Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: the handful of atheists you can just about tolerate

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 - Testy Calibrate

1
Mafia / Re: Witches Day 1
Hey all. I'm in the Dublin airport getting ready to go on a ten hour flight so I'm not going to be around today.
2
I think an opposition to free trade is an issue where maybe the majority is wrong. How can we compete on manufacturing, when China is losing jobs to Vietnam when it comes to manufacturing basic plastics and the like? Trying to force it, just increases consumer prices, and hurts those people in Vietnam making cheap plastic (etc.) goods. Even if we try to force it, how are our goods supposed to compete in an international market without fucking our workers? We need to adapt, and unionize the various service industries, or pass labor-favorable laws. And also stay at the head of the curve when it comes to innovation and capability to develop and manufacture the latest tech.
I don't think it's accurate to think of it as an opposition. What it is is more a reaction to tbe race to the bottom in wages.
3
What for? He never used it.
He didn't need to. Just its prodigious size cleared the streets of challengers.
4
1) The Shasta ground sloth has a living relative that is probably much more similar than ... well ... a chicken and a T rex ... that would be ... [drum roll] ... a SLOTH
What makes you think they are more similar than ... well ... a chicken and a T rex?
Because when Adam named all the animals, he used the same word, "sloth", for both of them.  Therefore they are very similar.  (Adam, of course, spoke American English.)
And, until Jesus, had the largest recorded penis size of a human male.
5
This is another Portuguese moment, isn't it? It wouldn't matter if Long and Martin themselves personally explained to Dave why he was wrong. He'd come away saying they agreed with him.

1)  I won the Portuguese debate.
2)  Long and Martin did good spade work here. It's you guys that have the problem.
Heh. I notice you never asked me to pay up.
6
Look.
Hawkins.
At the start of this thread you claimed it was your goal to "understand" Brown's model. MikeS and I and others have spelled out, in mathematical detail, what that model entails.

But you have studiously avoided every one of those posts. Your "contribution" to the discussion has been ENTIRELY restricted to (not very credible) expressions of incredulity about the published work of actual scientists. Punctuated by lots of bluster bravado and stupid insults.

Whom do you think you are fooling?

An imaginary audience of lurkers?
Having once encountered an audience of lurkers regarding a Dave topic,  I suspect that isn't going to be a big issue.
7
Did the sloths just hold in their poop while a migratory herd of rats came into the cave and shat a strata?
Sorry Dave, open and shut argument against continuous habitation. :smug:
I confess, that is a sentence I never expected to read.
8
I love how Testy catches up every few days and reposts all the posts he deems important ... can you imagine what a mess this thread would be if everyone did that?  Testy, since you asked "did you read this?" about several posts, let me save you some effort.  There are now very few people whose posts I read although I don't have anyone on official ignore at the moment.  I almost never read Faid's or JonF's posts ... and rarely Osmanthus ... I do read Pingu's mostly unless I can see by reading the first paragraph that it's just going to be another long winded Plexus sales pitch.  Voxrat's posts have been pretty interesting lately so I read his.  And a few others who tend to be more restrained and post only when they have something useful or funny to say.  And of course I'm reading Mike's posts in detail.
In that case. you are hardly in a position to complain to others about not seeing the points they have made a dozen times. Right?

I do find one thing interesting though: You seem to think that Testy's post, which brings to your attention all the posts that specifically addressed your demands, is somewhat redundant, and such posts would just clutter up the thread.

And yet, you choose that very post to respond to, and only to tell Testy why you (supposedly) don't read other people's posts. All those other posts, the very same posts Testy brought to your attention for specifically addressing your demands, continue to remain invisible.

Your other inconsitencies aside (how do you know if posters "have something useful or funny to say" unless you read them in the first place? How did yiu repeatedly miss VoxRat's reference about pollen sampling, if you supposedly read his interesting posts? etc), the above alone demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith.

Which (on my part) makes your careful avoidance of my posts, a badge of honor.

