Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers (Read 3979 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • 8,356

  • 46

Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
If you think it is, then you simply haven't read Michael Oard's stuff found here ... 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

Also, in light of the recent discussion about Popper and falsification, I found this to be quite interesting ... These guys (and/or gals) are not trying to FALSIFY ... they are trying to VALIDATE ...
Quote
In Fennoscandia there is an abundance of annually laminated lakes, and we have
been working with one particularly good record from a central Swedish lake in the
province of Värmland: Kälksjön (Stanton, 2011; Stanton et al., 2010). The lake
contains clastic/organic varves and provides a record back to approximately 9200
cal. yrs BP. Rather than simply accept the completed varve count, we pursued a
systematic attempt to validate the chronology, so that it could later be used with
confidence for further analyses.
From the outset, the sediments seemed clear and very well preserved, and it was
expected that proxy validation would indeed corroborate our initial count. This was
not the case, however, and it became clear that it is not possible to know whether or
not a varve chronology is correct - however perfect the laminations seem - without
further investigations using complementary methods.
The first attempt at validation used the traditional method of radiocarbon dating,
which can exhibit dating problems - particularly problematic in bulk sediments - due
to the re-working of old carbon in lake sediment systems. Lacking any macrofossils
(none were found in Kälksjön's cores), which give much more reliable results for
dating, we were only able to date bulk sediment samples. As expected (and as
confirmed by cross-checking with other results), the radiocarbon analyses gave ages
that were too old.
Validation using tephra was also attempted. Microtephra analysis was carried out on
a number of samples in the hope that three mid-Holocene Icelandic tephras (Hekla 4,
Hekla-S/Kebister and Hekla 3) would be found as marker horizons, but the analysis
yielded no results.
http://www.pastglobalchanges.org/download/docs/meeting-products/abstracts/VWG_AbstractVolume_Final_2012.pdf

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,970

  • 1017

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #1
That's just pathetic, Dave.

  • 6,736

  • 988

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #2
Good god you're an idiot Dave.
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
  • 6,970

  • 1017

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #3
I love that you can see what he franoogled.

"problems with varve chronologies"

He's doing quite a bit of franoogling this morning, it seems.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,970

  • 1017

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #4
Hey, Dave, perhaps you'd like to address Mattias Larsson's wonderfully detailed critique of your own article:

http://mattiaswebarchive.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/truth-matters-apparently-not-about.html

  • 8,356

  • 46

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #5
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.

  • 8,356

  • 46

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #6
Also, did you read Oard's piece on varves?

It appears that you didn't.

  • 494

  • 95

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #7
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.

A surveyor goes and measures the side of a pyramid as 200 m long using a steel tape.

A few decades later a second surveyor goes and measures the distance again, to make sure it's right. They measure 195.22 m with an EDM.

Did they validate or falsify the original measurement?
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,970

  • 1017

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #8
If you think it is, then you simply haven't read Michael Oard's stuff found here ... 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

So how about summarising in your own words as you repeatedly and hypocritically ask others to do (and they often do it) what argument Oard makes as to why "Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers"?

The Stanton paper is in the dropbox.  Read it and show us how Oard's "problems with varve chronology" apply to that study.

Also, in light of the recent discussion about Popper and falsification, I found this to be quite interesting ... These guys (and/or gals) are not trying to FALSIFY ... they are trying to VALIDATE ...
Quote
In Fennoscandia there is an abundance of annually laminated lakes, and we have
been working with one particularly good record from a central Swedish lake in the
province of Värmland: Kälksjön (Stanton, 2011; Stanton et al., 2010). The lake
contains clastic/organic varves and provides a record back to approximately 9200
cal. yrs BP. Rather than simply accept the completed varve count, we pursued a
systematic attempt to validate the chronology, so that it could later be used with
confidence for further analyses.
From the outset, the sediments seemed clear and very well preserved, and it was
expected that proxy validation would indeed corroborate our initial count. This was
not the case, however, and it became clear that it is not possible to know whether or
not a varve chronology is correct - however perfect the laminations seem - without
further investigations using complementary methods.
The first attempt at validation used the traditional method of radiocarbon dating,
which can exhibit dating problems - particularly problematic in bulk sediments - due
to the re-working of old carbon in lake sediment systems. Lacking any macrofossils
(none were found in Kälksjön's cores), which give much more reliable results for
dating, we were only able to date bulk sediment samples. As expected (and as
confirmed by cross-checking with other results), the radiocarbon analyses gave ages
that were too old.
Validation using tephra was also attempted. Microtephra analysis was carried out on
a number of samples in the hope that three mid-Holocene Icelandic tephras (Hekla 4,
Hekla-S/Kebister and Hekla 3) would be found as marker horizons, but the analysis
yielded no results.
http://www.pastglobalchanges.org/download/docs/meeting-products/abstracts/VWG_AbstractVolume_Final_2012.pdf

Yet more evidence that you have not only totally misunderstood Popper but have also failed even to READ the Cleland paper you now prefer to Popper.  Or anybody's posts on that thread, apparently.

