|
Author
|
Topic: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: KBS TUFF is the subject
Did you read the links relating to this I provided? It explains how they determined which dates were likely to be realistic.
Dating of this tuff by the K-Ar and 40Ar-39Ar methods had given a wide range of numerical ages from about 1.6 to 2.6 Ma, leading to much debate, particularly as the older age would have meant that ER 1470 was the oldest hominid known at that time. The co-leaders of the Koobi Fora Research Expedition, Richard Leakey and Glynn Isaac, invited me to participate in further isotopic dating of the tuffs, a number of which were known to occur in the sedimentary sequence. In principle, isotopic dating of alkali feldspar crystals found within pumice clasts in a tuff would yield an age for the igneous eruption. As deposition of a tuff within a sedimentary basin generally would have occurred within a very short interval after the eruption, days to perhaps tens of years, extending to hundreds of years at most, the age obtained on a tuff also provides a close estimate of the age of deposition. Thus, in 1978 I was able to undertake field work at Koobi Fora, collecting pumice clasts and tuffs from a number of horizons throughout the sequence, under the guidance of the geologist of the expedition at that time, Ian Findlater. Subsequently, our initial K-Ar and 40Ar-39Ar dating results on the KBS Tuff were published in Nature in 1980 and 1981, showing that it had a quite reproducible age of 1.88 0.02 Ma. These results were seen as resolving the controversy on the numerical age of the KBS Tuff and thus of ER 1470 recovered from sediments just below the tuff (e.g. see Hay, R. L., Nature 284: 401, 1980). From and interview with Dr. Ian McDougall. One of the nice things about science is the key issue of reproduciblity. Issues like age or other controversial questions are subjected to peer review and testing by other researchers. In this case multiple samples from multiple sites were used to cross check with the result that the tufs were dated with a high degree of confidence.
In fact, McDougall also revealed the "scatter" that Fitch chastised Berkeley for was even greater in his reported results. McDougall (on Fitch scatter): 0.52 to 2.64 million years for one set of samples and ages of 8.43 to 17.5 million years on another set before settling on their 2.6 million date. Again, you make these totally unsupported assertions. According to what Dr. McDougall said, "Dating of this tuff by the K-Ar and 40Ar- 39Ar methods had given a wide range of numerical ages from about 1.6 to 2.6 Ma". Where did you get the figures you assert above? You also assert
This date only split the difference of the discordant dates produced by our two top notch teams leaving the descrepancy only half as much for both sides. yet the interview that has been provided to you at least three times now tells an enitely different story. There was no spliting of the dates. Instead, all new samples were gathered at the site under the supervision of the geologist. Those new samples were analyzed.
Thus, in 1978 I was able to undertake field work at Koobi Fora, collecting pumice clasts and tuffs from a number of horizons throughout the sequence, under the guidance of the geologist of the expedition at that time, Ian Findlater. Why do you continue in thread after thread to make unsupported assertions even after they have been shown to be false?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Charles Lyell's "Principles in Geology" [1824-1833] estimated the Cretaceous ended 80 million years ago.
Citation, please? It appears to be online - Charles Lyell (1797-1875) geologist.- how 'bout a page number?
|
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
Message 48 of 217 (147346)
10-04-2004 11:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
10-04-2004 11:00 PM
|
|
Re: KBS TUFF is the subject
Why do you continue in thread after thread to make unsupported assertions even after they have been shown to be false? Why did you continue to make unsupported opinions in Bible topics even after they were proven to be false ? Because the Admins coddle your tactics. You have evaded the uncomfortable conclusions of my post. Why ? You can try and change the events of KBS Tuff after the fact but that only reinforces the ugly facts that evos determine their dates via circular convergence, also known as fraud/pseudo science of the religion of scientism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by jar, posted 10-04-2004 11:00 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by jar, posted 10-04-2004 11:34 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: KBS TUFF is the subject
Trying to change the topic again WILLOWTREE? That seems to be your prefered tactic instead of answering the questions asked of you. Perhaps it's because you once again are just plain lying? Could it be that yet again you've been caught lying? So let's try to stick to the topic of the thread. WILLOWTREE asserted
quote:
In fact, McDougall also revealed the "scatter" that Fitch chastised Berkeley for was even greater in his reported results. McDougall (on Fitch scatter): 0.52 to 2.64 million years for one set of samples and ages of 8.43 to 17.5 million years on another set before settling on their 2.6 million date.
