Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers (Read 3976 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 4,145

  • 706

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #25
If you think it is, then you simply haven't read Michael Oard's stuff found here ...
Michael Oard is a profoundly dishonest and incompetent propagandist.
This was thoroughly documented here:
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?t=66571
... in many, many posts (just search the thread for 'Oard')
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • 7

  • 2

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #26

This precept of "Hawkins Reading" saves you time thus making your reading more efficient.

Which you've taken to the logical extreme by not reading science papers or people's replies to you at all.

Think of how efficient you could be if you stopped eating and drinking.  You should try it for a month.

  • 8,284

  • 46

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #27
OK ... "validation" = "attempt to falsify" ... I guess I'll buy that.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #28
OK ... "validation" = "attempt to falsify" ... I guess I'll buy that.

Usually, that is the case.  You subject your parameterised model (e.g. the carbon calibration curves) to a "risky" check against new independently derived data.  That is an attempt to falsify your model.

It is different from "fitting" a model, and comparing the fit to an alternative model (e.g. the null model), which is what is done more commonly, and isn't usually an attempt at  falsification (or at most is an attempt to falsify the null).


  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #29
So now please explain how Oard's article applies to Stanton's paper on Lake Kalksjon.

  • 8,284

  • 46

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #30
OK when I get time to do a page scan

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #31
OK when I get time to do a page scan

Why do you need a page scan?  Why not just explain why Oard's argument is a problem for Stanton's paper?

If you know, and you expected me to know by reading Oard's argument, why can't you do the same?

  • 6,672

  • 984

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #32
That's just pathetic, Dave.
Really?  Why is that?

Because you just got done telling me that "real scientists" try to FALSIFY things, not VALIDATE them.

So please explain this to me.

Actually, I repeatedly told you that in practice, scientists usually do NOT try to FALSIFY "things" - well, they don't try to falsify their hypothesis, they generally try to falsify the null.  I've told you this a gazillion times. It's also in Cleland.  I pointed it out to you, IIRC.

Yet another falsification of the hypothesis that Hawkinsing works I guess.

What I said (again, several times) is that Popper's criterion remains an excellent demarcation tool: "could this hypothesis be falsified?"  - if yes, then it's science, if not, then it may be metaphysics or some other non-science.  But it is not, in practice, how science proceeds.

Yes, a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock would falsify most of our current evolutionary model.  But that doesn't mean that evolutionary scientists spend their working lives looking for pre-cambrian rabbit fossils.

However, oddly enough, you picked the one example of where scientists DO take Popper's approach - validation testing.  A validation test is a falsification test.  If the model survives falsification, we say it has been "valididated".  Doesn't mean it's true - it could still be falsified by new data.  But it has been validated, for now, by the falsification test.
Dave is confusing verification and validation.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 6,672

  • 984

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #33
OK ... "validation" = "attempt to falsify" ... I guess I'll buy that.

Usually, that is the case.  You subject your parameterised model (e.g. the carbon calibration curves) to a "risky" check against new independently derived data.  That is an attempt to falsify your model.

It is different from "fitting" a model, and comparing the fit to an alternative model (e.g. the null model), which is what is done more commonly, and isn't usually an attempt at  falsification (or at most is an attempt to falsify the null).


This is typically a result of using statistical hypothesis checking though. Without a p value and a t value it doesn't make as much sense. There are some significant differences between what is possible in SPSS or Excel and what was possible in Popper's day.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 6,672

  • 984

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #34
That's just pathetic, Dave.
Really?  Why is that?

Because you just got done telling me that "real scientists" try to FALSIFY things, not VALIDATE them.

So please explain this to me.

Actually, I repeatedly told you that in practice, scientists usually do NOT try to FALSIFY "things" - well, they don't try to falsify their hypothesis, they generally try to falsify the null.  I've told you this a gazillion times. It's also in Cleland.  I pointed it out to you, IIRC.

Yet another falsification of the hypothesis that Hawkinsing works I guess.

What I said (again, several times) is that Popper's criterion remains an excellent demarcation tool: "could this hypothesis be falsified?"  - if yes, then it's science, if not, then it may be metaphysics or some other non-science.  But it is not, in practice, how science proceeds.

Yes, a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock would falsify most of our current evolutionary model.  But that doesn't mean that evolutionary scientists spend their working lives looking for pre-cambrian rabbit fossils.

