Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: The best at being a message board.

Topic: RH Brown and Carbon 14 (Read 13979 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Faid
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3275
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.
I'm pretty sure that you're just trolling at this point, but tell me: Is there ANY reason to think that, other than "If they don't that means I'm wrong about the age of the Earth, and that can't be because billionzodedthins and fluddelegenz"?

Is there ANY other reason for you to think that all those scientists (and specifically those in the 'life sciences', you don't seem to accuse those in other fields), are crooks and frauds and liars?

Quote
Also, there's c14 in coal and diamonds. Why is that?
You know, that' actually a good question. You should think about it.

If scientists discard data they don't like, and 'c14 in coal and diamonds' is (supposedly) data they don't like, why don't they discard that as well? How do we even KNOW about 'c14 in coal and diamonds'?

There you go, some much-needed exercise for your analytic skills.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3276
Going to chime in here as well, because this is just SO pathetic, and also outrageous:

I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

No.  You are not "pretty sure" of this.  You NEED IT TO BE TRUE in order to preserve your preferred narrative from the clear import of those data.  Remember the Tard Graph?  Those data points you invented, and saying, oh, it might be like this?  Well, Dave EVEN IF those totally fabricatedTM samples DID exist, it STILL wouldn't have made the point you are trying to make.  The POINT is that the curves MATCH.  They AGREE.  They LINE UP.  If that lining up was an artefact of throwing out "bad dates" then there would have to be an equal density of random dates ALL OVER THE PLOT AREA, and the labs would have had to have carefully picked out ALL THOSE that did not fall on the line.

Is that what you are alleging?  Seriously?

Yes, there will be "bad dates" for some samples. In my field we often plot one thing against another, and we get a nice function - except for a couple of weird points that are a long way from the line.  These are called "outliers".  When we find an "outlier", we do NOT ignore them, or throw them out.  We have to investigate what was going on with those data points.  We check the log book. We check our measuring instruments.  We try to find out why a rule that applied to 99% of our samples did not apply to this particular sample.

In the case of radiocarbon dating, there may be a range of reasons why this should be so, just as there is in my field.  High tech measurement is quite tricky, and maximising signal-to-noise is often technically challenging.  You need to identify potential sources of that noise.  And, once you have identified a source of noise that is differentially affecting a particular sample, then you don't "throw it out" - you report it.  You don't plot it of course - because you have identified an extraneous factor affecting its value that means that it is Not Like The Others.

But this is actually irrelevant to your calumnious certainty that "labs are throwing out 'bad' dates".  To get those closely matched curving lines under your insulting hypothesis, as I said, you'd have to postulate that scientists were throwing out 99.9999% of their data. 


Also, there's c14 in coal and diamonds. Why is that?

Probably contamination by modern C14 or background.

Dave - there are lots of reasons why an old sample might have modern C14.  The point is that we get radiocarbon samples that have virtually no C14. 

RH Brown attempted a hypothesis that would be consistent with YEC.  Unfortunately for him, that hypothesis is testable, and it turns out that he is wrong.

And you are too scared even to think about it.
  • Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 01:53:20 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3277
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

You fucking asshole, you know no such thing. You'll say any fucking thing, you'll believe any conspiracy theory shit, you will besmirch the reputation of anyone and everyone who doessn't deserve it, just to rescue your fucking childish myth because you are too much of a coward to look at the data objectively.

Do you even remember your gargantuan faceplant with the TARD graph?  No, I expect in your historical revisionist, bizarro narcissistic world, you were the hero of that tale too. Pathetic.

Grow up, and stop being an abysmal, lying, fearful fraud.

Quote
Also, there's c14 in coal and diamonds. Why is that?

That goddamn PRATT again? Pay the fuck attention numbnuts, it's been explained to you lots of times already. It is not our fault that you have a dedicated, vested interest in remaining militantly ignorant. FFS.


to be fair, he doesn't understand what plot graphs are showing.

Except that he doesn't understand what plot graphs are showing because he knows full well that his YEC confidence depends on not understanding.

He may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer, but he's sharp enough to know when understanding something might force him to accept the unacceptable.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3278
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

You fucking asshole, you know no such thing. You'll say any fucking thing, you'll believe any conspiracy theory shit, you will besmirch the reputation of anyone and everyone who doessn't deserve it, just to rescue your fucking childish myth because you are too much of a coward to look at the data objectively.

Do you even remember your gargantuan faceplant with the TARD graph?  No, I expect in your historical revisionist, bizarro narcissistic world, you were the hero of that tale too. Pathetic.

Grow up, and stop being an abysmal, lying, fearful fraud.

Quote
Also, there's c14 in coal and diamonds. Why is that?

That goddamn PRATT again? Pay the fuck attention numbnuts, it's been explained to you lots of times already. It is not our fault that you have a dedicated, vested interest in remaining militantly ignorant. FFS.


to be fair, he doesn't understand what plot graphs are showing.

Except that he doesn't understand what plot graphs are showing because he knows full well that his YEC confidence depends on not understanding.

