Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: If only we hadn't run Schneibster off!!!

Topic: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims (Read 766 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #125
I'm not asserting anything about poo.  I'm simply laying out the bare facts as honestly as possible and letting people be imbeciles if they choose to be.
Right.
So anyone who doesn't see it your way is an "imbecile".
Quote
  The bare facts are ... based on what we know - which is admittedly not much - the entire deposit denoted as "Unit A" could have been laid by a single adult Shasta sloth in a mere 15 years,
No.
That is not a fact.
That is the result of a boatload of unwarranted assumptions about Shasta ground sloths.
Quote
a scenario which would be consistent with Long et al's comment that
Quote
The fresh-looking, odoriferous blanket of dung makes it difficult to believe that the ground sloths have been gone at least 10,000 yr, as the radiocarbon dates show (Table 1).
Right. That rules out 10,000 years, but the 5000 years in YOUR scenario - no problem!  ::)
Quote
The thing that causes you to believe it took 2000 years is not data about Shasta sloths or about animal defecation behavior.
Right.
Because we don't have any information on that.
Quote
It's Carbon 14.
Right.
Because (a) we DO have a lot of information about that and (b) that's ALL we have to estimate the age of the stuff.
  • Last Edit: September 21, 2017, 03:32:19 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #126
I'm not asserting anything about poo.  I'm simply laying out the bare facts as honestly as possible and letting people be imbeciles if they choose to be.  The bare facts are ... based on what we know - which is admittedly not much - the entire deposit denoted as "Unit A" could have been laid by a single adult Shasta sloth in a mere 15 years, a scenario which would be consistent with Long et al's comment that
Quote
The fresh-looking, odoriferous blanket of dung makes it difficult to believe that the ground sloths have been gone at least 10,000 yr, as the radiocarbon dates show (Table 1).
[or that this deposit - Unit A - required 2000 years to be deposited]

The thing that causes you to believe it took 2000 years is not data about Shasta sloths or about animal defecation behavior. 

It's Carbon 14.

Oh.  You want to discuss that you say?  Well ... what are we doing on the other thread if not discussing carbon 14?
Well Dave, on the other thread all you were talking about was sloth poo.
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #127
Incidentally, even if Brown was right the sloth poo would still be thousands of years old. So this:

Quote from: Long et al
The fresh-looking, odoriferous blanket of dung makes it difficult to believe that the ground sloths have been gone at least 10,000 yr, as the radiocarbon dates show (Table 1).
Could be reworded as this:

Quote from: Brown's and Dave's world
The fresh-looking, odoriferous blanket of dung makes it difficult to believe that the ground sloths have been gone at least 4,000 years.
Which is still a very long time for a pile of poo to sit around looking and smelling fresh. And which you would find equally unbelievable if you had no vested interest in believing it.

Truth is out of style

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #128
I'm not asserting anything about poo.  I'm simply laying out the bare facts as honestly as possible and letting people be imbeciles if they choose to be.  The bare facts are ... based on what we know - which is admittedly not much - the entire deposit denoted as "Unit A" could have been laid by a single adult Shasta sloth in a mere 15 years,

Once again, Dave, no, that is not, in any conceivable way, a "fact." It's what you desperately want to believe. The only support you've provided for it is your baseless ASSUMPTION that Shastas had the exact same pooping habits as modern sloths.

An ASSUMPTION is not a FACT, Dave!

a scenario which would be consistent with Long et al's comment that
Quote
The fresh-looking, odoriferous blanket of dung makes it difficult to believe that the ground sloths have been gone at least 10,000 yr, as the radiocarbon dates show (Table 1).

How the hell do you know do you know what would be "consistent" with that? What FACTS do you have to let you know how long dung has to sit in a cave with low humidity and uniform temperature before it stops smelling? Do you put it somewhere between 5,000 years and 10,000 years? Because it's at least 5,000 years old under Brown's dates.

Also, what the fuck do you think the amount of time it took to be deposited has to do with how old the youngest part of it is? That doesn't follow at all.

[or that this deposit - Unit A - required 2000 years to be deposited]

Why does your made up number of 15 years make 2000 years, or any other number, difficult to believe? Once again, how do you know...
A) How many sloths used the cave during the period in question?
B) How many times during the period in question no sloths used the cave?
C) How long during the period in question no sloths used the cave?

You are just Hawkinsing right by these questions as if they don't exist. Once again, you are just ASSUMING it was one sloth shitting there continuously. You have no reason to make that ASSUMPTION.

The thing that causes you to believe it took 2000 years is not data about Shasta sloths or about animal defecation behavior. 

It's Carbon 14.

