Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: if anyone on this site uses comic sans i will fucking murder them, is that perfectly clear, jb?

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 - VoxRat

1
I get 53,000,000 Gt.  Can that be  right? Seems way too high.
I think this is right.  New reservoir diagrams coming soon  based on this.
:facepalm:

So you realize Brown's model is going down in flames, so you thought you'd create a new one, with new reservoirs, more residence times (extracted ex recto) and - most important! - more degrees of freedom to create data-free fudge factors that must be true, because  "The Flood Model" doesn't work without them. And you KNOW "The Flood Model" is TRUE!!1! - Why, just look at all those elephants in the room!
2
I already said that I don't get what you're doing. You lost me.   So I am charging ahead in my own way that I understand.
   Who could possibly have seen that coming?


  ::)
 ::)   ::)
 ::)   ::)   ::)
 ::)   ::)   ::)   ::)
 ::)   ::)   ::)   ::)   ::)

3
Consider the possibility that YOU don't understand the problem, "Socrates".
4
If we look just at the taxa within "pennaraptora" then according to optimization there is no reason to prefer one hypothesis over the other. It is only when you assume a ground based dinosaur ancestor for "pennaraptora" that you would conclude that pennaraptora is like oviraptorosaurs rather than like paraves.
According to what references, links, or copy-pasted relevant material?
5
First problem I see with the 100X thing is ....
You mean aside from the complete lack of any evidence for it?
6
My point here is to help us get our heads around the Flood Model ...

IF the ancient biosphere was 100X the modern ... then that's 219,000 Gt of carbon !!!

Or about 300X the modern atmospheric carbon.
...
There is no "Flood Model"
There is (1) the axiomatic, faith-based ASSUMPTION of a "Global Flood", and (2) there are multiple, contradictory apologetics projects to try to wedge observations into a framework that accommodates that assumption
This thread is about ONE of those apologetics projects: R.H. Brown's.
It is not about THE "Flood Model".
7
Why do mainstream cladistic analyses conclude that pennaraptora was like oviraptorosaurs and not like basal paraves? After all, there are two branches stemming from pennaraptora.
You'd think this is the sort of thing "Dr. Pterosaur" would know like the back of his hand.
8
If so, then of what importance is the mean residence time in carbon dating? :???:

It factors into what the 14C/12C levels in the atmosphere are, in the (somewhat farfetched, tbh) scenario R.H.Brown proposed. To wit: at the time of "The Flood", Brown proposes (for... reasons*) that the 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere was ~ 1% of the modern ratio. The 375 "residence time" has to do with the rate at which that 1% number rises to current  levels, as newly generated 14C works its way through the reservoirs.


* Reasons invented to telescope all 14C dates prior to ~ 3000 years ago into ~2000 years prior to a hypothetical "Flood".
9
Far from it. It requires tens of millions of years of "ghost lineages".
Pretty much comes with the territory, reconstructing the lineage of ANY organism going back to Jurassic/Triassic times, so that's no more or less "parsimonious" than any other proposal.

Quote
And the belief in an absurd number of "exaptations".
I don't see any references, links or copy-pasted relevant material supporting this bald assertion.

Dismissed.
10
The bone, in your example, would be a "sampling" of the 14C/12C in the atmosphere at the time those carbons were fixed (i.e. shortly before the animal ate it.) The 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere is subject to these mass flow considerations, but once the plant or animal has "sampled it", it's just a question of radioactive decay (and, of course, sample integrity - freedom from contamination with older or younger C).
11
I suppose I gain the same thing from transparently ignoring your point as you gain from transparently ignoring mine. :wave:
What do you gain from transparently ignoring THIS post:

I wish you were right about that. If scientists would just talk about "data" separately from their interpretation of that data and keep the distinction clear, we would be far better off.  But unfortunately they say things like "Sloth dung of unit a was deposited between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago at a rate of approximately blah blah blah" ...  they just casually state that as if it were a fact.  But it's not. And it's not data. It's their interpretation of data.
Quote
Noah's Ark was a massive ship, built at God's command, that saved Noah, his family, and two of every kind of land animal from the global Flood that took place 4,350 years ago. It was 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high and easily housed the several thousand animal kinds God brought to Noah.
Ken Ham

Is Ham stating data here?
Or interpretation?

Should we give him a pass because your tut-tutting only applies to science and scientists?
And no one expects Answers In Genesis to have anything to do with science?

