The shifting sands of creationist thought

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave, in case you have Voxrat on ignore. I would like you to AT LEAST address the 14C versus depth graph.

I do have him ignore. Have for quite some time now. I have addressed the C14 vs. depth on the other thread.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Consider this:

LD ... YOU are the one with a position that looks like shifting sand. I still cannot get a straight story on what you really think about many things. See link above.

Whom do you think you're fooling, Dave? Seriously. I want to know. Are you trying to persuade anyone other than yourself? Do you even persuade yourself? Or is this just going through the bluster/bravado motions?

Dave, in case you have Voxrat on ignore. I would like you to AT LEAST address the 14C versus depth graph.

AT LEAST.

[AFDave Head Up Ass Mode]

How do we know that graph is accurate? I won't believe it unless you show me the actual measuring rod use for the depth, along with documented proof that the rod was properly calibrated. And maybe during the printing some extra data points got "accidentally" added (oh wait that was me...never mine) Besides, I already proved that C14 dating is based on faulty assumptions and that C14 researchers must be throwing out all data that doesn't fit their paradigm. Here's a link to my sucks ass web page where I made these same claims

http://www.Daves_suck_ass_site.com

Now why don't you just FedEx me the paper, along with the core samples themselves and a representative sample of the pollen for the last 1500 years. If you don't, I'll know you're afraid of me doing a proper analysis.

[/AFDave Head Up Ass Mode]

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave, in case you have Voxrat on ignore. I would like you to AT LEAST address the 14C versus depth graph.

I do have him ignore. Have for quite some time now. I have addressed the C14 vs. depth on the other thread.

AFDave's Third Law: If you have an objection to any point I've raised, I've already addressed it. No, I won't tell you where.

This is too easy folks...

[Black5]

Just curious. Do you think of yourself as "one of the few posters at this forum who could deal with data honestly"?

Yes.

Why do the curves agree?

[mung bean]

Black5, Dave is quite correct there. He could deal with data honestly. He just chooses not to.

[Febble]

Dave, in case you have Voxrat on ignore. I would like you to AT LEAST address the 14C versus depth graph.

I do have him ignore. Have for quite some time now. I have addressed the C14 vs. depth on the other thread.

Dave, you have not addressed it.

Or, at least, your only response has been to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists.

This means, apart from anything else, that your position that science supports YEC is false. "Science", it would appear, only supports YEC if we assume that scientists are misreporting their data. Which is simply a fancy way of saying: YEC would be supported by science if the science said something other than what it says.

More to the point, if your only response to the 14C v depth graph is to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists, it appears you agree that, facially, the data contradict YEC.

If I have missed any other counter-argument you have made, please link directly to it. I have been following your posts for many months, and the only counter-argument I have seen from you, regarding the strong linear correlations in the data between age as gauged by depth measures and age as gauged by carbon dating has been to dispute the reported data.

And that is before we even consider the corroborative evidence from correlations between carbon dating and other indices of age, for which, again, your only counter-argument has been that the scientists were incompetent or lied.

Meanwhile, the challenge you threw out regarding macroevolution languishes because, it appears, you are reluctant (scared?) to provide the definition that would allow it to be put to the test.

[Pappy Jack]

Just curious. Do you think of yourself as "one of the few posters at this forum who could deal with data honestly"?

Yes. Why do you think I'm here? Do you think I'm trying to find people who agree with me? That would be great, but I'm not holding my breath and it's not why I'm here. I'm trying to find people who DON'T agree with me who have some semblance of scientific competence and who also know how to say more creative things than "you're a lying turdball" and such.

And Dave suggests yet again that scientists are either (a) incompetent and/or (b) fraudulent.

As he believes he is one of the few posters who deals honestly with data, the vast majority of other posters (many of whom are professional scientists and several others who are at the very least competent in their understanding of science) must therefore be dealing with it dishonestly.

And even those whom Dave thinks do have 'some semblance of scientific competence' are still incapable of getting through to Dave as he pointblank refuses to accept anything they instruct him in that in any way undermines his YEC worldview.

Dave should reflect that it might be significant that he is unable to find anyone with 'some semblance of scientific competence' who does agree with him.

[VoxRat]

Just curious. Do you think of yourself as "one of the few posters at this forum who could deal with data honestly"?

Yes. Why do you think I'm here? Do you think I'm trying to find people who agree with me? That would be great, but I'm not holding my breath and it's not why I'm here. I'm trying to find people who DON'T agree with me who have some semblance of scientific competence and who also know how to say more creative things than "you're a lying turdball" and such.

