Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[VoxRat]

Question: Why is there an "appearance of design" in biological structures if there's no conscious designer?

Answer: Here's a stack of books, like Richard Dawkins's "The Blind Watchmaker", that explain exactly how the "appearance of design" is an inevitable outcome of evolution.

Response: I don't like to read books. Studying gives me a headache

Question: Why do all the many independent scientific technologies all agree that the earth is billions of years old, if it's actually only 6000-10000 years old?

I don't KNOW why the curves agree. I don't know enough about all of the curves and how they were derived to give an intelligent answer.

"...much more study is required before you can possibly expect me to think about that."

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by E. Mota Kahn

Just for the benefit of lurkers like myself, I did a quick Google search of the string "Why do the curves agree?" and got Dave's answer posted at another board, a few months ago. Here it is:

So, there ya go.

The truth is, all Dave needs to find out about the various dating techniques is whether they're truly independent. In other words, if it turned out that two different dating techniques (trying hard to think of an example here), say, coral growth rings and ice core rings, aren't really independent (hard to come up with two different techniques that aren't so obviously independent it would be mentally retarded to think otherwise), he might be able to show that the consilience between them was not relevant.

If Dave were serious about accounting for the consilience of various dating techniques, the obvious way to go about it would be to show that they're not actually independent. Let's say, for example, that the only two known dating techniques were coral growth rings tree growth rings, and that the consilience of the two was used to support that belief that they were both accurate. If I were Dave, I would try to argue that the growth rings between the two are consilient, but they're not measuring annual growth, but maybe monthly growth (something to do with lunar cycles, perhaps).

The problem is, not all dating techniques are measuring annual layers. Radiocarbon (and other radiometric dating techniques) are based on not even the same class of methodologies. If Dave only had to deal with methods that count annual layers (tree growth rings, ice cores, coral growth rings, varves), he'd have an easier time of it. But the radiometric methods are clearly entirely independent of the methods that count annual layers. Yet they still agree with the methods that do count annual layers.

And, of course, there's the fossil record. Specifically, this prediction from evolutionary theory:

Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates.

Potential falsification: a negative correlation between the stratigraphy and the phylogenetic tree. E.g., mammal-reptile intermediates older than reptile-amphiban intermediates, or reptile-amphibian intermediates older than proterostome-deuterostome intermediates.

Theobald gives a more detailed discussion of the fossil chronology argument here.

Dave has argued in numerous places that fossils and radiometric dating are used circularly to confirm each other, but he's wrong. Fossils don't appear in igneous rock, which can often be dated radiometrically, but in places where there are no igneous rocks, index fossils can often be used to date strata that have been bracketed by datable igneous rocks with the same fossils elsewhere. But the more important point is, the chronology of fossils follows predictions made by evolutionary theory (which is why we don't see, e.g., Precambrian rabbits). Therefore, while we can't assign absolute dates to strata based strictly on index fossils, what we can do is establish a consilience between the fossils expected to be found at various times with the absolute dates established for those fossils based on an entirely different methodology—index fossils.

Therefore, the "curve" traced out by the expected evolution of fossil specimens over time is consilient with the curve delineated by radioisotope dating. When we date Precambrian rocks that can be associated with Precambrian fossils, we get Precambrian dates. When we date Tertiary rocks that can be associated with Tertiary fossils, we get Tertiary dates. Despite the fact that, once again, the dating techniques (index fossils and radioisotope dating) are completely independent.

When you look at this kind of intermeshing evidence, it becomes clear why the only people who doubt evolutionary theory and an old age for the earth are people with a religious agenda. There simply is no room for rational doubt for either.

[ninewands]

Originally Posted by Dutch_labrat

More important is that in any lab in this world anomalous data is the most interesting. In science experiments this is where new hypotheses can be grown. In every case any unexpected result is where you can learn more about your methods, apparatus, controls, documentation, procedures and even the human behavior of your people working in the lab.

As they say, the last thing a scientist says before making a major discovery is, more than likely, NOT "Eureka!" It's much more likely to be, "Hmmmmm, that's strange."

