Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: I hope you are happy, SteveF.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Photon

1
They always know approximately what they'll get.  They just don't know exactly. 

Have you done NO reading at all on carbon dating?

I'm done wasting my time getting you up to speed.

Geez
Damn, can you just stop lying?

The calibration curved were done with no fucking idea what they would show.  That was the point of doing them, dumbass.

Do you even know what a calibration curve is?  FFS.
2
The Global Flood Calibration Curve trumps all the other ones because it's so much larger, thus rendering them irrelevant.  Now you are starting to understand why I'm not very motivated to look at them.  They simply don't matter.

What the fuck, Dave?  You are just choosing to not examine them, knowing full well that the bullshit artistry of Brown and other YEC are NOT supported by the data, but rather indicate something you want to believe, so you justify choosing not to examine why they are wrong.

It is simple willful self-deception.
3
THE ONLY thing driving that 2000 year time frame is carbon 14 ... which of course denies the Global Flood.

No, it fucking does NOT, you clueless ignoramus.  If this is true, then support the idea that radiocarbon dating in any way assumes a global flood didn't happen.

Go ahead. I dare you.
4
This is how Dave supports lying to children using false dynamations and propagating willful misinterpretations of scientific ideas; he doesn't know what a "fact" is.

Dave, you seem to generally conflate what you want to be true with "facts".  That doesn't make them equivalent, and only has the effect of fooling yourself (and other gullible rubes).
5
As they say on Shark Tank ...

"I'm out"

Maybe I can find some sanity in Mike's spreadsheet
"Sanity" as in "some connection to reality" ... "honest analysis" etc.
Like a kid dropping out of high school, he's out.
Like shit plopping into the shower-shit-bucket...he's out.
6

"I'm out"

Maybe I can find some sanity in Mike's spreadsheet

And he fucking bails, without ever once critically examining Brown's model in contrast with radiocarbon data.
7
And THE POINT  for Voxrat's benefit is that the entire deposit designated "unit a" could have been deposited in under 15 years by one sloth.  "15 sloth years" if you will.

Yeah.

But if you instead want to propose ...

1) 10 sloths each visiting for 1.5 years with 198.5 year hiatuses (hiati?)
2) 100 sloths each visiting for a couple of months  with 19.9 year hiatuses
3) magic fairiesThe poop that is there was deposited only during a specific fraction of the year, and there were many years where no sloths were pooping in the cave at all, which is what the evidence actually suggests.

Then who am I to stop you?
Exactly. You are a person who has no fucking clue what is believable in regards to the amount of extinct giant sloth poop we should find in a given cave over a given period of time. So why the fuck are you still talking about it?
I'm rubbing your nose in poo, so to speak.   I'm breaking this down in such simple terms that even Plexus sales people can get it.
But, since as we just established, you have no way of knowing whether any given amount of poo in any given amount of time is believable or not, and what evidence we have is on our side, what exactly do you think you are rubbing anyone's nose in?
Aside from your bogus carbon 14,  the evidence we do have which is admittedly scanty, is most definitely NOT on your side. It's on my side. 
Ooh.

Bogus.

Scintillating takedown of the evidence, Dave.

Your bluster and bravado, unfortunately for you, do nothing to impeach the quality of the objective data and its correlation with other independent dating methods.

Too bad you are so ignorant of the facts.
8
By the way, I DO plan to dig into "why do the curves agree" and "Kalksjon" at some point - I'm only 54 years old so I have a lot of good years left ... but the detail required is going to take a lot of work and a lot of time.  Look how much time we've take on just sloth poop - one tiny paragraph from Brown's book.
Hey Dave, just out of curiosity: if you supposedly aren't going to dig into calibration curves and Kjalkson for years, possibly decades, why the fuck did you start a thread on C14 now?
Because his new shiny thing (sloth shit), allows him to delve into meaningless minutiae while letting him deceive himself that he is addressing anything of substance.

Dave is a charlatan, nothing more.
9
Knowledge about these sloths is understandably scanty ... but ...

"The giant ground sloth lived mostly in groups, but it may have lived singly in caves."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatherium


So fucking what? What does this have to do with radiocarbon and tests of Brown's model? Your distraction isn't fooling anyone, dumbass.
10
Why do you feel like you need to both lie, and accuse others of lying when they are clearly not, to make your case, Dave? Is it because you know you don't have one?


