SpaghettiSawUs

Eric,
Dave understood your explanation. The "that's not an explanation" assertion was a diversion. Note Dave likes to talk to experts, I wont speculate as to why, but whenever a new person comes along and offers to discuss or debate with Dave the first question is "what quals have you got?" followed by "what is your area of expertise?".

This is so he can say (later as he did recently to ck1) "I know more about <expert's subject> as it relates to origins, than <expert>". You do realise that that is what Dave dislikes about you most, don't you?

Dave knows the problem of cal curve consilience, this is why he wants to stay focused on one subject (curve) at a time. I predict that Dave will now refer to his ongoing dendro debate, then handwave CM's "sychronization" question away with a: he is highlighting the "seriously flawed" assuptions with dendro; now doing the same with lake varves; as well as has been done with 14C on RD with Mike (which he has recently demonstrated to be based on the flawed assumption of an old earth whereas there was in fact no 14C 6000 years ago / accelerated nuclear decay makes things look older (Dave hasn't decided which is most truthy yet)).

He will certainly try to avoid responding to the core question: how all wrong, in differing ways, by exactly the same amount?

However my hope is that the pointedness of CM's question and surrounding reasoning will force Dave to address it. My bet is that because CM says "virtually impossible" Dave will see enough wiggle room: so it is possible then....

Hmmm
Where's that popcorn emoticon?

Cheers
Spags

Occam's Aftershave

I *guarantee* that Dave won't address the core question of why all the C14 cal curves agree. What he will do is

1. Claim that we need to look at all the methods separately
2. Claim that the methods are all based on invalid assumptions (while not telling us what those bad assumptions are).
3. Suggest that we start a separate thread discussing each cal method so Dave may 'examine the evidence' for each one.
4. Repeat most of his silly-assed preachy assertions, especially that the written history of the Bible must all be historically accurate because a few parts of it are true.

I was 4 for 4 last time. Anyone want even money on this go around?

rfmwinnie

Well, this is the first debate (and peanut gallery) thread I've read. I must say I'm not at all familiar with Dave but CM has sure impressed me. Interestingly enough I've been having an almost parallel discussion with my vary religious mother. CM's answers have provided me with an easy jumping off point. This has been so useful.

Oh and coming as a person who is a total outsider to the personalities involved -- Dave has not made one good point yet that I can see. I have no stake in this. But CM has been very good and eloquent.

mung bean

It is quite possible that you will come to regard this as standard operating procedure for both parties.

deadman_932

Kirk Cameron told me that the earth is hollow and that's where satan lives, so U R WRONG. Radios dont HAVE nuclides ENYWAY..HOWCOME MINE DOSEN'T. It dosen't GLOW. TECTONICS R PAGAN PROPEGANDA I DON"T SEE NO EARTH MOVING.

Calilasseia

Oh., by the way, you might find some of the humour (such as Deadman's above) to be slightly confusing at first sight unless you're aware of some basic history. Deadman and CM are old acquaintances from the RDF forums as it were, along with a brace of others in this thread - myself, Occam's Aftershave, CK1, Shirley Knott, Ericmurphy, and probably at least a dozen others whose names I've temporarily forgotten but who will shout loudly at my slippers in the manner of the Albanian Secret Police (Alexei Sayle joke there) for not remembering them. Oh, yes, Wolfhound is one of them ... knew I'd remember at least one more if I put my mind to it.

As for Dave, well he has a history too ... as several of the above will be only too happy to share. Won't take you long to discover the essentials even without outside prompting, but suffice it to say that the moments of comedy gold emanating from assorted trainwreck threads all over the Internet number enough to fill at least one volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica all on their own.

Oh, once you've found your seat in the gallery, the bar is over there. Fine single malts, Theakston's Old Peculier and numerous other quality beverages on offer. The bar kitchen also cooks a seriously delicious full English breakfast if you don't mind feeling your arteries furring up as you eat it.

SAWells

It's beautiful to watch Dave being pinned down in an actually moderated forum, and the forensic precision of CM's posts is admirable. It might be more fun if Dave put up more of a struggle, though; but the main thing we've learned is that Dave doesn't actually understand what an argument is.

Steviepinhead

Snif... Cali forgot little ol' pinheaded me!

Well, it has to be admitted that we pinheads don't really occlude much of a radius, particularly when viewed, er, pin-on...

mung bean

*shouts loudly at Calilasseia's slippers in the manner of the Albanian secret police*

Calilasseia

Incidentally, with respect to this business of RATE and "accelerated nuclear decay" ... I've been searching through arxiv.org (but thus far to no avail) for papers in which relationships between binding energy per nucleon and nuclear stability are discussed. Anyone know of such papers?

I've also been wading through this textbook to see if I can find an answer to this. Unfortunately, the relationships covered in the relevant chapters of this online textbook (chapters 3, 4 and 11) don't yield the clues I'm looking for. Anyone here up to speed on quantum mechanics care to point me in the right direction?