Quote from: Dave Hawkins on November 29, 2017, 05:15:53 PM"That is because the rest of us think what we do based on evidence."BahahahahahaIt's true. We do. You don't. You think you do, but you don't even know what evidence is. You think that a persuasive hypothesis is evidence that that hypothesis is correct. You don't test your hypotheses against data. In other words, you don't look for the evidence that supports a hypothesis.You basically go around with your eyes shut to anything you don't want to see.
"That is because the rest of us think what we do based on evidence."Bahahahahaha
OK, so Dave, you agree that: Quote from: Pingu on September 22, 2017, 09:26:44 AMchanges in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.which great. That it is because it means we have a way of clearly distinguishing whether the deviations from the 1:1 line are due to changes over time in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios or due to errors in count date.IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C14:C12 ratio changes, as we agree, any sample of given count-date should deviate from the 1:1 line by approximately the same amount.However, IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, whether because the counter interpreted non-annual layers as annual, or missing layers, or finding tree ring samples that have been overlapped that should not have been overlapped, then we should have a big spread of radiocarbon dates for any given count-date.And another way of putting that is:IF the deviations are largely due to atmospheric C14:C12 ratio changes, then the CURVES of count-date plotted against radiocarbon date should be tend to be the same, regardless of the dataset - the CURVES should AGREE.Whereas IF the deviations are largely due to errors in count-date, the CURVES should NOT AGREE.And of course, famously, what the data show is this:Even more impressively, perhaps, is the extraordinary agreement between dendro curves and curves obtained from CORAL, which forms annual bands by quite a different process:THAT is why the radiocarbon calibration curves are such a challenge to YEC and Brown's model. They do not ASSUME that there either WAS, or WAS NOT a Global Flood. They are based on data that MEASURE how much radiocarbon dates given by the formula when N0 is set at a constant value equal to its value in modern times DEVIATE from dates given by other dating methods.And while you might well mistrust those other dating methods (counters may have missed varves, or added varves, or the varves may not be TRUE annual varves, or tree rings might not be made annually, or coral might not have an annual life cycle, or polar snow might not melt at the surface more than once a year, or matched tree cores might not really match up, or whatever), the clincer is that despite all those POTENTIAL sources of count-date error, the amount the radiocarbon dates for those disparate materials deviate from the 1:1 line is quite astonishingly close.So YECs are left with the conundrum: WHY DO THOSE CURVE AGREE? If the disrepancy is due to errors in the count-date, why the same count-date errors for widely differing materials sourced from widely different regions, and produced by widely different processes?
changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.
Let's take my dairy goats as an example ... I claim that my dairy goats are "more healthy" than my typical neighbors' goats ... Now what "evidence" would you people (Darwin club members) require in order to accept my claim?
No, how about we take the evidence of those radiocarbon calibration datasets as an example, Dave. They are clear evidence that the earth is at least 50,000 years old.And that's not even including Lake Kalksjon.You've been badgering from that evidence for weeks now. Time you took a look.
OK well good luck with that.
So let's dig into this a bit shall we? I think that I base my views on "evidence" ... you think I don't but you think YOU do ... and so on ... so let's find out ...
OK well good luck with that.
If I want to have a group discussion taking an objective look at a general question like "what constitutes evidence", it would be pretty dumb to start with "Let's take my toenails for example..."It would make a lot more sense to look into some area where all have equal access to publicly available information.Like, for instance, 14C calibration curves.
So there are no people with goats in your area?
"let's find out"Does anyone doubt that Hawkins is already quite sure of the answer?
It.Doesn't.Matter.This thread is supposed to be about the nature of evidence.Do you think the evident (TLAR!) Perfect Health of "my" goats constitutes evidence relevant to the identity of the person feeding them, or the efficacy of de-worming meds? Or what?