14C Testing Reliability and Quality Control

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Before we lose track of it... again,

Can someone locate the post where Dave announced, in the last week or so, that he was "getting very close" - or some such bluster - to coming up with a workable "model" for how the radiocarbon record can be consistent with both reality and Genesis?

I think we should post daily updates on this.

ETA:this may be the one I had in mind

(The "yellow line" being the "wishful thinking curve" - the one that reality would have to match in order to accommodate YEC fantasies)

So that was two weeks ago, Dave. How's that "plausible mechanism" coming along?

ETA#2: There are probably more of these gems. I propose a scavenger hunt for Dave's announcements that vindication is just around the corner.

Here's where Dave invokes the KBertsche quotemine.

http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthrea...del#post200307

He states that he is "making great progress".

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

Here's where Dave invokes the KBertsche quotemine.

http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthrea...del#post200307

He states that he is "making great progress".

There IS no line that would make Dave's Genesis fantasies come true, not even if it went around in several loops and tied itself in knots. As long as there is a monotonic correlation between sediment depth and radiocarbon reading, regardless of what date each reading means, the sediment can't have been laid in a single event.

He knows this, which is why he's fallen back on saying that the labs cheated.

Alternatively, the Flood laid no sediment, but even Dave realises this might conflict with some of his other arguments.

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Febble

There IS no line that would make Dave's Genesis fantasies come true, not even if it went around in several loops and tied itself in knots. As long as there is a monotonic correlation between sediment depth and radiocarbon reading, regardless of what date each reading means, the sediment can't have been laid in a single event.

He knows this, which is why he's fallen back on saying that the labs cheated.

Alternatively, the Flood laid no sediment, but even Dave realises this might conflict with some of his other arguments.

Hahahahahahah!!!!

Dave has been hoisted by his own consiliance.

[VoxRat]

Actually, the whole post is worth examining, just to heighten the embarrassment - or what would be embarrassment, for those with enough self-awareness to experience embarrassment:

We begin with the nauseatingly smarmy arrogance we've all come to know and love:

Gee Sari ... I had high hopes for you early on as someone who--like Lasting Damage, Mike PSS, CK1, Geochron and others--would actually make intelligent posts.

... as if the individual with the triple-digit negative reputation is in a position to pass judgment on the "intelligence" of someone else's posts.

Why do you tell me "You made up the yellow line" as if that is some kind of news? I stated very clearly that it WAS NOT DATA ... that it is what the YEC model requires in order to fit known observation.

Wherein Dave acknowledges that that infamous "yellow line" is, in fact, a graphical representation of YEC wishful thinking.

The professional isotope geochemist named "Geochron" understood this.

Here's where Dave attempts to portray himself as playing with the big boys. Big boys understand what the other big boys are talking about. Little girls should go skip rope or play with their dolls, and not worry their pretty little heads about big boy stuff.

And anyone who is honest should understand this.

No, Wait! It's not about big boys vs. little girls! It's not about professional scientists (and virtually professional scientists!) vs. dilettantes - it's about honesty! If you don't see this the way Dave does, why, you must be dishonest!

You are showing your obtuseness and desperateness in the face of contrary evidence to your views.

No, wait! It's not about big boys vs. little girls; honesty vs. dishonesty! It's about desperation in the face of the ever imminent collapse of Darwinism! It's about the crushingly final nature of the "contrary evidence" that is so crushingly final that the real world dares not even acknowledge it, let alone confront it!

BTW ... I am very close to having a plausible mechanism for producing that yellow line.

The money quote, for the present purposes.

Poor mixing with Deep Ocean. Say that over to yourself a hundred times tonight, Sari, when you can't sleep because you are bugged about so many things you've been taught in science class being wrong.

I guess this is a hint as to what that breakthrough is going to involve - if and when he ever works out how it's supposed to work. Which he hasn't yet. But it's not too soon to start crowing about it. Crowing, like the roosters eventually will.
The ones that emerge from all those lovely eggs.
The ones that Dave is so fondly counting.
Before they hatch.
Before, in fact, they're even conceived.

Sari ... believe it or not, I'm your friend and I'm here to help you if you. And the kindest thing I can do for you is cause you to toss and turn in the middle of the night thinking about all those erroneous things you've been taught.

Is Dave casting himself here mainly as the great Truth Seeker who, unfettered by materialist shackles, has come to rescue Science from the Godless Real-Worlders? Or as the Knight in Shining Armor who's come to save the soul of this vulnerable little girl, in danger of falling under the spell of the Evil Atheists?

Or both?

[LuisGarcia]

BTW ... I am very close to having a plausible mechanism for producing that yellow line.

