Suigetsu MkII

[Shirley Knott]

Originally Posted by RAFH

I like this ending better, it's more in line with TGBd's gawd.

Well, yes, but can't you just imagine dave's response? He would argue and obfuscate and protest and eventually assume the role he's assigned to all of us -- vertible Satan.
I've been insisting for months now that dave is damned, and in your scenario it is clear that he would become the antagonist and usurp the power on the grounds that the god who is punishing him could not possibly be the correct god.

OK, an omnipotent god would presumably make the zotzzz final, but if not, we all know exactly how the scenario would play out.

May he reap as he has sown.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Suppose I step on the bathroom scale, and it tells me I weigh 240 lbs. I don't like that, so I step off, and step on again. This time it tells me I weigh 241 lbs. Uh oh! I like that even less! I'll ignore that one. OK. I step off, step on again. This time it tells me I weigh 239 lbs. Ah! That's better! That's the one I'll give the Department of Motor Vehicles to put on my driver's license.

Now if I keep doing this, will I eventually get to the 160 lbs that I'd really like to put on my driver's license?

Sure, after a while it will become obvious the honest weight isn't going to change, so, you just lie.

That doesn't work with the dating labs, because they have a reputation to maintain and their clientele, both direct (the researchers whose samples they date) and indirect (everyone else who relies on their honest, unbiased, objective work) are likely to review their work with a sharp eye, plus there are the other labs (though I doubt they would conciously stoop to seeking out the failings of other labs to look better or get more work, there is bound to be at least a subconcious urge to be the best) who are at least aware of their work, whereas the average driver's license applicant only had to fool themselves and a bored but overworked clerk who doesn't give a damn.

[BWE]

Dave, since your integrity is damaged beyond the ability to trust even that you washed your hands after using the restroom, maybe you should iron out some wrinkles before you go much farther.

After all you have continually lied, quote-mined, welched on your deals and used idiocy as an excuse. Why should you be taken seriously? How bout it, are you willing to defend yourself from a few direct accusations of lying, quote-mining, welching and general dishonesty?

Those are pretty serious charges and I'm laying them on you. I imagine a few others would too given a moments consideration.

Ordinarily, arguments should stand on their own merit regardless whether the arguer is a liar as you are or generally honest as the other posters are, but in your case, the arguments themselves are so heavily burdened with your lies that you are simply making yourself and xianity in general look stupider.

What say you knave?

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Originally Posted by Serafina Pekkala

No. David wrote me a very nasty post and I was upset. So I asked my pastor to read it, because David says he is a Christian. I am still writing my reply and he asked if he could include some comments.

Sari

That sounds like a better-than average pastor. You are lucky to know him.
And (as the robotic one said) good for you. Perhaps Hawkins might take correction from someone that he perceives as worthy of his respect (like a Christian leader of some sort).

[Notta_skeptic]

Originally Posted by chieftain

I wonder if it's not a subconscious thing, but actually a fully conscious way of avoiding "lying"?

Could it be that in Dave's mind, since he doesn't actually say "I", he's not referring to himself explicitly, therefore he's not really lying when he says he's doing something?

Or is even that level of childish reasoning beyond him?

You give Dave too much credit for critical thinking skills. He has had a long time to demonstrate whether he has any, and he hasn't, shall we say, "risen to the challenge."

[Faid]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

Suppose I step on the bathroom scale, and it tells me I weigh 240 lbs. I don't like that, so I step off, and step on again. This time it tells me I weigh 241 lbs. Uh oh! I like that even less! I'll ignore that one. OK. I step off, step on again. This time it tells me I weigh 239 lbs. Ah! That's better! That's the one I'll give the Department of Motor Vehicles to put on my driver's license.

Now if I keep doing this, will I eventually get to the 160 lbs that I'd really like to put on my driver's license?

Hahaha. Voxrat wins. +1 rep.

[Febble]

And Dave has gone very quiet.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Febble

And Dave has gone very quiet.

He did say he was travelling.