I asked "Where did you get the figures you assert above?" Do you have an answer? You also asserted:
quote:
This date only split the difference of the discordant dates produced by our two top notch teams leaving the descrepancy only half as much for both sides.
yet the interview that has been provided to you at least three times now tells an enitely different story. There was no spliting of the dates. Instead, all new samples were gathered at the site under the supervision of the geologist. Those new samples were analyzed.
Thus, in 1978 I was able to undertake field work at Koobi Fora, collecting pumice clasts and tuffs from a number of horizons throughout the sequence, under the guidance of the geologist of the expedition at that time, Ian Findlater. Why do you continue in thread after thread to make unsupported assertions even after they have been shown to be false?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4023 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
|
|
Message 50 of 217 (147414)
10-05-2004 6:25 AM
|
|
|
WT`sCorrection Class
WT: Pay attention, class, and I will demonstrate how easy it is to demolish the lies spread by evil scientists.
WT: You see before you ten glasses filled with ordinary water. Those Bible-hating ‘scientists’ will tell you water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, but what do we find when we analyse the contents of these glasses? Using evil laboratory techniques, of course. Let them hang themselves with their own methods.
WT: Nine of these glasses have water composed of hydrogen and oxygen, BUT, notice the analysis of the tenth glass. Hydrogen! Oxygen! Fluorine! Chlorine! This conclusively proves the theory of the composition of water is a lie. Science is a lie. If God wanted us to know the composition of water, he would have instructed us through his spokesmen, Abraham. Or Elijah. Or even Jesus. But we find no evidence for water`s formula. So it will remain a secret till the End Times, when mysteries will be revealed.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: KBS TUFF is the subject
willowtree writes: The Biblical quotes will not go away either and they explain WHY you think this is evidence. No, they explain why YOU think that I think it is evidence. Didn't read the referenced topic did you? That means that you cannot explain why there is such overwhelming evidence, and so your ONLY reaction is to avoid the evidence, stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and shout "LA LA LA" as loud as you can. Unfortunately doing so has no effect whatsoever on the reality of the evidence of an old earth. Claiming otherwise does not make it so: you can claim that the tail on your dog is a leg, but that does not turn it into a five legged animal. Also picking ONE piece of anamolous data does not render all the others wrong or irrelevant. If you look at the graphed data above there is one piece early in the data that is way off: if you concentrate on that and ignore the rest you can claim that the data is wildly at variance with the dating concept. Anomolies happen, scientists look for answers to why they happen, creatortionistas ignore the rest of the data and any possibility of a valid reason for the anomaly to declare the rest invalid. One of the rationals of science is that the results be reproducable -- and that if someone comes up with different results then BOTH results AND the methods used are questioned until the conflict is resolved. Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
Rebel AAmerican .Zen [Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 52 of 217 (147671)
10-05-2004 10:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
10-04-2004 11:34 PM
|
|
Re: KBS TUFF is the subject
Why do you continue in thread after thread to make unsupported assertions even after they have been shown to be false? Your above comment is an unsupported opinion uttered to trick an Admin into intervening in your behalf. My evidence remains here and all the other topics which you have flooded with the exact same tactic. Whenever secularists perceive that theists have substantiated and evidenced their claims they will instantly act like the evidence doesn't exist = behavior of the defeated/dishonest.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by jar, posted 10-04-2004 11:34 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by jar, posted 10-05-2004 10:18 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: KBS TUFF is the subject
jar reasonably asked WILLOWTREE:
quote:
Why do you continue in thread after thread to make unsupported assertions even after they have been shown to be false?
to which WT responded:
Your above comment is an unsupported opinion uttered to trick an Admin into intervening in your behalf. You might be right, let's check. Look at Message 11 to begin with. You're response was in Message 14 where you said...
