improvius

...which he did by presenting corroborating evidence from the other dating methods.

Oh, but you want him to demonstrate the absence of a global conspiracy. Now, what hypothetical evidence would accomplish that? Dave? Can you give us a hint of what you might accept here?

Calilasseia

Oh we're back to this canard again Dave?

Here's what you have failed to address with that remark of yours above, and for that matter with your entire contributions in the formal debate:

[1] Each individual dating metric is founded upon phenomena that can be observed and measured;

[2] Each individual dating metric is founded upon phenomena whose behaviour can be organised into a structured form;

[3] Several of the dating metrics can be tested against material of known historical age in order to ensure that the underlying theory is sound;

[4] The metrics cross-correlate with each other in a consilient fashion, which means that those metrics that have NOT been tested against material of known historical provenance directly are tested against material of known historical provenance indirectly when correlated with another metric that HAS thus been directly tested;

[5] The correlations of all extant metrics are in excellent agreement.

To suggest that [1] to [5] above is somehow indicative of conspiracy or skulduggery on the part of reputable scientists around the world - which is, in essence, your basic "argument" - is not even worth a point of view. If there WAS some kind of 'conspiracy' afoot, and all of these metrics were fatally flawed, it would only take ONE lab to test them against material of known age, publish the results, and the whole edifice would come crashing down. Furthermore, organisations that rely upon these labs pay large sums of money for the work that they do - do you think ANY commercial organisation would pay that kind of money for fraudulent work if they suspected that fraud was afoot? NO! The ensuing lawsuits would be prime time television news material! It's not as if the likes of the multinational oil conglomerates are exactly bereft of funds with which to pay armies of lawyers to drag the labs through the courts if the labs are engaging in fraudulent practice. Likewise, any government that suspects serious fraud in this field has massive resources - ALL the resources of the state - to bring to bear upon any miscreants in this field. For your argument to hold, we are required to believe that the co-conspirators include not only virtually every scientist on the planet, but the world's governments and major commercial enterprises as well. Do you think for one moment that Iran under Ahmadinejad is going to enter willingly into a conspiracy with Bush's United States? This is such a ludicrous proposition as to be, as I said above, not worth a point of view.

Now, there's your problem Dave. Those dating metrics yield accurate results when tested against material of known historical age. You therefore have the major problem of explaining why all of those metrics are wrong in such a manner as to give false dates beyond a certain age, yet yield accurate results for material of known historical provenance, and furthermore why those errors you claim are present all happen to be erroneous in the same fashion.

Your statement above is, in effect, an accusation of malfeasance and malpractice levelled against every accredited scientist on the planet. I notice as a corollary that your uncritical acceptance of persons such as Humphreys (an individual whose [i]proven malpractice is a matter of public record) contrasts with the withering scorn you pour upon thousands of hard working, decent scientists around the world, for no other reason than their work happens not to conform to the beliefs you think should be imposed upon the world. You are accusing those thousands of hard working, decent scientists of skulduggery. Thus far, none of us here have seen any evidence offered by you to support that claim. Put up or shut up.

ericmurphy

But they weren't, Dave. YOU are wrong. You persist in the belief of a 6,000-year-old earth and a global catastrophic flood, after both beliefs have been comprehensively disproven.

If you want us to believe all these "bright folks" were "wrong about something really huge," then you should provide some evidence that they were wrong. So far, you have been monumentally incapable of doing so. Do you suppose we're going to believe they were wrong just because you say so?

You e-mailed the author of the RATE study? Could we see the e-mail you sent them?

deadman_932

You know, I'm getting sick of this shit, Dave. Every time you turn around you're now libelling people. I was one of those people that voted, and it had NOTHING to do with me "wanting Genesis to be false"

Now retract this steamy pile of Dave.

It had to do with a young earth being UNSUPPORTED BY YOU. It had to do with Mew's case via Suigetsu to be stronger, particularly given the consilient dates provided by unrelated methods. Get a grip on what little remains of your senses and credibility and learn how to act like a goddamned adult.

James Brown

I don't understand. If you are accusing nearly all scientists in engaging a centuries-old world-wide conspiracy, then why e-mail Kitigawa for further information? Isn't he going to just parrot back the party line?

Constant Mews

:devil1: Logical reasoning does not appear to play a part in Dave's actions.

Silent Dave

The demonstration -- yes, of each separate system -- is in the conscillience. Period. Case closed.

And even if the existence of a massive, worldwide, unbroken shoehorning conspiracy was an even slightly plausible hypothesis, you would have to actually demonstrate (let me bold that) DEMONSTRATE the existence of such a conspiracy so as to DEMONSTRATE reasonable doubt upon the proof. And you haven't even tried. In fact, given your reluctance to discuss the subject in detail, I don't think you believe it yourself. I just think you want an "out" so you don't have to admit the evidence. But it doesn't work like that, and I think you know it, so stop suggesting and start DEMONSTRATING that this conspiracy exists.

By the way, when a person compares himself to the next Galileo or Copernicus, it's a sure sign that he's a crackpot.

ericmurphy

No. Wrong. Looking at them separately WILL NOT HELP YOU. How many freaking times do we have to tell you this, Dave? It is the CONSILIENCE of all these different independent methods that is the problem! Do you honestly think you can sneak this dishonesty past us, when we've been telling you for over a year now that this is the central issue you need to look at?


You need to explain the consilience. Nothing else will help you.

Every time you try to find a problem with one of these systems, Dave, we will slap it right back in your face: "Then why does it agree with all of the other systems?" THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, THE ONE YOU CANNOT AVOID.

He already did so. The consilience of the calibration curves is proof positive, beyond any possibility of doubt, that each one of the systems which generate those curves is reliable and accurate. We know you get this, Dave; you can't possibly not know it anymore. It is monstrously dishonest of you to pretend you don't get it.

Dave, I could freaking care less whether Genesis is true or false. I have no dog in that fight. The evidence that Genesis is false is conclusive. You have no evidence at all that it is true. Lake Suigetsu is just one tiny insignificant speck of the available evidence that Genesis is false, but it is, all by itself, more than enough to demolish your claim.

deadman_932

Congratulations, Dave. This will be the first time that I've EVER reported a person to the moderators of a forum, BUT since I can't tell you what I REALLY think of you here without using terms and insults that would get ME a warning at the least...you left me no choice.

Personally, I think you're so desperate due to lack of evidence supporting your claims that you're conciously or subconciously spewing libel to get banned --so you can then claim martyrdom again.

Silent Dave

Do me a favor, will you, Dave? Email Dr. Kitagawa again real quick, and ask him to cc his response to silentdave47@ gmail.com.

Not that I don't trust you . . .