|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Strength of Indictment: Total lack of any external benchmark dating determination. Not in the least true. In addition to the Lake Suigetsu data, there's assorted dating from astronomy and dendrochronology.
In addition to the unplanned snapshot of the South African rock painting dating incident I think Percy's raised enough doubt about that "incident" that if you want to use it to support your argument, you're going to have to actually substantiate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Two responses in a row you have opted to get nasty and post insults.
I'm not being nasty or posting insults - I'm merely asking you to back up this claim of continuous, widespread fraud on the part of all of the hundreds of poor grad students worldwide that have worked in this field. Has every one of them been God-sense-ectomized? Really? And they're all willing to throw out data that cost sometimes a couple of thousand dollars per data point just to win schoolkids for the International Secularist Conspiracy? I think you and/or Milton are making these claims up out of the whole cloth. Produce some evidence that discarding data is a widespread practice, or retract the claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Hi Percy:
Percy writes: This story seems just transparently silly. Joan Ahrens painted on rocks in art class? She took the rocks and put them in her garden? The rocks were stolen and carted all the way out to the South African bush? Archaeologists discovered them and couldn't tell the rocks were anomalous to the area, couldn't tell they had only relatively recently been placed there, couldn't tell the art was not aboriginal in origin, and couldn't tell the paint was modern? And then at least two labs carbon dated the art to 1200 years? Is there anything you won't believe? The story about Joan Ahrens appears at two websites. This one is from AskMoses.com - Torah, Judaism and Jewish Info - Ask the Rabbi: "In 1991, Oxford University’s radiocarbon accelerator unit dated some rock paintings found in the South African bush as being around 1,200 years old. Almost as old as Guess Who. But then an art teacher named Joan Ahrens turned up and proved that they were her students’ paintingsthey had been stolen by vandals from her garden in Capetown." Percy writes: Hmmm. In one story she's an art student, in the other an art teacher. In one story she produced the art in art classes, in the other her students produced the art, in her garden I guess. The real problem is that your annecdotal stories do not represent legitimate rebuttal to scientifically developed dating methods. If dating methods were truly unreliable or invalid then it would be easy to demonstrate this scientifically. At least you are consistent. Any evidence which refutes your sacred cows is asserted a lie. Whether Ahrens was a teacher or student is irrelevant to the fact that the dating technique could not be anymore comparable to reliability but a black box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
If we're supposed to believe that, in fact, scientists cherry-pick results, then where are all the rejected results? If you're right, almost every time we have something dated, we should wind up rejecting the results. So where are all these rejected results? In the waste basket.
Milton, page 51: "Published dating figures always conform to preconceived dates and NEVER contradict those dates. If all the rejected dates were retrieved from the waste basket and added to the published dates, the combined results would show that the dates produced are the scatter that one would expect by chance alone." This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 10-22-2004 06:05 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
WillowTree writes: Any evidence which refutes your sacred cows is asserted a lie. When I think the term "lie" is called for, then I will use the term myself. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you ascribe the term to me again then I will have my first occasion to use it at this board. About the "any evidence" part, that's the problem with your story: it offers no evidence. A good deal of our discussions with you seems to revolve around your inability to understand what constitutes evidence.