He may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer, but he's sharp enough to know when understanding something might force him to accept the unacceptable.
Well, the reason he doesn't understand them may well be that they don't look like he thinks they ought to look, but still, Morton's Demon is among the most powerful thought controlling functions ever encountered. My own hypothesis is that it's strength is inversely correlated to an individual's inability to process shame.
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
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3279
Processing shame is certainly an issue.  A friend of mine once said that embarassment was the most powerful human emotion, and the cause of the most trouble, including wars.  I think I agree.

And while I'm generally a gender-differences skeptic, I do think it's something that women, whether biologically or socially, end up dealing with better on the whole.  We absorb early on the social incentives to back down and make our proposals tentative, contingent and provisional.  So we tend to develop reasonably effective narratives for processing being wrong, or having our ideas rejected or ignored.   We also learn to get a kick out of seeing our ideas implemented, even when someone else takes credit. In fact, we often end up using it as a strategy to get things done.  We say things like "As Tom/Dick/Harry said, it would probably be a good idea if..." to get buy-in from Tom/Dick/Harry. 

Manipulative bitches ftw

But then we also tend to blame ourselves for the embarassing stuff that happens to us.  Which is why we end up with Harvey Weinsteins and Donald Trumps in positions of great power.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3280
Processing shame is certainly an issue.  A friend of mine once said that embarassment was the most powerful human emotion, and the cause of the most trouble, including wars.  I think I agree.

And while I'm generally a gender-differences skeptic, I do think it's something that women, whether biologically or socially, end up dealing with better on the whole.  We absorb early on the social incentives to back down and make our proposals tentative, contingent and provisional.  So we tend to develop reasonably effective narratives for processing being wrong, or having our ideas rejected or ignored.   We also learn to get a kick out of seeing our ideas implemented, even when someone else takes credit. In fact, we often end up using it as a strategy to get things done.  We say things like "As Tom/Dick/Harry said, it would probably be a good idea if..." to get buy-in from Tom/Dick/Harry. 

Manipulative bitches ftw

But then we also tend to blame ourselves for the embarassing stuff that happens to us.  Which is why we end up with Harvey Weinsteins and Donald Trumps in positions of great power.
Well, there's difficulty processing shame and there is a point where it seems to cease being actually possible. It has to do with the way the self gets created in an environment with unhealthy levels of blame and Sandy Hotchkiss thinks it's a defense mechanism that can't be undone once it's been sprung.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Always-About-You-Narcissism/dp/0743214285

Fascinating book. It may be pop Psy but it offered me a lot of perspective that I still keep in my ready to use tool box.
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

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3281
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

Also, there's c14 in coal and diamonds. Why is that?
Off topic. But I'll answer:

For the reasons that have been explained over and over and over and over again, including this thread.

http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,1511.msg119853.html#msg119853

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

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3282
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.


Mike is still active.  Why did you run from this?  
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3283
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.


Mike is still active.  Why did you run from this? 
:haha:  :haha:  :haha:  :haha:  :haha:  :haha:  :haha:

 :sad:

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3284
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

No.  You are not "pretty sure" of this.  You NEED IT TO BE TRUE in order to preserve your preferred narrative from the clear import of those data. 
That's the sad thing about HawkinsWorld.
There is no difference.
If he needs it to be true, that MAKES him pretty sure of it.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3285
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

No.  You are not "pretty sure" of this.  You NEED IT TO BE TRUE in order to preserve your preferred narrative from the clear import of those data. 
That's the sad thing about HawkinsWorld.
There is no difference.
If he needs it to be true, that MAKES him pretty sure of it.

 :sadyes:
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3286
Well, Dave has has a comfort point, and when he passes it, he reboots.
What's interesting is that though Pingu has taken him to the edge, further than he was able to go than in the past, he still ran.
He accused the science based community of dishonesty, and still ran. 
I don't think Dave can change.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3287
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

Quote
One key thing about true science is that it elevates observation over speculation.  Now with the case of my goats, who are the observers? And who are the speculators?  Well the observers are me, my 20 something assistant that helps me out once a week, my neighbors who bring their grandkids out to play with my animals, and a few Facebook friends.  And the speculators are you guys.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3288
It's like Dave has no irony, hypocrisy, or self-awareness detector.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3289
Irony would kill him.
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

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3290
Irony would kill him.
If he was forced to see himself from others perspective, it might destroy his ego.  People with NPD don't apparently see their own scummyness.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3291
Dave has 'lost interest' in this topic. kthxbai
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Peez
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3292
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

No.  You are not "pretty sure" of this.  You NEED IT TO BE TRUE in order to preserve your preferred narrative from the clear import of those data. 
That's the sad thing about HawkinsWorld.
There is no difference.
If he needs it to be true, that MAKES him pretty sure of it.

 :sadyes:
:sadyes:

Peez

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3293
Dave,  have you really lost interest in this topic?
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

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3294
Dave, like his projection clearly indicates, MUST ignore data to keep believing in a Young Earth.  He tries to pass it off on others (working scientists, objective measures, etc.), but even he knows he's got nothing, and so badgering from the thread is his only option.

He's said things like "they are ignoring data they don't like", when in fact he has absolutely no evidence for this, and would rather propagate a lie than grow up and face the consequences of those objective measurements and correlations.