Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 91 of 305 (711497)
11-19-2013 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Coyote
11-19-2013 9:59 AM


Reminds me of Pacific Rim
I don't know why, but the exchange between RAZD and Mindspawn reminds me of this clip from Pacific Rim:
And yes, Mindspawn is the Kaiju.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2013 9:59 AM Coyote has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 92 of 305 (711506)
11-19-2013 4:33 PM


However in actually determining the half lives of thorium and uranium the following link gives no hint that either method was used. Instead the actual ratios of parent/daughter and their subsequent half-lies were determined using samples of rocks dated using other methods.
http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...5Fairbanks+table.pdf
"we measured 234U/238U and 230TH/238U atomic ratios in 4 different materials that were likely to have behaved as closed systems for 10`6 years."
Of course his following link gives lots of information how the half-lives were previously measured:
quote:
Renne et al. (1998) have recently summarized the issue of the accuracy of half-life determinations and implications for the accuracy of different types of radiometric ages. Of the three pertinent nuclides used in 230Th dating, the fractional error in the half-life of 238U, 4.46830.0048*109 years (2‘, Jaffey et al., 1971), is the smallest. For the remainder of the text, all quoted errors will be at the 2‘ level of uncertainty. For the half-life of 234U, De Bievre et al. (1971) determined a value of 244,600730 years and Lounsbury and Durham (1971) determined a value of 244,4001200 years. Because these values are almost identical, a commonly used value in geochronology is the mean of the two: 244,500 years. However, Holden (1989) has reviewed all U half-life work and gave a weighted average half-life of 245,5001000 years using revised data including data from De Bievre et al. (1971) and Lounsbury and Durham (1971). This value differs by 4” from the commonly used value. The fractional error in the value for the 230Th half-life is the largest of the three; the most recent and most precise value is 75,381590 years (Meadows et al., 1980). The uncertainties in the half-lives affect the accuracy of 230Th ages, particularly for samples older than about 350 ka, in cases where standardization is based solely on gravimetric standards. Thus, by reducing errors in the half-life values we can improve the accuracy of 230Th ages.
Since he didn't even read the introduction, it never occurred to him to look up the explicitly referenced previous lab measurements of the relevant half-lives from the introduction to his own reference The half-lives of uranium-234 and thorium-230.
Half-life of 230Th is on-line and tells how the half-life of 230Th was measured.
A little Googling wouldn't hurt, either: Analytical methods (from the standard graduate textbook on radiometric dating) tells us:
quote:
A pre-requisite to precise and accurate dating with U-series nuclides is the availability of good half-life determinations. However, the attainment of secular equilibrium allows these half-lives to be determined relative to the very well-constrained 238U half-life. For example, the half-life of 234U can be determined very accurately relative to 238U, by measurement of the 234U/238U ratio on a sample in secular equilibrium, such as uraninite ore. Using this technique, de Bievre et al. (1971) determined a value of 244.60.7 kyr by mass spectrometry, which was revised to 245.30.14 kyr by mass spectrometry (Ludwig et al., 1992). The latter result was confirmed by Cheng et al. (2000), who determined a value of 245.250.49 kyr.
But where did the 235U half-life come from? Precision Measurement of Half-Lives and Specific Activities of 235U and 238U has the answer.
Bottom line: Mindie far prefers making up to finding out. All this is available in fifteen minutes of reading his own references and simple Googling. But he wants everything handed to him on a silver platter.
{ABE} RAZD posts the abstract and makes the point that the half-lives were measured in the lab. But he missed the key paragraphs of the introduction. And those make it clear the the relevant half-lives have been measured int he lab in exactly the standard manner. Cheng et. al. were doing confirmatory work seeking consilience. The import of their paper is independent confirmation of the previously measured half-lives.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : sperate URLs that looked like one.
Edited by JonF, : Also fixed bad link to Mindie's refernce