That's one thing. Here are a number of others you need to ignore to make your assumptions work.
1) There are numerous other dating methods that also show there was no global flood.
2) Carbon 14 has been tested against these dating methods and found to be accurate.
3) Modern sloths are tiny, arboreal, and shit little pellets. Shastas were giant, lived on the ground, and shat large dung balls. There is no reason to ASSUME their pooping behaviors would even be remotely similar.
3) Pollen in the dung suggests that the cave was only used for a very small portion of late-winter/early-spring, NOT for 3 months as you ASSUME.
4) Non-sloth dung in the cave shows that there were periods when sloths did not use the cave.
5) A blackened layer in Unit A suggests that it contains a period when sloths did not use the cave.
6) Change in flora throughout Unit A suggest it spans a long period of time.
7) Infant bones in the cave suggest it was used for birthing, which would suggest only a brief amount of time.

How many times must it be pointed out that you are ASSUMING what you want to believe and IGNORING anything inconvenient for your beliefs for it to sink in?

You are not trying to create a list of "facts," Hawkins. You are not trying to find out what is true. You are trying, desperately and pathetically, to find some way of proving that what you WANT TO BELIEVE is true. You are being dishonest with yourself.

Oh.  You want to discuss that you say?  Well ... what are we doing on the other thread if not discussing carbon 14?
I would strongly encourage you to focus on that discussion, because this one is not in any way productive for you.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #129
Quoting this over to the sloth poop thread:

My respect for Brown has increased now that I have dug into the info he gave about Rampart Cave and Shasta ground sloths.  This guy was sharp for recognizing the huge problem presented to Old Earthers by this cave.  (Never mind that Old Earthers are too dumb to recognize the problem)
I'm curious, Dave.

Exactly what information from Brown increased your respect for him?
And what is this "huge problem" that only you can recognise?
Truth is out of style

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #130
Let's see, Brown LIED about the number of sloth "pellets," LIED in fact that they were "pellets" at all. LIED by omission by leaving out all of the evidence for periodic habitation. Yup, sounds like someone Dave Hawkins would respect!

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #131
The idea that some long-extinct species might have periodically - as opposed to continuously - visited / shat in this cave is a "huge problem", but the idea that the original Arkonaut progenitor of sloth-kind couple somehow got from Ararat to Rampart Cave within a year or two of "The Flood" and proceeded to shit out the entire Unit C of dung within a decade - No Problem At All!
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Fenrir
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #132
The idea that some long-extinct species might have periodically - as opposed to continuously - visited / shat in this cave is a "huge problem", but the idea that the original Arkonaut progenitor of sloth-kind couple somehow got from Ararat to Rampart Cave within a year or two of "The Flood" and proceeded to shit out the entire Unit C of dung within a decade - No Problem At All!


And all whilst eating plants that had already recovered from a year's inundation under a significant depth of muddy brackish water and revegetated large areas so as to provide a landscape with sufficient cover to provide adequate fodder to support very large vegetarian animals of at least several types.

Fortunately those plants did not first have to speciate, having avoided a disastrous genetic bottleneck by the simple trick of being almost completely ignored by the authors of the bible, apart from a solitary olive which was miraculously transported to the top of the enormous mud pile, mature and thriving and ready to be plucked as a convenient plot device.

Did Shasta Ground Sloths eat olives?
It's what plants crave.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #133
I'm not asserting anything about poo.  I'm simply laying out the bare facts as honestly as possible and letting people be imbeciles if they choose to be.  The bare facts are ... based on what we know - which is admittedly not much - the entire deposit denoted as "Unit A" could have been laid by a single adult Shasta sloth in a mere 15 years, a scenario which would be consistent with Long et al's comment that
Quote
The fresh-looking, odoriferous blanket of dung makes it difficult to believe that the ground sloths have been gone at least 10,000 yr, as the radiocarbon dates show (Table 1).
[or that this deposit - Unit A - required 2000 years to be deposited]

The thing that causes you to believe it took 2000 years is not data about Shasta sloths or about animal defecation behavior. 

It's Carbon 14.

Oh.  You want to discuss that you say?  Well ... what are we doing on the other thread if not discussing carbon 14?

Almost anything but.

Despite repeated posts asking you to address it.

And culminating in you starting this one to avoid it, apparently.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #134
I'm not asserting anything about poo.  I'm simply laying out the bare facts as honestly as possible and letting people be imbeciles if they choose to be.  The bare facts are ... based on what we know - which is admittedly not much - the entire deposit denoted as "Unit A" could have been laid by a single adult Shasta sloth in a mere 15 years, a scenario which would be consistent with Long et al's comment that
Quote
The fresh-looking, odoriferous blanket of dung makes it difficult to believe that the ground sloths have been gone at least 10,000 yr, as the radiocarbon dates show (Table 1).
[or that this deposit - Unit A - required 2000 years to be deposited]

The thing that causes you to believe it took 2000 years is not data about Shasta sloths or about animal defecation behavior. 

