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?

Topic: RH Brown and Carbon 14 (Read 13998 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3250
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

I may be an idiot but that has nothing to do with the fact that you chose to respond to that post and not this one:
Dave, it's pretty hard to keep pretending you have anything like an open mind regarding the question of whether there was a global flood 6000 years ago when you claim you don't understand the evidence refuting it but claim it doesn't matter because you are already sure there was such a flood. Just saying.
If you gave even the tiniest toss about truth, you'd consider what these curves, and the mere existence of Brown's effort, means to your model and your understanding of science as a method and as a process. But you haven't, and I see no indication that you will. You are not committed to truth. You're committed to Truth(R). Aka lies or whatever it takes to believe what you were told to believe.

There is a reason scientists say you suck at science. It's because you suck at science.


To be fair, he also sucks at being a decent human being.

  • Faid
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3251
fyp:
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... the Earth is Flat.
LITERALLY the same argument.

Dave would have been a fanatic flat-earther if he had lived in the 1890s. Not even kidding.
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.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3252
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.


Is that a Truth, capital T, as in cannot be refuted?
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3253
You're an idiot.
How so?  :dunno:
Quote
Of course I'm concerned with truth.
You are confused.
You are concerned with *what you want to believe*.
And you erroneously *label" that "truth".
 
Quote
And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.
The only way we can know what happened in the past is through evidence.
There is no evidence that there was any "Global Flood", and there is plenty of evidence that there wasn't one.

And, no, for the countlessth time, billionzofdeadthings and lotsafludlegends is NOT evidence for a "Global Flood".
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3254

Dave would have been a fanatic flat-earther if he had lived in the 1890s. Not even kidding.
True story:
I was curious about the financial scandal involving Hawkins's church way back when and contacted a reporter who wrote about it.
He - unprompted - referred to Hawkins as "Flat-Earth Dave".
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3255
Dave is in the usual "the shit just got kicked out of my latest apologist pal, again" mode.

The shameful Man-Child accusations of everyone else around him being dishonest, liars, fraudulent, and "broken" without the ability to explain or provide evidence for any of those dishonest accusations. Followed the the inevitable doubling down, the repeated unevidenced assertion or assertions that began it all.

The cycle continues. Year eleven.   :awgee:
Plus the inevitable tell:  ...
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3256
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The radiocarbon calibration curves alone refute the HYPOTHESIS (note, not a "truth") that there was a Global Flood within the last 10,000 years.  They show that there was no Global Flood within at least the last 50,000 years (and actually more).

Which means that the ONLY evidence FOR a Global Flood, i.e. some stories that there was a flood that was global within the last 10,000 years, is shown to be invalid.  There is NO evidence for a GLOBAL Flood AT ALL outside those stories.

Which means you've got nothing left to support your "truth".

Are you going to deal with this?  Or are you frit?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3257
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The only truthful comment in your reply is calling Testy an idiot.  Which, IIRC, Testy holds as a badge of honor.

Otherwise, your hypothesis of a Global Flood as described in the christian bible has no evidence to support the story.  Everywhere we look in detail the evidence is lacking.
Geology?  No direct evidence of a global flood in any layer when examined.
Radiocarbon Dating?  The Global Flood's worst enemy.
Archeology?  No flooding noted in any find.
Geography?  No flooding results that are not BETTER explained by other phenomena; and definately no global impact noted.
Physics? Nope.

So all this trope of "LOOK AT THE BOOOOONNNNEEESSS!!!" is just that.  Trope.  You need not ONLY evidence but a preponderance of evidence to make such a bold claim as a Global Flood 5,000 years ago.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3258
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The only truthful comment in your reply is calling Testy an idiot.  Which, IIRC, Testy holds as a badge of honor.
:unsure: maybe more of being willing to accept the facts as they present themselves.
Quote
 
Otherwise, your hypothesis of a Global Flood as described in the christian bible has no evidence to support the story.  Everywhere we look in detail the evidence is lacking.
Geology?  No direct evidence of a global flood in any layer when examined.
Radiocarbon Dating?  The Global Flood's worst enemy.
Archeology?  No flooding noted in any find.
Geography?  No flooding results that are not BETTER explained by other phenomena; and definately no global impact noted.
Physics? Nope.

So all this trope of "LOOK AT THE BOOOOONNNNEEESSS!!!" is just that.  Trope.  You need not ONLY evidence but a preponderance of evidence to make such a bold claim as a Global Flood 5,000 years ago.
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

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3259
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The radiocarbon calibration curves alone refute the HYPOTHESIS (note, not a "truth") that there was a Global Flood within the last 10,000 years.  They show that there was no Global Flood within at least the last 50,000 years (and actually more).

Which means that the ONLY evidence FOR a Global Flood, i.e. some stories that there was a flood that was global within the last 10,000 years, is shown to be invalid.  There is NO evidence for a GLOBAL Flood AT ALL outside those stories.

Which means you've got nothing left to support your "truth".

Are you going to deal with this?  Or are you frit?
frit?
Are we there yet?

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3260
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The radiocarbon calibration curves alone refute the HYPOTHESIS (note, not a "truth") that there was a Global Flood within the last 10,000 years.  They show that there was no Global Flood within at least the last 50,000 years (and actually more).