However, oddly enough, you picked the one example of where scientists DO take Popper's approach - validation testing.  A validation test is a falsification test.  If the model survives falsification, we say it has been "valididated".  Doesn't mean it's true - it could still be falsified by new data.  But it has been validated, for now, by the falsification test.
No I think my "Hawkins" reading works pretty well.  Someone posted this quote from Popper and I read it and remembered it ...
Quote
Karl Popper (1924-1994) -- Argued that falsifiability is both the hallmark of scientific theories and the proper methodology for scientists to employ. He believed that scientists should always regard their theories with a skeptical eye, seeking every opportunity to try to falsify them.
But these Lake K folks are seeking to VALIDATE their theory, not FALSIFY it.
Jesus Christ you are an idiot.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 6,672

  • 984

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #35
OK when I get time to do a page scan
You mean you don't know? He mentioned tephra. That should help.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #36
OK ... "validation" = "attempt to falsify" ... I guess I'll buy that.

Usually, that is the case.  You subject your parameterised model (e.g. the carbon calibration curves) to a "risky" check against new independently derived data.  That is an attempt to falsify your model.

It is different from "fitting" a model, and comparing the fit to an alternative model (e.g. the null model), which is what is done more commonly, and isn't usually an attempt at  falsification (or at most is an attempt to falsify the null).


This is typically a result of using statistical hypothesis checking though. Without a p value and a t value it doesn't make as much sense. There are some significant differences between what is possible in SPSS or Excel and what was possible in Popper's day.

Can you explain what you mean?  Gosset, Fisher and Pearson developed their null hypothesis tests well before Popper wrote The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #37
That's just pathetic, Dave.
Really?  Why is that?

Because you just got done telling me that "real scientists" try to FALSIFY things, not VALIDATE them.

So please explain this to me.

Actually, I repeatedly told you that in practice, scientists usually do NOT try to FALSIFY "things" - well, they don't try to falsify their hypothesis, they generally try to falsify the null.  I've told you this a gazillion times. It's also in Cleland.  I pointed it out to you, IIRC.

Yet another falsification of the hypothesis that Hawkinsing works I guess.

What I said (again, several times) is that Popper's criterion remains an excellent demarcation tool: "could this hypothesis be falsified?"  - if yes, then it's science, if not, then it may be metaphysics or some other non-science.  But it is not, in practice, how science proceeds.

Yes, a rabbit fossil in precambrian rock would falsify most of our current evolutionary model.  But that doesn't mean that evolutionary scientists spend their working lives looking for pre-cambrian rabbit fossils.

However, oddly enough, you picked the one example of where scientists DO take Popper's approach - validation testing.  A validation test is a falsification test.  If the model survives falsification, we say it has been "valididated".  Doesn't mean it's true - it could still be falsified by new data.  But it has been validated, for now, by the falsification test.
Dave is confusing verification and validation.

Ah. That's possible.  Anyway, he seems to have accepted that validation, at least in the case of testing a parameterised model against new independent data is a form of falsification test.  Good for Dave.

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 2,833

  • 252

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #38
OK when I get time to do a page scan
Oh, Davie-dipshit, that's far too much work.

https://mega.nz/#F!uo5EXDaY!e0a8c0OblYA0I6oZFxEiMQ
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,048

  • 246

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #39

This precept of "Hawkins Reading" saves you time thus making your reading more efficient.

Which you've taken to the logical extreme by not reading science papers or people's replies to you at all.

Think of how efficient you could be if you stopped eating and drinking.  You should try it for a month.
No way, one month is not a fair trial. I think it should be multi-year.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,048

  • 246

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #40
OK when I get time to do a page scan

Why do you need a page scan?  Why not just explain why Oard's argument is a problem for Stanton's paper?

If you know, and you expected me to know by reading Oard's argument, why can't you do the same?
Second Law: One may escape intellectual responsibility on any issue merely by stating an intent to pursue it.
Are we there yet?

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 2,833

  • 252

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #41
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • 6,672

  • 984

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #42
OK ... "validation" = "attempt to falsify" ... I guess I'll buy that.

Usually, that is the case.  You subject your parameterised model (e.g. the carbon calibration curves) to a "risky" check against new independently derived data.  That is an attempt to falsify your model.

It is different from "fitting" a model, and comparing the fit to an alternative model (e.g. the null model), which is what is done more commonly, and isn't usually an attempt at  falsification (or at most is an attempt to falsify the null).


This is typically a result of using statistical hypothesis checking though. Without a p value and a t value it doesn't make as much sense. There are some significant differences between what is possible in SPSS or Excel and what was possible in Popper's day.

Can you explain what you mean?  Gosset, Fisher and Pearson developed their null hypothesis tests well before Popper wrote The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
I mean that typically the null is a statistical test.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #43
OK ... "validation" = "attempt to falsify" ... I guess I'll buy that.

