Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ericmurphy · 08-08-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul2

Biblethumping brings up a good point, and that is of what gets lost in translation. Sure, he used a humorous language to demonstrate this with, but it was effective non-the-less. How could you determine if genesis is historically false when you can't be sure the translation you have is what was really wrote to begin with?

But biblethumpers (the real ones anyway) believe the Bible is inerrant. It either is, or it isn't. It can't be simultaneously inerrant and a bad translation. If you believe the translation you have isn't what the Bible originally said, and maybe where it says God created Adam on the sixth day of creation it originally said that man evolved from more primitive apes, which had evolved from more primitive primates which had evolved from, &c. over billions of years, then it doesn't really make sense to talk about biblical inerrancy anymore, does it? And if the bible we have now really is not inerrant, then where is the justification for believing in the Noachian flood, the only evidence for which is in the Bible itself?

Silent Dave · 08-08-2007, 02:05 PM

Dave has not accepted my formal debate challenge on the conscilience.

He says he's just enjoying conversing with people -- by which I assume he means AVOIDING meaningful discussion. I can see why he would prefer that over having to actually defend his position in a meaningful way, but I think I would be justified in calling his refusal cowardly, if the IIDB rules permitted me to do so.

08-08-2007, 02:11 PM

That term has been used on other forums IIRC.

ericmurphy · 08-08-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silent Dave

Dave has not accepted my formal debate challenge on the conscilience.

He says he's just enjoying conversing with people -- by which I assume he means AVOIDING meaningful discussion. I can see why he would prefer that over having to actually defend his position in a meaningful way, but I think I would be justified in calling his refusal cowardly, if the IIDB rules permitted me to do so.

Dave already got hammered on the consilience here. I don't think he's anxious to repeat the experience.

Silent Dave · 08-08-2007, 03:10 PM

Oh, but he hasn't been hammered. It's impossible to hammer him. God is on his side, remember?

SpaghettiSawUs · 08-08-2007, 03:22 PM

Who Thor?

Faid · 08-08-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaghettiSawUs

SPRINKLER ANALOGY HELPS TO UNDERSTAND MISTAKEN CONSILIENCE

Thats right, consilience is a broken concept, as Dave has demonstrated clearly on the 14C thread and Dendro debatish on Dawkins, and here aginst CM he has raised important questions pointing to SERIOUS FLAWS in the methodologies and highly suspect assumptions (and as we all know ASSUMPTION makes U look like an ASS to ME).

So lets use an analogy to clear this up. Its a sunny early afternoon and Eric has gone for a nap. The kids are playing in the garden and his wife is squeezing lemons in the kitchen.

When he wakes up everyone's gone, and when he gets to the window Eric sees that the decking is wet. Eric thinks he remembers hearing thunder while he was asleep and assumes it has rained. He goes into the kitchen and finds his wife caked out on the floor with an empty sherry bottle in her hand. He throws a jar of water over her but she doesn't wake, after feeling her pulse Eric decides to leave her. She wakes as he leaves the kitchen.

"Has it been raining?" she asks, "only I though Paco had mended the kitchen roof".
"Must have been the DTs dear" replies Eric, "yes its been raining."
Eric's wife tries to get up but slips on the wet linoleum. "Dammit!" she shouts just after her head hits the chopping board
"Where's the kids?" asks Eric.
"They're dead" Says Dave (honest)
"What you doing in my house?" Says Eric.

Dave goes over to the window. Looking out he asks "What makes you think its been raining?"
"Well the decking's wet" says Eric,
"And the roof's leaked all over me", chimes in Mrs Eric. Eric tries to keep a straight face.
"WELL YOU'RE BOTH WRONG" Exclaims Dave in jubilant, victorious bold caps, "The water on the decking is from the sprinklers!". Dave turns to Eric and exclaims exhuberantly "I watered your house dude!".
Eric tries to answer but his brain can't decide on which word to use first so it just comes out as "Whhhh! T'hh! Ffff!".
Dave turns to Mrs Eric, "And the water is a gift from your husband, he emptied a pitcher on yo ass while you were comatose on the booze".

Dave opens his arms out wide, smiling sanctimony and assumed authority, looking from one to the other he tells them "If you assume rain, you'll find evidence for rain. Even where there is none".

And that, people, is why consilience in anything, be it 14C calibration or red-shift aging distant galaxies is built on questionable assumptions.

Eric took one piece of evidence which agreed with his assumption of rain, his wife took another (and besmirched the good Christian Paco, who had fixed the roof, in the process).

Note that it was Dave who knew the truth.

Questions?

***********
DISCLAIMER
***********
There is good reference for the dead kids

Anyhoo...
Hope its cleared everything up for you all. Its assumptions all the way down (as a wise man once said...).
:Cheeky: :Cheeky: :Cheeky: :Cheeky: :Cheeky:

Spags
:wave:

Hahaha, this was a bit like playing one of those old text adventures:

>EXAMINE DAVE

He holds a glass with water and sand in it.

>TAKE GLASS

You take the glass.

>SHAKE GLASS

Dave says, "Congratulations, you just disproved every principle of sedimentation and hydrology".

>BACK AWAY SLOWLY

Too late. Your brain has suffered irreparable damage from convercing with dave. Everything fades around you.

Play again? Y/N (we recommend N)

SpaghettiSawUs · 08-08-2007, 06:54 PM

Continuing the Spectrum adventure game theme...

You are in a hangar. There is a vehicle of some description ahead of you.

>EXAMINE VEHICLE

It is a flying saucer, there are seats inside, with controls. It is like nothing you've ever seen. There is a person inside.