Especially in light of the fact that Dave ostensibly started this discussion to help out his son, who is going to become an educator, better understand the topic.  If you have to lie about it Dave, then you are propagating that lie to children.  I know you don't have much issue with lying to children, remember those dynamation presentations for kids4truth, was it?  All full of lies and misconceptions, gleefully created in the service of an imagined lord.  Lying for Jesus doesn't make it right, Dave.
11
Of course Brown was mistaken. We already discussed that.  Browns mistake was in the category of "sloppy."  Pingu's mistake was a blatant falsehood.

What a fucking asshole.  Brown lied and misrepresented the paper in order to lie to the gullible rubes like you, all of whom have a vested interest (religion) in believing those lies.  Drown in your own self-inflicted ignorance, Dave, you are beneath contempt for casting aspersions on the character of Pingu here, who is not in error here.

Grow the fuck up, you idiotic man-baby.  Conversing with you really has no point, does it, since you are unwilling to engage with anything intellectually, and are habitually dishonest.
12
What page is the pollen analysis for unit A on?
I'm thinking this is a pretty simple question ...

I'm thinking that you are not reading anyone else's posts.
Judging from these non-answers I'm thinking there probably isn't any pollen analysis of Unit A.

So if that is in fact the case, then all we have to go on is the change in vegetation, i.e. "more succulents" in the lower part of Unit A than in the upper part.
Dave.  Do you shit in your shitbucket continuously?  Or is it periodic?  Do you shit anywhere else? Do you poop at Wendy's before or after your burger and Frosty? FFS, you are thick.
13
No. Not "just like" that.
In fact, nothing remotely like that.
OK well all you people with your fancy science degrees should be able to easily come up with the correct formula. I freely admit that I cannot,  just as I cannot come up with a formula for the diffusion of chocolate syrup through my milkshake.  All I know about and care about is that it's going to be somewhere between a  vertical slope and browns slope
You seem to think everything is linear in data analysis, for some reason. And you don't even care that your proposed model doesn't in any way match reality. Sad.
no it's just that I'm a practical engineer that knows how to use formulas to get things done.

 As opposed to a pointy-headed octohatter sitting in an ivory tower who knows how to calculate the diffusion of chocolate syrup through milkshakes but can't get anything  worthwhile accomplished in life
WTF?

You know how to use formulas to get things done?

What formula did you use when you dishonestly put random data points on a linear graph showing correlation between dating methods?  Is your formula just being a shitheel liar and flim flam salesman? Nice formula.

Which formula did you use when you randomly inserted fudge factors and "round numbers" into your Pyramid inch calculations in order to produce "significant" and "accurate" numerals that allegedly aligned with astrophysical/geological measurements?

Your "formula" seems to be you'll believe and promote any crazy shit you want to be true, without objective, rational evidence for ANY of it.

This is your problem. You have huge doses of ego and pride and ignorance, and employ all three effectively in a heady brew of tard that has no semblance to reality. You are satisfied to live in your cargo cult fantasy of your own imagined rightness and self-righteousness.

Too bad for you NO ONE else has bought into your misinformed, sad, little fantasy.
14
The only answer that matters to your question is ... "Brown's curve will rise more steeply" ... anything further is unnecessary squid ink.  More detail than is needed for a model of a catastrophic event in ancient history.
Why will it rise more steeply?

Ah, I know.  Because you want it to.

Let's see the math.
Lol.  Seriously?  Mr. I'mSoMuchSmarterThanDave ?  YOU ... need ME??!! ... to show you the math?
You fucking mental midget, he's calling into question the validity of your claims, and is challenging you to support them mathematically, not asking for remedial help.  What. An. Ass.
Photon, go get some stress relief with your wife, then come back.
So, instead of correcting YOUR misunderstanding of the conversation, you double-down with more sexism? You are a class act, Hawkins.
15
Photon has been swallowing the tard graph lie for 11 years now. He probably swallows the "Portuguese moment" lie as well.

Once you start swallowing lies, there's really no end  to it.
Yes, you do have a history of lies. Why are you bringing them to our attention, helium in zircons turkey guts pyramid inch solar system ice sourced from Earth man?
16
No. Not "just like" that.
In fact, nothing remotely like that.
OK well all you people with your fancy science degrees should be able to easily come up with the correct formula. I freely admit that I cannot,  just as I cannot come up with a formula for the diffusion of chocolate syrup through my milkshake.  All I know about and care about is that it's going to be somewhere between a  vertical slope and browns slope
You seem to think everything is linear in data analysis, for some reason. And you don't even care that your proposed model doesn't in any way match reality. Sad.
17
"On it's face" ... the sky appears to be gray all the time ... IF I ignore all the clear days where it's blue.  Ignoring data is highly convenient for making one feel better about one's cherished beliefs.
And this data you keep obliquely referring to without ever indicating what it might be...
What is it?
oh I've posted some of it many times at this forum or other forums.  You guys ignore it every time.  There is some in Brown's book. Maybe I will repost it when I get in the mood.
But only if we're good boys and girls will kind Master Dave deign it within his magnanimous generosity to provide it.  Oh, sir, please sir, we await thy pearls, though we be mere swine in the presence of such obvious grandeur.
18
The only answer that matters to your question is ... "Brown's curve will rise more steeply" ... anything further is unnecessary squid ink.  More detail than is needed for a model of a catastrophic event in ancient history.
Why will it rise more steeply?

