vertical without disrupting said sediment?
This one's as good as the spider tracks in the Coconino or the strata around Hurricane Fault and I'd completely forgotten about it. Thanks for bringing it up, PJ.

Dave (me ol' lounge room full of elephant droppings), you seem to have this thing about Teh Deeeep Time Preconceptions (cue scary music and stuff) of scientists. It is true that modern scientists do start by assuming deep time. They do this because of the utterly huge and overwhelming amounts of consilient evidence from a range of disciplines that has become available to them since the first YEC geologists realised their preconceptions were in dire need of review. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

In other words, the preconceptions of modern scientists in regard to deep time are perfectly and demonstrably sensible. It is the preconceptions of those who deny this that need examining.

Steviepinhead

Well, other things need examining too, like the item protruding upward from the neck of our Mexican tourist amigo.