Dare I hope that this trip has nothing to do with creationism, radical right-wing fundamentalism, or dominion theology?

[ericmurphy]

He may be traveling, but he most certainly is "rebooting."

He'll be back in a few days, and it will be as if all of this never happened.

I just hope he introduces a new species of loony-tunes creato-tard; this discussion on lake-bed varves has become extremely yawn-inducing. Dave appears to have based his entire argument on the fact that the cores don't all start out in exactly the same place, and that the varve layers aren't all the same thickness. It appears that Dave thinks if he can get the average varve layer to be 8mm thick, he will have proved something.

I'm trying to imagine what that might be.

[Isolde]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

to clarify, I did not say that the higher laminae are less compressed and thus thinner, in any case that would not make sense, if they were less compressed they would be thicker, but then I did not say that either.

Perhaps this is the post Dave is thinking of?
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthrea...734#post204734

If the sedimentation rate was constant, then you'd expect the lower layers to be thinner due to compression. Dave was trying to wave around the fact that he found some lower layers that were thicker than upper layers, ignoring your comments about how the sedimentation rate isn't constant.

[Serafina Pekkala]

Originally Posted by JonF

Voxie thinks that's a tell that indicates Davie's got nothing and is bluffing.

I like that. David does that very often. Wow. It is very clear now that you wrote that. Too funny.

Sari.

[improvius]

Originally Posted by JonF

Voxie thinks that's a tell that indicates Davie's got nothing and is bluffing.

I thought his tell was clicking the Submit Reply button.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Originally Posted by improvius

I thought his tell was clicking the Submit Reply button.

Nah, that's how we can tell when he is lying, not bluffing (necessarily).

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Isolde

Perhaps this is the post Dave is thinking of?
http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthrea...734#post204734

If the sedimentation rate was constant, then you'd expect the lower layers to be thinner due to compression. Dave was trying to wave around the fact that he found some lower layers that were thicker than upper layers, ignoring your comments about how the sedimentation rate isn't constant.

possibly.

one thing to note here is that dave is wrong in his summary there. Note that they mention that laminations are present between 12 and 161 cm deep. and in a separate sentece they talk of a detailed chronology between 1590 and 1729. Dave takes this to mean that 1590 is 161cm deep and 1729 is at 12cm deep. This cannot be the case however, because they mention the Sakurajima eruption tephra at 44cm deep. 1774 is after 1729 and so should be above it. This means that 1729 cannot be the 12 cm mark. Also in that region of the core there are a number of known events such as the 1662 earthquake that deposited sediment - up to 4cm worth. So dave's calculation is wrong, because he has misplaced the start of the core in terms of years, he has ignored the thicknesses of the turbidite and tephra layers and furthermore, he has ignored that the top sediments are thicker than the bottom because of water logging, wrecking his average.

It's this which I was mainly pointing out - he is averaging over an inappropriate range and not taking into account waterlogged sediment. He then went on to interpret this as me saying that all top lamina are thicker than bottom ones, and that isn't the case. The self same kato paper that he talks about mentions variable lamina thicknesses.

[Dave Hawkins]

I probably should not make any more posts when I have such limited access and time and I'm very distracted ... I see that I still did not get LD's claim right ... Let me try one more time.

LD says that higher laminae have more water content and are less compressed, thus are thicker.

There. Did I say it right?

This is contradicted by the data ... Both on local small scales and on averages of large sections. The Kato paper clearly shows a contradiction on a small scale and the 40 - 75m section of SG has a lamina thickness of 0.69-0.81mm which is higher than the average thickness of the large section above it.

Also, where do we get this idea that sediments under water are compressible in the first place? We're talking about fairly incompressible materials here ... Clay particles, sand, silt, diatoms, etc. Are we to believe that the 3-6mm layers discussed by Kato are compressed 5-10 fold? Not very believeable. Sounds like story telling.

[BWE]

I must spread some reputation around before giving it to Dave Hawkins again.

Shit, who wants a rep?

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

There. Did I say it right?

no. hence what you said after was wrong, because nothing I said was contradicted by the data in the paper.

