|Author:||BWE_the real_one. [ Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:35 am ]|
Good god man. Pull yourself together.
Dave, think man, think! Hide anything? Jesus, I posted my draft post ahead of time so you could avoid this. Dave, tree-ring labs spread throughout the world with hundreds if not thousands of scientists and published papers would have caught on. Look at your objection above again. Other labs used samples and I posted the page where you can schedule a god-damned son of a bitching fucking tour of the goddamn things. FUUUUUCCCKKK!!! Dave, when you tilt your head do you hear the ocean?
OK. This is the last time I’m gonna copy a fucking part of that paper to the sonofabitching clip board, paste it into a new cocksucking photoshop file and post it to the donkey blowing photobucket. From now on you have to read it yourself. This is just dumb. No, not dumb. Lalalalaloooney. Do you wonder why you have no memory from before waking up in that hospital? Fuuuuuuck.
And I’m posting this one just as a refresher:
read the image above.
e. release being a key word here.
Dave, this is the lamest excuse for a debate imaginable. You are acting like a two year old and posting aha!’s to things I already refuted. You have raised no objections to anything point I have made, you insinuating Ferguson faked the data. That’s sort of the ultimate fall back. Well, if I’m losing accuse them of lying. 14C dating is not circular. Dendrochronology isn’t circular. I explained why in my first post but here is a schematic of why it isn’t. I made this a few weeks ago but it turns out I need to use it here.
That is the stupidest, most lame excuse for an answer that even a fundy has ever used. FFFUUUUUCCCCKKK. I’m getting drunk at lunch so I can forget your stu-fucking-pidity.
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH GGGG HHHHH PPPPPPPP HHHHHHHHHHHH FFFFFFFFF TTTTTTTT!!!!!!! because they are 12 inde-god-damn-pendent sources that ALL GIVE THE SAME RESULTS
TO MAKE STUPID FUCKING MORON CREATIONISTS ASK QUESTIONS.
Sorry, BWE … I’m not buying all this as legitimate science. It looks more and more to me like data that gets shoehorned into a preferred view.
My 3 questions:
1. Why do you suppose the bristlecone data was cross-corellated with varves, ice cores and a combination of 14C in Stuiver et. al.? ?
2. Do you have any actual problems with the science so I know what kind of things I should be trying to explain?
3. Since I already supported my position in my first post, and since it still stands unchallenged by you, I wonder, do you know what it is you think you might accomplish by doing this?
Dave, I am a nice guy. You are right. I am just a bit frustrated at the moment. I will try to calm down. AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUMMMMMMM
ok. Here goes:
A scientist learns to start with a broad question and work towards understanding in a kind of a drill down fashion. This system helps him avoid stupid mistakes like the ones you make. Never assume. Don’t assume there was a flood. Don’t assume there wasn’t. Go out and look and draw your conclusions from what you find. If you learn how to assume little, you are less likely to be the butt of a joke when you are shown to be wrong. Another important trick taught in scientific training is the art of isolation. A scientist tries hard not to test anything but the question he is asking. Controls and procedures absolutely must be reproducible by anyone trained in the scientific method and the specific technologies used, using only the notes of the original author. Because of the peer revue process, a trained scientist learns to publish only that which has been proved.
The ever more specific questions create a map of the system under investigation. The discovery that a system exists at all is the triumph of the scientific method. Trying to claim a place in the system of the physical world for miracles , i.e. inputs from outside the system fell out of favor during the enlightenment as the system began to fit a schematic. Nothing has ever been observed that falls outside that schematic. Modern creationists, recognizing that fact, try to claim that the miraculous events, being fact, are in fact detectable and thus fit within the schematic. But since the schematic is being filled in with ever more detail and precision with multiple lines of investigation all reinforcing each othersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ conclusions and all of the data exhibiting remarkable consilience, and as a random and unplanned consequence erasing the places in the schematic written in by ancient mythologies, those trained in science have no need to investigate these matters further because careful observation has proven them to be false.
Trying to put those failed hypotheses back into the schematic, creationists must challenge the parts of the refined schematic that erased their legends in the first place. The problem at this point in human progress lies in consilience. The entries that negate the creationist claims find support from every other line of inquiry relating to it’s functional part of the system. Science is writing the manual for the universal system. That consilience of the schematic, investigated from many angles to the point where it begins to resemble a three-dimensional net or neural net means that scientists can dismiss creationist claims out of hand because they failed long ago. There is no functional difference between knowing the mechanic is wrong and knowing the creationist is wrong.
When Mr. Douglas wondered if tree rings could be cross referenced, he began a branch of science known as Dendrochronology. When J. R. Arnold and W. F. Libby invented radiocarbon dating they too began a branch of science. Same with ice-cores, varves, speleotherms, marine sediment cores and many other similar fields of study. They were each developed for individual reasons and to place independent entries in the schematic of the physical universe. Each branch involves hundreds, possibly thousands of scientists, trained in the scientific method and educated in the accumulated knowledge of a general region of the schematic.
If any part of the schematic fails, the entire region suffers a ripple effect. There is no way to conceal a serious error for long. Other, independent inquiries will need to cross that axis eventually. To misunderstand the process enough to believe that there is any question whether a branch of science represented in independent research institutions and universities worldwide by hundreds or thousands of trained, qualified scientists with an enormous body of published work in the field is valid is a demonstration of supreme ignorance of what is being studied.
The title of this debate, your title, asks if dendrochronology is valid science. The ability to ask that question demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the process. It is, in short, retarded.
My 3 questions:
- Moderator’s Introduction
- BWE’s 1st Post
- Dave’s 1st Post
- BWE’s 2nd Post
- Dave’s 2nd Post
- BWE’s 3rd Post
- Dave’s 3rd post
- BWE’s 4th Post
- Dave’s 4th Post
- BWE’s 5th Post
- Dave’s 5th Post
- BWE’s 6th Post
- Dave’s 6th Post
- BWE’s 7th Post
- Dave’s 7th post
- BWE’s 8th Post
- Dave’s 8th Post
- BWE’s Penultimate Post
- Dave’s Penultimate Post
- BWE’s Final Debate Post