Dave, in case you have Voxrat on ignore. I would like you to AT LEAST address the 14C versus depth graph.

I do have him ignore. Have for quite some time now. [snipped illustration of Dave's 3d Law].

It's another episode of...

afdave vs. afdave

[VoxRat]

I notice, incidentally, that Dave did not have VoxRat on "ignore" before the analysis of the Bergman debacle.

But now he does.

Do you suppose that's because the Bergman analysis showed no "semblance of scientific competence"?

Or because it consisted of nothing but " 'you're a lying turdball' and such"?

Or do you think there might be... some other reason?

[Dave Hawkins]

Dave, in case you have Voxrat on ignore. I would like you to AT LEAST address the 14C versus depth graph.

I do have him ignore. Have for quite some time now. I have addressed the C14 vs. depth on the other thread.

Dave, you have not addressed it.

Or, at least, your only response has been to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists.

This means, apart from anything else, that your position that science supports YEC is false. "Science", it would appear, only supports YEC if we assume that scientists are misreporting their data. Which is simply a fancy way of saying: YEC would be supported by science if the science said something other than what it says.

More to the point, if your only response to the 14C v depth graph is to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists, it appears you agree that, facially, the data contradict YEC.

If I have missed any other counter-argument you have made, please link directly to it. I have been following your posts for many months, and the only counter-argument I have seen from you, regarding the strong linear correlations in the data between age as gauged by depth measures and age as gauged by carbon dating has been to dispute the reported data.

And that is before we even consider the corroborative evidence from correlations between carbon dating and other indices of age, for which, again, your only counter-argument has been that the scientists were incompetent or lied.

Meanwhile, the challenge you threw out regarding macroevolution languishes because, it appears, you are reluctant (scared?) to provide the definition that would allow it to be put to the test.

I asked the question of whether the test was blind or not. Anyone here is perfectly capable of e-mailing Van der Plicht and determining this in order to defend his C14 analysis.

As for providing an alternative explanation, I have provided a rough outline and a plausible means by which these layers could have been deposited. Suigetsu Revised Carbon 14 Chronology While the Carbon 14 graph is very tentative, it is important to note that at least two points on the graph have been experimentally verified -- 1) the modern C14 ratio and 2) the approximate pre-Flood C14 ratio. See RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner. I got involved in the last few pages of that thread and basically confirmed for myself that Baumgardner was right and Bertsche was wrong.

As for your thread about macroevolution, I see it as a complete waste of time. You challenged me with the Youtube video and we didn't even get to first base when I started asking detailed questions. Febble, self creation of life on earth without a preexisting plan (DNA) is impossible. Even ID skeptics here have agreed with me on this. Why do you think OOL research has been so fruitless? Why do you think scientists seriously propose the "seeding of life" on earth in comets and meteors? It's because they know that life doesn't create itself.

The evidence is overwhelming that the organisms we see on earth are basically highly sophisticated robotic machines, preprogrammed with the ability to react and adapt with their environment. However, there appear to be very definite limits to this adaptation.

[mung bean]

As for providing an alternative explanation, I have provided a rough outline and a plausible means by which these layers could have been deposited.

No. You have not.

[ck1]

This means, apart from anything else, that your position that science supports YEC is false. "Science", it would appear, only supports YEC if we assume that scientists are misreporting their data. Which is simply a fancy way of saying: YEC would be supported by science if the science said something other than what it says.

More to the point, if your only response to the 14C v depth graph is to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists, it appears you agree that, facially, the data contradict YEC.

Very true.

Dave seems to think that there are 2 sets of scientists - YEC and non-YEC. Those of us arguing with Dave are just paying attention to the wrong group.

Dave, any response to Febble's comment?

[VoxRat]

I asked the question of whether the test was blind or not. Anyone here is perfectly capable of e-mailing Van der Plicht and determining this in order to defend his C14 analysis.

Sure. Anyone who thinks that's a serious question.
Who here thinks that's a serious question?
Why, I believe Dave does!

As for providing an alternative explanation, I have provided a rough outline and a plausible means by which these layers could have been deposited. Suigetsu Revised Carbon 14 Chronology

Nope.
No plausible means by which repetitive, alternating seasonal layers could be laid down and incorporate a nice linear radiocarbon age vs. depth pattern. That makes this statement, well... untrue.