Also, where do we get this idea that sediments under water are compressible in the first place? We're talking about fairly incompressible materials here ... Clay particles, sand, silt, diatoms, etc. Are we to believe that the 3-6mm layers discussed by Kato are compressed 5-10 fold? Not very believeable. Sounds like story telling.

yes they are compressible. If you don't think so, go and step in some silt in a lake* and come back and tell us that the silt did not compress. Do you think that the sediments under the lake are equally solid all the way to the surface of the bed? if you do, then I think you need to get out more and enjoy nature. Are the researchers lying when they say that the lake bed is soft?

* I suggest a fairly shallow one. I've got stuck in lake sediments before and it's not very nice. you get this horrible vacuum forming around your foot and it's not easy to get out, so you really do want your head to be above the water.

[Coleslaw]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

no. hence what you said after was wrong, because nothing I said was contradicted by the data in the paper.

yes they are compressible. If you don't think so, go and step in some silt in a lake* and come back and tell us that the silt did not compress. Do you think that the sediments under the lake are equally solid all the way to the surface of the bed? if you do, then I think you need to get out more and enjoy nature. Are the researchers lying when they say that the lake bed is soft?

* I suggest a fairly shallow one. I've got stuck in lake sediments before and it's not very nice. you get this horrible vacuum forming around your foot and it's not easy to get out, so you really do want your head to be above the water.

I don't want his head to be above water.

[Shirley Knott]

Originally Posted by Coleslaw

I don't want his head to be above water.

So only up to his knees then?
Waist deep is already too late...

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[BWE]

I got horribly drunk while bass fishing once and fell out of the boat in a lake in the foothills of Mt. St. Helens. The water was only a foot or two deep but the mud was over my head. My buddy nearly fell out of the boat laughing. So, when I finally got back in the boat I tossed him overboard. We both had a chance to enjoy a laugh.

[Dave Hawkins]

I don't have access to the papers at the moment, so I'm working from memory ...

Kato paper review ...

1620mm=1590, 440mm=1774
Rate=6.4mm/year

How many laminae from 440mm to top? We don't know, but we do know that Kato says there are laminae all the way up to 12cm and LD says the top represents the present ... So there should be 234 laminae there. But I really doubt there are anywhere close to that many or Kato would have mentioned their number (there are none above 12cm and none below 162cm). So we have to guess. Maybe there are 50? That would give me my required 8mm per year rate (assuming Kato is right about the 1774 layer) ... But we really don't know w/o asking Kato.

Also, don't you find it curious that Kato doesn't find any laminae at all from 162cm to 385cm? That's over 2m with no fine laminae at all! Doesn't that fact alone make you question this supposedly accurate "clock" just a teensy weensy bit?

Does anyone know why LD thinks this 1774 layer correlates with another core? What core? Kawakami's? If so, how does this work? Because Kato's 102cm = Kawakami's 29cm=1662AD. So 102-44=68cm above 29cm doesn't exist in the Kawakami core. This is why I mentioned that this sounds like codswallop. But maybe I'm missing something.

[BWE]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

[snip the stupid] This is why I mentioned that this sounds like codswallop. But maybe I'm missing something.

Ya think? Like integrity?

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I probably should not make any more posts when I have such limited access and time and I'm very distracted ... I see that I still did not get LD's claim right ... Let me try one more time.

LD says that higher laminae have more water content and are less compressed, thus are thicker.

There. Did I say it right?

This is contradicted by the data ... Both on local small scales and on averages of large sections. The Kato paper clearly shows a contradiction on a small scale and the 40 - 75m section of SG has a lamina thickness of 0.69-0.81mm which is higher than the average thickness of the large section above it.

Also, where do we get this idea that sediments under water are compressible in the first place? We're talking about fairly incompressible materials here ... Clay particles, sand, silt, diatoms, etc. Are we to believe that the 3-6mm layers discussed by Kato are compressed 5-10 fold? Not very believeable. Sounds like story telling.