In practice, scientific hypothesis testing usually imvolves comparing the fit of competing hypotheses, and typically, an attempt to falsify the null, which is NOT Popper's approach, although it does fit his demand (or should fit it) that the test involve a "risky" prediction.  The point of Cleland's paper was that testing the fit of alternative models (as opposed to falsification testing) applies equally to "historical science" as to "experimental science".

But ironically, a "validation" test is an example of where Popperian approach IS used.  Once you have rejected a null hypothesis, and parameterised (got values for) your alternative hypothesis (e.g. the linear relationship between radiocarbon dates and, say, varve count) you VALIDATE that parameterised model by attempting to FALSIFY it against an independently derived set of measures.

And that is what Stanton's study did.  It took two alternative (to varve count) ways of estimating the date of any given layer (varve lead spike; palaeomagnetic measures) and compared with the varve count and radiocarbon date.  In other words, they attempted to falsify the relationship between varve count and radiocarbon date by checking it against lead spike dates and paleomagnetic dates.  In addition, they checked that the upper varves really were annual, and "forming today" by looking at yet another independent dating measure - layers of lime corresponding to known liming events.

Another form of validation is done frequently in my field.  You get a set of parameters for, say, a diagnostic test, derived from one set of data, and then you attempt to falsify the test by testing the diagnostic validity on a new, independent, set of data.  If the test survives falsification (i.e. is not falsified) we say that the test has been "validated".

More fractal wrongness.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,970

  • 1017

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #9
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.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,970

  • 1017

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #10
Also, did you read Oard's piece on varves?

It appears that you didn't.

Yes, I did, in fact.  I've read it several times in the past.

So explain to me how YOU think it supports your claim that "Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers".

Assume I am too stupid to have understood Oard.  Make your point in nice simple words for poor dumb me.

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #11
Mike PSS Takedown of this from4/11/2008, which you badgered from:
I will hand restore the formatting by editing Mikes notes in a different color
Quote
Below these stars is the verbatum writings of a creationist about Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The title is the link to the original, all other links are embedded and images copied over. So you don't really need to go over to the linked page to get the article itself, it's all here.

I've colored the original writing in bold blue except the quote boxes (where bolding is from the linked article). My comments are in bold black. <Seven Popes note, I will make them red>
*******************************
Lake Suigetsu: No Help for Old Earthers


Lake Suigetsu is a small lake in Japan which is often used by Old Earth believers to try to disprove the Young Earth timescale.

The author has that backwards. Lake Suigetsu data is argued against by Young Earthers because the conclusions happen to contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible.


They say that Lake Suigetsu has a continuous record of varves (fine laminations deposited annually) in the sediment below the lake for the last 100,000 years or so. Here's Glenn Morton's description of Lake Sugetsu. One person I debated recently claimed that Lake Suigetsu disproves the Book of Genesis as a historical record. But does it really? Or is this just one more false claim put forth by anti-creationists?

We cannot say for sure yet, but it's looking like yet another false claim. I have now been investigating Lake Suigetsu off and on since June 2007 and I have discovered some very fascinating stuff. For instance ...

1) INCREASING RECOGNITION THAT MANY "VARVES" ARE NOT ANNUAL LAMINATIONS AFTER ALL.

Quote
"It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as 'varved.' There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units ... without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation."
Quigley, R. M, Glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine clay deposition: a North American perspective; in: Eyles, N., editor, Glacial geology--an introduction for engineers and earth scientists, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 151, 1983.
I got this quote from an Answer in Genesis article and presented it to some scientists at the Talk Rational Forum. One of them, a PhD geology student, was kind enough to get the book from the library and provide the context for me HERE. Quigley's opinion seems to be that true varves require a cessation of glacial melt runoff during the winter so that precipitation of clay particulates can take place. It seems that Quigley restricts his discussion to comparisons of pro-glacial and post-glacial lakes, but other non-glacial lakes exhibit non-annual laminations as well. For example ...