*Narrows eyes*

He's very close to picking up a crayon?

[teucer]

I'm not sure they allow crayons on the ward where Dave is detained. The inmates keep eating them.

[Shirley Knott]

Originally Posted by LuisGarcia

*Narrows eyes*

He's very close to picking up a crayon?

Nah, there's snow on the ground and he's a little boy (in every sense of the term). Draw your own conclusion...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by teucer

I'm not sure they allow crayons on the ward where Dave is detained. The inmates keep eating them.

Oh, it's not the eating of the crayons the doctors worry about!

[Asha'man]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

What I am more sure of is that inferred ages are often wrong, especially the very old ages.

"often wrong"??

You just lost your argument. Total failure.

Because if even one date past 10,000 years is accurate, YEC is totally and utterly disproven.

What you have to explain is why every single measurement is wrong, every single time. You have to explain why every single attempt to correlate a C14 date with another method is always wrong, no matter if you are using ice cores, varves, tree rings, coral growth, or half a dozen other methods of crosschecking old dates. Even worse, you have to explain why ice cores and tree rings match up, and why coral growth and ice cores match up, and why tree rings and coral growth match up, and why varves and tree rings match up, and why varves and ice cores match up, even though each one is utterly wrong every single time they produce a result over 10,000 years.

But you can't do that, can you? You haven't a clue as to why every single attempt to generate an old date is utterly screwed up, and all screwed up in the same exact way?

Frankly, your protests are a prefect demonstration of willful ignorance. Your actions, sir, are nothing less than a deliberate insult to God. The one characteristic that unambiguously separates man from the animals is our ability to reason. You believe that God created man separately from the animals, so you must believe that our ability to reason is a God-given gift. Why then do you insult God by rejecting that gift so forcefully?

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

But as I said, my investigation is ongoing and I don't have any firm opinions yet, other than that there appear to be many bad assumptions in Carbon 14 dating.

Come on, Dave. Be honest with yourself. You have one very firm opinion: that the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old. You reached that opinion long before you looked at any of the evidence, and no amount of evidence will make you think any different.

But once again, Dave, what is your opinion that "there appear to be many bad assumptions in Carbon 14 dating" based on? You have yet to show, after more than a year and a half, a single "bad assumption" in Carbon 14 dating.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Asha'man

"often wrong"??

You just lost your argument. Total failure.

Because if even one date past 10,000 years is accurate, YEC is totally and utterly disproven.

What you have to explain is why every single measurement is wrong, every single time. You have to explain why every single attempt to correlate a C14 date with another method is always wrong, no matter if you are using ice cores, varves, tree rings, coral growth, or half a dozen other methods of crosschecking old dates. Even worse, you have to explain why ice cores and tree rings match up, and why coral growth and ice cores match up, and why tree rings and coral growth match up, and why varves and tree rings match up, and why varves and ice cores match up, even though each one is utterly wrong every single time they produce a result over 10,000 years.

But you can't do that, can you? You haven't a clue as to why every single attempt to generate an old date is utterly screwed up, and all screwed up in the same exact way?

Frankly, your protests are a prefect demonstration of willful ignorance. Your actions, sir, are nothing less than a deliberate insult to God. The one characteristic that unambiguously separates man from the animals is our ability to reason. You believe that God created man separately from the animals, so you must believe that our ability to reason is a God-given gift. Why then do you insult God by rejecting that gift so forcefully?

In other words Dave,

WHY DO THE C14 CAL CURVES ALL AGREE?

Has anyone ever asked that question to you before Dave?

[Asha'man]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

The only assumption, THE ONLY ASSUMPTION that is involved is that the laws of physics governing the C14 decay rate haven't changed measurably in the last 60,000 years. And even that assumption is justified by everything we currently know and have empirically measured about nuclear physics and atomic decay.

This may have started out as an assumption at one point in time, but it's been quite well tested by now. It's now essentially a scientific fact. Radioactive decay rates, as well as other fundamental constants from physics, are verified and measured to be unchanged for the last several billion years, with confidence levels better than 1 part in 10^-10. (That means that the values are unchanged to at least 10 decimal places, in case it's not clear.)

[Steviepinhead]

Originally Posted by Shirley Knott

Nah, there's snow on the ground and he's a little boy (in every sense of the term). Draw your own conclusion...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Dang it! Shirley, er, scooped me...

I was gonna suggest that we all stand back if we see dave make any suspicious moves in the direction of his zipper.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Steviepinhead

Dang it! Shirley, er, scooped me...

I was gonna suggest that we all stand back if we see dave make any suspicious moves in the direction of his zipper.

Maybe those yellow lines Dave likes to draw explain why he keeps getting himself caught in his zipper.