*bows*
It's a red letter day apparently
9
Detective Dave and Detective TR on the Case (a play)

Detective TR: Well, Detective Dave, looks like an open-and-shut case. The body's riddled with bullet holes. This man was clearly shot to death.
Detective Dave: I think you're ignoring the elephant in the room.
TR: What elephant?
Dave: The OVERWHELMING evidence that he was telekinetically stabbed to death.
TR: What evidence is that?
Dave: Ha! Aren't you supposed to be the best detective on the force? And you don't even know about the OVERWHELMING evidence that this man was telekinetically stabbed to death?
TR: Well, what is it?
Dave: Um...well...I'll get around to telling you at some point. If I feel like it.
TR: Do you want to solve the case or not?
Dave: Okay, fine. The OVERWHELMING evidence that this man was telekinetically stabbed to death consists of two points: 1) Lotsapeople have told me he was telekinetically stabbed to death. 2) He's riddled with billionsofwounds.
TR: Um, okay, but those wounds are clearly bullet holes.
Dave: Why are you ignoring the elephant in the room? There is OVERWHELMING evidence that he was telekinetically stabbed to death.
TR: Didn't we just deal with that? The billionsofwounds are clearly bullet holes, so the lotsapeople who told you he was stabbed are clearly full of shit.
Dave: Well, they may look like bullet holes, but that's only because you're ignoring the elephant in the room, the OVERWHELMING evidence that he was telekinetically stabbed to death. Clearly, he must have been telekinetically stabbed by something that leaves wounds that look like bullet holes.
TR: What about all these bullets and shells everywhere?
Dave: More research is clearly needed on this. Hard-working telekinetic stabbing scientists are out there this very minute doing important research, while stupid/lazy/corrupt detectives like you ignore the big picture/details and just write that he was shot in your report to get invited to those fancy detective parties.
TR: :facepalm:

LATER...

The bullets are matched to a gun with prints. The prints are matched to a known criminal.

Dave: Elephant in the room! More research!

10 YEARS LATER...

The criminal has confessed and is doing life in prison. Details of the case are being taught in police academies around the world.

Dave: How dare they poison the minds of future detectives with this shooting nonsense? More research into telekinetic stabbing science is clearly needed! I'll get around to it one of these days...
This is a work of art. It's a perfect analogy.
10
Seems like Alice in Wonderland to me no matter how you slice it.
Dave, why do you make posts like this? You know we could just as easily say that your beliefs sound like Alice in Wonderland, right? Do you think it's a compelling argument when we say it? If not, then why do you think it's a compelling argument when you say it?

Since I know you won't think about this enough to answer it, I'll answer it for you. It's because you know that it's actually more of a compelling argument against your beliefs than it is against ours. After all, you believe in talking snakes. Why would talking rabbits be any more of a problem for you? Alice in Wonderland is entirely compatible with your beliefs. So you know that if we were to say it, it actually would be a valid criticism. So you try to cut us off at the pass by saying it about us first.

I'm guessing you didn't even know that was why you were doing it, so you're welcome for the free insight.
My talk about Alice in Wonderland is an attempt to shake you out of your slumber.  To try to make some of you wake up and realize just how ridiculous your position is on various topics. And yes, I know that you could say that about my beliefs wrt talking snakes and such, but you have no room to say it about THIS specific topic.

Good God you are an idiot Dave
11
I love how Testy catches up every few days and reposts all the posts he deems important ... can you imagine what a mess this thread would be if everyone did that?  Testy, since you asked "did you read this?" about several posts, let me save you some effort.  There are now very few people whose posts I read although I don't have anyone on official ignore at the moment.  I almost never read Faid's or JonF's posts ... and rarely Osmanthus ... I do read Pingu's mostly unless I can see by reading the first paragraph that it's just going to be another long winded Plexus sales pitch.  Voxrat's posts have been pretty interesting lately so I read his.  And a few others who tend to be more restrained and post only when they have something useful or funny to say.  And of course I'm reading Mike's posts in detail.
That's one of the reasons you are an idiot.
12
Introductions / Re: Heinz is Back
Hi Heinz! I love feeling threatened by ideas. Let's be friends.
13
Yeah Mike, I saw your posts ... I wanna put this sloth poo thing to bed first, then I'll look at it.

So 110 cu m of sloth poo in Unit A?  And if there are 1000 poo balls in a cu m then that's 110,000 poo balls in Unit A.  But my 10 poo balls per week could be off by a factor of 10 as well ... after all, Osman says they shit 1/3 of their body weight.  How many balls is that? 100?  100 poo balls is only 1/10th of a cu m.  Who knows ... might be about right.

If so, then we've got 5000 poo balls per year so that has to happen about 20 times over the 2000 years.

Seems like Alice in Wonderland to me no matter how you slice it.


Still "ignoring" the evidence for periodic habitation, I see. Even though you had finally aknowledged it (and demanded to see where it was in the article).
Do you have ANY excuse other than dishonesty, at this point?
Raging stupidity
14
Yeah Mike, I saw your posts ... I wanna put this sloth poo thing to bed first, then I'll look at it.