Quigley was quote-mined by AiG and this article just passes that quote-mine on. Quigley specifically addresses the fact that professional interpretations of varves are not an issue.

2) ORIGINAL THIRD SISTER LAKE RESEARCHERS WERE WRONG ABOUT LAMINATIONS BEING ANNUAL

Quote
Diatom-based interpretation of sediment banding in an urbanized lake

Brian K. Hammer & Eugene F. Stoermer
Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, University of Michigan, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI
48109-2099, USA (email:bhammer@umich.edu)

Journal of Paleolimnology 17: 437-449, 1997. 437
1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Belgium.

Third Sister Lake possessed banded sediments as described by Eggleton (1931), however, the banding pattern of the recent sediments was not annual as previously described (Eggleton, 1931; Potzger &Wilson, 1941; Ludlam, 1969), but event-driven. Variations in band thickness from 0.2 to 5 cm suggested that the time between depositional events was variable. (p. 445)
Read the entire paper for free HERE.

The only thing to take away from this paper is that scientists examined older data (1969 being the latest publication) and found erroneous assumptions in prior work. These scientists then corrocted the assumptions and errors and published a corrected account. Lake Suigetsu, on the other hand, has not been questioned to this day on the annual nature of the varves and many papers published have supported the original contention that the layers are annual in nature AND found additional ways to measure this annual nature. In fact, other scientific disciplines are using the cores from Lake Suigetsu to derive historic weather patterns, rainfall patterns, pollen distributions, and also derive some of the longer period weather relationships.

3) IF LAKE SUIGETSU LAMINATIONS ARE ANNUAL, THEN WHY ARE THEY NOT FORMING TODAY? And it is clear (if you actually read the relevant science papers as I have) that they are not, though many Old Earth advocates assume that they are. There are two key papers which tell us this: A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14 C calibration curve, H Kitagawa, J van der Plicht - Radiocarbon, 1998 - radiocarbon.org, and Survival strategy of diatom species living on now-depositing non-glacial varves, M Kato, Y Tanimura, H Fukusawa - Quaternary International, 2004 - Elsevier. Kitagawa begins his varve counting back around 1664 and earlier around the time of the earthquake and Kato counts her 'varves' from 1729 and before. Some people have claimed that the varves stopped forming in 1664 when the canal was built because of the influx of saltwater to a formerly freshwater lake. But if this is true, why does Kato assert that varves were still forming up until 1729? The answer, in my opinion, is that the 'varves' in Lake Suigetsu are not all true varves, that is annual laminations. Probably there have been some annual laminations, but it is more likely that the Suigetsu laminations are similar to the Third Sister Lake laminations in that several laminations are laid in any given year. In wet years, more laminations were probably laid and in dry years less.

This argument is a red herring. The fact that over 40,000+ counted and identified varves which are annual in nature is in no way changed by the fact that Lake Suigetsu underwent evironmental changes in the past 350 years that has either limited or eliminated varving from occurring today. This in no way addresses the existance of 40,000+ varves from the lake cores themselves.

4) SUIGETSU LAMINATIONS ARE NOT WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT FROM STILL WATER DEPOSITION. Glenn Morton has obtained a close up picture (at right) of the laminations. Notice that some of the laminations begin and end in the picture. This is important because it indicates that these laminae were probably laid by turbidity currents, not by still water deposition.


There is no expert opinion contained in that analysis, only conjecture and wishful thinking. To my untrained eye there exists consistant layerring in an alternate way with all light layers existing across the core picture, although they do vary in thickness. I see no loss in layers.

Is my opinion any better or worse than the authors?


5) KATO'S SEDIMENT CORE AND KITAGAWA'S CORE DO NOT MATCH UP ... THEYR'E NOT EVEN CLOSE. Kitagawa analyzed several cores, one of them SG2, a piston core, which was also later analyzed by Kawakami (A new opportunity to detect paleo-earthquake events dating back to the past 10 millennia: a record, S Kawakami, H Fukusawa, Y Kanaori - Engineering Geology, 1996 - Elsevier). Kato analyzed a different core, SGP-12 (see citation above). Kato claims that the 1662 earthquake layer is at ~102cm below the top of her core while Kitagawa puts his 1662 earthquake layer at ~29cm, roughly a 70 cm difference. Remember, we're talking about two cores taken from the same lake fairly close to one another. Does this much variation over such a small area speak of slow, steady, annual deposition? To me, it does not. To me it argues strongly for episodic deposition driven by periodic heavy rains and even an occasional tsunami or earthquake. Japan is an extremely earthquake-prone country.

