Suigetsu MkII

[Lasting Damage]

since the suigetsu thread is running off on a thousand tangents, please carry it on here.

Dave, you have proposed rapid runoff and tsunami as a method of depositing sediments and diatoms. can you please tell us how you expect this to happen given the chemical properties of the cores demonstrating that the sediments are lacustrine in nature, and marine diatoms only appear in the upper part, from bulk salinity, right down to fine detail at the level of the varves. If you still suggest that it is a flood, please can you detail where the diatoms would grow, given the large volume of diatoms that you require in order to produce the sediments, and where the floods would occur, given the small drainage basin of the suigetsu system. Furthermore, can you try to bring up some relevant papers regarding how you expect the lamina to form, given that the rapid scenarios you have provided did not represent envinronmental conditions that would be physically possible in Suigetsu. Can you also outline how you expect the diatoms to be sorted, and why the particular arrangements of diatoms and sediments/iron based chemicals happen to lie in just the arrangements that one would expect given annual deposition of layers.

Furthermore, on the allegations of carbon dating fudging, can you explain how you would expect a single leaf/insect/twig to have multiple carbon ages, varying by thousands of years, particularly given the deposition methods that you describe.

Regarding the Fukami sediments, you have claimed that these are not representative of an annual varve diatom-bloom system and are suggestive of your rythmite model. Can you please explain why this is the case - what you expect a diatom-bloom system to look like, what you expect your rythmite model to look like and why this better describes the fukami layers?

If other people have relevant questions to ask, then please do, but don't just fuck up the thread. Dave has made a number of detailed suggstions about the finer details of the suigetsu and related systems and I would like his responses as to these pressing issues (so no, let's not just keep asking why so and so agrees or disagrees)

[Dave Hawkins]

Hi LD ... I made a post this morning in the original thread. I prefer to keep my posts on this topic over there. I really don't mind all the distractions. I keep links to all the important posts anyway and supply them as needed. I actually like the minimal moderation here. Yes, my pendulum has swung. I thought heavy moderation would be a good thing over at IIDB, but in retrospect, I think it has it's disadvantages.

[Shirley Knott]

Hi LD ... I made a post this morning in the original thread. I prefer to keep my posts on this topic over there. I really don't mind all the distractions. I keep links to all the important posts anyway and supply them as needed. I actually like the minimal moderation here. Yes, my pendulum has swung. I thought heavy moderation would be a good thing over at IIDB, but in retrospect, I think it has it's disadvantages.

Liar. If you keep links why do you never post links to your absurd assertions of 'having addressed' points from which we all know you have fled?

And speaking of abandoning posts and threads [and reason and decency, gee you gave those up awfully early] and IIDB and all that -- you haven't been seen on rd.net or IIDB lately. And you have outstanding issues and promises on both those boards...
Were I not so familiar with your cowardice and dishonesty, I'd suggest I'm surprised.
I'm not surprised at all, it is of a piece of that foulness that is you.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[Lasting Damage]

well I can't be arsed with the other thread now. it's a mess, and means things easily get lost, which I suppose is why you like it.

besides, your post was of basically no substance regarding the questions put to you, so I wouldn't have paid much attention to it anyway, even if the thread remained on track. I've read the paper, so I already know that much, you didn't answer anything and just pointlessly quoted a bit of the paper at me.

[Serafina Pekkala]

Davids paper doesnt help him at all. It just says there is no reason to pay for expensive tests on every sample. So what? LD do you have ANY idea why this would matter?

[Lasting Damage]

Davids paper doesnt help him at all. It just says there is no reason to pay for expensive tests on every sample. So what? LD do you have ANY idea why this would matter?

well dave was suggesting that the leaf was tested and re-tested until they got a date that matched the expected date. It'd be fascinating to know how the techies got away with it according to dave's allegations, because AMS is expensive to run, using lots of electricity and expensive gear.

AMS is preferentially used over other mass spectroscopy techniques, because it can resolve C14 and N14. Using AMS the uncertaintly in the C12/C14 ratio is about 0.5%... about 40 years in other words. As has been mentioned elsewhere, these labs are commonly blind-tested with samples of known age, and they return the right results. It's a cut-throat market out there with about 130 such labs around the world, and any lab caught fiddling its results would lose all its orders immediately and get sued off the face of the planet.