>EXAMINE PERSON

"I Am Dave" says the person. He asks you "Do you believe that the flying saucer just happened to be constructed by a tornado blowing a thousand monkeys with typewriters into a watch factory?" What is your reply? (Y/N)

>N

Congratulations you have just proven the design inference and refuted the theory of evolution. You have been promoted to AFDavian level 1 and receive one compartmentalisation key.

Your health is failing.

>TAKE MEDS.

Your meds are not sufficient for the new strain of virus. It has evolved.

>USE COMP KEY

The virus has not evolved.

>TAKE MEDS

You are out of meds.
Your health is failing.

>LEAVE

Your brain has suffered irreparable damage from conversing with dave. Everything fades around you.

Play again? Y/N (Definitely No this time... trust us)

Mike PSS · 08-08-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

I don't swear often Dave. But FUCK.
Not only have people explained this to you ad nauseum but they have shown graphs, charts, doodles, books, and every other piece of fucking evidence you could think of to describe the consiliant nature of the different dating methods.
The primary method is with vulcanism. We know when volcanoes erupted in modern and ancient times. We even have some weather correllations that are documented.
When Vesuvius blew its top we have some Vesuvius dust in ice cores in Greenland. "How?" do you say? By fucking testing the dust at the 79AD (or what the experimenters think is the 79AD point) in the ice core and verifying that the chemical composition of this dust is the same as the ash field found in fucking Sardinia (airborne volcanic dust is different in composition than the actual paraclastic flows). But you still stick your ignorant neck out and say "But there could be other sources of that dust or other times when Vesuvius blew its top." Well Sherlock, what do you think a database is used for. Why do scientists test different layers. Each volcanic eruption event has chemical markers that make its ejecta unique from other events even from the same mountain.
So what does this mean for consilliance? Just that the dust layer in the Greenland ice core can now be "NAILED DOWN" to 79AD. And also since the scientists know how many years back to 79AD it is (simple arithmatic) they can also verify that their counting method of layers is valid (one layer every year).
So how does a dendrochronologist work this magic? Why the same fucking way by looking at known historic events that can affect the tree ring. The year without a summer from Krakatoa is a classic marker for dendro counters. And it also shows that the one ring per year standard is supported because on a living 500 year old tree you only need to count back 191 rings to find the narrow ring related to 1816 Krakatoa event.
So how does a Lake Varve specialist use this consiliance thing? Well, you should start and get the idea, but you probably won't. :Cheeky:

You disappoint me Dave. You are so deep into the intellectual gutter that I fear there is no getting out for you anymore.

Very interesting. I ask the following

Quote:

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?

and you respond with ...

VULCANISM??

What in the world does "vulcanism" have to do with CM's bogus claims I listed above? Lake Suigetsu has nothing to do with tree rings, ice cores or coral dating EXCEPT in your minds. And that only because YOU THINK that they all represent nice, annual sequences back to 40,000 YA which agree pretty closely. But if they agree ONLY because of deeply held beliefs by scientists who carry these deeply held beliefs into their experiments and whose experiments undoubtedly are influenced (albeit unwittingly) by these beliefs, then how can you say that this is independent consilience?

Then you make the leap that I am in the "intellectual gutter"???!!

Dave!!!
You ready to discuss how the effects of volcanism can be used as a technique to cross-correllate lake varves, ice cores, dendrochronology, coral columns and C14 dating?

spamandham · 08-08-2007, 09:22 PM

This is both humorous and sad. It's amazing how effective brainwashing can be. I imagine Dave is a hostage in some Jesus camp being fed nothing but sugar and never allowed to sleep.

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

08-08-2007, 02:05 PM	#662
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Dave has not accepted my formal debate challenge on the conscilience. He says he's just enjoying conversing with people -- by which I assume he means AVOIDING meaningful discussion. I can see why he would prefer that over having to actually defend his position in a meaningful way, but I think I would be justified in calling his refusal cowardly, if the IIDB rules permitted me to do so.

08-08-2007, 02:11 PM	#663
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	That term has been used on other forums IIRC.

08-08-2007, 03:10 PM	#665
Silent Dave Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 2,209	Oh, but he hasn't been hammered. It's impossible to hammer him. God is on his side, remember?

08-08-2007, 03:22 PM	#666
SpaghettiSawUs Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Birmingham England Posts: 170	Who Thor?

08-08-2007, 06:54 PM	#668
SpaghettiSawUs Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Birmingham England Posts: 170	Continuing the Spectrum adventure game theme... You are in a hangar. There is a vehicle of some description ahead of you. >EXAMINE VEHICLE It is a flying saucer, there are seats inside, with controls. It is like nothing you've ever seen. There is a person inside. >EXAMINE PERSON "I Am Dave" says the person. He asks you "Do you believe that the flying saucer just happened to be constructed by a tornado blowing a thousand monkeys with typewriters into a watch factory?" What is your reply? (Y/N) >N Congratulations you have just proven the design inference and refuted the theory of evolution. You have been promoted to AFDavian level 1 and receive one compartmentalisation key. Your health is failing. >TAKE MEDS. Your meds are not sufficient for the new strain of virus. It has evolved. >USE COMP KEY The virus has not evolved. >TAKE MEDS You are out of meds. Your health is failing. >LEAVE Your brain has suffered irreparable damage from conversing with dave. Everything fades around you. Play again? Y/N (Definitely No this time... trust us)

08-08-2007, 09:22 PM	#670
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	This is both humorous and sad. It's amazing how effective brainwashing can be. I imagine Dave is a hostage in some Jesus camp being fed nothing but sugar and never allowed to sleep.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.