Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 08-04-2007, 03:54 AM

Quote:

However, you do not claim that a scientific conspiracy exists.

What, then, is your explanation for the conscillience?

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?

BWE · 08-04-2007, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

However, you do not claim that a scientific conspiracy exists.

What, then, is your explanation for the conscillience?

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?

Dave. You are not being honest now. 14C dates taken from already dated varves agree with the varves as well as the other chronological phenomena you listed.

let's see... 14C calibration curves. It's not circular now though. is it. I made a nice graphic to show that part. Should I post it? oh what the heck...

Pappy Jack · 08-04-2007, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

....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?

Dave, this takes disingenuousness to new heights.......

08-04-2007, 04:35 AM

Here we fucking go again...................

Dave, you know perfectly well where those trees and coral and stuff are.
They're all over the world, aren't they Dave? Guess how they relate to Lake Sushiguts. Come on Dave, you can do it.

Silent Dave · 08-04-2007, 09:27 AM

Bump so Dave sees the responses.

Now explain the conscillience.

BWE · 08-04-2007, 10:06 AM

Here's a game:

Let's see how many posters think that the fairbanks 14C calibration curves answer Dave's feigned ignorance to the varve question?

If You agree, make a post that reads:

14C Calibration Curves

by simply quoting this one.

Silent Dave · 08-04-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Here's a game:

Let's see how many posters think that the fairbanks 14C calibration curves answer Dave's feigned ignorance to the varve question?

If You agree, make a post that reads:

14C Calibration Curves

by simply quoting this one.

You think it'll actually get his attention? How about . . .

14C CALIBRATION CURVES!!!
14C CALIBRATION CURVES!!!
14C CALIBRATION CURVES!!!

That should do it. So Dave, having said that . . .

EXPLAIN THE CONSCILLIENCE!!!
EXPLAIN THE CONSCILLIENCE!!!
EXPLAIN THE CONSCILLIENCE!!!

Pappy Jack · 08-04-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Here's a game:

Let's see how many posters think that the fairbanks 14C calibration curves answer Dave's feigned ignorance to the varve question?

If You agree, make a post that reads:

14C Calibration Curves

by simply quoting this one.

But Dave has been sturdily refusing to acknowledge the significance of calibration curves since I saw them raised at rdnet, instead trying to develop a strategy of finding some fault or other with each individual methodology (so far neither very convincingly nor comprehensively) in the hope thereby of being able to invalidate the whole idea. So no matter how much we beat him over the head with this, he's still going to try and handwave it away. Mind you, it's gonna be fun playing the game....:devil1:

Calilasseia · 08-04-2007, 11:21 AM

Trouble is, he's not only got the mutual consilience issue to deal with, but the fact that, in accordance with good scientific practice, dating metrics that were directly testable upon material of known historical provenance have been thus tested in order to ensure that the theory is sound. That's the first basic step. If the theory is all to cock, then it'll fall at that hurdle. Which means that Dave has to answer how on earth dating metrics can give correct answers for material of known historical provenance, yet all be wrong on unknown material, AND all wrong in such a manner as to yield the SAME errors, despite being based upon wildly differing physical phenomena. I shall posit here that before Dave provides such an answer, the bowels of Hades will be opening liquid Helium spas and offering solid nitrogen ice lollies on sticks.

Silent Dave · 08-04-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

But Dave has been sturdily refusing to acknowledge the significance of calibration curves since I saw them raised at rdnet, instead trying to develop a strategy of finding some fault or other with each individual methodology (so far neither very convincingly nor comprehensively) in the hope thereby of being able to invalidate the whole idea. So no matter how much we beat him over the head with this, he's still going to try and handwave it away.

Okay, then, let's try this.

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!!!

Just admit that we're right, Dave. God won't hate you for using your brain, I promise.

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

08-04-2007, 04:35 AM	#584
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Here we fucking go again................... Dave, you know perfectly well where those trees and coral and stuff are. They're all over the world, aren't they Dave? Guess how they relate to Lake Sushiguts. Come on Dave, you can do it.

08-04-2007, 09:27 AM	#585
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Bump so Dave sees the responses. Now explain the conscillience.

08-04-2007, 10:06 AM	#586
BWE Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 624	Here's a game: Let's see how many posters think that the fairbanks 14C calibration curves answer Dave's feigned ignorance to the varve question? If You agree, make a post that reads: 14C Calibration Curves by simply quoting this one.

08-04-2007, 11:21 AM	#589
Calilasseia Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Liverpool, UK Posts: 1,072	Trouble is, he's not only got the mutual consilience issue to deal with, but the fact that, in accordance with good scientific practice, dating metrics that were directly testable upon material of known historical provenance have been thus tested in order to ensure that the theory is sound. That's the first basic step. If the theory is all to cock, then it'll fall at that hurdle. Which means that Dave has to answer how on earth dating metrics can give correct answers for material of known historical provenance, yet all be wrong on unknown material, AND all wrong in such a manner as to yield the SAME errors, despite being based upon wildly differing physical phenomena. I shall posit here that before Dave provides such an answer, the bowels of Hades will be opening liquid Helium spas and offering solid nitrogen ice lollies on sticks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.