Another red herring argument. The cores are aligned by the common layer associated with the 1662 Kanbun turbidite which is present in both samples. The amount of material above this alignment layer (between the Kanbun turbidite and the lake surface) is immaterial to the 40,000+ varves that exist below this layer.


WHAT ABOUT KITAGAWA'S CARBON 14 DATING? Kitagawa's carbon 14 dating appears to support the idea that the Suigetsu laminations are an annual record from ~7000 YBP to ~35000 YBP (Years Before Present). However, AMS testing of leaf samples such as those submitted by Kitagawa only uses a very small portion of the leaf to obtain a date (typically 1/500th portion of the leaf). Also, AMS labs generally know what date they are shooting for prior to doing the test (i.e. the tests are generally not blind-see links below). Also, dates are typically either rejected or explained away if they do not meet the expectations of the researchers. So my question is, "Did Van Der Plicht's AMS lab (who did Kitagawa's tests) reject several small leaf bits as they were testing each leaf until they hit on one that roughly matched the 'varve age' that they were given beforehand?" I see no reason why they would not have, given the knowledge we have about radiometric dating practices. See THIS DISCUSSION and THIS ONE for further info on this topic. I have e-mailed with Dr. Van der Plicht to investigate this, but have not received an answer yet. I know my contact info is good because he did send me some general info on radiometric dating.

This argument does nothing to bolster the young earth claims against the conclusions from Lake Suigetsu. The "leaf sample" argument is immature and easily dealt with in detail if the author so chooses to protest. The "no blind testing, labs know the age" argument is a hyperventilation in the face of the facts. Neither of these lines of reasoning addresses the consiliant nature of the 14C ages with depth and varve count that resulted from testing macro-fossils within the Lake Suigetsu core.


ARE THERE ANY LAKES WHICH ARE 'VARVING' UP TO THE PRESENT DAY? Yes, but probably not many. Lake Baldeggerse is one such lake. See discussion HERE. In this discussion, note that "Lasting Damage" (AKA Jet Black, a PhD physicist with whom I dialog alot) says "Note here that dave has been explicitly told that the coring methods used by Kato and Kitagawa are piston cores, which would damage the highest sediments which are soft and unconsolidated." While it is true that Jet Black claimed this, he has not presented evidence that his claim is true. Also, he told me this first when he was under the mistaken impression that Kitagawa's core was taken with a drill corer, not a piston corer. Piston cores may cause some damage, but probably not much and since both researchers used the same type of equipment, we should expect similar results.

The different coring methods have no impact on the presence of 40,000+ varves contained within Lake Suigetsu. Plus, these same varves have been cross-correllated between several cores and aligned using distinct turbidite and tephra layers found in each core. It is this consiliance that supports the conclusions first put forward by Kitagawa and Van der Plicht.

CONCLUSION
Contrary to firm declarations from Old Earth Advocates that Lake Suigetsu 'disproves the Genesis timescale' or that it supports an Old Earth, the evidence favors episodic deposition of laminations. Probably the majority of the laminations were laid during the year of the Global Flood of Noah, with much of the balance being laid during the ensuing Ice Age and the Global Warmup and Melt which followed that several hundred years later. This whole period would also have been a period of readjustment of the earth and we would expect much more frequent earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and such to have occurred during this time.

Lake Suigetsu seems to fit well within the Flood paradigm.

My friend Jet Black's most recent summary post (4/6/08) on this topic can be found HERE.

It is unfortanate that the author does nothing to support his "conclusions" here. The scenario outlined above cannot be shown in the reams of data available on this subject. If history is any guide then author will refuse to address the data once again. Only by providing a detailed and cogent argument, using the raw data from Kitagawa, could the author hope to challange the conclusions that Lake Suigetsu represents a varve history of 40,000+ years that also calibrates the 14C radiocarbon curve (along with dendrochronological findings, ice cores, and other independent dating techniques).

Please comment on what you read and find in this article. I find it shallow and very incomplete when the author initially sets out to try and discredit over 40,000 varves and never addresses the varves except to point at one picture (and Kitagawa took over 1500 photos) and say "See, they don't go across." BTW, the author has never provided anyone with any qualifications that he has the professional training to interpret the photos in the first place. Nor has the author addressed the physical (the marine valves associated with every layer in that photo) and chemical evidence that accompanies the photographed layers. Nor has the author addressed the large number of turbidite and tephra layers contained in those 40,000+ layers.