Ah, I know.  Because you want it to.

Let's see the math.
Lol.  Seriously?  Mr. I'mSoMuchSmarterThanDave ?  YOU ... need ME??!! ... to show you the math?
You fucking mental midget, he's calling into question the validity of your claims, and is challenging you to support them mathematically, not asking for remedial help.  What. An. Ass.
19
You're trying to kick the ball when it is pitched to you.

And you are pitching a turkey.

Even you must realise the damn thing is a turkey.
Dave is throwing turkeys and we're trying to kick them, instead of appropriately smashing them with a bat. I love the mental imagery, but where's science in this analogy?  It's the turkey trajectory, amirite?
20
By the way... Asking "why do the curves agree" is a little bit like asking "why do most biology professors agree that chimps and humans share a common ancestor" 

No, it isn't.  Consilient data may lead professors to agree about a common underlying model, but it is not the same thing. 

or "why did officers in the SS agree that Jews were bad"  or "why did the Cardinals agree that there was such a thing as Purgatory"

No.  This is beyond stupid.  The curves are not people expressing opinions or conclusions.  They are consilient and independent data points.

grow up Dave.
I doubt it. Most likely cherry picked data.
FFS, that is the same claim that led to the infamous TARD graph. Do you ever learn, anything?
21
and this C14 "drips" out of Circle B into Circle C in about 375 years (which I think is appropriate - why would you use the shorter time constants?) 

Why do you think "about 375 years" is appropriate, Dave?  Can you explain your reasoning?
Sure. If you draw a circle around Boxes 1, 2 and 3 and call it Circle B ... then what would be the "mean life" value of Circle B? Would it not be the largest figure of the 3 boxes? I think it would.

What do you think "mean residence time" means, Dave?

It's how long it takes that old guy in the apartment building across the street to yell at you to get off his lawn.
22
/thread

ha ha
23
I mean I guess if your independent thinking skills are so degraded that you can really swallow the whoppers about the world being millions of years old and life creating itself  and deny the global flood and on and on, then it's probably pretty easy to believe numerous smaller whoppers about Dave Hawkins. 

Again, Dave, you have a habit of willfully misunderstanding and misinterpreting evidence, and have absolutely no methodology for objectively determining that which is most likely true (or things that are definitely false).  Not us.
24
What's astonishing to me is that you think that that's what I think.  When you allow others to tell you what to think, I guess that's what happens.   This sort of thing happens on a mass scale thanks to news outlets like CNN.

Dave, do you, or do you not, think a woman's place is beside a man, subservient to his decisions about the household and spiritual development thereof, and also hold to the ideal that you do not want any future mate of yours to exit that traditional lifestyle for other opportunities, including higher education?

I mean, did your ex-wife cut off the sex, and then say she wanted to go to school or get a job, or something, or did you just take that opportunity to visit prostitutes without her consent leading to the destruction of it all (home life, friends, and church community)?  This is not fake news, this is taken from the things you've posted over the years.
25
- I've been married to the same woman, for 23 years now, and both of us has only ever had one sexual partner in our lives.
- I sometimes regret not having a boatload of sex from age 16-18, but now, in retrospect, it kind if makes my personal experience pretty special. 

Additionally, I've
- always had, and still have a huge sex drive
- never been in a strip club
- never visited a prostitute, nor ever had an inkling to partake in those services
- never had an affair

That is not a judgement on those who for whatever reason feel they need (or want) to have affairs with willing people, I'm pretty much just very careful when it comes to contracting communicable disease.
Ok, this raises an obvious question: if communicable diseases were not an issue, would you have been more likely to have affairs? In other words, is the lack of affairs down to a moral/ethical code, or down to fear of practical consequences unrelated to any moral/ethical considerations, or a combination of both?


