|Author:||BWE_the real_one. [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:32 pm ]|
Although your ignorance is not my problem, nor is it a challenge to any science, this debate is not a debate in the normal sense of the word so…
This is merely the first few lines of the data. The rest is available here.
A host of software options for analyzing the data is available here. You might like this one because it has “amazing graphics capabilities as well as numerous options for crossdating and standardization”.
From the Crossdating link in the software description page:
The crossdating page concludes with:
But you don’t have to stop there.
Those are all different software packages available to perform various kinds of tests on the data. Just follow that first link and you can buy any one of them and perform your very own tests on Fergusons data. Maybe you can do some testing to find out if forest fires are more intense, less intense or about the same statistically over the last roughly 7000 years. I’m curious about that one. Maybe you need different data. I don’t know since I didn’t check. If you are going to do that,
looks promising. There are many more made by a wide variety of vendors who employ experts in the field of dendrochronology. Which, interestingly enough, brings us back to the first point I made that the title of this debate is a retarded way to look at an established science. There are so many different dendrochronology master sequences, analytical tools, labs, for profit vendors, entire departments at universities and ways to specialize in dendrochronology out there that to question whether the science is valid demonstrates nothing other than the ignorance of the questioner. Or, perhaps, the dishonesty.
All that software actually points out a very important thing in terms of this “debate”. Dendro is not only a valid science but circularity couldn’t possible encapsulate the breadth of what is being studied and the results all match each other. In terms of 14C dating, I already demonstrated that it is not only not circular but corroborated at this point by hundreds and hundreds of independent analyses using at least a dozen unrelated techniques and all matching just exactly how you would expect. Not one data set has cast any doubt on the reliability of dendro. It is not only not circular but it utterly disproves your idea of a young Earth (May we all appreciate how she recycles our waste to nourish us again). It isn’t the specific application of any one of these things, it is the fact that they all give the same results. Questioning those data independent of their consilient results is not useful for criticizing the dating part of the results. Unless, that is, you were trying to obfuscate. Which leads to my next issue.
C.E. Don Batten does in fact know the difference between sensitivity and complacency. He knows quite well why Bristlcones are not equivalent to not just Monterey pines, but, more eggregiously, to farm raised monterey pines. He utterly and unquestionably intentionally misleads his readers with the intention of giving them a false understanding of fact. In short, he is trying to make up an argument that will hold back the flood gates of data and science and intentionally misinform a specific group of people that will help fight against scientific learning and indeed a learning of what Earth (May we merge with her spirit with every orgasm) and sky actually reveal about our position in the universe. Woodmorappe in trying to make it look like we could never tell if the CO2 a tree absorbs came from volcanic gasses is blatantly and patently lying as I pointed out in my second post. Rohl cites Yamaguchi as somehow invalidating dendrochronology which is exactly wrong for the reasons I laid out above multiple times. Rohl had the paper to cite it, right? If so, he knowingly lied about its conclusions. If not, he dishonestly cited material he never read. Either way all creationists so far have used lies to build a case on. Then, inexplicably since you let my demolitions of your first three creationists stand, you pop up with a fourth, Sorenson. Surprise surprise, a blatant lie. “The entire [master] chronology is the work of one laboratory, the director of which [Ferguson] has refused to allow critical study of the raw data. ” Which actually, I just noticed, tries to put all the output of the entire laboratory under Fergeson’s watchful eye. Just so you know, I’ve talked with some people there and it’s a pretty big lab. That is probably another intentional obfuscation although it may just be me looking for them. It doesn’t matter, I just made him a liar on this page by providing the data.
The lab is quite willing to let you tour the facility, take pictures of the master sequence, use their pictures etc. but for them to expend any resources on educating you, you will need to pay them. That is how it works. Bet you can’t look at the material in the ag lab at KSU either. Anyway, once again, totally irrelevant to this debate.
Because insinuating that a major scientific field is not practicing valid science is a serious display of ignorance. Do you understand now?
No you have not. It is not circular because multiple, totally independent methods of cross-checking were employed. I’m sorr but your argument from ignorance does not, repeat does not help your case. I provided that Data, the specimens are viewable, the lab is at a university so students are exposed to it daily, and there are scores and scores of scientists around the world independently using the techniques pioneered by ferguson and douglas but refined countless times since then by countless researchers and getting the same results. Sorry, ferguson is dead, he contributed quite a bit to the science but 14C calibration is only further corroborated by dendrochronology, it is not reliant on it and dendro is not reliant on 14C calibration at all. That isn’t even a closed geometric shape let alone circular.
Dave, where did I use “others'” ideas to establish that the creationist you have so far supplied are ALL DEMONSTRABLY LYING? I think I simply pointed out the lie and the information to establish the lie.
1. If you ended up noticing that science isn’t a value proposition and that the evidence actually leads to the conclusion that individual fundementalist sects of some religions are wrong in their human interpretation of the Bible, would you have to give up Christianity?
2. Please try to follow my logic and at least try to either refute or confirm my analysis of the arguments made by the 4 creationists mentioned so far.
3. Is Don Batten being dishonest to cite Yamaguchi the way he does and equivocate two utterly different trees because they are both pinus? Why or why not.
- 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