[teucer]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Oh, it's not the eating of the crayons the doctors worry about!

I guess that's one place they might end up. But it seems like Dave spends a lot more time with his hands crammed down his pants in a frantic search for more of his ideas and opinions.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

...
But once again, Dave, what is your opinion that "there appear to be many bad assumptions in Carbon 14 dating" based on? You have yet to show, after more than a year and a half, a single "bad assumption" in Carbon 14 dating.

He's never shown a single "bad assumption" that made any sense, that is.

I won't bother to search for it at the moment because I think it's too ridiculous to bother with, but I believe in at least one of these "discussions", Dave has stated that the big flaw in real-worlders' treatment of radiocarbon dating is the "assumption" that the Amazingly Incredibly Catastrophic Adventure Ride known as Noah's Flood didn't actually happen. (All the impossible assumptions, like hugely varying atmospheric ¹⁴C/C ratios are then swept under the "Flood" rug. And he maintains it's an assumption by real-worlders - and a bad assumption, at that - that his assumptions are baseless.)

[Coragyps]

Poor mixing with Deep Ocean.

Heh. Such very poor mixing that not a freakin' bit of that sea salt mixed into the lake until the canal got dug....

[ck1]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

He's never shown a single "bad assumption" that made any sense, that is.

I won't bother to search for it at the moment because I think it's too ridiculous to bother with, but I believe in at least one of these "discussions", Dave has stated that the big flaw in real-worlders' treatment of radiocarbon dating is the "assumption" that the Amazingly Incredibly Catastrophic Adventure Ride known as Noah's Flood didn't actually happen. (All the impossible assumptions, like hugely varying atmospheric ¹⁴C/C ratios are then swept under the "Flood" rug. And he maintains it's an assumption by real-worlders - and a bad assumption, at that - that his assumptions are baseless.)

The "bad assumptions" according to Dave, boil down to one "bad assumption":

entertaining the idea that anything could possibly be older than 10,000 years.
(i. e. - accepting the data at face value without filtering it through a biblical perspective)

Any technique that generates dates older than 10,000 years must be wrong.

[Dave Hawkins]

The biggest bad assumption--the Mother of All Bad Assumptions--is that there was no Global Flood. Many, many little baby bad assumptions are birthed from this original Great Mother.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

The biggest bad assumption--the Mother of All Bad Assumptions--is that there was no Global Flood. Many, many little baby bad assumptions are birthed from this original Great Mother.

Why don't you list and provide evidence of these "baby bad assumptions" then Dave, instead of just ASSERTING them?

Wouldn't want the lurkers to think you have hypocritical double standards when it comes to evidence, eh?

[improvius]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

The biggest bad assumption--the Mother of All Bad Assumptions--is that there was no Global Flood. Many, many little baby bad assumptions are birthed from this original Great Mother.

Why do you think people would make this assumption, Dave? Seriously, I'd like to know what you think would motivate people to assume this.

[Serafina Pekkala]

There isnt any evidence for a flood. Only a stupid person would "assume" that one happened. Even the Bible shows the flood didnt happen. And there is no evidence for a flood

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

The biggest bad assumption--the Mother of All Bad Assumptions--is that there was no Global Flood. Many, many little baby bad assumptions are birthed from this original Great Mother.

That's exactly what I said in post #41.

According to Dave, our "bad assumption" is "assuming" that his assumption, for which he has never produced a scrap of evidence, and against which we've produced tons, is false.

Oh...
and note that none of these "baby bad assumptions" is specified.
Guess why.

[Pappy Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

The biggest bad assumption--the Mother of All Bad Assumptions--is that there was no Global Flood. Many, many little baby bad assumptions are birthed from this original Great Mother.

Dave, to determine that X is an assumption on the grounds that assumption Y is a fact seems to be an extraordinarily lame exercise in logic. All those Xs that you claim are assumptions have at least some (and in most cases massive) evidential substance to them. You have yet to present any persuasive evidence whatsover to support the Y assumption that you claim invalidates all those Xs.

[Shirley Knott]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

The biggest bad assumption--the Mother of All Bad Assumptions--is that there was no Global Flood. Many, many little baby bad assumptions are birthed from this original Great Mother.

There is no need for such an assumption -- you personally have proven beyond a shadow of rational doubt that there was not and could not have been under any non-miraculous scenario any sort of global world-wide flood as record in Genesis.
Thanks for your assistance on this matter.

Now, would you care to discuss why the assumption, let alone presupposition, of a global flood is even remotely rational or warranted?
Hmmmm?

I thought not.

no hugs for dishonest thugs,
Shirley Knott