|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total) |
| |
Contrarian | |
Total: 894,151 Year: 5,263/6,534 Month: 106/577 Week: 94/80 Day: 12/49 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4087 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussion of the CMI-AS debate (Meldinoor, NosyNed, Slevesque, Arphy only) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 3711 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Hi NosyNed
Good analogies to discuss
The other problem with this experiment for our purposes here is that the experimenter is there at the beginning of the experiment. He knows that he set off all the clocks at the same time. The fact that two clocks are in sync with each other doesn't mean that they necessarily show the "actual" time. Disturbances in the environment may have had a similar effect on these two clocks which kept them in sync with each other but not the "actual" time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8971 From: Canada Joined: |
First: We can say nothing at any time with certainty. It is a matter of how high a degree of confidence we may have in our conclusions. Obviously, if a jokester is sneaking into the store and messing with the clocks then anything is possible so it isn't an interesting discussion at that point. Any other case (I think) that comes up leads to a situation that may be reasonably judged to be less likely that that the clocks agree because they are correct. What is are the odds that a clock got stuck and happened to restart such that it agrees with all the others? Assumming no prankster what are the odds that all of the are fast forwarded (or whatever else) by the same amount by accident?
In the case of some of the radiological dating methods the "resetting" also marks that rock. We know that our duration measurement is only from the resetting.
But I have a number of different clocks that tell time in different ways. If the hour glass leaked or the water evaporated why is it that they agree with the silicon crystal watch or the atomic clock? The point of this isn't that I am trusting any one clock but that I have totally independent methods of measuring duration.
I am the person who wanders in to the set up sometime after it has been running. I can check the clocks as I find them now and read off the durations they measure. You are correct that they may not show the actual time (e.g., noon) but they read a duration since they were set and that is what is most interesting here. Can you explain what disturbances would would make a water clock, hour glass, pendulum clock, atomic clock and my wrist watch all read wrong by the same amount?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8971 From: Canada Joined: |
Shall we reproduce that thread of RAZD's here? If so we can start doing that.
The point at the moment isn't the dates but is the correlations between them. It doesn't matter how many times you say one method is wrong you have to explain why all the methods are wrong and still agree with each other.
Your point about maximum dates make some sense but neither the maximum or minimum offers the same strength as the correlations given by RAZD. Do you wish to offer some evidence for any of your maximums?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 3919 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'll give a similar explanation to Arphy.
You point out the thread by RAZD about the correlations. They all give minimum dates, bu not at all the same minimum dates. (It goes from 10k minimum with tree rings to billions with radimetric dating) Of course, I counter that creationist also have multiple line of evidence which suggests maximum dates vastly inferior to the 4,5Billions assigned to the earth. (In fact, a lot of them are in the opening essay) You respond to this by asking to show how they all have the same maximum dates, and that if they don't have the same maximum date, then it doesn't mean much at all. Of course, I hope you can spot the double standard. You accept the minimum dates (that are not the same) as having a legitimate correlation factor, but dos not accept the same with the maximum dates based on the fact that they don't givr the same maximum ages. The reality of course, is that the two situations are analog. I hope I explained the situation well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 3919 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Well, he does say that he doesn't adress all the criticism. He said that he only answered the criticism which Henke had put in his opening paragraph. Which are usually the most important points, and in this case the points that link to the data.
None of this, of course, modifies the data or the results of the research. (Or the power of his predicition). On the identification of the type of rock, it's pretty muddy I guess. We have on one side a geologist who was there durign the whole research, and who was the one who identified and selected the specimens. On the other a geochemist, who wasn't there during the research, didn't see the research and the specimens only on photo. He doesn't make any comment about the pictures, so I assume his silence means that the rock in the picture does look like granodiorite. His main basis is that they took graniodiorite at a depth where it is not specified to be found in geology books of the area. I can't say who is right, who is wrong. But even before reading Humphreys response I could see that this was more smoke than fire. The type of rock doesn't affect the data. What does affect the data is the size of the zircon, and the amount of ratios, etc. Which are dependent of the zircons inside the rock, not the rock itself. If Humphreys took the same typ of rock as Gentry (which he did, since he took at same depth) than it makes no difference. For the name making up, yeah I agree it was a blunder by Humphreys. His a physicist after all I guess. But it doesn't affect the data.
The different conditions was an add-on by Henke, and so Humphreys answered in a different article. (http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp) An important detail is that the experimenter they hired to measure the diffusion rates, who is therefore an expert on the subject, has found no explanation to Humphreys data. Unlike Henke who seems to have a dozen ...
I'd be interested in knowing the poor past in question.
