Silent Dave

Either way, I've no doubt he'll treat it as a reflection on us rather than on himself. Sigh again.

Calilasseia

You think he's finally grown tired of having his cherished belief system not so much falsified as annihilated?

Occam's Aftershave

Wow Dave, I see you're reading this thread. Did you check out the latest poll results from your formal debate with CM?

93-1-1 DAVE LOST

we'll add that to your previous effort

146-1-1 DAVE LOST

Maybe you should rethink your debate strategy, eh? The 'ignore all discussion, run away from questions, and blindly parrot back AIG bullshit' tactic doesn't seem to be convincing anyone.

Oh Dave, please feel free to post that evidence for the 1 mi. thick FLUD sediment in Egypt any decade now. Maybe you can tell us how long it takes 1000' of chalk to form too.

rfmwinnie

I have a question for you scientists:

After a paper is published isn't it likely that someone would do a study to try to replicate the findings? I always thought that was kind of the "gold standard" of science -- if you could redo the experiement and get the same info. It would seem that has been done MANY thousands of times by different teams of scientists when it comes to any dating method. Has there been more than one time the Lake has been examined? (I don't know -- I had never heard of this lake prior to this debate).

It would also seem that those scientists of 200 years ago would have loved to prove their old earth view wrong. There was absolutely no reason to jepordize their careers, reputations and families without good reason. Since then there have been hundereds of thousands of scientists in the same boat. Imagine the acclaim one scientists would get if they could prove all this colusion and fraud. If someone could prove that data was used selectively they'd be famous for eternity (and probably make a good deal of money just in speaking fees). Considering the 1000s of people involved in this supposed colusion it is just beyond belief that all have been to "afraid" to report it.

ck1

Scientists put their effort into projects that, when completed, are likely to be published. Merely repeating someone else's study is not likely to get published - there is no novelty there. What scientists do do, however, is look at the published work and build on it, use it as a framework to set up the next step. If the original findings are wrong, it will soon be apparent.

Exactly.

Amaleq13

Perhaps it is different in the field of psychology but this is completely untrue of those professional journals. You can find plentiful examples of published papers being attacked by subsequent papers. It has been my impression that scholars and scientists in all fields thoroughly enjoy pointing out what they consider to be errors in the publications of others and that "crappy papers" are far more likely to be utterly destroyed by subsequent papers than to be ignored. What tends to be ignored by professionals are crappy journals with poor standards.

Dave Hawkins

E-MAIL I SENT TO H. KITAGAWA THIS MORNING ...

shirley knott

Nice job of missing the point davey.
When are you going to discuss the amazing fact that all the methods you are so certain must be wrong
are wrong in different ways but always so as to lead to the same result???
Or are you going to continue to pretend there's no problem with that?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Constant Mews

It is quite clear that Dave will never understand the basic problem. But since Kitagawa will give an excellent explanation of these two points, measures like this leave even less room for Dave to avoid discussion of the issue.

Dave Hawkins

This has been explained numerous times. It is my theory that scientists obtain consilience (sort of) in dating because there is an agreed upon consensus out there that everyone shoehorns their dating results into.