While the Carbon 14 graph is very tentative, it is important to note that at least two points on the graph have been experimentally verified -- 1) the modern C14 ratio and 2) the approximate pre-Flood C14 ratio. See RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner.

The "pre-Flood C14 ratio" was experimentally verified?

Oh, brother.

I got involved in the last few pages of that thread and basically confirmed for myself that Baumgardner was right and Bertsche was wrong.

Dave often "confirms things for himself".

As for your thread about macroevolution, I see it as a complete waste of time. You challenged me with the Youtube video and we didn't even get to first base when I started asking detailed questions. Febble, self creation of life on earth without a preexisting plan (DNA) is impossible. Even ID skeptics here have agreed with me on this.

I believe that might be one of those lie thingies. Perhaps someone who's earned Dave's "respect" can hold him to account on it. .

[clipped remainder of Dave's pep-talk to himself]

[Pappy Jack]

As for your thread about macroevolution, I see it as a complete waste of time.

Running scared?

You challenged me with the Youtube video and we didn't even get to first base when I started asking detailed questions.

Everyone else got to first base; every question Dave asked was answered thoroughly and effectively. That Dave's set-in-concrete pre-existing YEC assumptions meant he couldn't comprehend these answers is Dave's problem.

Febble, self creation of life on earth without a preexisting plan (DNA) is impossible.

Unsupported wild assertion at variance with reality. Can someone refer Dave to a recent (June 2007) Scientific American article by Robert Shapiro: A Simpler Origin for Life (longer version available online at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...rigin-for-life.

Even ID skeptics here have agreed with me on this.

Such as? Links, please.

Why do you think OOL research has been so fruitless?

Evidence for fruitlessness? Or does Dave just mean that because a definitive answer is not yet forthcoming then the research must forever be 'fruitless'? An argument for sitting around doing nothing, if ever there was one.

Why do you think scientists seriously propose the "seeding of life" on earth in comets and meteors?

A hypothesis which says nothing about how life comes about and for which persuasive evidence may or may not be forthcoming.

It's because they know that life doesn't create itself.

Dave presumes to know what other people 'know'.

The evidence is overwhelming that the organisms we see on earth are basically highly sophisticated robotic machines, preprogrammed with the ability to react and adapt with their environment.

Will somebody hold Dave down and beat into him the need to define his terms, especially 'evidence' and 'machine'. And tell him that calling something a machine does not make it a machine as he appears to wish to use the word.

[Febble]

As for providing an alternative explanation, I have provided a rough outline and a plausible means by which these layers could have been deposited. Suigetsu Revised Carbon 14 Chronology While the Carbon 14 graph is very tentative, it is important to note that at least two points on the graph have been experimentally verified -- 1) the modern C14 ratio and 2) the approximate pre-Flood C14 ratio. See RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner. I got involved in the last few pages of that thread and basically confirmed for myself that Baumgardner was right and Bertsche was wrong.-

OK. So you are claiming that carbon dating should be linearly correlated depth up to a conventional carbon date of around 42,000 years, but in fact, would represent merely 5000 years.

Let's assume you are correct. If you are, it means that we can correctly date anything using radio carbon dating, as long as it is less than 5000 years old, and as long as we multiply the conventional age by a factor of 5000/42000. It also means that depth should be linearly correlated with radiocarbon age up to a YEC age of 5000. Fine. But it ALSO means that beyond that age, we should see an abrupt discontinuity in the correlation.

MOREOVER: it also means that we can rely on carbon dating to tell us about the rate of deposition of the layers. Let's say that we go with your theory again, and deduce that ice layers and varves are laid down at a rate of about 1 a week, rather than one a year.

And let's look at the ice cores and the varves. Once we have reached the 40*5000th layer/varve, we should find evidence of a flood. Right?

The layers should stop. Right? But they don't. They go right on down, without so much as breaking step, for not just weeks, but millenia, even using your drastically foreshortened rate of formation.

Do you see the problem? You need to postulate that ice cores AS WELL AS varves are layered at exactly the same unlikely rapid rhythm, and that they went on being layered at that rate, right through your flood and creation week and beyond.

Now do you see the problem?

As for your thread about macroevolution, I see it as a complete waste of time. You challenged me with the Youtube video and we didn't even get to first base when I started asking detailed questions.

Dave, it was YOUR challenge. You made the statement that you would accept the ToE if a program could demonstrate macroevolution. All we need is your definition. Do I take it you are backing out? Why make the challenge if you weren't prepared to follow it up?