In fact, there is so much this paper DOESN'T address that what it does say seems almost meaningless.
  • Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 04:56:38 AM by Seven Popes
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • 8,356

  • 46

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #12
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.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 2,653

  • 494

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #13
Hey, Dave, perhaps you'd like to address Mattias Larsson's wonderfully detailed critique of your own article:

http://mattiaswebarchive.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/truth-matters-apparently-not-about.html
Hah! how did I ever miss that?
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.

  • 8,356

  • 46

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #14
And the reason I remembered this and not what you said is that one main precept of "Hawkins Reading" is to decide ahead of time the "probability of value" of various authors on a given topic and give more attention and focus to those authors.  I determined that Popper was more of an authority than you, so I spent more brain cells remembering what he said vs. what you said.

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

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 2,653

  • 494

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #15
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.
:facepalm:

Dave, instead of fixing your blog post about Popper, I suggest you simply put a disclaimer up front: "DISREGARD ALL THAT FOLLOWS. IT TURNS OUT I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE ABOUT WHAT POPPER HAD SAID".

Much simpler, more accurate, and certainly not Too Much Work.
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,970

  • 1017

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #16
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.

Dave, ffs read my post.  Don't Hawkins it. 
  • Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 05:19:19 AM by Pingu

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,970

  • 1017

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #17
And the reason I remembered this

Actually you forgot it. We kept on reminding you, but you kept on ignoring it, despite the fact that it means that by the AiG definiton of "historical science" "historical science" is NOT science, whereas Popper said that it was.

and not what you said is that one main precept of "Hawkins Reading" is to decide ahead of time the "probability of value" of various authors on a given topic and give more attention and focus to those authors.  I determined that Popper was more of an authority than you, so I spent more brain cells remembering what he said vs. what you said.

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

Yet you managed to totally misunderstand Popper AND Cleland AND AiG.

And now you have Hawkinsed me too.

good grief.

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #18
http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?t=1314
Dave, do you want to address the above Badger, or are you simply going to rebadger here?
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #19
If you think it is, then you simply haven't read Michael Oard's stuff found here ... 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
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Dave, are you shoeing us off to a link?  If you understand this, just explain it in your own words.
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #20
Also, did you read Oard's piece on varves?

It appears that you didn't.
Did you?  explain it in detail, please.
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #21
And the reason I remembered this and not what you said is that one main precept of "Hawkins Reading" is to decide ahead of time the "probability of value" of various authors on a given topic and give more attention and focus to those authors.  I determined that Popper was more of an authority than you, so I spent more brain cells remembering what he said vs. what you said.

This precept of "Hawkins Reading" saves you time thus making your reading more efficient.
What part of Hawkinsing covers your past supplied evidence which actually proved you WRONG?
  • Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 05:39:40 AM by Seven Popes
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #22
I love Mattias's concluding statement:
from http://mattiaswebarchive.blogspot.se/2014/04/truth-matters-apparently-not-about.html[/size]
Quote
In summary: Dave manages to run his preconceived notions along the gauntlet of insightful rebuttals from a multitude of qualified commentators, towards the epistemological train wreck that we can behold above.

What we see is the result of Dave going into several discussions about varves and their supporting evidence, especially concerning the Suigetsu varves and their implications, with the foregone conclusion that these sedimentary formations cannot possibly represent true varves. I will go out on a limb and assert that Dave's general reluctance to accept the reality of sedimentary varves does not stem in any way from geological insight, but from a stubborn insistence on the Bible as literal truth.

In his argumentation, Dave almost never directly addresses the coherent and concordant evidentiary support for tens of thousands of Suigetsu varves. Instead, his arguments concern peripheral issues that lie outside the central focus, with some unfounded insinuations about scientific fraud thrown in for good measure. His arguments are being refuted over and over again, which he refuses to acknowledge or simply chooses to ignore.

Through this painful and embarrassing spectacle of a discussion, Dave stoutly maintains his delusions by shutting out all contradictory information. His utter disconnection from reality is manifested in his final "conclusion" about the Suigetsu varves in the imaginary context of a Noachian flood, which in no way follows from any of the evidence that has been up for discussion.

Dave's blog post stands as a glorious monument over an intellectual process that is entirely corrupt to the core. In this process, truth matters not.

You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 4,187

  • 713

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #23
Mike PSS Takedown of this from4/11/2008, which you badgered from:...

Good grief.

:grandpa:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

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

  • 246

Re: Lake Kalksjon is No Help for Old Earthers
Reply #24
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.

Dave, ffs read my post.  Don't Hawkins it.
I don't believe that's possible. For Bluffy, it would be like not breathing. Or breathing in too rich an oxygen content.
Are we there yet?