Constant Mews

The difference is also that you are not Copernicus or Galileo - they were scientists, which you are not. They had data - which you do not. They had theories - which you do not.

The differences are innumerable. You have nothing to go on except your inability to understand what 'evidence' means.

The Evil One

It is a strange psychological phenomenon that one particular human being - naming no names - can persist in the belief that the evidence supports his position when every attempt on his part to present such evidence has been shot down in flames or ended in said person running away, tail between legs.

deadman_932

Your theory has been noted many times, Dave. The problem is your lack of evidence to back this slanderous claim.

Yes, you've e-mailed Kitagawa and I suspect you'll learn what the term "flocculent" means and how human-caused changes have affected a small Japanese lake.

The interesting thing is that honest responses won't matter to you just as with your disastrous foray into radiometric dating (both inorganic and carbon dating) -- as you yourself have claimed many times, Dave, you will reject anything contrary to your narrow, myopic and frankly deranged view of the Bible.

But the fact is that you are never going to be the same again.

You will either have this gnaw at you until you admit you were a fool taken in by charlatans, or you will build more and more defenses, like so many of your AiG and ICR buddies who border on the insane. And I suspect you'll opt for the latter.

Occam's Aftershave

OK Dave, I'd like you to clarify so I don't get your position wrong:

You say the reason all the C14 cal curves agree is because there is a massive world-wide conspiracy over the last 50 years to deliberately fudge ALL the data in ALL the samples EVER collected everywhere. This evil cabal has to include not just ALL the hundreds of working C14 labs, but ALL the data end users (archaeologists, historians, etc.) who see first hand the dates agreeing with the other historical records. And through some miracle, ALL these tens of thousands of co-conspirators have managed to keep their criminally fraudulent work completely secret.

Is that your position Dave?

hyzer

Good we agree.

Debatable.

Not accepting this with out back up and sources. Very doubtful.

They were wrong because their beliefs were based on (wait for it) the bible.

Constant Mews

Just like Galileo and Copernicus?

It won't help you. The problem isn't the details of the varve counting. It is the consilience of the multiple methods. Simply accusing tens of thousands of scientists of fraud is not an argument.

It is libel.

mitschlag

Perdon, Señor, but the hypothesis to which I was referring was the one I quoted:

Kitagawa ain't gonna help you with the above. Creo no...

So there's no need to wait for a reply from Kitagawa before ponying up the EVIDENCE for your charming assertion.

ericmurphy

Yes, Dave. Why don't you have a similar problem with RATE's inability to explain uranium daughter products in their zircons other than by appeal to miraculous AND? Why don't you have a problem with that, Dave? I mean, if you're going to explain phenomena with miracles, when do you know when to stop?

Miracles are like Lays potato chips. You can never have just one.

Faid

Well, dave ol'chap, this alone from you is enough to count as libel- but it's not just that you claim. And you know it.

This is not just a case of some (some? ALL of them, rather) mean scientists picking one sample date over another in a particular method. It's not just a case of "whoops, this date doesn't agree with my millionsofyearsionist beliefs, better throw it away and choose this one instead" (although that is still libel by itself; you have no evidence whatsoever that scientists act this way, and, in fact, you yourself has shown, here and elsewhere, that scientists publish and discuss anomalous results).

No dave. It's far worse.

You claim that somehow, data from entirely independent dating methods, based on entirely different physical systems and parameters, following entirely different and independent laws and procedures, determined by entirely different fields of science even, are somehow "shoehorned in" to provide this amazing consillience in their results.

And that this is done, not once or twice, not dozens or even hundreds, but thousands of times.

This is your claim, dave, in all its absurdity. Can you support it? Can you even logically explain it?

Face it, dave. You have two options:

A. Either all the different methods agree in their results because the entire scientific community is engaged in downright fraud and deceit, fabricating ALL those results to make them fit with the orders from the Darwinist Commissar, or

B. The data is REAL, and their veracity proves an Old Earth.

Which option do you believe in, dave?

Oh, don't worry, we all know the answer to that. You have practically admitted it already, but we knew it even before you did; One option might make you feel a bit embarrassed, since it shows what your "scientific journalism" is really all about... But there's no other way: The other option would make your head explode.

So it's time to clearly and openly admit it. Take that final leap: Distance yourself once and for all from all those evil scientists, and embrace the group your beliefs really belong to: Conspiracy theorists, UFOlogists, moon landing deniers... You'll feel quite at home.

The truth will set you free.

Dave Hawkins

Au contraire, senor ... we have to examine all these claims for 40,000+ year dating systems IN DETAIL ... separately. If we do this for EACH of the systems, we should have our evidence for my claim above. If we do not, then I will recant in dust and ashes and admit defeat. Of course, my new initiative to get to the bottom of Lake Suigetsu (heh, a funny) here overlooks the fact that CM was supposed to demonstrate (let me bold that) DEMONSTRATE the reliability of his beloved Lake Suigetsu dating system so as to DEMONSTRATE the falsity of Genesis ...

... and he failed to do so.

Yet we have 100+ people here who WANT Genesis to be false, so they voted for him anyway. Interesting isn't it?