Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: you owe it to yourself to at least view the end result of a forum run nearly on your own retarded principles

Topic: RH Brown and Carbon 14 (Read 9803 times) previous topic - next topic

Pingu, superhoop (+ 1 Hidden) and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1425

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1426
a couple of dodgy mammoth samples.
Musk ox.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1427
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?  Too bad for you too ... because you now need some serious gymnastics to explain the long time spans based on carbon 14.
wtf?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?
Himself.

"I showed those octohatters. I really showed them! I did! I did!"

Yeah, I think so.  There's an air of desperation here. He's not THAT stupid.
He is that stupid.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1428
a couple of dodgy mammoth samples.
Musk ox.

You are correct.

(I knew it was something big and hairy that likes snow)

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1429
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?  Too bad for you too ... because you now need some serious gymnastics to explain the long time spans based on carbon 14.
wtf?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?
Himself.

"I showed those octohatters. I really showed them! I did! I did!"

Yeah, I think so.  There's an air of desperation here. He's not THAT stupid.
He is that stupid.

Nah.  If he were THAT stupid, he wouldn't be badgering off in a cloud of squid ink (to mix animal metaphors).

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1430
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?  Too bad for you too ... because you now need some serious gymnastics to explain the long time spans based on carbon 14.
wtf?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?
Himself.

"I showed those octohatters. I really showed them! I did! I did!"

Yeah, I think so.  There's an air of desperation here. He's not THAT stupid.
He is that stupid.

Nah.  If he were THAT stupid, he wouldn't be badgering off in a cloud of squid ink (to mix animal metaphors).
He's a science butterfly
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

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1431
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?  Too bad for you too ... because you now need some serious gymnastics to explain the long time spans based on carbon 14.
wtf?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?
Himself.

"I showed those octohatters. I really showed them! I did! I did!"

Yeah, I think so.  There's an air of desperation here. He's not THAT stupid.
He is that stupid.

Nah.  If he were THAT stupid, he wouldn't be badgering off in a cloud of squid ink (to mix animal metaphors).
He's a science butterfly

More like an ostrich, crossed with a goldfish.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • Faid
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1432
He's a science butterfly
First he coils up inside his cocoon of denial, then he gloriously emerges on his wings of bravado and flutters away.
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.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1433
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?  Too bad for you too ... because you now need some serious gymnastics to explain the long time spans based on carbon 14.
wtf?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?
Himself.

"I showed those octohatters. I really showed them! I did! I did!"

Yeah, I think so.  There's an air of desperation here. He's not THAT stupid.
He is that stupid.

Nah.  If he were THAT stupid, he wouldn't be badgering off in a cloud of squid ink (to mix animal metaphors).
He's a science butterfly

More like an ostrich, crossed with a goldfish.
Are you suggesting Bluffy has his head in the sand but doesn't realize it?

Wasn't a paper published that examined that behavior?
Are we there yet?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1434
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?
And you somehow missed the central fact in that article that the sloth poop was found in 3 discontinuous zones, separated by lots of 14C time and lots of other animals' leavings?
  (Don't know the zone label)
No, you didn't read it.
You "Hawkinzed" it.
Actual reading involves more than scanning with
this handy dandy scientific tool known as "CTRL-F"

OK.  But did my "hawkinsing" cause to me to err in my analysis of the "62 - 68 cm" portion of the dung pile?  What specific criticisms do you have wrt that analysis?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1435
Focussing on that 700 year time span, what does that translate into in yours/Brown's years?
I get ~ 22 years,  ~ 200 years after The Flood

Dave. Does this sound reasonable to you?
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1436
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?
And you somehow missed the central fact in that article that the sloth poop was found in 3 discontinuous zones, separated by lots of 14C time and lots of other animals' leavings?
  (Don't know the zone label)
No, you didn't read it.
You "Hawkinzed" it.
Actual reading involves more than scanning with
this handy dandy scientific tool known as "CTRL-F"

OK.  But did my "hawkinsing" cause to me to err in my analysis of the "62 - 68 cm" portion of the dung pile?  What specific criticisms do you have wrt that analysis?
That it's irrelevant (it doesn't affect the salient fact that the pooping was not continuous throught the depth) and based on made-up numbers (0.001 cu. m. in volume and 20% of the total 220 sq m as the surface area).

{ABE} No, I don't have any made-up numbers of my own.  If you think your numbers are relevant it's up to you to show why.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1437
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?
And you somehow missed the central fact in that article that the sloth poop was found in 3 discontinuous zones, separated by lots of 14C time and lots of other animals' leavings?
  (Don't know the zone label)
No, you didn't read it.
You "Hawkinzed" it.
Actual reading involves more than scanning with
this handy dandy scientific tool known as "CTRL-F"

OK.  But did my "hawkinsing" cause to me to err in my analysis of the "62 - 68 cm" portion of the dung pile?  What specific criticisms do you have wrt that analysis?

You obviously hawkinsed the posts that address this question.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1438
Pingu ... we've already got two one topic going on this thread ... Mike's modeling ... and sloth poop ... how about we talk about Kalksjon on a different thread so it doesn't get too confusing?  Anyway, I've got to get in the mood for Kalksjon ... don't worry ... I'll get in the mood at some point. :-)

FIFY. Given that several of us have explained what you need to test brown's modelling, and started running numbers, which you have ignored.

