Silent Dave

Oh no no no -- they're not intentionally lying, and they're probably as smart as they appear. It just that their ideas get in the way and, without their knowledge or consent, influence the results.

The way this works is ______________________________________________.


Dave, would you be so kind as to fill in the blank?

Calilasseia

I explained the very same concept to Dave way back on page 15 of this thread. He ignored what I wrote then. Or, alternatively, it didn't register in his mind. Or, as yet another alternative, he's being deliberately obtuse for the sake of it.

Dave, what part of "entities A and B exist at the same moment in time" requires those entities to be in the same place also? If entity A is me, and entity B is you, then once again, Dave, we happen to be contemporaneous entities because we're sharing the same moments in time, but we are four thousand miles apart. The time coordinate is independent of the space coordinates. This is even true in General Relativity, let alone any simpler physical system such as a Newtonian one. Even if one takes into account the fact that we have established different time zones across the planet for reasons of metrical convenience, they are simply labels that we assign to times to provide a frame of reference. Moreover, even though it is possible for someone on one side of the International Date Line to be 23 hours 59 minutes behind someone else with respect to the conventions applied to labelling time, that doesn't mean that said person is actually 23 hours 59 minutes in the past. The two persons in question simply choose to call the particular moments in time they are measuring by different labels that suit their day to day living conveniences.

Furthermore, Dave, even if one adopts the entirely bizarre idea that those time labelling conventions are somehow intrinsic as opposed to being simply a labelling convention, then two points on Earth can never be more than 23 hours 59 minutes away from each other, which means that your objection to dating metrics on the basis of position are ridiculous even with this bizarre view of time in place, because a bunch of coral polyps and their calcium carbonate secretions that take place in the Barrier Reef are only an hour apart from the varve depositions that take place in Japan on the same day. Which means that if someone comes along in 5,000 years' time and applies a dating metric to the corals and the varves, that hour is so small a time increment that it will be well and truly swallowed up in experimental error, which will at best date the two artefacts to the nearest year. Unless of course Silent Dave's point above applies, and Japan is in some kind of multi-dimensional time warp with a truly exotic brane topology, though if that is the case, how come people who fly in and out of Tokyo on 747s don't notice this? How come the 747 flight computers don't notice this when they correlate their clocks with the GPS satellites?

At this point I am reminded of the episode of the Irish TV comedy series Father Ted, in which Ted is sitting in a caravan with Dougal, holding small plastic toy farm animals in his hands ... he then says "Dougal, these are small" ... then points out of the window at some cows and says "and those are far away ..."

ericmurphy

The truth is, Dave is unwilling to understand radiometric carbon calibration. It's not that he doesn't have the mental horsepower to do so. It's that he's unwilling to do so, for transparently obvious reasons. If Dave were to allow himself to actually grasp how cross-correlation works (an elementary concept if ever there were one), his skull would be unable to contain the cognitive dissonance, his worldview would undergo gravitational collapse, it would acquire great entropy, redshift to infinity, and leave our universe completely.

And he can't have that.

Constant Mews

The result is the same, whether his problem is capacity or willingness: Dave has no idea what the problem is. He has presented no argument whatsoever - either one to support his concept of "all scientists are stupid" or "all scientists are deceitful liars." Either of which is excellent libel material. And neither of which can be sustained.

What Dave fails to realize is that consilience doesn't simply work with C14 - if the dates are wrong, then the techniques are wrong. And if the techniques are wrong, then Dave's computer cannot work.

And yet it does. Another victory for Lake Suigetsu.

mung bean

CM, is there a big pile of computers at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu? No? Well then they aren't relevant, are they? Sheesh.

shirley knott

We have another line of inquiry which leads to the same conclusion -- IIRC, you and I both challenged dave to explain, in his own words, what the cross-correlation problem is. While it may not have been his fastest departure from a thread he had formerly participated it, his departure was, nonetheless, precipitous. And repeated wherever the challenge was expressed.

So how about it dave? Without regard to whether or not the correlation is real, what is it about the consilience of the cross-correlations that would lead us to believe that there is a problem for your theory?
Can you at least present a statement, in your own words, of what the presumptive problem is?

I thought not.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Stephen T-B

I think there's scope for a study into consilience between Flat Earthers and Creationists.
Superficially there appears to be a difference, to the extent that main-stream Creationists are not Flat Earthers. But they are two pips in the same apple.

The Biblical assumptions of a flat earth are so embedded in the text that nowhere is it stated that the earth is flat, any more than it is stated that the beasts of the field have only one head.
Flat Earthers draw together the many inferences of a flat earth and conclude that the Bible being inerrant, the earth is therefore flat.
Presented by evidence that it is, in fact, more-or-less spherical, they are obliged to rationalise that evidence away. Their case can be found here
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm
Main-stream Creationists like afdave are, compared with Flat Earthers, revisionists to the extent that they accept the evidence of a more-or-less spherical world in defiance of what the Bible implies.

They use the absence in the Bible of a clear affirmation that the earth is flat as an excuse to present themselves as less barking mad than the Flat Earthers.
But when you examine their reasons for dismissing evolution and evidence that there never was a world-wide flood, nor a Tower of Babel, nor a flight from Egypt, not a great city called Jericho etc etc, you see a direct correlation between their disconnect from reality and that of the dear Flat Earthers.
In both cases, the integrity of their holy scriptures takes precedence over everything - however compelling.

mung bean

Shirley, to do that he would have to think about the problem and work his way through the reasoning. He can't do that and simultaneously keep going "la la la" while refusing to think. Not even Dave can do that, so he'll avoid the question.

Pappy Jack

Bean, Dave has so many questions stacked up in waiting in so many threads that I'm reminded of the old joke about there being a third Wright brother but he's still in the stack over Kennedy - only in this case its AFDave stuck in the holding pattern between the rock of science and the hard place of reason all the time hoping for a gust of AiG wind to come and blow him to a place of safety .

shirley knott

Well precisely,
But isn't that the point -- to make it abundantly obvious to even the most dim-witted and/or casual of observers that dave's got nothing, not even a cue as to what the challenges, challenges he rejects as false, are about.
Nothing so clearly shows the meaning of dave's frequent protestations of being interested only in THE TRUTH than his behavior when asked for some of that truth he alleges to have acquired.
We may be discouraged from pointing out the many many (exponentiated factorial) questions he's avoided, ignored, misunderstood/mis-answered, but we can certainly keep raising the questions.
They're obvious questions.
Any two-bit idiot can figure out an answer.
The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader...

hugs,
Shirley Knott
Still wondering where in the Ucatan, Egypt, and China I can find the same 1 mile thick layer of sediment from the flood. But I guess I'll find out after he figures out which of the Grand Canyon strata are pre, and which are post, flood...