Usually, that is the case.  You subject your parameterised model (e.g. the carbon calibration curves) to a "risky" check against new independently derived data.  That is an attempt to falsify your model.

It is different from "fitting" a model, and comparing the fit to an alternative model (e.g. the null model), which is what is done more commonly, and isn't usually an attempt at  falsification (or at most is an attempt to falsify the null).


This is typically a result of using statistical hypothesis checking though. Without a p value and a t value it doesn't make as much sense. There are some significant differences between what is possible in SPSS or Excel and what was possible in Popper's day.

Can you explain what you mean?  Gosset, Fisher and Pearson developed their null hypothesis tests well before Popper wrote The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
I mean that typically the null is a statistical test.

Should have mentioned Neyman too. The Neyman Pearson test came out in 1933. It preceded The Logic of Scientific Discovery by quite a bit.

  • 8,284

  • 46

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #44
I said I would do a screen capture, but instead, how about you just read page 131 at this link ... https://books.google.com/books?id=XoqS074d5dgC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=problems+with+varve+chronologies&source=bl&ots=KzHi3pDE9B&sig=7tfeyQcUS_CtKS4icUc9vPHcrSE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8yf_Sl6PRAhWrx4MKHf4yCRcQ6AEIQzAG#v=onepage&q=problems%20with%20varve%20chronologies&f=false

Oard says that diatom blooms can occur several times per year, especially if there is lots of blowing dust, such as there would have been in the Ice Age (Creationist Model). 

There are several pages of this chapter that do not appear in the preview so I think I'm going to purchase this book soon.  Then I can discuss this topic a little more intelligently.

  • 1,352

  • 198

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #45
Dave, why do the curves agree?
Why do I bother?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #46
I said I would do a screen capture, but instead, how about you just read page 131 at this link ... https://books.google.com/books?id=XoqS074d5dgC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=problems+with+varve+chronologies&source=bl&ots=KzHi3pDE9B&sig=7tfeyQcUS_CtKS4icUc9vPHcrSE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8yf_Sl6PRAhWrx4MKHf4yCRcQ6AEIQzAG#v=onepage&q=problems%20with%20varve%20chronologies&f=false

Oard says that diatom blooms can occur several times per year, especially if there is lots of blowing dust, such as there would have been in the Ice Age (Creationist Model). 



Dave, I asked you how this applied to Lake Kalksjon?

Lake Kalksjon varves, if you recall, are NOT the result of diatom blooms.  They are biogenic/clastic varves:
Quote from: Stanton et al
Kälksjön contains typical biogenic/clastic varves (Fig. 2) with
a distinctive light minerogenic springflood lamina, which grades
into a darker lamina composed of particulate organic material in
the summer, and a thin, fine-grained very dark organic lamina
that deposits beneath the ice in winter (Petterson, 1996). It is
sometimes possible to distinguish lighter-coloured laminae
between the summer and winter layers, which may be caused by
intense precipitation events. The spring layer contains the most
clastic material, while the winter layer contains the most organic
material. More detail on varve formation can be found in
O'Sullivan (1983)

They are formed because the Lake ices over in the winter (meaning that the organic debris falls to the bottom because the water between the ice is perfectly still) then the whole region thaws in spring (bringing lots of sediment via the spring floods as the snow melts).

Moreover not only are they still being formed, but the authors actually checked the dates on recent varves against known "liming" events - the lime traces were in the layers they should be, given the known dates of the liming.

I can't see a single one of Oard's objections that applies to Lake Kälksjön.  That's why I asked you.

Quote
There are several pages of this chapter that do not appear in the preview so I think I'm going to purchase this book soon.  Then I can discuss this topic a little more intelligently.

Yet you scoffed at me for (as you thought) not reading it.  Somehow, you thought that the amount that is readable should have been enough to tell us that "Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers".  Then it turned out you couldn't remember what it said.  Now you think you need to read more before you can present the argument.

Don't you think you rather jumped the gun with your thread title?
  • Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 05:27:51 AM by Pingu

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 2,833

  • 252

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #47
I said I would do a screen capture, but instead, how about you just read page 131 at this link ... https://books.google.com/books?id=XoqS074d5dgC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=problems+with+varve+chronologies&source=bl&ots=KzHi3pDE9B&sig=7tfeyQcUS_CtKS4icUc9vPHcrSE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8yf_Sl6PRAhWrx4MKHf4yCRcQ6AEIQzAG#v=onepage&q=problems%20with%20varve%20chronologies&f=false
Hey, shit-for-brains, I did screen captures for you and posted the link.  Twice. Hawkinsing never works.  Here's the third time: https://mega.nz/#F!uo5EXDaY!e0a8c0OblYA0I6oZFxEiMQ .