Whether Ahrens was a teacher or student is irrelevant to the fact that the dating technique could not be anymore comparable to reliability but a black box. It wasn't just whether she's a teacher or not. It's whether she actually painted them or not. It's that there's no mention of any actual scientists who did this work. It's that there's no reference to where the work was published. There's no way to check out this story. Basically it comes down to a story where some scientists dated aboriginal paintings to 1200 years old that were actually contempary from someone's garden. The stories are inconsistent and unsupported, not to mention difficult to believe. You believe them because you want to believe them, not because they offer any evidence. On our side of the discussion, we can cite actual scientific literature supporting the validity of radiometric dating. If you recall, a couple weeks ago I posted a few pages from Dalrymple's book about the age of the earth that contained a large number of citations, probably at least 30. And that's just a tiny percentage of all the work that's been done on radiometric dating. A convincing case supporting unreliabilty in radiometric dating would have to include citations to the original sources that contain the errors, and citations to how they were shown wrong, including explanations or speculations about the causes of the errors. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In the waste basket. Says Milton, but has he looked there? Or isn't that just an assumption on his part? Actually, "vile unsubstantiated slander" would be more like it - after all, he's accusing literally every geologist of fraud. Doesn't the fact that you're able to dig up these examples of bad dating pretty much prove that there's no sort of scientific "conspiracy" to conceal bad dating? Show me all the dates that scientists are supposed to be rejecting - that is, the reams and reams of data you and Milton say they're tossing out. Surely you wouldn't make that claim without support, would you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Show me all the dates that scientists are supposed to be rejecting - that is, the reams and reams of data you and Milton say they're tossing out. Surely you wouldn't make that claim without support, would you? What about the discard dates in the KBS Tuff dating fiasco ? Those discard dates ranged from one half million to 17.5 million years. (already posted - do you want me to retrieve them ?) This is the precise context of the accusation. Milton claims they were only discarded because they did not fit in with other previously known dating determinations. How ironic that the accept dates fit in nicely with everything ever published ? Now enter the unplanned snapshot dating incident and volcanic lava and even in archaeology where the date of Egyptian mummy's are known and a technique fails miserably. Our only point is that these spot incidences provide an objective falsification that has yet to be satisfactorily answered or appeased.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: In that case, how do you know about these discordant dates? (added by edit)
quote: And how does Milton know this? Could it be pure biased speculation on his part? THis is utter nonsense and you have fallen for it... This message has been edited by edge, 10-22-2004 10:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: As I asked above, if they were discarded, how do you know about them?
quote: Obviously, there weren't discarded, they were explained.
quote: Your context makes no sense.
quote: No. They were not used because there was a valid reason that they were in error.
quote: Well, as I remember it didn't fit exactly. But that's not the point.
quote: Yes, when abused, radiometric dating does not work. Especially when conducted by avowed YECs determined to prove that they don't work. Doesn't this tell you something?
quote: Nonsense, again. They prove that science cannot be trusted to YECs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What about the discard dates in the KBS Tuff dating fiasco ? Those discard dates ranged from one half million to 17.5 million years. (already posted - do you want me to retrieve them ?) This is the precise context of the accusation. That too is false. You have been shown that is a false assertion by direct post to the interview with Ian McDougall who did the dating. In case you missed it, here is the link one more time to the interview. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: What the heck is a radiocarbon accelerator?
quote: Found? By whom? How were they sampled? This story is so full of holes they create a negative gravity anomaly on this message board.
quote: I'd rather not.
quote: Riiiight! WT, your chain of custody on these samples grows more and more tenuous. And you trust Milton as a source?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: WT, did it ever occur to you that perhaps column was scaled to time and not thickness? This is so silly, that I cannot fathom. You have been taken in by a professional here. Geological systems are not the same thickness in every location. This is well understood by geologists. To make a general column it does not really make sense to assign a thickness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
WillowTree writes: Those discard dates ranged from one half million to 17.5 million years. (already posted - do you want me to retrieve them ?) Your charge of fraud is kind of difficult to substantiate in the face of the openness with which it was conceded from the outset that the tuff would be difficult to date. Some dating is as easy as a photograph. Other dating is more like a jigsaw puzzle, and the tuff was like that.
How ironic that the accept dates fit in nicely with everything ever published ? The consistency of the dating and the wide agreement about how old things are comes from the reliability of radiometric dating. If it weren't for the consistent benchmark it provides, scientists would long ago have fractured into divergent groups, each with their own set of favorite dates. The only way that agreement could be reached without reliable dating techniques is if there were secret scientific meetings where it was decided how old everything was going to be, and where groups of scientists were assigned to conduct literally hundreds and hundreds of fake field studies so they could write fake papers announcing the predecided dates, and where after decades and decades no one has broken the code of silence. That must seem ridiculous even to you. Radiometric decay is a very reliable clock, and other dating techniques like ice varves, tree rings and ice cores are also very helpful. The real world is a dynamic environment that stirs up all the data, oftentimes making it a real challenge to tease out the correct dates. But scientists and laboratories have all the necessary training and equipment, and this is why there are so many, many scientific papers providing reliable and consistent radiometric dates across all of earth's eras. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What about the discard dates in the KBS Tuff dating fiasco ? That's one. If you're right, there should be millions. You're a little short. Keep working, though. The fact that there are so few proves us right, not you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Not only that, but can you imagine the expense of conducting an indefinite number of analyses until you got the right one to satisfy the committe?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024