So 110 cu m of sloth poo in Unit A?  And if there are 1000 poo balls in a cu m then that's 110,000 poo balls in Unit A.  But my 10 poo balls per week could be off by a factor of 10 as well ... after all, Osman says they shit 1/3 of their body weight.  How many balls is that? 100?  100 poo balls is only 1/10th of a cu m.  Who knows ... might be about right.

If so, then we've got 5000 poo balls per year so that has to happen about 20 times over the 2000 years.

Seems like Alice in Wonderland to me no matter how you slice it.


Of course it seems that way to you. You have to defend your assumptions by being an idiot.
15
I suppose I'm "scared shitless" to investigate Islam too ... or Mormonism ... maybe they are RIGHT!  OMG!!
Lol. God you are an idiot Dave.
16
That's all you people have isn't it?  Vague hand waving and insults. 

Pathetic.
the objections to your list of "facts""calculations" and "informed speculation" have been spelled out, repeatedly, with detailed support.  Nothing "hand-waving" about it.

You simply ignored them, and repeat your list of "facts""calculations" and "informed speculation".

So, yeah. At this point, the "insults" - (AKA accurate assessments) are all that needs to be added.
Oh yeah?  Give me a summary then.  I bet you can't.

Itt, Dave applies all his rules in an attempt to avoid comparing Browns c14 curves with anything.

Done. :D
He's very transparent
17
Maybe Sloth #1 spends 1 year at the cave ... 500 poop balls.

Then 100 years later, Sloth #2 spends 1 year at the cave ... 500 more poop balls.

Then 100 years later ....

Etc

Etc

Rinse and repeat 20X

Get the picture?

Is THIS close to what you believe happened?
You are an idiot
18
"Read the fucking thread"

 Yeah that's what I thought.

 Anyone that really knows their subject material well has no problem writing a nice concise summary  from memory.

 Your problem is that either you don't know the subject matter well enough, or perhaps you do and are too embarrassed to post an honest summary.
Here.
Suck on this.

Quote
1) Using data from the Long paper, we can estimate that there may be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2600 dung balls in Unit A
No. "We" don't. Long & Martin describe the depth of Unit A as 61 cm. They estimate the area at 180 m2. 180 m2 X 0.061 = 10.8 m3, about 10,800 of your "poop ball units".
Quote
2) The Long paper assigns 2000 years to the period of time of deposition of this unit, based on carbon 14
3) These figures yield a dung deposition rate of 1.3 dung balls per year on average for this supposed 2000 year period
Make that 5.4
Quote
4) There is no pollen reported in Unit A but there is a notable change in vegetation - more succulents in the lower part
You have had your nose rubbed, repeatedly, in the fact that the study that reported the pollen observations sampled the entire dung heap was sampled at 6-inch intervals. That includes Unit A
Quote
5) Modern sloths - closest living relative of the Shasta ground sloth - are known to defecate once a week or so in the same spot.
First: "Modern sloths" are 6 different species, some of which are NOT the "closest living relative of the Shasta ground sloth". (Remember? "So there. Nyah" ?)  This factoid that you rely so heavily on is from a wikipedia article. Source? A David Attenborough TV documentary. Do you have any idea which species Attenborough was describing? Do you assume that he was describing ALL species?
Second - and much more important - it's ridiculous to assume that ANY living species of sloth tells you ANYTHING about specific behaviors of the Shasta ground sloth. Any more than penguins or hummingbirds tells you anything about the specific habits of T. rex, and for exactly the same reason.
Quote
This suggests that perhaps the Shasta sloth had similar defecation habits, voiding once a week in the same spot - in this case inside Rampart Cave
No. It doesn't "suggest" anything of the sort.
Quote
6) The Shasta ground sloth lived in groups - duh - how else would they reproduce?
All (living)  sloths are known to live solitary lives. They get together to copulate. That's it.
Quote
7) Long et al state that Unit A is fresh looking and odoriferous making it hard to believe it's 10ky old (yeah no shit)
Really, this is ALL you have. Not very quantitative.

Quote
These are the facts at our disposal.
No. They are not. See above.

Quote
Now for some calculations and some informed speculation ...
::)

Quote
Let's take the smallest likely group ... 2 adults and 1 juvenile ...
Nope. See above. Modern sloths are solitary. In fact, very few mammals of ANY sort live in "mom, dad and the kids" units. It's almost ALWAYS the "single mom" plan.