No TGBd, you don't have it right. Yes, the higher laminae do have more water and have not been compressed so, yes, they are thicker than they would be if the water was removed and they were compressed. And yes, the lower laminae have less water and have been compressed and, yes, they are thinner than they would be if they still had a higher water content and were not compressed. But where you get it wrong, and virtually any moron who can manage breathing and picking their nose without blinding themselves, can figure out that water content and compression are not the only factors in laminae thickness. There are other factors. There is also the amount and types of sediment. More sediment means thicker laminae. Different types of sediment can also affect the thickness of the laminae.

This is were you simply go wandering off into daveyland.

So, there could have a period of drought and very low sediment levels along with not a lot of sunshine and so in addition to there not being much sediment in the first place, there's not as much nutrients for the diatoms and so the bloom isn't as substantial, which all combines to create thinner laminae. There could be a period of heavy precipitation along with very cold winters that cause the lake to freeze over for an extended period. Iced over lakes are especially still and so much more of the sediment load silts out, resulting in a thicker laminae which is already thicker because of the higher sediment load caused by the heavy rainfalls which causes higher erosion rates.

Do you understand now, davey? Is this clear enough for you? Water content and compression are not the only factors in laminae thickness. There is also the amount and type of sediment as well as the stillness of the lake and the velocity of the water across the lake, and the amount of sunshine and the amount of icing over and how much human agitation there is. So while, all else being equal, the water content and compression will result in thinner laminae down lower, and thicker laminae up higher, there are other factors.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS DAVEY?

Do you now understand why your simplistic analysis is STOOPID and why it does not work?

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I don't have access to the papers at the moment, so I'm working from memory ...

Kato paper review ...

1620mm=1590, 440mm=1774
Rate=6.4mm/year

How many laminae from 440mm to top? We don't know, but we do know that Kato says there are laminae all the way up to 12cm and LD says the top represents the present ... So there should be 234 laminae there. But I really doubt there are anywhere close to that many or Kato would have mentioned their number (there are none above 12cm and none below 162cm). So we have to guess. Maybe there are 50? That would give me my required 8mm per year rate (assuming Kato is right about the 1774 layer) ... But we really don't know w/o asking Kato.

Also, don't you find it curious that Kato doesn't find any laminae at all from 162cm to 385cm? That's over 2m with no fine laminae at all! Doesn't that fact alone make you question this supposedly accurate "clock" just a teensy weensy bit?

Does anyone know why LD thinks this 1774 layer correlates with another core? What core? Kawakami's? If so, how does this work? Because Kato's 102cm = Kawakami's 29cm=1662AD. So 102-44=68cm above 29cm doesn't exist in the Kawakami core. This is why I mentioned that this sounds like codswallop. But maybe I'm missing something.

Yes, davey, you are missing common sense, a brain, integrity, any form of intellect or intelligence. That's why you simply won't figure it out. I repeat, WON'T

A big problem here is TGBd is conflating depths and dates and lamina between the various cores. He refuses to understand the tops of the cores do not line up. What lines up, more or less, are the major events, such as the 1662 earthquake, the 1664 change to brackishness, the 1774/79 volcanic event, etc. It is these events that correlate the cores. I guess correlation is too close to calibration, and that makes TGBd nervous. TGBd refuses to understand this and further refuses to understand there may well be gaps in the cores. Which doesn't work in his favor, because they represent years not recorded rather than non-years recorded, so there are more years than varves, not less..

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Does anyone know why LD thinks this 1774 layer correlates with another core?

Dave, if you read what I pointed out earlier, the 1774/1779 layer is a volcano tephra layer with exactly the same mineralogical and pyroclastic characteristics as tephra from the actual recorded explosion at Sakurajima that killed lots of people. It's clearly volcanic tephra, it's clearly sakurajima volcanic tephra, it's clearly in the late 1770s, there aren't any other possible sources for it. It's pretty obvious what it is. If you don't think it's sakurajima tephra, then tell us what it is. Tsunami runoff? earthquake destritus? what's the source? Everything points unequivocally to sakurajima.