BWE’s 8th Post

Author: BWE_the real_one. [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:44 pm ]
Post subject: Re: Formal Debate: Dendrochronology and C14?

afdave1 wrote:
THIS IS A DEBATE ABOUT DENDROCHRONOLOGY … I NEED TO SEE TREE RINGS

Maybe I have not been clear enough. Maybe my last request was vague. I see that I asked for “raw data” but I should have reiterated what I have said previously, thus what I meant by “raw data.” What I meant was TREE RINGS….

I really, really want to see tree rings. What would be great would be to see the rings from the bottom 3 specimens in the graphic above, plus the long specimen that spans from ~2500BC to ~800AD. It is my opinion that these 3 (and others) are misplaced (should not be in the 6000-7000 ybp range) and could easily be matched up with rings of trees in the <5000 ybp range. My opinion is that the Flood occurred about ~5000 ybp and that the 3 “old” specimens above were placed where they were because of C14 dating. But this in turn is based on unwarranted assumptions which make them appear much older than they really are.

Well. Your opinion is a result of your indoctrination. If you were to suppose it to be fact you would be wrong.

I had a nice chat with Rex Adams from the University of Arizona to find out if I could get and post the pictures you wanted to see. Unfortunately, pictures of Ferguson’s master chronology are impractical. When Douglas built his first master chronology, he did use pictures. Black and white. The pictures laid out for thirty feet. They were photographic resolution. It would be impossible to post the pictures you want.

Ha! I can hear you say. So! You can’t post pictures! I told you so!

Not so fast buster. The data I linked you to is in hundredths of a millimeter. Unless you are accusing Ferguson of deliberately falsifying data, then that data is better than pictures. Much better. But since you have so far proven yourself to be incapable of understanding basic scientific techniques (Shake a glass full of rocks and see what happens. Try using one of your nicer glasses) I won’t bother going into age calibration or anything like that. Suffice it to say that a semi intelligent human could use the data.

Quote:
VISUAL INSPECTION is important. I have been saying this from the beginning of this debate.

This is not a case of me not wanting to bother to educate myself. This is a case of many posters here, including you, asserting that you understand the “science” of dendrochronology. I have asserted that most of you (maybe all of you) do not. So this debate is your chance to prove me wrong. It is your chance to demonstrate to me that you HAVE actually observed these tree rings. And you have verified for yourself the soundness of conclusions like Ferguson’s.

Dave, your ignorance is not an argument. Your assertion does not make a fact. Your religion does not make truth. I have not asserted but rather demonstrated that I do in fact understand the “science” of dendrochronology. Others have not asserted but rather demonstrated that they also understand it. It isn’t hard. You can’t because you are simply less capable.

Quote:
I am beginning to think that you have NOT seen Ferguson’s tree rings and that possibly this is first time you have ever gotten this close to the data. Am I right?

Well, you could have asked me that question right away. I have not seen Ferguson’s tree rings. This is the first time I’ve ever gotten this close to the data. That is a perfect demonstration of the kind of thinking that makes you the butt of all the jokes. You, Dave, are an idiot.

I could and probably should leave it at that but, since I am me, I can’t do that.

I’ve been hard on you in this debate Dave. I took your ignorance, wrapped it in your hubris and placed it on the table as a piece of art. I treated you as if you meant nothing and deserved respect for nothing. I felt bad about it at first. The unfortunate problem for you stems from your acceptance of a screed that endangers us all through its fearful hold on the hearts and minds remaining to support it. My first impression of you was an arrogant dipshit who couldn’t tell his ass from a hole in the ground over at AtBC. I just laughed at you and otherwise ignored you. What I saw was the flagrant dishonesty combined with sheer stupidity that came to be your hallmark there, here at RDF, and now at IIDB too.

You challenged anyone to debate you on the subject of the origins of the Portuguese language. I took you up on that challenge on the grounds that you were too stupid to debate anything. You claimed victory without a single post from me. In frustration I challenged you to a debate on any topic either side. My only point in entering this debate was to demonstrate that your habits of lying, quote-mining, welching and arguing from stupidity are reflexive and that you have no other techniques. You proved my point in spades.

You seem to fear science. I believe that stems from the lack of value inherent in its methodology- what is true rather than what is good. You inherently, given your experiences, know how to value things. You know what constitutes good or quality. This is essentially C.S. Lewis’s argument in “Mere Christianity”. But science ignores the social and personal value of its immense pile of facts. What constitutes “good” in a social setting is often at odds with what constitutes “true” as revealed through careful observation and the scientific method.

But Plato’s pure forms were the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. That third element, Beautiful, ends up loosely equivalent to what we also call reverence-that most elusive quality. People may find beauty in the structure and systems and hierarchy of a coherent system of beliefs. People may find beauty in some art but not in other art. Some people may find beauty in nothing and as such, lack the idea of reverence. To see beauty, a person needs an a priori acquaintance with beauty. But to feel reverence, I’m not sure.

Do you know what a priori means? It means a concept in your mind of something. There is an analogy from someone- probably famous- of blind men and an elephant. They try to figure out what an elephant is by touching it. One thinks it is a tree from touching its leg. Another thinks it is a wall from touching its side and so on. The idea of elephant is the a priori. You have a priori knowledge of your God. You can’t see him but you fit the parts you touch into your a priori concept. But what happens when a part you touch doesn’t fit?

That’s the thing. Your concept can’t change even though experience and evidence reveal your error. You are stuck. You want to cling to your concept of God even though it can’t work. You want to make a schematic for the universe that includes your god. You can’t. That’s because of the remarkable thing called consilience that everyone has been hammering on you about. Every part of the schematic that science has been constructing must fit together. When you throw your god into the diagram, he falls apart. That is why AiG and ICR and the rest require their contributors to abide by the notion that when science and God conflict, science must be wrong. If you simply follow evidence, your god washes away like a very old mountain range.

In the book “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”, Robert Persig addresses the same notion of stuck. He uses the example of a mechanic who strips a screw taking off the engine cover. The mechanic, originally focused on a problem with a clear, defined objective and procedure, finds himself stuck- suddenly presented with a new and separate problem that requires a fresh creative approach. Often that is easier said than done. When we find ourselves stuck- stuck in a dead end relationship, stuck in depression, stuck in a crummy job, stuck trying to figure out what to get Grandma for her birthday and etc.- we try to get unstuck. You got stuck on your god issue. Science presented an insurmountable obstacle. But rather than treat it as a new and separate issue, you saw it as a barrier between you and God. There can only be one resolution to your issue. To maintain your god, you have to remove the stumbling block of science.

That disturbs me. I succeeded in demonstrating that you and your creationist brethren are liars. I succeeded in demonstrating that you are dishonest and intentionally dishonestly quote-mine. I was going to get you to make a commitment to something in this debate so I could provide another example of you welching on a deal but I don’t see that as necessary anymore. And since that was my original intention anyway, I let you conclusively demonstrate that you are stupid.

I will be on vacation until Memorial day. There are no rules, remember.

1. The title is retarded.
2. Dendro is not circular.
3. Creationists are liars.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s