Quote
if they are all defecating in the cave once a week and each "session" involves 10 dung balls, then that's 30 x 50 (round numbers) = 1500 dung balls per year.   
Nope. Your "group size" is complete bullshit, your assumption that they inhabit the cave year-round is complete bullshit, and your assumption that they do all their shitting in the cave is complete bullshit. Other than that...

Quote
In only 2 years, you've exceeded 2600.
No. You haven't. See above.
Quote
What about the other 1998 years?
Well, let's look at the Brown/Hawkins "theory". You've got sloths depositing poop over a 250 years span - from pretty much the day after  "The Flood"  to their extinction, 250 years later. Less than ten years right after "The Flood" (Unit C) then ~ 80 years immediately preceding their extinction. What about the other 160 years?

Quote
Now we can play with Alice in Wonderland if we like ... 
Or talking snakes, or jet-skiing continents, or your preposterous scenario where the Grand Canyon is carved in mud, and the mud walls don't just slump in to fill the hole, or the one progenitor pair of all sloth-kind traveling half-way around the world and winding up at this specific mud-cave within a year of "The Flood"...

Quote
So you see the problem?
:sadyes:

Quote
The problem for your side is that you have to invoke unreasonable scenarios - not based on any facts listed above - this is known as special pleading - in order to get your 2000 year time frame to work.
:rofl:
:rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

:no:



Quote
Bottom line?  Your time scale is batshit insane.  Doesn't work. 
Bullshit. See above.

Quote
Brown's makes far more sense.
It makes no sense at all. See above.

Quote
AND Brown's doesn't ignore the elephant in the room of the Global Flood.
This moronic, completely baseless, bit of bravado -sloganeering just makes you look dumber and dumber every time you trot it out. If you were capable of a moment's self-reflection you would retire it. But you aren't, so you won't.

ETA: oops... ninja'd by Faid.
Suck on BOTH these posts then, Hawkins.
Another. Boy, Dave,  this is embarrassing for you.
19
Oh yeah?  Give me a summary then.  I bet you can't.
That's all you people have isn't it?  Vague hand waving and insults. 

Pathetic.
the objections to your list of "facts""calculations" and "informed speculation" have been spelled out, repeatedly, with detailed support.  Nothing "hand-waving" about it.

You simply ignored them, and repeat your list of "facts""calculations" and "informed speculation".

So, yeah. At this point, the "insults" - (AKA accurate assessments) are all that needs to be added.
Oh yeah?  Give me a summary then.  I bet you can't.
  • Since we know the use of the cave was episodic and we do not have the data needed to find out when and for how long the cave was used or not used, there is no way to estimate the age of any portion of the dung other than carbon dating.
  • Given the above, the sloth poop cannot be used to evaluate the carbon dating.
  • Given the above, there is no reason to investigate the sloth poop to evaluate Brown's "model".
  • There is no data available on the number of "poop balls".  Brown falsified data, a career-ending offense in real acadamia.
  • Unfounded speculation such as yours about how sloths may have pooped are pointless because we don't know their pooping habits or when and for how long they pooped in the cave. Modern living relatives are far too different to tell us anything useful.
  • Many other datasets, especially the radiocarbon calibration curves, give us a way to evaluate the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by comparing it to independent and valid age measurements.
  • Brown's "model" ignores critical elements and is therefore useless twaddle.

Run away! Run away, scared little bunny!


Hmm. And another.
20
Let's summarize what I believe to be the important facts concerning Unit A of sloth dung in Rampart Cave ...
Oh this should be good.

Quote
1) Using data from the Long paper, we can estimate that there may be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2600 dung balls in Unit A
No. "Using data from the Long paper" we can determine the exact amount of dung in m^3, working backwards from their derived average annual rate.

You STILL haven't read the paper. Unbelievable.
Quote
2) The Long paper assigns 2000 years to the period of time of deposition of this unit, based on carbon 14
More or less. Could be less, depending on the error margins, but it doesn't matter.
Quote
3) These figures yield a dung deposition rate of 1.3 dung balls per year on average for this supposed 2000 year period
NO. They do NOT.

That is only an AVERAGE deposition rate (and we HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBER for that, again, READ THE PAPER) but that does not mean that is the actual rate of deposition that occured. And that is because of PERIODIC HABITATION.
Quote
4) There is no pollen reported in Unit A but there is a notable change in vegetation - more succulents in the lower part
BULL.

FUCKING.

SHIT.