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2013 9:44 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 131 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2013 12:58 AM JonF has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 305 (711515)
11-19-2013 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by JonF
11-19-2013 4:33 PM


ottom line: Mindie far prefers making up to finding out. All this is available in fifteen minutes of reading his own references and simple Googling. But he wants everything handed to him on a silver platter.
Exactly. Why in the world is it legitimate to simply make up stuff about decay rates (or any other fanciful thing) and to then require that your opponent actually serve up contrary references.
The debate is over. Who cares whether mindspawn ever admits it.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by JonF, posted 11-19-2013 4:33 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 10:00 PM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2013 10:13 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 94 of 305 (711518)
11-19-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by NoNukes
11-19-2013 9:44 PM


Who cares whether mindspawn ever admits it
Well, the participants... I suspect it derives from hope.
The hope that maybe, just maybe, the other guy is honest. Maybe he'll actually consider the evidence.
Unfortunately, its not there in this case. As I said, Mindspawn is not honest.
That makes him a lost cause.
On the flip side, at least the evidence is there chilling out, waiting until the next one comes along. Hopefully, they'll be honest ones.
Makes me ashamed to be a Christian, really. These fucktards...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2013 9:44 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 95 of 305 (711519)
11-19-2013 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by NoNukes
11-19-2013 9:44 PM


Today's posts...
NoNukes writes:
JonF writes:
Bottom line: Mindie far prefers making up to finding out. All this is available in fifteen minutes of reading his own references and simple Googling. But he wants everything handed to him on a silver platter.
Exactly. Why in the world is it legitimate to simply make up stuff about decay rates (or any other fanciful thing) and to then require that your opponent actually serve up contrary references.
The debate is over. Who cares whether mindspawn ever admits it.
Aye, there's the rub.
Folks who base their beliefs on the bible or other ancient tribal myths are not amenable to evidence.
Those folks literally can't bring themselves to accept evidence, no matter how sound it may be, that contradicts their world view. They won't search for it on the web, and wouldn't accept it if they found it. They would keep searching the web until they found something--anything!--that would provide the slightest ray of hope so that they could maintain their beliefs. And, as we have seen, without the knowledge of science or the scientific method, those slight "rays of hope" just let them fool themselves.
We see this very clearly in Mindspawn's posts today. Overwhelmed by evidence that shows his opinions and beliefs to be wrong, he complains about the length of RAZD's evidence-laden posts and resorts to nitpicking inconsequential details. He just can't accept that his beliefs are disproved.
This is the creation "science" that the same folks want in schools and schoolbooks today.
Heinlein was right (as usual):
Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2013 9:44 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 10:23 PM Coyote has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 305 (711520)
11-19-2013 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Coyote
11-19-2013 10:13 PM


Re: Today's posts...
Folks who base their beliefs on the bible or other ancient tribal myths are not amenable to evidence.
Not necessarily. See my "signature" for a quote form a famous "Bible-believer"...

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2013 10:13 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2013 10:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 97 of 305 (711521)
11-19-2013 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
11-19-2013 10:23 PM


Re: Today's posts...
I'm familiar with that quote.
Unfortunately, a lot of folks today don't take it to heart.
I think the good Saint, when faced with Mindspawn's arguments, would just give himself a facepalm and shake his head in disbelief.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 10:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 10:32 PM Coyote has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 305 (711523)
11-19-2013 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Coyote
11-19-2013 10:28 PM


Re: Today's posts...
I'm familiar with that quote.
Unfortunately, a lot of folks today don't take it to heart.
I think the good Saint, when faced with Mindspawn's arguments, would just give himself a facepalm and shake his head in disbelief.
Yeah, so would Jesus. The point was that they/we're not all that bad (which I see you've gotten), granting that you did insinuate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2013 10:28 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 99 of 305 (711524)
11-19-2013 10:35 PM


Focus may be the key
They're both blasting away with shotguns (though Mindie's filled his with bullshit); I think RAZD needs to use some more precision here. He has the patience to write those long, well-researched and supported posts but there's so much in them that Mindie is too easily able to ignore most of it. RAZD should use his admirable patience to concisely refute Mindie's points one at a time so that he can't weasel out of directly addressing RAZD's points. For example, take a post to call Mindie out on the fact that the Lake Suigetsu varves aren't rainfall dependent. Or a post only stating that the various chronologies all accurately record the Year Without a Summer. If that's all he posts then Mindie will have no choice but to address it or unequivocally lose any remain shreds of credibility.