Again, dave needs to actually give us a reason for doubting the quality of the tests. I could imagine some odd scenario in which a couple of points were off, but to have all 200 points off, and just coincidentally falling just below the expected line really would be astounding.

[Serafina Pekkala]

and the suigetsu cores WERE blind-tested. So his paper is even more useless.

Sari

[Lasting Damage]

and the suigetsu cores WERE blind-tested. So his paper is even more useless.

Sari

were they?

[Lasting Damage]

Dave's suggestion that the workers in the AMS lab fudged the data (whether intentionally or inadvertedly) must also have been replicated elsewhere; in short, multiple labs must have been doing the same thing

The following chart shows (1) the suigetsu core data (2) the cariaco basin data (3) stalagmite data from the bahamas and (4) an international calibration standard.

the stalagmite data are particularly interesting, because they couldn't fudge the dates because of what they were trying to detect.



As we can see, the stalagmite data is consistently above the suigetsu data. It follo3s pretty much the same pattern, except a mean offset of about 1450 ± 470 years. This was one of the numbers they were trying to detect, so if the lab had been given expected ages, then how did they manage to create this adjusted age? That would mean someone intentionally went out of their way to replicate a fudged offset, over and over again.

In this case the calendar age of the stalagmite samples is determined through 230Th analysis, and the carbon age through the usual AMS methods.

This shows age versus distance along the longitudinal axis of the stalagmite:



as we can see, a fairly constant line.

The reason for the offset, is because the water which goes on to help create the stalagtite picks up its load of CO2 as it falls through the atmosphere and percolates through the soil. it becomes acidic as it goes and then dissolves the minerals before depositing them in the stalagtite. So in this case there is no opportunity for any catastrophic events like dave is suggesting. The Carbon in the minerals however is dead carbon, and hence will artificially age the stalagtite which now contains a mix of dissolved limestone and atmospheric/soil CO2 - hence the age adjustment.

So dave was suggesting that the suigetsu sediments were formed in a small number of rapid pulses (he said about 40 layers per year) and things fell into the water that just so happened to replicate the almost-straight line of the suigetsu carbon-dated age. Undoubtedly something almost identical must have happened in the cariaco basin because the same thing happened there too, with two almost perfectly coincident lines.

Now we have something that via an entirely different process gives us a similar line, discounting the systematic offset expected, using two diferent isotopic analysis measurements and a length measurement.

so if someone managed to fudge the suigetsu data in such a way that it also matched 14C and uranium dated corals, and this also matched these stalagmite cores, then I would be very impressed, especially since the stalagmite analysis uses two techniques and was carried out much later

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...2/5526/2453#R1

oh just to add here. because these are stalagmites, the whole lot would have had to be generated post flood. This makes one wonder about the deeper suigetsu sediments, because dave suggests that those were generated in, and very shortly after the flood. I wonder how dave reconciles the strong agreement between these different methods of determining C14 age, given the massively different processes that he proposes to generate to suigetsu sequence, and why Thorium ages would be changing along such a straight line, particularly given that dave's carbon sequestration hypothesis would have no effect on the generation and distribution of thorium.

[JonF]

and the suigetsu cores WERE blind-tested. So his paper is even more useless.

Sari

were they?

Mike PSS has argued that they were based on the lack of correlation between the lab-assigned sample IDs (which are sequentially assigned by the lab) and the depth of the samples. I don't have a link to his post.

[Febble]

and the suigetsu cores WERE blind-tested. So his paper is even more useless.

Sari

were they?

Mike PSS has argued that they were based on the lack of correlation between the lab-assigned sample IDs (which are sequentially assigned by the lab) and the depth of the samples. I don't have a link to his post.

I had the impression that Dave was conflating a ball-park estimated range for the whole data set, and estimates of individual sample dates. At least he did not specify, and it makes a huge difference. If the lab is told: we expect this dataset to contain material between 300 and 5000 years old, that would not be sufficient information for the lab to fake linearly increasing dates from a randomised set of samples, even if they faked them between 300 and 5000.

[Plognark]

Due to how insanely convoluted the original thread has become, I'm closing it provisionally. You can find that original thread here for reference.