As for your response to the video - it was you who failed to make first base, then bailed when challenged.

Febble, self creation of life on earth without a preexisting plan (DNA) is impossible.

So you keep saying, despite evidence to the contrary. But you refuse to even engage with the evidence that WITH NO PLAN, computer programs are able to evolve: clocks; frequency discriminators; aerials; computation programs; algorithms that can predict movement on the stock exchange.

Define "macro evolution" and we will attempt to rise to your challenge. Fail to define it, and we will assume you are feart (look it up in a Scots dictionary).

Even ID skeptics here have agreed with me on this. Why do you think OOL research has been so fruitless? Why do you think scientists seriously propose the "seeding of life" on earth in comets and meteors? It's because they know that life doesn't create itself.

Change of subject. We aren't debating OOL. We are debating evolution. Do keep up.

The evidence is overwhelming that the organisms we see on earth are basically highly sophisticated robotic machines,

Yup.

preprogrammed with the ability to react and adapt with their environment.

Yup. Preprogrammed by evolutionary processes that selected for the ability "to react and adapt with their environment".

However, there appear to be very definite limits to this adaptation.

And yet again, for the Nth time of asking: WHAT ARE THOSE "VERY DEFINITE LIMITS"? And if you say, again, that they are also "hard to pin down" - then they are not "very definite", are they?

Stop the evasion, Dave, and define your terms. It'll take courage, but I'm sure you can do it.

Cheers

Lizzie

[ninewands]

I do have him ignore. Have for quite some time now. I have addressed the C14 vs. depth on the other thread.

Dave, you have not addressed it.

Or, at least, your only response has been to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists.

This means, apart from anything else, that your position that science supports YEC is false. "Science", it would appear, only supports YEC if we assume that scientists are misreporting their data. Which is simply a fancy way of saying: YEC would be supported by science if the science said something other than what it says.

More to the point, if your only response to the 14C v depth graph is to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists, it appears you agree that, facially, the data contradict YEC.

If I have missed any other counter-argument you have made, please link directly to it. I have been following your posts for many months, and the only counter-argument I have seen from you, regarding the strong linear correlations in the data between age as gauged by depth measures and age as gauged by carbon dating has been to dispute the reported data.

And that is before we even consider the corroborative evidence from correlations between carbon dating and other indices of age, for which, again, your only counter-argument has been that the scientists were incompetent or lied.

Meanwhile, the challenge you threw out regarding macroevolution languishes because, it appears, you are reluctant (scared?) to provide the definition that would allow it to be put to the test.

I asked the question of whether the test was blind or not. Anyone here is perfectly capable of e-mailing Van der Plicht and determining this in order to defend his C14 analysis.

Then do so ... we're tired of doing your homework for you.

As for providing an alternative explanation, I have provided a rough outline and a plausible means by which these layers could have been deposited.

"Plausible" having a much more flexible meaning than normally given it by scientists.

Suigetsu Revised Carbon 14 Chronology

Okay, now you need to show us how ALL the data support your speculation. You see, Dave, a THEORY has to explain ALL the data unless there is a demonstrable reason to exclude it. "This data doesn't fit, so we'll ignore it," is not acceptable in SCIENCE. The scientific response is "this data doesn't fit ... I have to explain WHY it doesn't fit before I can discard it." Oh, and Davey ... the cost of data acquisition is the MAJOR cost of "doing science" ... yet another reason scientists are loathe to wantonly discard data.

While the Carbon 14 graph is very tentative, it is important to note that at least two points on the graph have been experimentally verified -- 1) the modern C14 ratio and 2) the approximate pre-Flood C14 ratio.

I do not see how the "pre-flood" ration could have ever been experimentally confirmed, Dave, when there is absolutely NO evidence Ye Olde Globalle Fludde ever happened.

See RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner.

Baumgardner's scientific credibility has been addressed over and over and over and over again, Dave, ad nauseum.

I got involved in the last few pages of that thread and basically confirmed for myself that Baumgardner was right and Bertsche was wrong.

Why am I NOT surprised, Dave?

As for your thread about macroevolution, I see it as a complete waste of time. You challenged me with the Youtube video and we didn't even get to first base when I started asking detailed questions.

I challenge you to explain why Adrian Sheffield's work with FPGAs and evolutionary circuit design is NOT macroevolution in action, Davey?

