Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 07-27-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by improvius

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Secondly, he includes dendrochronology, coral dating and "others." What??!! Dendrochronology?? Coral dating? What other methods? Lake Suigestu has nothing to do with dendro, coral dating or any "other" methods.

I think this was my favorite part. Here, once again, Dave demonstrates that he still has no fucking clue what "consilience" means.

Here's a clue, Dave: consilience means that Lake Suigetsu does, indeed, have something to do with the other dating methods.

Really? How? Precisely. 'Splain me please. Did they find corals in Lake Suigetsu? Tree trunks that they could read rings from? Hmmm ...

shirley knott · 07-27-2007, 10:13 AM

Consiience, Dave.
If all these different dating methods are wrong, how is it that they all agree to such a high degree of precision?
Stop pretending you don't understand the problem. Even yuo aren't that stupid and evil.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

ericmurphy · 07-27-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by improvius

I think this was my favorite part. Here, once again, Dave demonstrates that he still has no fucking clue what "consilience" means.

Here's a clue, Dave: consilience means that Lake Suigetsu does, indeed, have something to do with the other dating methods.

Really? How? Precisely. 'Splain me please. Did they find corals in Lake Suigetsu? Tree trunks that they could read rings from? Hmmm ...

Jesus fucking Christ, Dave, how many times do we have to explain this to you? There doesn't need to be corals in Lake Suigetsu! There don't need to be tree rings in the fucking lake! CALIBRATION CURVES DERIVED FROM THESE VARIOUS SOURCES ALLOW US TO CROSS-CORRELATE RADIOCARBON, LAKE-BED VARVES, CORAL GROWTH RINGS, ETC. TO EACH OTHER They don't all need to be in the same place, for crying out loud.

Let's try this one more fucking time, to see if this time you can muster the wit to understand it. Does this look at all familiar?

Quote:

[posted 5/31/2007]

Dave, you seem to be the only one here who can't grasp the extremely elementary concept of calibration curves. I've explained it to you before, but one more time won't kill me.

Okay. You develop a methodology for establishing dates using dendrochronology. You extend that as far back in time as you can. You then find an object that you can date both using dendrochronology and with radiocarbon. There is a discrepancy between the two dates; the radiocarbon date is younger than the dendrochronologically-established date.

Okay, which date, if either, is correct? Can't really tell yet, can you?

Okay, now you develop a methodology for establishing dates using ice cores. You extend that as far back in time as you can. You then find an object that you can date both using ice cores and with radiocarbon. There is a discrepancy between the two dates; the radiocarbon date is younger than the ice core-established date.

But strangely enough, you find the discrepancy between the dendrochronological date and the radiocarbon date is the same as the discrepancy between the ice-core date and the radiocarbon date. This is good evidence that the dendro and ice-core dates are correct, and the radiocarbon date must be calibrated, because it is too young.

Moving on.

Now you develop a methodology for establishing dates using coral growth rings. You extend that as far back in time as you can. You then find an object that you can date both using coral growth rings and with radiocarbon. There is a discrepancy between the two dates; the radiocarbon date is younger than the growth-ring-established date.

But, amazingly enough, the discrepancy between the two is exactly the same as the discrepancy between both dendro and ice cores, and the radiocarbon date. This is even more compelling evidence that the calibration you need to make to radiocarbon dating is accurate.

Next, you develop a methodology for establishing dates using lake bed varves. You extend that as far back in time as you can. You then find an object that you can date both using lake bed varves and with radiocarbon. There is a discrepancy between the two dates; the radiocarbon date is younger than the lakebed-varve-established date.

But, amazingly enough, the discrepancy between the two is exactly the same as the discrepancy between dendro, ice cores, coral growth rings, and the radiocarbon date! They're all the same! This is even more compelling, nay, conclusive, evidence that the calibration you need to make to radiocarbon dating is accurate.

But we're not done yet.

Next, you develop a methodology for establishing dates using marine sediments. You extend that as far back in time as you can. You then find an object that you can date both using marine sediments and with radiocarbon. There is a discrepancy between the two dates; the radiocarbon date is younger than the marine sediment-established date.

But, stunningly, the discrepancy between the two is exactly the same as the discrepancy between dendro, ice cores, coral growth rings, lake bed varves, and the radiocarbon date! They're all the same! At this point, it's fair to say that you've established that the calibration you need to make to radiocarbon dating is accurate.

Should I go on, or do you get it now, Dave?

And see, the tricky part is, you can't just try to invalidate one of these dating methods. In fact, even invalidating all of them won't help you, because you're still left trying to explain how all of these different methods, which are all based on different techniques, with different possible sources of error, could possibly be wrong in totally different ways, but still be wrong by exactly the same amount!

I mean, come on, Dave. You're always on about the probability of, say, a fully-formed T. rex suddenly coming together from random chemicals. But what do you think the chances are that every single time they run one of these calibration curves, which has been done tens of thousands of times for each one of these methods, the discrepancy between the dates derived from these different methods and radiocarbon dates is exactly the same?

Are you beginning to see what you're up against here?

Do you now understand why ice cores, coral growth rings, organic marine sediments, etc. don't have to be physically fucking present in the goddamned lake in order for us to be able to cross-correlate the dates derived from Suigetsu lake-bed sediments? Or do you simply not have the mental horsepower to figure it out?