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

...
If Dave were serious about accounting for the consilience of various dating techniques, the obvious way to go about it would be to show that they're not actually independent.

I don't think he's ever claimed to be serious about, or even interested in, the consilience of the various dating techniques.

If I were Dave, I would try to argue that the growth rings between the two are consilient, but they're not measuring annual growth, but maybe monthly growth (something to do with lunar cycles, perhaps).

Ah, but if you did that, you wouldn't be Dave, would you? Because in his heart of hearts, Dave knows that any such approach quickly runs aground on the the fact that...

... not all dating techniques are measuring annual layers. Radiocarbon (and other radiometric dating techniques) are based on not even the same class of methodologies.

No. Dave knows that his only prayer (pun intended) is to put off addressing that dang consilience issue... forever: The time will never come when "more study" isn't required. The jury will "still be out" forever.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I don't think he's ever claimed to be serious about, or even interested in, the consilience of the various dating techniques.

No, he is seriously uninterested in the consilience, as well he might be. As soon as he engages with it, he's sunk.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by E. Mota Kahn

Just for the benefit of lurkers like myself, I did a quick Google search of the string "Why do the curves agree?" and got Dave's answer posted at another board, a few months ago. Here it is:

So, there ya go.

Unfortunately, that's TGBd's defense. As long as he can hide in his own ignorance, he can, and will/does, claim there is room for doubt.

The problem is that while radiocarbon dating supports the Suigetsu data, it is really that Suigetsu supports the validity of radiocarbon dating, along with the other independent calibration curves. Which was the original issue of this question.

TGBd wants to discredit Suigetsu because it's the source of one of the calibration curves. Therein lies TGBd's big problem, while he might cast doubt on the Suigetsu varves when looked at in isolation, he still has several hundred other varve systems waiting in line and they all support both Suigetsu and radiocarbon dating. It's that consilience thing TGBd just seems completely unable to comprehend. Suigetsu is not isolated, it's tied to numerous other varve systems and dozens and dozens of other independent chronometrics. For one, TGBd has never yet dealt with the volcanic events that clearly support the annual characteristic of the Suigetsu varves. The signatures are there, they are not ambiguous, nor is count of the laminations between them which matches the known temporal difference between the events, in other words, it only makes sense if they are annual laminations. Nor has TGBd dealt with the climatic profiles that only match up when the Suigetsu data is assumed to be annual. This paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/299/5607/688 is focused on but one of those climactic profiles. Again, these only make sense if the laminations are annual. Then there is the real serious issue TGBd hasn't even touched, the annual bloomings of the diatoms. TGBd might cause doubt about a few of those blooms, that some might have been multiples in one year, but to claim that of 100,000 is ludicrous, particularly when TGBd is unable to cite any observational difference amongst the nearly identical laminations. This failure to cite any point in the sample where YOGF occurred, or where the cause of the laminations changed, is just like the "Curves" question, TGBd needs to explain, clearly, how radically different causes produce nearly identical results. It's not that it can't happen, just that TGBd has to explain precisely how it did happen. Otherwise, it's just part and parcel of his argumentum ad nebulum.

So TGBd can fuss about the details of possible errors in the radiocarbon process and that relating to Suigetsu in particular, what he doesn't/won't get is while those possibilities may exist, it is the consilience with all the other data that precludes those potentials. In other words, "Why Do The Curves Agree?"

TGBd just doesn't/won't realize that attacking one component of the consilience one work. It's like a platform supported by numerous floats. You can depress one float, but it makes little, if any difference to the platform, the other floats take up the slack. If you then go to depress a different float the original float returns to its duty and the situation repeats. BFD.

TGBd has to attack the entire mass. TGBd has to address the question: "WHY DO THE CURVES AGREE". Attacking any one component with maybe's and could be's and possibly's and might be's won't work. The reason is such arguments are tentative, they are suggestive only, not conclusive. They only cast potential doubt which is countered by the overwhelming consilience.