It's Carbon 14.

Oh.  You want to discuss that you say?  Well ... what are we doing on the other thread if not discussing carbon 14?
Watching you duck and weave in a frantic attempt to avoid discussing Carbon 14. So far you've been successful.  It's obvious you are never going to discuss Carbon 14.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #135
I'm not asserting anything about poo.  I'm simply laying out the bare facts as honestly as possible and letting people be imbeciles if they choose to be. 
Bullshit. See below.
The bare facts are ... based on what we know - which is admittedly not much - the entire deposit denoted as "Unit A" could have been laid by a single adult Shasta sloth in a mere 15 years,
...Aaaand here's where you're being DIShonest. You KNOW FULL WELL that your 15 years estimate is CONTRADICTED by the pollen evidence. And yet you keep parading it around as if it's a legitimate estimate. It's NOT. And you fucking KNOW it.

And the same goes for your 60-years one, which is based on the UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTION that sloths had to use the cave for no less than 3 months each year.

Garbage in, garbage out.
a scenario which would be consistent with Long et al's comment that
Quote
The fresh-looking, odoriferous blanket of dung makes it difficult to believe that the ground sloths have been gone at least 10,000 yr, as the radiocarbon dates show (Table 1).
[or that this deposit - Unit A - required 2000 years to be deposited][/or]
:facepalm:

You're REALLY grasping at straws now, Hawkins.

"Gee, those dung balls looked and smelled fresh- That means it's UNBELIEVABLE they could possibly be deposited in 2000 years! Instead, they were deposited in 1560 years, and then left alone for 5000 years. EVERYONE knows that shit stays fresh and smelly in that case!".

:rofl:

Is that the best you can do? ::)

The thing that causes you to believe it took 2000 years is not data about Shasta sloths or about animal defecation behavior. 

It's Carbon 14.
Really? So, you're saying that, if we DIDN'T have the C14 evidence, we would think that the sloth shit was...


...HOW old, exactly?

I await your estimate. Remember: NO ASSUMPTIONS.

Quote
Oh.  You want to discuss that you say?  Well ... what are we doing on the other thread if not discussing carbon 14?
Oh, you mean that thread where you use your sloth poo stories to justify your authoritarianism of Brown? :D
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.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #136
THE ONLY thing driving that 2000 year time frame is carbon 14 ... which of course denies the Global Flood.

No, it fucking does NOT, you clueless ignoramus.  If this is true, then support the idea that radiocarbon dating in any way assumes a global flood didn't happen.

Go ahead. I dare you.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #137
He is all mixed up in his tiny little head. He thinks that because analysis of C14 results doesn't show what he wants it to show, that must mean that C14 dating assumes no global flood. He apparently cannot see why this is a brain fart.
Truth is out of style

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #138
He is all mixed up in his tiny little head. He thinks that because analysis of C14 results doesn't show what he wants it to show, that must mean that C14 dating assumes no global flood. He apparently cannot see why this is a brain fart.

Bluffy may or may not be able to see thus brain fart, but one thing;s for sure, he certainly does not want to see it and will do whatever he has to in order to avoid seeing it.
Are we there yet?

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #139
...Brown...made a very astute observation about sloth dung in Rampart cave...
Why are you still claiming this after you were shown how he misrepresented the facts about it? He was wrong about virtually everything he said about it, and you were shown repeatedly exactly how he was wrong. On what basis could you possibly still be claiming he made any "astute observation" about it?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #140
He astutely calculated that gullible tools like Hawkins would swallow it, hook line and sinker.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #141
...Brown...made a very astute observation about sloth dung in Rampart cave...
Why are you still claiming this after you were shown how he misrepresented the facts about it? He was wrong about virtually everything he said about it, and you were shown repeatedly exactly how he was wrong. On what basis could you possibly still be claiming he made any "astute observation" about it?
If you don't understand the answer to that question by now, then you are too stupid  or blinkered  to understand it now if I explained it again.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #142
...Brown...made a very astute observation about sloth dung in Rampart cave...
Why are you still claiming this after you were shown how he misrepresented the facts about it? He was wrong about virtually everything he said about it, and you were shown repeatedly exactly how he was wrong. On what basis could you possibly still be claiming he made any "astute observation" about it?
If you don't understand the answer to that question by now, then you are too stupid  or blinkered  to understand it now if I explained it again.
In other words, you got nothing.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #143
...Brown...made a very astute observation about sloth dung in Rampart cave...
Why are you still claiming this after you were shown how he misrepresented the facts about it? He was wrong about virtually everything he said about it, and you were shown repeatedly exactly how he was wrong. On what basis could you possibly still be claiming he made any "astute observation" about it?
If you don't understand the answer to that question by now, then you are too stupid  or blinkered  to understand it now if I explained it again.
In other words, you got nothing.
BtB, that is an astute observation there.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #144
...Brown...made a very astute observation about sloth dung in Rampart cave...
Why are you still claiming this after you were shown how he misrepresented the facts about it? He was wrong about virtually everything he said about it, and you were shown repeatedly exactly how he was wrong. On what basis could you possibly still be claiming he made any "astute observation" about it?
If you don't understand the answer to that question by now, then you are too stupid  or blinkered  to understand it now if I explained it again.