12
I wish you were right about that. If scientists would just talk about "data" separately from their interpretation of that data and keep the distinction clear, we would be far better off.  But unfortunately they say things like "Sloth dung of unit a was deposited between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago at a rate of approximately blah blah blah" ...  they just casually state that as if it were a fact.   But it's not. And it's not data. It's their interpretation of data.
Quote
Noah's Ark was a massive ship, built at God's command, that saved Noah, his family, and two of every kind of land animal from the global Flood that took place 4,350 years ago. It was 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high and easily housed the several thousand animal kinds God brought to Noah.
Ken Ham

Is Ham stating data here?
Or interpretation?

Should we give him a pass because your tut-tutting only applies to science and scientists?
And no one expects Answers In Genesis to have anything to do with science?
13
I'm planning on being in Japan next month.   :ohdear:
14
  I feel like I'm in court being cross examined.
And you have no idea why that might be?
15
  Larry Vardiman proposes MANY couplets per year in lakes, not just two ...  during the immediate post flood epoch.
Oh, he proposes that, does he?
Well then.
I guess all bets are off till his proposal is disproved to the satisfaction of every YEC.  ::)
Quote
I need to read his book to understand his reasoning. Haven't done that yet.
No. You really don't need to do that.
You can just read the loyalty oath he signed onto with ICR.
His "reasoning" is the same as R.H. Brown's.
They take as axiomatic that The Flood happened.
So they need to "propose"  scenarios that would explain away the evidence that it did not, and the lack of evidence that it did.
They are apologists, not scientists.
That's their job.

(Or was. Brown is dead and Vardiman retired.)
16
But I don't really care because it's the very large adjustment due to the global flood that I'm interested in.
What makes you think this "global flood" ever happened?  :dunno:
What is the evidence for it?

You never get around to answering this simple question.
Yeah I've never got around to saying "billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth."   I've never said that.   I've also never spoken about  continent size sedimentary rocks.   Or the oldest trees that just happen to be no more than about 5000 years old. Or the global flood accounts from all over the world.  I've never spoken about any of these things. Oh wait.
None of that is evidence for a global flood.
This has been explained to you.

Also none of it even suggests any way to do radiocarbon dating any differently from how it's done by actual scientists.
17
It strikes me as somewhat unreasonable to ask science to adjust in some unspecified way for some event for which there's no evidence, then go ranting about imaginary elephants in imaginary rooms when it doesn't.
18
Politics and Current Events / Re: Catalonian Independence
Does Mallorca go with Spain or Catalunya?
Just curious - I have relatives there.
19
But I don't really care because it's the very large adjustment due to the global flood that I'm interested in.
What makes you think this "global flood" ever happened?  :dunno:
What is the evidence for it?

You never get around to answering this simple question.

20
the whoppo mongo correction of the global flood.
And what "whoppo mongo correction" is that?

The evidence-free assumptions that apologist R.H. Brown made to force-fit the data with the admittedly  faith based Global Flood ?

Anything else?
21
And this TELLS us that atmospheric C14:C12 ratios were slightly HIGHER in the past then they are today.
Quite a bit higher! Close to double!
Quote
We do not ASSUME it.  The data TELLS us this.

Because the difference is slight, the formula above gives a reasonable approximation to the true date,
Well, 2X the modern 14C/12C ratio takes one half-life off the inferred age.
23
This guy was sharp
Sharp?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Kinda like those Plexus salesmen you're always on about?
24
Jesus Christ.  You went to school for how many years?

Mainstream Carbon Dating 101

<  clip misinformed summary  >

So... 
These are notes from when you took a course on Carbon Dating?
Or from some textbook, or standard source on the subject?

Or just more bald assertions you pulled from your ass?

(Now that we've learned that you consider doing so a credibility-enhancing move.)
25
Mike, I can see that your analysis generates a much different curve than Brown's ... but I can't just hand wave Brown's work away without understanding IF he truly did go wrong
The fact that he has the original "Arkonaut" sloth-kind progenitor pair in Rampart Cave within a year or two of "The Flood" should be a pretty strong clue that, yes, he "truly did go wrong".

Quote
and if so, HOW he went wrong.
Well, actually LOOKING at MikeS's equations and inescapable inferences therefrom should be a good start.
Step one: do you agree with those equations? If not, why not?

Quote
  <      clip bullshit reasons for preemptively dismissing anything that conflicts with Highly Respected Apologist, R.H. Brown, whose awesome credibility is only enhanced by the fact that he blatantly lied about a paper he misrepresented in order to support his apologetics    >

Anyway, I will be looking at this more closely.
Yeah.
Right.