Yes, there could have been mistakes in the 14C datings, sure, it's possible. But countering that are the industry protocols, the peer reviews, both formal and informal, and the consilience of all the other data. If radiocarbon dating was the sole evidence, sure, these inquiries into its reliability would be critical and the maybe's would have much greater import. But they aren't the sole support, not by a long shot. And even then, their validity is supported by numerous protocols, reviews and cross-checks.

It is as has been stated numerous times before in numerous settings, even if all the curves were shown to be invalid, TGBd would still have to address why they seem to be consilient. It's just like with the radiocarbon lab results, they have to be accounted for, good, bad or indifferent.

So, until TGBd starts to deal with "WHY THE CURVES AGREE" as a totality, he's just pissing into the wind. An no, davey, that yellow liquid gathering about your feet isn't lemonade.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by RAFH

TGBd just doesn't/won't realize that attacking one component of the consilience one work. It's like a platform supported by numerous floats. You can depress one float, but it makes little, if any difference to the platform, the other floats take up the slack. If you then go to depress a different float the original float returns to its duty and the situation repeats. BFD.

It's worse than that for Dave. He's up against Bayesian inference.

What is the probability that the dating by volcanic events is wrong? Maybe 20%? Aha - there's a gap! And...what is the probability that the radiocarbon dates are wrong - another 20%? Another gap!

But Dave seems to think that these gaps add up, and if he keeps casting a little bit of doubt on each finding, then eventually he'll have a gap big enough to fit in YEC.

But they don't add up - they multiply. Each little gap he finds in each consilient finding has to be multiplied by the previous one. And 20% of 20% is only 4%. And 20% of 4% is only .08%. And 20% of .08% is only .02%. And so on.

Dave really needs to learn some stats.

[Lasting Damage]

still, it will be interesting to see how* he supports his claim that all the leaves in the Suigetsu study had multiple dates thousands of years apart and how the lab managed to fudge the dates so precisely that they correlated with numerous other features, many of which hadn't even been studied yet.

*if he does.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

... Also, I found out that my congregation is one of the largest in my area ... hmmm. Must be new math here. I'll tell my pastor ... he'll be thrilled! ;-) ....

So what is Dave saying here? Is he saying that in fact his little church is just an insignificant handful of kooks, and we really don't need to be alarmed about the fanatical anti-science, anti-intellectual propaganda they're pushing on kids, because, after all, they're just an insignificant handful?

I'd like to believe that. Really, I would.

It does look like a pretty large operation to me though. It looks a lot bigger than the church I attended as a kid - and I thought that was a pretty big one.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by RAFH

And he may have a 'Kick Me, I'm an IDiot" sign to attach surreptitiously to your back. So, you better watch out, it could be anyone, any time, even your wife and kids at breakfast or in the car. Every time you feel the least pressure on your back, or none at all (the best indication there is a ninja stalking you is you don't see any ninjas), it could be time to check your back and make sure that dreaded sign isn't there.

As long as the sign is invisible it's ok.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

So what is Dave saying here? Is he saying that in fact his little church is just an insignificant handful of kooks, and we really don't need to be alarmed about the fanatical anti-science, anti-intellectual propaganda they're pushing on kids, because, after all, they're just an insignificant handful?

I'd like to believe that. Really, I would.

It does look like a pretty large operation to me though. It looks a lot bigger than the church I attended as a kid - and I thought that was a pretty big one.

Things have been pretty interesting there at Tri-City Ministries where Davie-doo served as a deacon. In the last few years the church treasurer was convicted and sent to federal prison for embezzlement, the pastor Herbster admitted to making illegal loans with church funds and socked with a hefty fine, and one of Dave's fellow deacons was charged with felony sexual misconduct involving a child.

And Dave has the balls to make unfounded allegations about fraud and misconduct in C14 labs.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by ninewands

As they say, the last thing a scientist says before making a major discovery is, more than likely, NOT "Eureka!" It's much more likely to be, "Hmmmmm, that's strange."

I think the Scientific for that for that is Wotdafok!

[Ved]

Originally Posted by E. Mota Kahn

Just for the benefit of lurkers like myself, I did a quick Google search of the string "Why do the curves agree?" and got Dave's answer posted at another board, a few months ago. Here it is:

So, there ya go.