Dave Hawkins · 07-27-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Do you now understand why ice cores, coral growth rings, organic marine sediments, etc. don't have to be physically fucking present in the goddamned lake in order for us to be able to cross-correlate the dates derived from Suigetsu lake-bed sediments? Or do you simply not have the mental horsepower to figure it out?

I have the mental horsepower, yes. And I have the mental horsepower to have known that the English Channel was formed via a megaflood ... not by normal fluvial processes.

Mental horsepower is not the issue.

Here's the issue ...

You think that Lake Suigetsu represents a 100,000 year sequence of varves, right? Why do you think this?

Well, because you ASSUME that each layer of diatoms (which, BTW, don't extend anywhere near across the entire area of the lake) represents one year. You assume this in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary that creationists have given. Deja vu Washington Scablands. You want to believe this is true so you SELECT 85 organic samples out of 250+ which date to the "correct" (that is, fitting your preconceptions) timeframe.

Now you use similar bad logic and methods with corals, tree rings, etc.

Then you have the audacity to call this "consilience" and "good science."

It's consilience, alright.

Consilience with your preconceived notions of the timescale.

Betenoire · 07-27-2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Do you now understand why ice cores, coral growth rings, organic marine sediments, etc. don't have to be physically fucking present in the goddamned lake in order for us to be able to cross-correlate the dates derived from Suigetsu lake-bed sediments? Or do you simply not have the mental horsepower to figure it out?

I have the mental horsepower, yes. And I have the mental horsepower to have known that the English Channel was formed via a megaflood ... not by normal fluvial processes.

Mental horsepower is not the issue.

Here's the issue ...

You think that Lake Suigetsu represents a 100,000 year sequence of varves, right? Why do you think this?

Well, because you ASSUME that each layer of diatoms (which, BTW, don't extend anywhere near across the entire area of the lake) represents one year. You assume this in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary that creationists have given. Deja vu Washington Scablands. You want to believe this is true so you SELECT 85 organic samples out of 250+ which date to the "correct" (that is, fitting your preconceptions) timeframe.

Now you use similar bad logic and methods with corals, tree rings, etc.

Then you have the audacity to call this "consilience" and "good science."

It's consilience, alright.

Consilience with your preconceived notions of the timescale.

Charles Lyell.
He did all the explaining of the old Earth that a rational being should need, and he did it nearly 200 years ago. What's more, he wasn't reinforcing pre-conceived notions, as you claim, as he, basically, was the first to do the conceiving. All he did was analyze the data his eyes saw, and draw the only conclusion that fit.

JonF · 07-27-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirley knott

Consiience, Dave.
If all these different dating methods are wrong, how is it that they all agree to such a high degree of precision?
Stop pretending you don't understand the problem. Even you aren't that stupid and evil.

Yes, he is that stupid and evil. He's forced himself to be; if he weren't, he might question his preconceptions.

JonF · 07-27-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

You think that Lake Suigetsu represents a 100,000 year sequence of varves, right? Why do you think this?

For many reasons, including its consilience with other dating methods. Which you are afraid to address.

Until you come up with a reason why all those different methods agree, you've got bupkis. But you have no reason.

SAWells · 07-27-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shirley knott

We really need to note that Dave seriously believes that no geologist has ever 'investigated the possibility of a Global Flood'.
Besides being nonsense on the face of it, it overlooks the other side of his inane objections to reality -- the geologists who investigated the Global Flood and determined it to be non-factual and, in fact, impossible, were all Young Earth Creationists. Every single one of them.

For extra amusement let's note that Leonardo da Vinci, in the FIFTEENTH CENTURY, had already noted that a global flood was impossible, because it would have left fossils jumbled up, not neatly arranged in layers as we find them.

There's a really killer quote at the end of that page: "Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries...". Did you get that, Dave? THINGS are more ancient than LETTERS. The universe is MUCH OLDER THAN WRITING. You never seemed to grasp that point.

SAWells · 07-27-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betenoire

Charles Lyell.
He did all the explaining of the old Earth that a rational being should need, and he did it nearly 200 years ago. What's more, he wasn't reinforcing pre-conceived notions, as you claim, as he, basically, was the first to do the conceiving. All he did was analyze the data his eyes saw, and draw the only conclusion that fit.

Darwin, on the Beagle, spent a great deal of time comparing the interpretations of the geology he'd been trained in by Sedgewick, and the new deep-time geology of Lyell. There's a wonderful line in his journal from the voyage; "Yesterday I almost convinced myself that there was no such thing as a mountain, which is a very whimsical conclusion to come to in Tierra del Fuego."

Dave Hawkins · 07-27-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonF

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

You think that Lake Suigetsu represents a 100,000 year sequence of varves, right? Why do you think this?

For many reasons, including its consilience with other dating methods. Which you are afraid to address.

Until you come up with a reason why all those different methods agree, you've got bupkis. But you have no reason.

I did. They all agree with the scientists' preconceptions. Feel free to prove me wrong. You can start by finding out what those other radiocarbon dates were from Suigetsu ... you know ... the 165+ ones they didn't report? They only reported 85 remember?

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

07-27-2007, 10:13 AM	#352
shirley knott Regular Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 416	Consiience, Dave. If all these different dating methods are wrong, how is it that they all agree to such a high degree of precision? Stop pretending you don't understand the problem. Even yuo aren't that stupid and evil. no hugs for thugs, Shirley Knott

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.