What I can judge with a reasonably high degree of confidence is that they have all counted off the same amount of time since they were set.
This is in fact the part that is hardest to judge. Of course in a normal clock this is impossible because the numbers are "recycled". Therefore I guess you are talking about stopwatches. Can you say for certain that none of the watches have been stopped and started again? Can you say for certain that none of the watches were fast-fowarded?
Remember that in our case of geologic dating I can know if someone has been resetting the clocks or not so that isn't an explanation for the match of the clocks in the store.
Explain?
Each of these has been calibrated and some idea of its error determined.
If some disagree
hang on. If something went wrong then either we calibrated it wrong or something happened to the clocks. Right? So what happened to them? Well, perhaps the water clock lost or gained some water? or the sand in the hour glass somehow leaked? or perhaps the sand flowed faster or slower due to some inconsistencies in the sand? etc. So you can conclude that you no longer know what the time is. You can also conclude that next time you need to recalibrate the methods and check regularly that they don't vary.
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.
This is in fact the part that is hardest to judge. Of course in a normal clock this is impossible because the numbers are "recycled". Therefore I guess you are talking about stopwatches. Can you say for certain that none of the watches have been stopped and started again? Can you say for certain that none of the watches were fast-fowarded?
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?
Explain?
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.
hang on. If something went wrong then either we calibrated it wrong or something happened to the clocks. Right? So what happened to them? Well, perhaps the water clock lost or gained some water? or the sand in the hour glass somehow leaked? or perhaps the sand flowed faster or slower due to some inconsistencies in the sand? etc. So you can conclude that you no longer know what the time is. You can also conclude that next time you need to recalibrate the methods and check regularly that they don't vary.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Note that not all the minimmum ages for the earth are not the same. It is not necessary to have exactly the same minimum date for all the methods for RAZD to make his point. I was just pointing out the same thing in relation to maximum ages. They don't have to point to the exact same maximum age for the point to be made. i.e. They correlate in terms of "young" or "old" earth, but not in terms of exact dates, and they don't need to.
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?
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.
As best as I can tell Humphreys has not at all answered the criticisms of the zircon-helium paper.
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.
He is accused of really lousy geology such as being careless in specimen collection, not knowing what rocks or even kind of rocks he is dealing with and making up names of geological formations.
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.
He doesn't not answer the issue of diffusion under different conditions and ignores warnings about that in published geological work.
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 ...
His past has some poor work which makes these conclusions a bit suspect as well.
I'd be interested in knowing the poor past in question.
Given all of that and the context of so very many other measurements of age it seems very reasonable to conclude that this is in error. I'll get back to the context of other measurements now.
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 ?
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 ?
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?
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.
Why a jokester? Natural environmental factors can often do the same trick. Including stopping and starting, and slowing down and speeding up.
What is are the odds that a clock got stuck and happened to restart such that it agrees with all the others?
If the environmental conditions effect them similarly then why not?
The point of this isn't that I am trusting any one clock but that I have totally independent methods of measuring duration.
Great, so which one is telling the "correct" time?
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.
ok, so do you know all the environmental conditions that the watches experienced before you came? and how it effected them? Can you tell if one watch is running faster or slower than another at the present point in time (note, a watch that is going slower now might not necessarily be the one with the shortest age)? Do you know if the watches were set off simulataneously?
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?
I think i have answered this above. the other point i would like to make is that as far as I know, it is not the norm for geological clocks to have the same dates. If you want to bring an example of two different methods producing the same result this could be helpful.
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.
Why a jokester? Natural environmental factors can often do the same trick. Including stopping and starting, and slowing down and speeding up.
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.
If the environmental conditions effect them similarly then why not?
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.
Great, so which one is telling the "correct" time?
Not "which one" but "which oneS". What would you pick under a variety of circumstances?
ok, so do you know all the environmental conditions that the watches experienced before you came? and how it effected them? Can you tell if one watch is running faster or slower than another at the present point in time (note, a watch that is going slower now might not necessarily be the one with the shortest age)? Do you know if the watches were set off simulataneously?
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. 2) All the clocks read the same.
How likely is it that the duration form the last setting to know is the same for all the clocks?
I think i have answered this above. the other point i would like to make is that as far as I know, it is not the norm for geological clocks to have the same dates. If you want to bring an example of two different methods producing the same result this could be helpful.
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?
the other point i would like to make is that as far as I know, it is not the norm for geological clocks to have the same dates. If you want to bring an example of two different methods producing the same result this could be helpful.
Why don't we finish with the clocks first but if you must have it: Message 1
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.
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).
Woah, the analogy has changed. We now have ALL the clocks showing the same elapsed time.
And if you can find that impact how does it "adjust" all the other clock types by the same amount.
Don't know, I haven't made a claim like that.
Not "which one" but "which oneS".
Great, so which oneS are telling the "correct" time?
Why don't we finish with the clocks first but if you must have it: Message 1
Which happens to show many different clocks telling many DIFFERENT times.
What can impact all the clocks in the same way? You said there might be something. What is it?
No I didn't. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. My argument does not require something that impacts all clocks. Because you have yet to show that all (geological)clocks tell the same time. My argument was that SOME clocks may be affected in a similar way.
Woah, the analogy has changed. We now have ALL the clocks showing the same elapsed time.
There were two analogies: In one it was just a bunch of random clocks in a store where over half agreed. In the second it was clocks with different technologies. One scenario given was them all agreeing. So there has never been a case where the most of the clocks did not agree.
Great, so which oneS are telling the "correct" time?
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: If you are forced to make your best judgment on the "correct" time what would you pick in each case? More importantly, what if we are interested in the elapsed time since they were last set in some way? How confident are you in picking clocks which have stayed in sync since then?
Which happens to show many different clocks telling many DIFFERENT times.
Please explain. That makes no sense to me.
No I didn't. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. My argument does not require something that impacts all clocks. Because you have yet to show that all (geological)clocks tell the same time. My argument was that SOME clocks may be affected in a similar way.
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?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