I guess that's good to know, as I don't follow Dave absolutely everywhere.

It does sound like something he'd say, something like: "I don't know why the curves agree... I don't know where the annual layers are in the Suigetsu cores... I don't even know where Teh Flud layers are in the Suigetsu cores..."

I'm just curious about if any of these haunting questions are starting to get to Dave, the way he wants his questions to start to get to us. Does he ever give them a moment's thought? Does he ever worry that maybe he's the one that's wrong?

Does he ever look at the woodwork in his church and wonder what years of history those whorls of wood grain are from, and does he ever hear them whisper, "Why do the curves agree?"

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Febble

It's worse than that for Dave. He's up against Bayesian inference.

What is the probability that the dating by volcanic events is wrong? Maybe 20%? Aha - there's a gap! And...what is the probability that the radiocarbon dates are wrong - another 20%? Another gap!

But Dave seems to think that these gaps add up, and if he keeps casting a little bit of doubt on each finding, then eventually he'll have a gap big enough to fit in YEC.

But they don't add up - they multiply. Each little gap he finds in each consilient finding has to be multiplied by the previous one. And 20% of 20% is only 4%. And 20% of 4% is only .08%. And 20% of .08% is only .02%. And so on.

Dave really needs to learn some stats.

The only thing wrong with your analysis, Febble, is the leeway you give to the gaps. I'd say 20% is about 200% too high. More like 6% to 7%, at least for most of the chronologies. If anything, 14C is the least accurate. Which is why there are the calibration curves that so plague dear davey.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

still, it will be interesting to see how* he supports his claim that all the leaves in the Suigetsu study had multiple dates thousands of years apart and how the lab managed to fudge the dates so precisely that they correlated with numerous other features, many of which hadn't even been studied yet.

*if he does.

Al'right folks, step right up and place yer bets.
Will The Great Buffoon davey support his claims?
Will The Great Buffoon davey explain how his support works?


For that matter, will The Great Buffoon davey even show up?

Place yer bets!

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

So what is Dave saying here? Is he saying that in fact his little church is just an insignificant handful of kooks, and we really don't need to be alarmed about the fanatical anti-science, anti-intellectual propaganda they're pushing on kids, because, after all, they're just an insignificant handful?

I'd like to believe that. Really, I would.

It does look like a pretty large operation to me though. It looks a lot bigger than the church I attended as a kid - and I thought that was a pretty big one.

I see, never knew where TGBd gets/gives his indoctrination. I can now see what his competition is, The Herbster Twins!

Man, their name would be so perfect if they were Rastas.

[Susannah]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

Things have been pretty interesting there at Tri-City Ministries where Davie-doo served as a deacon. In the last few years the church treasurer was convicted and sent to federal prison for embezzlement, the pastor Herbster admitted to making illegal loans with church funds and socked with a hefty fine, and one of Dave's fellow deacons was charged with felony sexual misconduct involving a child.

And Dave has the balls to make unfounded allegations about fraud and misconduct in C14 labs.

But ... but... but... the church website doesn't say anything about that! Do you think maybe (just maybe) they aren't reporting all the data?

No wonder Dave thinks that's SOP.

(Yes, I checked; OA is right.)

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Susannah

But ... but... but... the church website doesn't say anything about that! Do you think maybe (just maybe) they aren't reporting all the data?

No wonder Dave thinks that's SOP.

(Yes, I checked; OA is right.)

The really funny part is - these stories about Dave's church only came to light because at the time Dave was giving us the old "My religion is superior because atheists have no morals" bullshit. When the one about Herbster and the illegal loans was reported, Dave went apeshit and started threatening to sue everyone for libel. That is, until he was shown a copy of the affidavit from the Missouri State Attorney General's Office and signed by Herbster that admitted his wrongdoing and the amount of the fine.

After that Dave shut the fuck up about "libel".

[Dutch_labrat]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

After that Dave shut the fuck up about "libel".

