I've been discussing, among other things, radiometric dating with another poster on another forum for quite some time now and have come to the point where I no longer am able to answer some of the questions put to me about the specifics of the process and equipment involved. I've always enjoyed lurking around and learning from the expertise of the EvC forums and was hoping some of you guys could take this and run with it. I don't know if cross-forum discussions are appropriate but I thought I'd give it a shot.
From
here:
quote:
Itinerant Lurker:
Can you come back and say that all evidence is open to interpretation? Yes! But if you do please be so kind as to present a consistent interpretation of the evidence from radiometric dating that supports a YEC timeline.
RyanR:
I’ll tell you what, you bring me radiometric dating instruments and I’ll get started right away.
It doesn’t make sense to suggest I could, if I don’t have access to the equipment, the calibration or the actual results before the outliers land in the garbage.
I can’t analyze what I don’t have data for, and that only leaves me with assurances that don’t account for the assumptions.
quote:
Itinerant Lurker:
Is that something you can do? If so I can't wait to read about it, if not why should one give weight to such an interpretation as opposed to the interpretation that can present a consistent explanation of the evidence?
Ryan R:Because people always have interpretations that they championed as consistent explanations of the evidence, and by the time the interpretations are developed and graphed in those pretty charts that you often include in your posts, it all looks good and neat and tidy, but the actual data doesn’t look anything like that.
When you look at quantitative charting of the data, like strata, it looks nothing like those pretty, colour coded interpretations. Nothing at all.
From that evolutionists and Creationists can come up with their interpretations, test them, if they’re not outright contradicted by the observational science according to the assumptions they employed then it’s positioned as truth and presented in a pretty little graph, all the while updating, revising or outright replacing the last seemingly consistent interpretations of truth.
It’s an ongoing cycle of untrustworthy interpretations based on assumptions, to which weight should not be applied.
Let me explain something about applying weight to data, you have to have a multiplier based on calculated representative numbers versus actual numbers. You can't say that a quantitative method has a certain weight, unless that weight is calculated by a multiplier.
You keep saying the evolutionary views hold weight, but unless you can show me a multiplier matrix then that’s not even quantitatively accurate. That’s something you’re saying as though it has merit, but in point of fact you’re not weighting anything, you’re valuing things qualitatively. The words you're using have the pretence of empiricism, but are simply value statements.
There really is so much pretence of evolutionary authority, and it’s veiled in these pseudo-quantitative claims that aren’t actually quantifiably. Non-quantitative is qualitative, and is therefore founded not on evidence but on feelings.
Thanks.
Lurker
Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.