It's not about morality - I don't have any problem with any two (or more) people who want to have sex doing so, as long as all are willing participants.  I do have a moral code surrounding honesty though - making and keeping promises are important to me, and should one want to be relieved of a promise, I think it's important to communicate feelings about that first, before any promise-breaking takes place.  I absolutely detest lying.  I have a low opinion of those who lie to others for their own benefit.  I have a low opinion of those who lie to themselves for comfort too, though I try to not make that so obvious in a family that has many born-again YEC Christians, who like Dave, are ignorant of evidence, and do not care to rectify that condition.

Throughout life, people grow, regress, change, improve and/or falter.  In my teens and early 20's I had no confidence.  Now, I'm quite comfortable speaking to pretty much anyone in any situation, especially large groups, I can be pretty downright charming and hilarious in real life.  I *still* have an issue with eye contact, though, and find one-on-one conversations with people I don't know to be uncomfortable, and even people I've known my whole life I will look at their foreheads when talking.  But, had I back then the skills I have now, I probably would have had many sexual partners.  However, since I did end up falling in love with one particular rather amazing woman, and made promises to her, I choose to shut down flirtations, especially inappropriate ones.  That doesn't mean I don't use sexual innuendo, it just has to be with people I already know will not take it in a way it is not intended.  Now, if my wife came to me one day and said, "hey man, I just met this hot dude, and really wanna fuck him", I honestly wouldn't stand in her way, since I would not want to deprive her of a life experience she desired.  With only one life (no hell below us, above us only sky), I want to be an enabler to awesome experiences for those I love.  I'd maybe counsel to be careful, obviously, but not to not do it.  I'm pretty sure I'd also have angst over it, but I wouldn't stop her.

It doesn't come down to opportunity - we both have had opportunity.  I think it is just a high regard for each other and mutual respect that has led us to where we are.  Now, after the kids move out and go to university, maybe the opportunity to turn one of the bedrooms into a community sex den will arise, but I doubt it.

I would say, I am very, very lucky.  I met a kindred, rational, spirit in my wife.  I've seen many marriages break up, some from money issues, some from infidelity, some from addictions, some from just two people evolving to have different priorities, etc..  I'm not naive enough to think I'm more immune to such things than anyone else, though with open communication, and having similar mindsets and priorities helps a lot. 

So, to answer your question, I don't know, wear a condom to avoid communicable disease?

Quote
I assume your personal code is a significant factor. I'm just curious how significant it is. Not that I'm having a go at you, and obviously you don't have to answer. It's just a fairly obvious reaction to what you posted. Speaking for myself, if communicable diseases and unwanted pregnancies were not practical issues, I would have had more sex in the past. This probably applies to a lot of people.

Honestly, if nerds were as in then as they are now, I'd have been a star, and when you are a star, they let you do anything.  So I've heard.

Quote
Oh and, just to put the cat among the pigeons, I have been to a strip club. Even worse, I went there because my workmates at the time were constantly banging on about how great this particular club was, so while I was at a loose end one evening I took a look just to see what all the fuss was about. I'm not sure if this is classified as "shamelessly exploiting women purely to indulge an obscene sense of novelty". I can confirm that I am quite shameless about it. I can also confirm that I'm not particularly impressed by strip clubs. They are distinctly odd places.

I don't understand the allure, at all.  Seeing a woman take her clothes off provocatively in a public place with other men leering at her would make me uncomfortable, I mean, who wants to get sexually excited with a smelly, sweaty, leering dude next to you staring at the same girl?  Hell, even in GTA5 the private room is the better option.

Quote
Quote
I find women sexually alluring, being a typical heterosexual male, but I hope in my professional and private life, that I do not objectify them in any way.
Objectification is fine, within limits. As well as men who objectify women I know women who objectify men, up to a point. It seems to be pretty common. I know someone who said she likes young men because they're "good eye candy". She's far from being a misandrist though. It's not an issue, provided that people don't lose sight of the fact that they are dealing with other people rather than objects. IOW, "Hey, nice ass on that" is not the end of the world, as long as you maintain an awareness that the ass is attached to a person, who may or may not want you to comment on their ass at the time, depending on the situation. Although it can be hilariously funny watching a young dickhead, used to thinking of himself as the alpha, being sized up by a bunch of shameless older women.

I can understand objectification, especially at those sexy times when a willing partner wants to be objectified and communicates that clearly.  I do not think it as an appropriate behaviour in public, typically, especially if unsolicited.   

I think I might be coming across as a prude, but a non-religious one with a huge sex drive who has no problem with the sexual proclivities of others.  Weird.  I think I'm gonna shut up now.