Jar: With all due respect I am not engaged here to "learn" per se. Later you repeated the same false statement that McDougal simply split the difference between the previously determined dates. I again pointed out that was not at all what really happened, that McDougal returned to the site and collected additional samples under the direction of the on-site geologist in Message 18, Message 26 and Message 46. And you still maintain that I am making unsupported assertions. I have asked you to provide the support for your assertions. Can you at the least make an attempt to provide backing for your claims that all that happened was that McDougal split the difference between the other dates and that McDougal showed a scatter equal to your claim?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 54 of 217 (147677)
10-05-2004 11:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by jar
10-05-2004 10:18 PM
|
|
Re: KBS TUFF is the subject
I have asked you to provide the support for your assertions. Can you at the least make an attempt to provide backing for your claims that all that happened was that McDougal split the difference between the other dates and that McDougal showed a scatter equal to your claim? For the most part you have only argued by website. I am not interested in debating a link, YOU must make the argument in you own words. After this is done it is perfectly legitimate to include the link/source cite etc.etc. The content of my posts is accurate. Your challenge seeks to paint a favorable spin into a well known fiasco. Your defense simply employs damage control. What you really desire is to attack the man/source to be misinforming. The issue is the indefensible Isochron dating method, the disparity of dates produced by 3 top notch teams, and the suspense filled decision as to why the accept dates turned out to be dates which were harmonious with everything already known and spoken up for. I see why you are desparately trying to shoot the messenger and deflect away from these issues. Jar, I thought you were a Bible believing Protestant ?, if I am right, then the Bible is perceived better. This shoud be a win/win for you - no ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by jar, posted 10-05-2004 10:18 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by jar, posted 10-05-2004 11:25 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied | | | Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 1:52 AM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: KBS TUFF is the subject
For the most part you have only argued by website. Well, let's see if that is true or simply yet another of your assertions? The topic is " Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions" I said One of the nice things about science is the key issue of reproduciblity. Issues like age or other controversial questions are subjected to peer review and testing by other researchers. In this case multiple samples from multiple sites were used to cross check with the result that the tufs were dated with a high degree of confidence. and
Again, you make these totally unsupported assertions. According to what Dr. McDougall said, "Dating of this tuff by the K-Ar and 40Ar-39Ar methods had given a wide range of numerical ages from about 1.6 to 2.6 Ma".
and
There was no spliting of the dates. Instead, all new samples were gathered at the site under the supervision of the geologist. Those new samples were analyzed. In addition, I supplied links to the interview with McDougal, a direct link to the actual source, the person who did the studies. So far you have not supplied a single source for your assertions on this subject. You are not debating links or even my comments, only making assertions. Perhaps that will change.
WILLOWTREE writes: Jar, I thought you were a Bible believing Protestant ?, if I am right, then the Bible is perceived better. This shoud be a win/win for you - no ? What does that have to do with anything?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
The guidelines
Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it. You do seem to make a lot of assertions WT. Without any back up. Then you need to be prepared to defend your sources. Which you have been unable to do in the GP threads. I suggest that you take the time to back up what you say or your privileges to say things will be reduced again.
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 57 of 217 (147717)
10-06-2004 5:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by AdminNosy
10-06-2004 1:52 AM
|
|
Re: The guidelines
Add the Dating of the Exodus thread as another example of Willowtree repeating someone elses assertions, while being unable to defend them.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 1:52 AM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Charles Lyell's "Principles in Geology" [1824-1833] estimated the Cretaceous ended 80 million years ago.
Again, I call your bluff, WT. Document this claim or withdraw it.
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 59 of 217 (147921)
10-06-2004 8:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by Coragyps
10-04-2004 11:09 PM
|
|
Its a ballpark which is confirmed by your link. Please show me one respected evo who contradicts this dating ?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by Coragyps, posted 10-04-2004 11:09 PM | | Coragyps has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by AdminNosy, posted 10-06-2004 8:59 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied | | | Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 10-06-2004 9:16 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
Confirmed?
The link only points to where you can find the entirity of Lyells work. It does not mention any ages. Please back up your statement by pointing out in the "Principles of Geology" where Lyell supplies an age for the cretateous. He may very well have and I would be very impressed indeed if he got it so close at such an early date. Your job is to pull the quote from Lyell and supply the page number so others can read it in context. If you refuse to support what you claim then, if you are honest, you will withdraw it.
|
™ Version 4.2