You'd rather just make up imaginary poop numbers.
This thread is about Mikes numbers, the sloth poop is squid ink.  What's the Dave Hawkins rule about not loosing an argument by trying to steer a discussion away from  a point he knows he will lose, and into pointless minutia?
Given that I'm almost done digging out from Hurricane Irma there are some other priorities in play other than making my spreadsheet.  I'll be able to fill it out later this week or the weekend but not today.

However, continue pithing the frog that is Dave with the sloth "pellets" and R.H.Brown's credibility.  I actually had a conference call with Brown, Dave and I to discuss this specific matter.  Brown was elder (pushing 90?) and at the SDA retirement community somewhere near San Diego.  He didn't sound, or act, or publish like other creationist shysters like Humphreys, Snelling or Woodmooreappe but his agenda was clearly bible first and facts second (or third).

The fact that his research is wanting in specificity, detail and actual honest representation of the references just shows that his attempts at showing scientific support for literal interpretation of bible stories was meant to sound "sciency" and not at all rigorous.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1439
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?
And you somehow missed the central fact in that article that the sloth poop was found in 3 discontinuous zones, separated by lots of 14C time and lots of other animals' leavings?
  (Don't know the zone label)
No, you didn't read it.
You "Hawkinzed" it.
Actual reading involves more than scanning with
this handy dandy scientific tool known as "CTRL-F"

OK.  But did my "hawkinsing" cause to me to err in my analysis of the "62 - 68 cm" portion of the dung pile?  What specific criticisms do you have wrt that analysis?

You obviously hawkinsed the posts that address this question.
^^^^^     This.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1440
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?  Too bad for you too ... because you now need some serious gymnastics to explain the long time spans based on carbon 14.
wtf?

Who the hell are you trying to kid?
Himself.

"I showed those octohatters. I really showed them! I did! I did!"

Yeah, I think so.  There's an air of desperation here. He's not THAT stupid.
He is that stupid.

Nah.  If he were THAT stupid, he wouldn't be badgering off in a cloud of squid ink (to mix animal metaphors).
He's a science butterfly

More like an ostrich, crossed with a goldfish.
But mixed with a butterfly too, right?
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

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1441
OK.  But did my "hawkinsing" cause to me to err in my analysis of the "62 - 68 cm" portion of the dung pile?  What specific criticisms do you have wrt that analysis?
So you're really hitching your wagons to the idea that sloths always do all their pooping in a single spot? That's the thread your worldview is currently hanging by? Because that appears to be all you've got.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1442
Haha.  I "got in the mood" to read the Long et al paper, didn't I?
And you somehow missed the central fact in that article that the sloth poop was found in 3 discontinuous zones, separated by lots of 14C time and lots of other animals' leavings?
  (Don't know the zone label)
No, you didn't read it.
You "Hawkinzed" it.
Actual reading involves more than scanning with
this handy dandy scientific tool known as "CTRL-F"

OK.  But did my "hawkinsing" cause to me to err in my analysis of the "62 - 68 cm" portion of the dung pile?  What specific criticisms do you have wrt that analysis?

You obviously hawkinsed the posts that address this question.
I sort of doubt Bluffy even bothered with Hawkinzing them.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1443
OK.  But did my "hawkinsing" cause to me to err in my analysis of the "62 - 68 cm" portion of the dung pile?  What specific criticisms do you have wrt that analysis?
So you're really hitching your wagons to the idea that sloths always do all their pooping in a single spot? That's the thread your worldview is currently hanging by? Because that appears to be all you've got.
There's also his assumption the cave was used continuously for that entire 700 year period. Not seasonally (as is evidence by the pollen), with no gaps annually.

And, of course, there's his undying need for Brown to be right, somehow, even if he fucked up entirely and pulled numbers out of nowhere and lied and completely ignored the authors of the paper he cited, somehow Brown had it right. Had to have been. Otherwise Bluffy loses, again. And he'll have to go back and defend his agricultural exploits.
Are we there yet?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1444
Face it, Hawkins:
Brown lied. (Or "misrepresented", if you prefer fig leaves to truth).
You said that if that were shown, you would reassess your opinion of his reliability.
Well?  Have you?
"Bringing this forward" ... yet again,   to highlight Hawkins's pusillanimity.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1445
While cleaning out my Photobucket account I stumbled across a couple of interesting items.

[/img]

Derived from a reconstitution of a formula-less copy of a MikePSS spreadsheet I dug up somewhere.


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

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1446
And this oldie-but-goodie Dave made up from whole cloth:

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

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1447
I guess Dave thinks it doesn't matter if his "model" is impossible because he can always invoke a miracle.  That's sort of the point, I guess.

Whereas we can't.  So it will always be bootless to demonstrate the impossibility of his assumptions or models.  While in turn he just has to say "miles of sediment?  IMPOSSIBLE!"  "constipated sloths?  IMPOSSIBLE!"

In fact, it's weird creation "scientists" even bother.  Or why Dave does.  I guess LastThursdayism is intrinsically feels a bit of a let-down. 

But of course it also means, and this, Dave refuses to accept, is that YEC is unfalsifiable. 


  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1448
So you're really hitching your wagons to the idea that sloths always do all their pooping in a single spot? That's the thread your worldview is currently hanging by? Because that appears to be all you've got.
Memescape?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #1449
It's definitely a good candidate.
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