I think the data can't be discarded as easily since he made a prediction of it, and that he was spot on. This puts a lot of weight on the disclaimer to prove his point. If his research really does not make sense and was poorly done, why in the world would it fall on his predictions so precisely ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8971 From: Canada Joined: |
Because he fudged it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 3711 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Can we please get beyond the "all creationists are liars" argument! If you are so sure of your statement then you had better have some evidence to back it up. You have just made a very insulting accusation and if you have no evidence to back it up it looks like you are just trying to find any excuse to ignore the evidence (which is favourite claim that evolutionists like to make about creationists!!). So I would ask that you take our claims seriously unless you have good reason, with supporting evidence, to reject it. Fair enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 3711 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8971 From: Canada Joined: |
At the very least his own numbers and methods don't work measureing other zircon ages. That is he has had to stick to this one run to get an "acceptable" result. Not trying it for other cases or bringing up the failure in those cases is rather too selective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8971 From: Canada Joined: |
Yes, I guess they could. Now, explain just what environmental factors could affect all the clocks to make them be both wrong and agree with each other.
Obviously some of the clock types are more easily affected by some environmental conditions. The water and pendulum clocks perhaps most so. In addition, the water and pendulum clocks could be badly affected by the same environmental impact. But even for those two what impact could affect both of them to "adjust" them to the same reading? And if you can find that impact how does it "adjust" all the other clock types by the same amount.
Not "which one" but "which oneS". What would you pick under a variety of circumstances?
OK, it seems you do not get the point here at all. Let's make it simpler and have you look at the situation where you know only 2 things: 1) No one has been in the store for a small number of days. How likely is it that the duration form the last setting to know is the same for all the clocks?
No you have not answered it at all, not the tiniest bit not an iota. You haven't begun. What can impact all the clocks in the same way? You said there might be something. What is it?
Why don't we finish with the clocks first but if you must have it:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 3919 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'll agree a bit with Arphy (although on a lesser tone). If calling for 'fudging' and 'lying' is what it will come down to, then I don,t there is much a point to discuss anything at all. Because ultimately this is not the sort of reasoning that is going to convince me.
Besides, Humphreys has made a great career as a scientist. This is why I asked you to specify what you found in his past to be doubtful. I wanted to see if the only examples you would have would be about his creationist writing and research. This alone should give a clue on this: Why would he have a bright career in physics, with no doubtful spots in it, only to become incompetent when doing the same thing but on creationists issues ? I think the answer is simple, it is that his creationist research is scrutinized to the maximum, every little detail is being magnified to enormous proportions (Henke's 15page article is an exampel of this) and after all the mudslinging is done, the reader has the impression it most be oh so doubtful, wrong and/or fudged. If every research was as much scrutinized, I would interested in knowing how many would appear 'doubtful' to us. Of course only those who go against the current get this much attention. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Now about the research in question. In essence, he made a classic textbook experiment. He had a hypothesis (accelerated nuclear decay), he developped it to the point of finding a way to test his hypothesis. He made the prediction about what the results should be if his hypothesis is accurate. He made the experiment, and the results validated his prediction. Note that this is classic textbook science. Sure he made some rookie errors (giving a random name to a rock formation), but this is because it is in a domain outside of his expertise. (Namely physics). Sure he could rerun the experiment at another location, with other zircon. I could even predict to you that the results would be similar, in my opinion. The only thing, of course, preventing him from doing so is money. It's hard to find finance for this kind of stuff; since creationist research like this is financed by privates. Besides, this experiment was done in the broader RATE research group. It isn't an isolated case selectively chosen, but it finds even more weight when viewed within the whole research. Finally, I'll say that the result doesn't contradict the dating methods. He is saying that there is 1,5billion years worth of uranium decay, but only 6000 years worth of helium diffusion. Humphreys explains it by saying the decay was faster in the past (much faster), Henke explains it by saying that the diffusion rates were smaller in the past (much smaller). Same data, two different interpretations, because of different presuppositions. Two things go in Humphreys favor: -1. He predicted the results. -2. The experimenter who measured the diffusion rates, who is the most knowledgeable on this, does not propose anything along the lines of Henke (in fact, he proposes no explanation as of right now).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 3711 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Hi NosyNed
Woah, the analogy has changed. We now have ALL the clocks showing the same elapsed time.
Great, so which oneS are telling the "correct" time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8971 From: Canada Joined: |
This'll take longer again. I'm dealing with somethings, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8971 From: Canada Joined: |
There were two analogies:
No clock ever, ever tells the "correct" time since they all have some degree of error. Some have infinitesimally tiny errors. But that is a nitpick which might be important another time. Two items:
Please explain. That makes no sense to me.
We are still talking about the clock analogy I thought. You said something might impact the clocks and now you jump to geology? Does that mean you were never talking about the clocks analogy when you were referring to impacts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 3711 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Edited by Arphy, : deleted because I somehow managed to double post
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022