[Occam's Aftershave]

.
.
.
.
.
<<< This space reserved for Dave Hawkins' apology owed to Lasting Damage >>>
.
.
.
.
.

[Febble]

dave, if you are going to accuse me of making stuff up, you can get the fuck right onto my ignore list. I may have made errors through misunderstanding things because I am learning about this stuff too, but accusing me of making stuff up is a step too far. I want you to retract that immediately, or that's it, no more conversation between the two of us.

I think in DaveWorld, that's perfectly OK.

Because people accuse him of making stuff up all the time. So it's only fair that he should be able to accuse everyone else of making stuff up. There's the "symmetry" in Dave's view of evo/creo.

(Never mind the fact that Dave does, in fact, make stuff up all the time, and can't point to any examples where other people do. That doesn't enter into the "symmetry" that Dave sees between real-worlders and creationists.)

Well, that's partly because of the faux-symmetry thing, but it is also because he still hasn't figured out the difference between data, a model, and reality.

Dave:

• Reality is what's underneath it all - truth, if you like. We don't get to see that.
  
• Data: are measurements we make. We hope they reflect the reality we are interested in, but they do, at best, only reflect it (literally in many cases), and other stuff is reflected too. That's called "measurement error".
  
• Model: is the part we "make up". We try to fit our models to the data. The better the fit between the data and the model, the more confident we can be that our model is a good fit to reality. But we won't ever know for sure, all we can do is keep improving the goodness-of-fit, by tweaking the model, and collecting new data for it to fit.

But note that we do not, and this is the cardinal rule of science, fit our data to the models. This is, in fact, what you and your fellow YECs do - you start with your model (YEC) and try to shoehorn the data to fit. We know you do, because it's actually stated in the submission rules of Creationist "science" journals, and it's why they are only "science" journals not science journals.

So when you accuse labs of moving data points to fit a model that is a devastating criticism. You probably don't realise this, because it's actually fundamental to creationist "science" to do this. Creationists just simply assume that scientists do it too.

But. They. Don't.

Yes, confirmation bias exists, as do placebo effects etc, but that is exactly why our methodologies exist to take into account, and to minimise these. Exactly the opposite is true of YEC "science".


So, Dave, first, understand the enormity of your accusations of Making Stuff Up. Then retract them.

cheers

Lizzie

[Serafina Pekkala]

Davids proposed sequence doesnt make sense. All the layers laid down in the flood would have the same 14C date, but the dont. The post flood layers would all have dates of only a few thousand years, but they dont. And the only explanation David has is that every radiometeic lab is guilty of fraud and conspiracy. That really is it. That hundreds of people doing millions of dollars of work are guilty of fraud and conspiracy. Even though they get audited to prevent this.

And now David says that LD is lying.

David seems to think that everyone is lying to him. We know his pastor did. How does he know that his pastor and Ken Ham and Baumgartner arent lying to him too.

Sari

[Shirley Knott]

Davids proposed sequence doesnt make sense. All the layers laid down in the flood would have the same 14C date, but the dont. The post flood layers would all have dates of only a few thousand years, but they dont. And the only explanation David has is that every radiometeic lab is guilty of fraud and conspiracy. That really is it. That hundreds of people doing millions of dollars of work are guilty of fraud and conspiracy. Even though they get audited to prevent this.

And now David says that LD is lying.

David seems to think that everyone is lying to him. We know his pastor did. How does he know that his pastor and Ken Ham and Baumgartner arent lying to him too.

Sari

He rejects that perspective out of hand. Why? Because we (you, me, Febble, BWE, LD, et al) all know, in the strongest possible sense of the term, that Ham and his pastor and Baumgartner are lying to him.
It's all about dave's egopathic approach to the world -- he knows he is correct, those who agree with him, or purport to agree with him, are obviously correct, those who disagree with him, or who hold positions he has not yet adopted while disagreeing with him on points he has adopted, must be in error.
So, because we know it to be true, it must be false, give who we are.

dave is a tragic and hopeless case.

As he has sown, so may he reap.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[BWE]

More weight.

[Coleslaw]

.
.
.
.
.
<<< This space reserved for Dave Hawkins' apology owed to Lasting Damage >>>
.
.
.
.
.