He did. He didn't stop with his own libelous remarks though. I really feel like dropping the people in Groningen a line.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

Things have been pretty interesting there at Tri-City Ministries where Davie-doo served as a deacon. In the last few years the church treasurer was convicted and sent to federal prison for embezzlement, the pastor Herbster admitted to making illegal loans with church funds and socked with a hefty fine, and one of Dave's fellow deacons was charged with felony sexual misconduct involving a child.

Jeepers, Ocky!
It's not often I have to side with Dave, but last I checked, here in America, a man is innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.examiner.net/stories/0110...11004031.shtml

A Jackson County judge sentenced a former church deacon to 25 years in prison for sexual assault against children.

John M. Logan pleaded guilty Friday to a range of assaults from 1997 to 2003...

He pleaded guilty Friday to five counts of statutory sodomy and one count each of attempted statutory sodomy, sexual misconduct and the use of a child in a sexual performance.

oh...

never mind.

[Coleslaw]

Originally Posted by Dutch_labrat

He did. He didn't stop with his own libelous remarks though. I really feel like dropping the people in Groningen a line.

I did that already.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Oh and Dave, before you start whining about us talking about your church and how we're making ad hom attacks against you, remember that we're only doing it because we have nothing better to discuss since you're too chickenshit to talk about the actual Suigetsu data.

You won't tell us why the pMC values decrease exponentially with the depth of the layers.

You won't tell us why the layers have pMC different values at all, since according to you they were all laid at the same time.

You won't tell us how Da Flood managed to create thousands of individual layers when all the particles are the same shape and size

You won't tell us how Da Flud only laid layers in a few lakes, and not in all lakes or on the surrounding countryside.

You won't provide a shred of evidence for your slimy assertions that the C14 labs all conspired to produce fraudulent data.

If you decide to discuss ALL the data Dave, we'll talk about all the data. If you keep being a chickenshit, we'll stay bored and talk about other things.

[JonF]

Bet Davie's reply will be as devastating as his "separating grains by size" post - the Nature article about how macroscopic grains shaken dry could produce separated layers that bear no resemblance to the Suigetsu layers.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

still, it will be interesting to see how* he supports his claim that all the leaves in the Suigetsu study had multiple dates thousands of years apart and how the lab managed to fudge the dates so precisely that they correlated with numerous other features, many of which hadn't even been studied yet.

*if he does.

Wait, LD, my precise scientific friend ... Did I claim that? Or did I suggest it as a not-very-likely possibility?

Hi Tsig ... Glad for you to visit our church sometime. We are not a showcase of perfect people (you've probably figured that out by now) but rather more like a hospital for the spiritually sick ... Which happens to be a perfect description of you and I both!

[Dogbreath]

OA wrote...
You won't tell us how Da Flood managed to create thousands of individual layers when all the particles are the same shape and size

Jon F wrote....
Bet Davie's reply will be as devastating as his "separating grains by size" post - the Nature article about how macroscopic grains shaken dry could produce separated layers that bear no resemblance to the Suigetsu layers.

Guys, guys, pay attention please. Don't you remember Dave's foolproof experiment at RD.net? No? Well, here it is...it explains absolutely everything.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...st=0&sk=t&sd=a

AF Dave wrote...
AN EXPERIMENT IN SEDIMENTATION
Some have objected to the creationist assertion that "2 miles of sediment could not be laid down by 1 mile of water." Oh really? How about you try a little experiment as I did this morning. Take two glasses and put 1" of water in one and 2" of sand in the other. Now pour the water into the sand, cover the mixture with your hand and shake (simulating the violent conditions of floodwaters), then let the sediment settle. You will now have about 2" of sand and about 1/4" of clear water above the sand. I tried this experiment this morning and it works great.

Moral of the story: 1 mile of water can indeed deposit 2 miles of sediment ... and it most likely did just that in the Great Flood of Noah.

One more thing. There was more than 1 mile of water available. The average ocean depth today is 12,200 feet covering 3/4 of the earth's surface. If the available water was spread over the whole earth, this would equate to over 1.7 miles deep. So we don't just have 1 mile of water ... we've got more than a mile and a half of water to work with.

Now, what part of that don't you understand? And it's very scientific!!