|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
I don't know why, but the exchange between RAZD and Mindspawn reminds me of this clip from Pacific Rim:
And yes, Mindspawn is the Kaiju.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
However in actually determining the half lives of thorium and uranium the following link gives no hint that either method was used. Instead the actual ratios of parent/daughter and their subsequent half-lies were determined using samples of rocks dated using other methods. http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...5Fairbanks+table.pdf "we measured 234U/238U and 230TH/238U atomic ratios in 4 different materials that were likely to have behaved as closed systems for 10`6 years." Of course his following link gives lots of information how the half-lives were previously measured:
quote: Since he didn't even read the introduction, it never occurred to him to look up the explicitly referenced previous lab measurements of the relevant half-lives from the introduction to his own reference The half-lives of uranium-234 and thorium-230.
Half-life of 230Th is on-line and tells how the half-life of 230Th was measured. A little Googling wouldn't hurt, either: Analytical methods (from the standard graduate textbook on radiometric dating) tells us:
quote: But where did the 235U half-life come from? Precision Measurement of Half-Lives and Specific Activities of 235U and 238U has the answer. Bottom line: Mindie far prefers making up to finding out. All this is available in fifteen minutes of reading his own references and simple Googling. But he wants everything handed to him on a silver platter. {ABE} RAZD posts the abstract and makes the point that the half-lives were measured in the lab. But he missed the key paragraphs of the introduction. And those make it clear the the relevant half-lives have been measured int he lab in exactly the standard manner. Cheng et. al. were doing confirmatory work seeking consilience. The import of their paper is independent confirmation of the previously measured half-lives. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : sperate URLs that looked like one. Edited by JonF, : Also fixed bad link to Mindie's refernce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ottom line: Mindie far prefers making up to finding out. All this is available in fifteen minutes of reading his own references and simple Googling. But he wants everything handed to him on a silver platter. Exactly. Why in the world is it legitimate to simply make up stuff about decay rates (or any other fanciful thing) and to then require that your opponent actually serve up contrary references. The debate is over. Who cares whether mindspawn ever admits it.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Who cares whether mindspawn ever admits it Well, the participants... I suspect it derives from hope. The hope that maybe, just maybe, the other guy is honest. Maybe he'll actually consider the evidence. Unfortunately, its not there in this case. As I said, Mindspawn is not honest. That makes him a lost cause. On the flip side, at least the evidence is there chilling out, waiting until the next one comes along. Hopefully, they'll be honest ones. Makes me ashamed to be a Christian, really. These fucktards...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: JonF writes: Bottom line: Mindie far prefers making up to finding out. All this is available in fifteen minutes of reading his own references and simple Googling. But he wants everything handed to him on a silver platter. Exactly. Why in the world is it legitimate to simply make up stuff about decay rates (or any other fanciful thing) and to then require that your opponent actually serve up contrary references. The debate is over. Who cares whether mindspawn ever admits it. Aye, there's the rub. Folks who base their beliefs on the bible or other ancient tribal myths are not amenable to evidence. Those folks literally can't bring themselves to accept evidence, no matter how sound it may be, that contradicts their world view. They won't search for it on the web, and wouldn't accept it if they found it. They would keep searching the web until they found something--anything!--that would provide the slightest ray of hope so that they could maintain their beliefs. And, as we have seen, without the knowledge of science or the scientific method, those slight "rays of hope" just let them fool themselves. We see this very clearly in Mindspawn's posts today. Overwhelmed by evidence that shows his opinions and beliefs to be wrong, he complains about the length of RAZD's evidence-laden posts and resorts to nitpicking inconsequential details. He just can't accept that his beliefs are disproved. This is the creation "science" that the same folks want in schools and schoolbooks today. Heinlein was right (as usual): Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Folks who base their beliefs on the bible or other ancient tribal myths are not amenable to evidence. Not necessarily. See my "signature" for a quote form a famous "Bible-believer"...The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I'm familiar with that quote.
Unfortunately, a lot of folks today don't take it to heart. I think the good Saint, when faced with Mindspawn's arguments, would just give himself a facepalm and shake his head in disbelief.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm familiar with that quote. Unfortunately, a lot of folks today don't take it to heart. I think the good Saint, when faced with Mindspawn's arguments, would just give himself a facepalm and shake his head in disbelief. Yeah, so would Jesus. The point was that they/we're not all that bad (which I see you've gotten), granting that you did insinuate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 2998 days) Posts: 141 Joined:
|
They're both blasting away with shotguns (though Mindie's filled his with bullshit); I think RAZD needs to use some more precision here. He has the patience to write those long, well-researched and supported posts but there's so much in them that Mindie is too easily able to ignore most of it. RAZD should use his admirable patience to concisely refute Mindie's points one at a time so that he can't weasel out of directly addressing RAZD's points. For example, take a post to call Mindie out on the fact that the Lake Suigetsu varves aren't rainfall dependent. Or a post only stating that the various chronologies all accurately record the Year Without a Summer. If that's all he posts then Mindie will have no choice but to address it or unequivocally lose any remain shreds of credibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Focus may be the key I think you're underestimating the power of dishonesty... but I guess we'll see. Good suggestion.
RAZD should use his admirable patience to concisely refute Mindie's points one at a time so that he can't weasel out of directly addressing RAZD's points. If it ain't weaseling-out it'll just be some other bullshit. Like completely-disregarding or totally-ignoring... I've lost all hope with this one, from the get-go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I was expecting a debate on the radiocarbon method, not Japanese geology and other arcane subjects.
But Mindspawn didn't even know the difference between corroboration and calibration. He thought (and I'm sure still thinks) that we need tree rings to validate the radiocarbon method. That is just a side effect. Tree ring calibration was originally designed to provide a method to correct for atmospheric fluctuations in C14 levels so as to make the results of radiocarbon dating slightly more accurate.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
He has the patience to write those long, well-researched and supported posts but there's so much in them that Mindie is too easily able to ignore most of it. Is ignoring posts really an acceptable debating tactic? Is it really possible to swamp someone with facts in a written debate? I think not.
. If that's all he posts then Mindie will have no choice but to address it or unequivocally lose any remain shreds of credibility. Sigh. He's already gambling with other people's money.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atheos canadensis Member (Idle past 2998 days) Posts: 141 Joined: |
Is ignoring posts really an acceptable debating tactic? Is it really possible to swamp someone with facts in a written debate? I think not. It certainly isn't an acceptable tactic. But I'm imagining (deluding myself?) that if RAZD makes such focused points as I describe, Mindie will have to be so explicit in ignoring the contents of the post that perhaps even he will feel some shame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
It's very obvious that mindpawn only reads and believes the opinions of some 'science' teacher in Chicago; a 'science' teacher who's never ever done any of the work himself, but thinks that writing what-if's can be called 'research'.
He believes that the thousands of scientists who actually go get dirty, do the work themselves and publish every little step of their research are all wrong. And part of a global conspiracy. And nothing will change his mind about it. It has been a great thread for people to learn a lot, though. 1. How carbon dating works; the conscilience behind it and how it's fine-tuned (pun intended) to get more accurate dates.2. The power of delusion over a person. 3. A prime example of cognitive dissonance in action. 4. The dangers of religion and what motivates people to fly into buildings for their beliefs. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It certainly isn't an acceptable tactic. But I'm imagining (deluding myself?) that if RAZD makes such focused points as I describe, Mindie will have to be so explicit in ignoring the contents of the post that perhaps even he will feel some shame. You aren't wrong about what would make a better presentation. I'd like to see what you suggest too. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024