Yes, but Dave is on the road, with only his Blackberry, so he can't apologize. It's a little known drawback of Blackberries-they don't post apologies. No one knows why. They are working to correct this feature, and are hoping to have a solution in another 6 months.


There, now Dave can tell me I'm making stuff up.

[BWE]

Davids proposed sequence doesnt make sense. All the layers laid down in the flood would have the same 14C date, but the dont. The post flood layers would all have dates of only a few thousand years, but they dont. And the only explanation David has is that every radiometeic lab is guilty of fraud and conspiracy. That really is it. That hundreds of people doing millions of dollars of work are guilty of fraud and conspiracy. Even though they get audited to prevent this.

And now David says that LD is lying.

David seems to think that everyone is lying to him. We know his pastor did. How does he know that his pastor and Ken Ham and Baumgartner arent lying to him too.

Sari

Did Herbster pop up here and I missed it?

Damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn.

Anyone got a link?

[Lasting Damage]

Davids proposed sequence doesnt make sense. All the layers laid down in the flood would have the same 14C date, but the dont.

notice that in his last post in the other thread (the one where he says I make things up) he said that he thinks that the bottom 40m of the core were laid in the flood, and the next 35 were laid episodically in the time since then. This is mightily convenient since the bottom 40m aren't analysed in the 1998 kitagawa paper, and in any case, would lie outside the ~50,000 year limit of carbon dating. To have any of the analysed section be flood deposit would be utterly terminal to his case. Even then, his claims that these are short episodic bursts simply does not fit the data, especially when we consider above, that the cariaco basin would have had to be deposited in precisely the same manner, and even stalactites, which can't be produced in the manner required, would have to fit the pattern of episodic delivery. So we have three completely different parts of the world, and two totally different deposition processes which according to dave produce the same graph using four different dating methods (carbon dating, Varve counting, Thorium dating and length measurement). plus on top of that, dave is still making his episodic claim, despte the fact that his claims do not fit the evidence at all.

[Febble]

Davids proposed sequence doesnt make sense. All the layers laid down in the flood would have the same 14C date, but the dont.

notice that in his last post in the other thread (the one where he says I make things up) he said that he thinks that the bottom 40m of the core were laid in the flood, and the next 35 were laid episodically in the time since then. This is mightily convenient since the bottom 40m aren't analysed in the 1998 kitagawa paper, and in any case, would lie outside the ~50,000 year limit of carbon dating. To have any of the analysed section be flood deposit would be utterly terminal to his case. Even then, his claims that these are short episodic bursts simply does not fit the data, especially when we consider above, that the cariaco basin would have had to be deposited in precisely the same manner, and even stalactites, which can't be produced in the manner required, would have to fit the pattern of episodic delivery. So we have three completely different parts of the world, and two totally different deposition processes which according to dave produce the same graph using four different dating methods (carbon dating, Varve counting, Thorium dating and length measurement). plus on top of that, dave is still making his episodic claim, despte the fact that his claims do not fit the evidence at all.

Well, as I've been saying, to make the data fit his idea at all, carbon dating has to be out by an average factor of at least 10 since the Flood, which would get the Flood safely under the radiocarbon wire.

But so far he hasn't had the nerve to argue this.

[Dave Hawkins]

OK LD ... So you didn't make anything up. It would sure be nice if you would admit error sometimes ... Might help me think you are not just making things up.

[JonF]

OK LD ... So you didn't make anything up.

You call that an apology?

Are you sorry for lying about LD?

It would sure be nice if you would admit error sometimes ...

I've seen him admit error ... when he's wrong.

Might help me think you are not just making things up.

What really might help you think he's not just making things up is reading his posts and and addressing the issues rather than your regular regurgitations.

[E. Mota Kahn]

OK LD ... So you didn't make anything up. It would sure be nice if you would admit error sometimes.

Dave, what are fossils, and where do they come from?

[Febble]

OK LD ... So you didn't make anything up. It would sure be nice if you would admit error sometimes ... Might help me think you are not just making things up.

As far as I could see, LD's "errors" were simply statements of his that you'd misunderstood. For example, please see my post here:

http://www.rantsnraves.org/showpost....postcount=2675