Oh, we understand just fine, Dave.  What we are interested in is your own rationalisation.

It is as clear as day that you are incapable of changing your mind about anything if it will impact on the conclusion you want to be true.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown Sloth Poop Claims
Reply #145
Here again, by the way, is Voxrat's clear explanation of exactly how pretty much everything Brown said was wrong. To date, you have not even acknowledged it...

In the spirit of the thread title, here are the actual claims R.H. Brown made about sloth dung (with my annotations):
Quote
TESTS OF BIBLICALLY COMPATIBLE C-14 AGE CONVERSION [1]
[...]

Another test can be made with the data for the ground-sloth dung deposit in Rampart Cave in Grand Canyon (Long and Martin 1974). Approximately 39,000 dung pellets[2] accumulated in the main area of this cave between 40,000 and 20,000 C-14 years B.P. [3]An average of 1.9 pellets per year (39,000 divided by 20,000 C-14 years)[4] is unrealistic for a viable population of sloths in the vicinity of the cave.[5] Conversion according to the relationship represented in Table 26.2 yields 5,350 and 5,270 corresponding real-time year age limits, with an accumulation time of only ~ 80 years.  [6] An 80-year interval represents only about 1.4 dung pellets per day.[7]The upper 20 inches of Rampart Cave floor deposit built up between 12,000 and 10,800 C-14 years B.P., and represents an accumulation in the main area of the cave at about 215 dung pellets per C-14 year.[8] Conversion to suggested real-time age equivalents yields a 13-pellet average per day during ~50 years. [9]
Origin by Design (revised edition 2005; p361)
note that the only thing "tested" about this is (misrepresented) amounts of sloth dung vs. ages estimated by a formula not derived from any empirical data, but force-fit to a lot of assumptions made specifically, explicitly, to accommodate  "BIBLICAL" (i.e. YEC) articles of faith.
Note that both the number and the "pellets" characterization are made up out of whole cloth
Note that, while the bottom of the pile was dated to ">40,000 years" (i.e. beyond the limit of the sensitivity of radiocarbon dating at the time) the 20,000 number appears to be, again, invented.
a meaningless "statistic" based on made up numbers and made up units
Note this statement contains a boatload of unstated and unwarranted assumptions. Among the most obvious: (1) what constitutes "realistic"? (2) what constitutes a "viable population"? Actual biological scientists would pretty much universally agree that 2 is NOT a viable population, especially when it represents the population, not just "in the vicinity of the cave", but on the entire planet. But Brown neglects to comment on the fact that this very "AGE CONVERSION" thingy he purports to be "testing" has that entire Unit C layer being deposited within 10 years immediately following "The Flood" (4) what fraction of the population used this cave in any given year, (5) what fraction of years did they use it at all (6) what fraction of any given year did they use it (7) what fraction of their dumps did they take in the cave ...
But conversion according to that relationship from the 14C dates actually presented in the cited paper yields ~5,350 (yep; the very year "The Flood" is assumed to have happened) and ~5,340 (ten years later)
On the other hand, a 10-year interval represents 0 dung pellets per day, because ground sloth dung doesn't come in "pellets". It does, however, represent about 60 cubic meters of the stuff / 10 years = 6 cubic meters/year "Brown time"
Again: no. "Pellets" is not a unit of ground sloth dung. It does represent about 11 cubic meters
No. It represents 11 cubic meters / 50 years, i.e. 0.22 cubic meters / year. I.e. a rate just ~ 4% of the rate in the first layer. Which rather calls into question all of those assumptions listed in footnote 5 about uniformity of rate of deposition. After a hiatus of some 200 years. Which rather calls into question the assumption of continuous occupancy.