Quote
Oard says that diatom blooms can occur several times per year, especially if there is lots of blowing dust, such as there would have been in the Ice Age (Creationist Model).
Pingu's already dealt with this moronic claim, but I have to add:  How did dust affect lake K when lake K was covered by ice year-round in the Ice Age?

"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,048

  • 246

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #48
I said I would do a screen capture, but instead, how about you just read page 131 at this link ... https://books.google.com/books?id=XoqS074d5dgC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=problems+with+varve+chronologies&source=bl&ots=KzHi3pDE9B&sig=7tfeyQcUS_CtKS4icUc9vPHcrSE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8yf_Sl6PRAhWrx4MKHf4yCRcQ6AEIQzAG#v=onepage&q=problems%20with%20varve%20chronologies&f=false

Oard says that diatom blooms can occur several times per year, especially if there is lots of blowing dust, such as there would have been in the Ice Age (Creationist Model). 



Dave, I asked you how this applied to Lake Kalksjon?

Lake Kalksjon varves, if you recall, are NOT the result of diatom blooms.  They are biogenic/clastic varves:
Quote from: Stanton et al
Kälksjön contains typical biogenic/clastic varves (Fig. 2) with
a distinctive light minerogenic springflood lamina, which grades
into a darker lamina composed of particulate organic material in
the summer, and a thin, fine-grained very dark organic lamina
that deposits beneath the ice in winter (Petterson, 1996). It is
sometimes possible to distinguish lighter-coloured laminae
between the summer and winter layers, which may be caused by
intense precipitation events. The spring layer contains the most
clastic material, while the winter layer contains the most organic
material. More detail on varve formation can be found in
O'Sullivan (1983)

They are formed because the Lake ices over in the winter (meaning that the organic debris falls to the bottom because the water between the ice is perfectly still) then the whole region thaws in spring (bringing lots of sediment via the spring floods as the snow melts).

Moreover not only are they still being formed, but the authors actually checked the dates on recent varves against known "liming" events - the lime traces were in the layers they should be, given the known dates of the liming.

I can't see a single one of Oard's objections that applies to Lake Kälksjön.  That's why I asked you.

Quote
There are several pages of this chapter that do not appear in the preview so I think I'm going to purchase this book soon.  Then I can discuss this topic a little more intelligently.

Yet you scoffed at me for (as you thought) not reading it.  Somehow, you thought that the amount that is readable should have been enough to tell us that "Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers".  Then it turned out you couldn't remember what it said.  Now you think you need to read more before you can present the argument.

Don't you think you rather jumped the gun with your thread title?
Jumping the gun is another of the unique techniques Bluffy uses to shoot himself in the foot, well, where his feet would be if he had any left. Nowadays, it's mostly buckshot up the ass. While it is not known exactly how Bluffy came up with this technique, but it is quite certain it was a response to having shot off the hand that was doing the shooting, a rather impressive feat for which he awarded himself The Hawkinz Prize.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #49
The problem for YEC presented by Lake Kalksjon, Dave, is

  • that the actual mechanism of formation is known-to-be annual process (i.e. winter freezing followed by summer thaw)
  • they are still being formed annually
  • they can be confirmed to be being formed annually because in the layers corresponding to recent years in which liming is known to have occurred, there is lime
  • Several different ways of estimating dates of the layers check out (palaeomagnetic measures; lead pollution; tephra) i.e many cross-checks validate the annual nature of the layers
  • The radiocarbon dates also check out, throughout the sequence
  • YECs claim that radiocarbon dates up to 3000 years BP are good, and these layers are confirmed to be annual even by a method accepted by YECs
  • there are 9,000 of these layers
  • there is no apparent change in the kind of layers below 3,000, i.e. nothing to suggest that a radically different mechanism was responsible for layers below 3,000


There are some small anomalies noted in the paper, that you might be interested in reading. In fact, the main topic and interest of the paper for scientists is the anomalies, so they are all investigated extremely carefully.  In any case, they do not not affect the clear finding that varve count and radio carbon-dates match up throughout the 9,000 layers.

Given the acceptance by YECs of radiocarbon dates up to 3000 years BP, and the lack of any evidence of any discontinuity between the top 3000 layers and the bottom 6,000 layers, nor any trace of a Global Flood at any layer, Lake Kalksjon alone pretty well falsifies both the Global Flood hypothesis and Archbishop Ussher's chronology.