Febble, self creation of life on earth without a preexisting plan (DNA) is impossible.

One thing I've learned over 58 years of life, Dave, is that those who try to put a fence around science always turn out to be wrong in the end. When you say something is IMPOSSIBLE you are building fences. What you are really saying is one of the following statements:

• "I don't understand how it can happen," or
• "I don't believe it can happen."

In your case, Davey, I suspect it is BOTH.

There is NOTHING in chemistry to prevent life from forming spontaneously through purely natural processes, Dave. You can only say something is IMPOSSIBLE if you have discovered a supportable mechanism that PREVENTS it from happening.

Even ID skeptics here have agreed with me on this.

I am not among them, Dave.

Why do you think OOL research has been so fruitless?

Because they haven't found the answer yet. Because they haven't run a Miller-Urey-type (or other) experiment long enough to let it happen. For one of the many tens of thousands of reasons experiments fail, only ONE of which is "It's impossible." Are you telling me you could reach into a 55 gallon drum of dry pinto beans and randomly pull out the one and only white navy bean in there, Dave? That's what you are doing when you explain experimental failure with, "It's impossible," unless you have positively identified an insuperable obstacle to success.

Why do you think scientists seriously propose the "seeding of life" on earth in comets and meteors?

Because it MAY have happened, Dave ... but the next question is, "If that DID happen, how did the 'seeds' come into being?"

It's because they know that life doesn't create itself.

Well, Davey, I'm not sure you've gotten far enough along the "infinite regresssion" road to draw that conclusion.

The evidence is overwhelming that the organisms we see on earth are basically highly sophisticated robotic machines, preprogrammed with the ability to react and adapt with their environment. However, there appear to be very definite limits to this adaptation.

Want to spell those limits out for me, Dave? The only limits I perceive are the limits of my imagination/knowledge. In short, I hardly ever use the word IMPOSSIBLE ... I vastly prefer, "I don't know."

Comments, Davey?

Dave??

Yoo-hoo Davey ...

Oh damn ... I guess I finally earned a place on Davey's "Ignore" list. Now I have to :HANGED: myself. NOT!

[Mike PSS]

I asked the question of whether the test was blind or not. Anyone here is perfectly capable of e-mailing Van der Plicht and determining this in order to defend his C14 analysis.

Dave, I will state unequivically that the testing done on the Suigetsu core samples was blind. They sent over 200 macrofossil samples and over 50 reference samples (from the 90,000 to 100,000 varve layer area) to the lab. If you go count the number of data points that exist in the tables you will find over 200 data points. Now, what were you trying to say about "extra tests" and "throwing out erroneous results".

Also Dave, when the radiocarbon test is done it is a destructive test. The original sample is fully consumed. So do you think that the lab just puts the graphitized sample back in the counter hoping to get a new result? You will have to elaborate on this a little more Dave. I'm just not seeing your assumptions really stick here.

As for providing an alternative explanation, I have provided a rough outline and a plausible means by which these layers could have been deposited. Suigetsu Revised Carbon 14 Chronology

O.K Dave. I'll spell it out for you here.

1st: You think the flood occurred 5000 years ago. That means when we look at the 14C levels in the varves we can correlate the low 14C varves with the flood event. Since Lake Suigetsu is atop all the flood sediments then the Lake body formed and the first 60,000 varves were deposited just post-flood.

2nd: The next 36,500 varves have increasing levels of 14C which means we can date these layers using your graph. So we see the increase of 14C over 1,500 years to the present day levels. So these varves are not instantaneous in nature but they form at varying rates of deposition depending on your curve.

3rd: We all agree that the 14C concentration in the atmosphere has been constant for the past 3,500 years. That means the final 3,500 varves are annual in nature since the 14C measurements on these 3,500 varves are accurate.

Did I get the story right Dave? That IS what your claiming, right?

While the Carbon 14 graph is very tentative, it is important to note that at least two points on the graph have been experimentally verified -- 1) the modern C14 ratio and 2) the approximate pre-Flood C14 ratio. See RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner. I got involved in the last few pages of that thread and basically confirmed for myself that Baumgardner was right and Bertsche was wrong.

Dr. Bertsche schooled you and you didn't even know it. That is just Laughable.

Did I get your timeline right above? That IS what your claiming, right?