Which means that the ONLY evidence FOR a Global Flood, i.e. some stories that there was a flood that was global within the last 10,000 years, is shown to be invalid.  There is NO evidence for a GLOBAL Flood AT ALL outside those stories.

Which means you've got nothing left to support your "truth".

Are you going to deal with this?  Or are you frit?
frit?
A mixture of silica and other materials fused together to make ceramic?  Dave has kiln-fired brain ceramics?

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3261
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The only truthful comment in your reply is calling Testy an idiot.  Which, IIRC, Testy holds as a badge of honor.
:unsure: maybe more of being willing to accept the facts as they present themselves.
Go fix your sarcasm meter.  I have to stroke Dave's ego every once in a while.

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3262
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The radiocarbon calibration curves alone refute the HYPOTHESIS (note, not a "truth") that there was a Global Flood within the last 10,000 years.  They show that there was no Global Flood within at least the last 50,000 years (and actually more).

Which means that the ONLY evidence FOR a Global Flood, i.e. some stories that there was a flood that was global within the last 10,000 years, is shown to be invalid.  There is NO evidence for a GLOBAL Flood AT ALL outside those stories.

Which means you've got nothing left to support your "truth".

Are you going to deal with this?  Or are you frit?
frit?
The mixture of silica and fluxes that is fused at high temperature to make glass.

Obviously.

{Carp, ninja'd}
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3263
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The radiocarbon calibration curves alone refute the HYPOTHESIS (note, not a "truth") that there was a Global Flood within the last 10,000 years.  They show that there was no Global Flood within at least the last 50,000 years (and actually more).

Which means that the ONLY evidence FOR a Global Flood, i.e. some stories that there was a flood that was global within the last 10,000 years, is shown to be invalid.  There is NO evidence for a GLOBAL Flood AT ALL outside those stories.

Which means you've got nothing left to support your "truth".

Are you going to deal with this?  Or are you frit?
frit?
A mixture of silica and other materials fused together to make ceramic?  Dave has kiln-fired brain ceramics?
Would those other materials include sloth shit?
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3264
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3265
frit
I'm glad you clarified that. I doubt that Bluffy would have been familiar with the term. I certainly wasn't.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3266

Dave would have been a fanatic flat-earther if he had lived in the 1890s. Not even kidding.
True story:
I was curious about the financial scandal involving Hawkins's church way back when and contacted a reporter who wrote about it.
He - unprompted - referred to Hawkins as "Flat-Earth Dave".
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3267
Anyways Dave,  I'm disappointed in you for not being actually concerned with truth when you go all soapbox about it. There's a reason fundamentalist Christians are so reviled by the rest of us. Your ethics are disturbing. You lie to yourselves and to those around you and want to tell other people what to believe based on only your assertions. Well, your assertions are retarded and your lies in their service would only be funny if they weren't so damaging to humanity.

Fundy Christians. Can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to the lions anymore.
You're an idiot.  Of course I'm concerned with truth.  And one of the biggest truths around is ... there was a Global Flood.

The radiocarbon calibration curves alone refute the HYPOTHESIS (note, not a "truth") that there was a Global Flood within the last 10,000 years.  They show that there was no Global Flood within at least the last 50,000 years (and actually more).

Which means that the ONLY evidence FOR a Global Flood, i.e. some stories that there was a flood that was global within the last 10,000 years, is shown to be invalid.  There is NO evidence for a GLOBAL Flood AT ALL outside those stories.

Which means you've got nothing left to support your "truth".

Are you going to deal with this?  Or are you frit?

As in "frightened" - Dave?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3268
Dave is not concerned with truth. That's been clear for his entire online tenure. But he did spell it out pretty clearly on this thread for sure.
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 #3269

Explanation for what?

 And hold on. I thought it was YOU that was going to explain.
Ok. First, do you understand that Brown's curve or any similar curve based on any c14 concentration model at all makes testable predictions? And that those predictions are entirely independent of any actual measurements of c14 concentration in samples?
[Y]
[N]

I don't understand ANY curves very well ... and I think that data is often cherry picked by Old Earthers to support their own paradigm ...
Ok. You are saying
[NO], right? You do not understand what Brown's curve represents. Correct?

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 #3270
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

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

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3271
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

Also, there's c14 in coal and diamonds. Why is that?
What makes you "sure" of that? Scientific fraud happens but it is rare and cheaters get caught if people try to replicate their results, which, in a technology as ubiquitous as radiocarbon analysis, would happen. Anyway, you are wrong in a kind of dumb way and I don't even care to explain because it doesn't actually matter to the issue of the curves agreeing and I don't have the endurance I used to have.

And as for the questions, those are way down the line and are irrelevant to the first part of the conceptual issue. There are perfectly good explanations and all the examples found fit exactly in the tolerance range we would expect for those explanations, but it is utterly irrelevant to the point you don't understand other than that I couldn't possibly explain why if you don't understand what.

First thing's first, do you understand that Brown's curve represents testable predictions?
[Y]
[N]
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

  • Fenrir
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3272
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

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

Bravado and bluster noted, along with an unpleasant fruity smell I have grown accustomed to finding in your distractions and avoidances.



It's what plants crave.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3273
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

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

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

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

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

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


Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #3274
I'm interested carbon 14 but it's a little hard to talk about c14 data when I'm pretty sure that labs are throwing out "bad" dates.

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

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

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

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

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


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