Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reliable Radiometric Dates as an Artifact of Assumptions
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 1 of 30 (588835)
10-28-2010 3:38 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2010 10:06 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied
 Message 5 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2010 12:57 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 8 of 30 (589378)
11-01-2010 11:17 PM


Thanks
I had previously pointed out that it seemed pretty ridiculous to say that scientists the world over were dishonestly conducting radiometric dating, to which I received the reply that essentially they weren't doing it intentionally. . .but were simply somehow unaware of their own bias that was skewing their results. . .somehow. . .or something.
The claims being made essentially are that:
The most frustrating part of this is that no evidence supporting any of these suspicions is ever given, but because I'm unable to talk about how margins of error are calculated or how this or that piece of equipment is calibrated from my own personal storehouse of knowledge it is assumed that thus the answer is unknown and all radiometric dating techniques are unreliable.
While I realize that this is a completely ridiculous way to argue something, I would still like to know if there is someplace I could go to find some of this technical information. One of the things that obliterated my own past YEC views was in seeing how scientists weren't trying to hide their work but where, in contrast, actively publishing not only their conclusions but also their methods and results specifically so that any other scientists could repeat their work and reach the same conclusion. Error is best remedied with knowledge, and hey I might even learn something new.
I know this isn't exactly how threads typically go down here but I appreciate the help nonetheless.
Lurker
Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.
Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2010 11:34 PM Itinerant Lurker has replied
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 11-02-2010 7:55 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 11-02-2010 1:37 PM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 13 of 30 (589708)
11-03-2010 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
11-01-2010 11:34 PM


Re: Thanks
Sweet. I think I've gotten the issues down concisely as they're going to get over there:
Ryan R:
I've already told you why I'm skeptical of outliers and such, and you were trying to get me that data. If you do, I'll be able to show you how those outliers are treated and what that implies and, if you provide me with data from multiple tests used on the same sample and a description of how the instruments are calibrated, I'll be able to show you whether or not there are relationships in the data (correlations), or if they're coincidence (based on insufficiency of data to establish relationship or frequency of falling outside the appropriate standard deviations on either side within the accepted confidence interval), or if they are actually codependents (as in calibrated off of one another or according to similar assumptions).
I'm going to try and turn this into a sensible question to email off to Beta Analytic, are there any other suggestions anyone has on where to look for the above information? Thanks.
Lurker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 11-01-2010 11:34 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 11-04-2010 12:18 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied
 Message 21 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2010 12:51 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 15 of 30 (590083)
11-05-2010 7:25 PM


Parchance
I've used this graphic in the original thread, as well as elsewhere, as an example of age-dating correlations:
Am I missing something or does the source for this chart pretty much contain everything being asked for in regards to data (after several disappointments I'm giving up on the whole "equipment calibration" thing, it doesn't seem very realistic for any organization to give out that kind of technical information for an internet discussion)?
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based
on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals
I'm not going to pretend that some of that doesn't go over my head, but it seems pretty explicit in how each process was done as well as providing the data at the end. Am I missing something?
Lurker
Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.
Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2010 7:51 PM Itinerant Lurker has replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 18 of 30 (590088)
11-05-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
11-05-2010 7:51 PM


Re: Parchance
I think I fixed the link. It's a difficult discussion because all that's happening is requests for more and more detailed explanations until the level of detail is so technical that most people become lost - at which point it's claimed that the process is so convoluted that it must be based on too many assumptions that may or may not be correct.
More than likely I'm simply feeding into it by actually answering all these questions. That this discussion will likely never end is evidenced by the fact that it's now 72 pages long (1,068 posts) and the site admins are threatening to shut it down because it's becoming a server issue. . .but I just hate not getting the last word dammit!
Lurker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2010 7:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 11-05-2010 8:29 PM Itinerant Lurker has not replied
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2010 11:27 PM Itinerant Lurker has replied
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 11-06-2010 8:41 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 22 of 30 (590114)
11-06-2010 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NoNukes
11-05-2010 11:27 PM


Re: Parchance
What is the technical expertise of the people you are debating? Are they really going to be able to analyze the data they are asking you for or are they just blowing smoke?
One is ". . .a professional researcher dealing with primary and secondary qualitative and quantiative research." and essentially makes the claim that scientists simply aren't as qualified as analysts to determine whether radiometric dating data show actual relationships or just coincidences.
quote:
I would like to look at the data, or at the very least the statistics on the data, because while I think that many scientists might be very good at aspects in their field, the worldview one approaches data with affects one's interpretation of said data. . .So, while biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc, may be very good at aspects of their job, they are not trained in practical logic and their critical analysis skills seem to be molded on the job to suit the going assumptions. Just because an archeologist may be very successful, it doesn't mean they will arrive at the proper interpretation of the data, either because they aren't an expert in critical analysis, or because they are simply excluding the possible as impossible from the outset.
Needless to say I'm more than a little dubious on that point. I don't doubt that he knows a lot about analysis. . .I'm just not seeing how it renders him so uniquely capable of understanding the data. For example, this definitely sounds all fine and good:
quote:
Guassian sampling is a standard sampling method that determines the statistical likelihood of results found deviating from the mean (average) results within certain thresholds (standard deviations). So, the probability that a result will likely fall within a certain range (standard deviation) can determined in advance, statistical.
So, based on size of your sample, the size of your sampling universe (referring to all potential sample out there — mathematically anything beyond I think it’s 20,000 is considered infinite because the difference after that is negligible), and the confidence interval in which you wish to operate (e.g. do you want an MoE within 95% confidence, meaning the MoE will be within ~2 standard deviations of the mean 19 times out of 20) the MoE is determined in advance as a probability to land within that range.
I just don't see how that's particularly relevant to showing that radiometric dating is inherently flawed. To be fair, though, it's not as if my own technical expertise is anything to speak of as I'm very much the aspiring layman here.
Holy crap it's late.
Lurker
Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2010 11:27 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 4:09 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 11-06-2010 8:48 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied
 Message 26 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2010 9:40 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2646 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 29 of 30 (590830)
11-10-2010 12:39 AM


NoNukes called it
Ahhhhh, NoNukes called it. After all that and a seriously epic-sized post the response I got to actually providing all that information was, and I quote:
Yipee. So what?
Thanks for your help everyone, it's been fun taking a break from lurking here.
Lurker
Edited by Itinerant Lurker, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024