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 10:48 PM Atheos canadensis has seen this message but not replied
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2013 11:09 PM Atheos canadensis has replied
 Message 110 by jar, posted 11-20-2013 9:20 AM Atheos canadensis has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 305 (711528)
11-19-2013 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Atheos canadensis
11-19-2013 10:35 PM


Re: Focus may be the key
Focus may be the key
I think you're underestimating the power of dishonesty... but I guess we'll see.
Good suggestion.
RAZD should use his admirable patience to concisely refute Mindie's points one at a time so that he can't weasel out of directly addressing RAZD's points.
If it ain't weaseling-out it'll just be some other bullshit. Like completely-disregarding or totally-ignoring...
I've lost all hope with this one, from the get-go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-19-2013 10:35 PM Atheos canadensis has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2013 10:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 101 of 305 (711530)
11-19-2013 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
11-19-2013 10:48 PM


Re: Focus may be the key
I was expecting a debate on the radiocarbon method, not Japanese geology and other arcane subjects.
But Mindspawn didn't even know the difference between corroboration and calibration.
He thought (and I'm sure still thinks) that we need tree rings to validate the radiocarbon method. That is just a side effect. Tree ring calibration was originally designed to provide a method to correct for atmospheric fluctuations in C14 levels so as to make the results of radiocarbon dating slightly more accurate.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2013 10:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 305 (711532)
11-19-2013 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Atheos canadensis
11-19-2013 10:35 PM


Re: Focus may be the key
He has the patience to write those long, well-researched and supported posts but there's so much in them that Mindie is too easily able to ignore most of it.
Is ignoring posts really an acceptable debating tactic? Is it really possible to swamp someone with facts in a written debate? I think not.
. If that's all he posts then Mindie will have no choice but to address it or unequivocally lose any remain shreds of credibility.
Sigh. He's already gambling with other people's money.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-19-2013 10:35 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-19-2013 11:19 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2998 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 103 of 305 (711533)
11-19-2013 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by NoNukes
11-19-2013 11:09 PM


Re: Focus may be the key
Is ignoring posts really an acceptable debating tactic? Is it really possible to swamp someone with facts in a written debate? I think not.
It certainly isn't an acceptable tactic. But I'm imagining (deluding myself?) that if RAZD makes such focused points as I describe, Mindie will have to be so explicit in ignoring the contents of the post that perhaps even he will feel some shame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2013 11:09 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2013 11:34 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 104 of 305 (711534)
11-19-2013 11:31 PM


It's very obvious that mindpawn only reads and believes the opinions of some 'science' teacher in Chicago; a 'science' teacher who's never ever done any of the work himself, but thinks that writing what-if's can be called 'research'.
He believes that the thousands of scientists who actually go get dirty, do the work themselves and publish every little step of their research are all wrong. And part of a global conspiracy.
And nothing will change his mind about it.
It has been a great thread for people to learn a lot, though.
1. How carbon dating works; the conscilience behind it and how it's fine-tuned (pun intended) to get more accurate dates.
2. The power of delusion over a person.
3. A prime example of cognitive dissonance in action.
4. The dangers of religion and what motivates people to fly into buildings for their beliefs.

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 305 (711535)
11-19-2013 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Atheos canadensis
11-19-2013 11:19 PM


Re: Focus may be the key
It certainly isn't an acceptable tactic. But I'm imagining (deluding myself?) that if RAZD makes such focused points as I describe, Mindie will have to be so explicit in ignoring the contents of the post that perhaps even he will feel some shame.
You aren't wrong about what would make a better presentation. I'd like to see what you suggest too.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-19-2013 11:19 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Atheos canadensis, posted 11-19-2013 11:55 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024