As for your thread about macroevolution, I see it as a complete waste of time. You challenged me with the Youtube video and we didn't even get to first base when I started asking detailed questions. Febble, self creation of life on earth without a preexisting plan (DNA) is impossible. Even ID skeptics here have agreed with me on this. Why do you think OOL research has been so fruitless? Why do you think scientists seriously propose the "seeding of life" on earth in comets and meteors? It's because they know that life doesn't create itself.

Dave, are most mutations neutral? (You agree on this actually.)
Are mutations "building up" in the genome? (You agree with this actually).
Can neutral mutations combine to form a novel structure with function? (That is what the video addresses actually.)

YOU haven't got beyond step one in even looking at the big picture Dave. Your so lost in your own swamp you can't even address the basics.

The evidence is overwhelming that the organisms we see on earth are basically highly sophisticated robotic machines, preprogrammed with the ability to react and adapt with their environment. However, there appear to be very definite limits to this adaptation.

In the clock video, do the limits to mutation of the clock parts address your "definite limits to adaptation"? If not, why not?

[JonF]

As for providing an alternative explanation, I have provided a rough outline and a plausible means by which these layers could have been deposited. Suigetsu Revised Carbon 14 Chronology

Um, Davie-dork, you seem to have forgotten that you gave up on that "model" because it's contradicted by observations (e.g. Pompeiian bread).

Then you proposed a revised "model" which consisted of some "data points" that you made up, but were still contradicted by observations -- you couldn't even make up data that is possibly true.

As of now, you have no model or explanation at all.

[improvius]

I asked the question of whether the test was blind or not. Anyone here is perfectly capable of e-mailing Van der Plicht and determining this in order to defend his C14 analysis.

Why would you take his word for it, when you've already made the assumption that the analysis is less than honest? There is literally NOTHING he could say to you that would convince you of the accuracy of the analysis.

[Black5]

Black5, Dave is quite correct there. He could deal with data honestly. He just chooses not to.

I didn't notice the weasel word "could" in Dave's reply.

[Occam's Aftershave]

While the Carbon 14 graph is very tentative, it is important to note that at least two points on the graph have been experimentally verified -- 1) the modern C14 ratio and 2) the approximate pre-Flood C14 ratio. See RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner.

Sorry Dave, gotta call you on this one.

Please provide a link to the scientific paper or article where this remarkable claim has been experimentally verified. Linking to another E/C board where you made the same claim won't cut it Dave. I'd like to read the primary scientific literature on the experiment to review it and the protocols used myself.

If you can't provide a direct link, please provide the title of the peer-reviewed paper or article, its authors, and where these experimental results were published.

Please don't let this be another case of you lying to us, OK?

[Dave Hawkins]

This means, apart from anything else, that your position that science supports YEC is false. "Science", it would appear, only supports YEC if we assume that scientists are misreporting their data. Which is simply a fancy way of saying: YEC would be supported by science if the science said something other than what it says.

More to the point, if your only response to the 14C v depth graph is to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists, it appears you agree that, facially, the data contradict YEC.

Very true.

Dave seems to think that there are 2 sets of scientists - YEC and non-YEC. Those of us arguing with Dave are just paying attention to the wrong group.

Dave, any response to Febble's comment?

No. I think there are scientists and non-scientists. Their view of origins is a separate thing. You are the one who thinks any scientist with a YEC view of origins is a pseudo-scientist, remember?

[Febble]

This means, apart from anything else, that your position that science supports YEC is false. "Science", it would appear, only supports YEC if we assume that scientists are misreporting their data. Which is simply a fancy way of saying: YEC would be supported by science if the science said something other than what it says.

More to the point, if your only response to the 14C v depth graph is to impugn the competence or integrity of the scientists, it appears you agree that, facially, the data contradict YEC.

Very true.

Dave seems to think that there are 2 sets of scientists - YEC and non-YEC. Those of us arguing with Dave are just paying attention to the wrong group.

Dave, any response to Febble's comment?

No. I think there are scientists and non-scientists. Their view of origins is a separate thing. You are the one who thinks any scientist with a YEC view of origins is a pseudo-scientist, remember?

Good. So how do you distinguish between the two?

[Dave Hawkins]

No, Ninewands, I don't have you on ignore, but there is so much error displayed in the last few posts by so many people that it's not worth my effort to respond to each one.

[Febble]

No, Ninewands, I don't have you on ignore, but there is so much error displayed in the last few posts by so many people that it's not worth my effort to respond to each one.

Geez, Dave. Plenty of people go to a great deal of effort to point out your errors, would you not return the favour and point out one or two of ours?