Voxrat got the reference for you. THE ENTIRE DEPOSIT WAS SAMPLED FOR POLLEN, starting from the surface and down to the bottom with 6-inch intervals.

Are you blind, an idiot, dishonest, or all the above?
Quote
5) Modern sloths - closest living relative of the Shasta ground sloth - are known to defecate once a week or so in the same spot.
They are also known to be tree-dwellers, rarely leaving the trees. So? 
Quote
This suggests that perhaps the Shasta sloth had similar defecation habits, voiding once a week in the same spot - in this case inside Rampart Cave
Again, bullshit. This is as stupid as claiming that, since orangutans spend a lot of time on trees, then Gigantopithecus spent a lot of time on trees.

It's just wishful thinking on your part, with no actuall support. IOW, a "just-so story".
Quote
6) The Shasta ground sloth lived in groups - duh - how else would they reproduce?
:facepalm:
How do LIVING solitary animals reproduce, dave? Parthenogenesis? Cloning? ETA: Helll, modern sloths are solitary as well! How do THEY reproduce?
Quote
7) Long et al state that Unit A is fresh looking and odoriferous making it hard to believe it's 10ky old (yeah no shit)
But 5ky old is just fine, right? After how many millenia, exactly, does sloth dung pass the threshold of looking fresh?
Quote
These are the facts at our disposal.
Except, you know, the ACTUAL pollen evidence that you keep ignoring, the layers between units A and C that essentially demonstrate that sloth habitation can be interrupted for a LONG time, And, last but not least, the actual radiocarbon dating results.

Quote
Now for some calculations and some informed speculation ...
Making shit up is not 'informed speculation". Use the ACTUAL RATE offerend by the authors, then get back to us.


Quote
Now we can play with Alice in Wonderland if we like ...  by imagining weird things like maybe only mama sloth used the cave, not daddy and junior, and maybe she only used it for one week per year giving birth so that's only 10 dung balls per year ... but still that only gets us 260 years.  What about the other 1740 years?
Just to show you how out-of-whack your made up numbers are: The ACTUAL average annual deposition rate for Unit A is stated by the authors, and it amounts to the overall deposition of one adult sloth for a week.

(Which, again, you would know yourself, IF you had read the article).

So, If one sloth used the cave for about a week each year giving birth (and that is a generous amount of time), that is the rate we would have even if that had happened continuously for the duration of deposition in Unit A.
So much for "Alice in Wonderland". And of course, we have no reason to assume the use of the cave WAS continuous, even for Unit A- as the evidence of long breaks in habitation shows for the whole layer.

Quote
So you see the problem?
Do YOU? Try reading my points above carefully.

Quote
The problem for your side is that you have to invoke unreasonable scenarios - not based on any facts listed above - this is known as special pleading - in order to get your 2000 year time frame to work.
Not enough ironicats. tell me again how your sloth pair got to the cave to deposit Unit C, a few years after the flood? :rofl:

Quote
Bottom line?  Your time scale is batshit insane.  Doesn't work. 

Brown's makes far more sense.
Then why does he have to lie and distort the ACTUAL DATA to present it?

Quote
AND Brown's doesn't ignore the elephant in the room of the Global Flood.
BUahahahahahaha!

"Ignore"? Brown is desperately trying to shove that elephant IN the room, through the front door. It's really pathetic to watch.

So, this is all the further I am at the moment. I wonder if Dave acknowledged this post?
21
That's all you people have isn't it?  Vague hand waving and insults. 

Pathetic.
the objections to your list of "facts""calculations" and "informed speculation" have been spelled out, repeatedly, with detailed support.  Nothing "hand-waving" about it.

You simply ignored them, and repeat your list of "facts""calculations" and "informed speculation".

So, yeah. At this point, the "insults" - (AKA accurate assessments) are all that needs to be added.
Oh yeah?  Give me a summary then.  I bet you can't.
How much do you want to bet?
22
With ancient history, all you have to go on is pretty scanty evidence ... but it's better than nothing ... and if we look honestly at ALL the evidence, it fits my model better than yours.  Much better.
the radiocarbon calibration data doesn't

:hug:
23
With ancient history, all you have to go on is pretty scanty evidence ... but it's better than nothing ... and if we look honestly at ALL the evidence, it fits my model better than yours.  Much better.
No it doesn't.
24
That's all you people have isn't it?  Vague hand waving and insults. 

Pathetic.
You are an idiot of more than average caliber.
25
Charter schools are mostly worse options but I guess it depends which one.