Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

OK. For those of you who haven't recognized the circularity of the argument:

Q -- Why do you use XYZ method to 'date' your samples?

A -- Because the samples are millions of years old.

Q -- How do you know the samples you are testing are millions of years old??

A -- Because the results from XYZ method show that they are.

0 Replies

ros, as you stated in those conditions, it would not be prudent to be handed a rock and then try to "date it". We are , after all, attempting to date a geologic event in some sort of context, so a rock all by itself would not be really worth dating.(besides itd be really expensive to date a rock ).
In effect Wed have an unknown sample with an unknown provenace, and unknown context . We could chemically identify the rock and , by looking at the minerals, date them by some method of "clock set"., like using three isotopes of rubidium against Strontium daughter products,This would measure reaally old tectonic events using the Rb/Sr ratios and the ratios of Sr87/Sr86. .However, dating an unknown rock, unless there were some real economic value (so as to whittle down the possible age sources ) we wouldnt ever consider dating a "pebble from somebody's garden"
The reason that K/Ar isnt used in young volcanic rocks is that the mineral feldspars(which are used as the K source, are lost by the high heat, and Ar is also lost by heat driven premeability increases. We basically "boil" all the good stuff away. This has been known for years and Austin knew it because he was trained in geochem. He purposely was screwing with the outcome by forcing an eventuality that he already knew would occur. The fact that we even give him credence for "doing a radioisotope date trick" is more an attest to his "hucksterism" than giving him a kudo for his science savvy. Basically he used his science savvy to trick the folks.

K/Ar method requires a simple understanding of how the clocks are set. In the decay of K40, it breaks down by 2 different pathways with set occurence percentages of two daughter elements . When K40 decays, it forms 88.8% Calcium AND 11.2% Ar. So by doing the analyses of the entire mass(accounting for Calcium as a " weight standard of accuracy"-which, IM SURE AUSTIN FORGOT TO INCLUDE) we can compute the age by a simple formula

where Time
(in years)= H(half life of K40)Xln{1+(Ar40) CONC in ug/(0.112)X(K40) CONC}/ln2. half life is in years and ln is the natural log.

Its a simple relationship but always we keep the amt of Calcium and its daughters as a guide-on. If theres not much Ca, then the clocks been reset, If we see a whole lot of daughter of Ca and little Ar then its old. Why any as shole would date a hump of Mt St Helens lava dome by K/Ar is reason to suspect either purposeful deceit or major stupidity. I know that Austins not stupid sio that leaves but one conclusion. "The righteous Christian Fundamentalists who always preach honesty, are letting their desire for Biblical inerrancy rule their honesty. That even sounds nasty.
So, in a quick summary, Austin, trying to prove that isotope dating is flawed, merely exposed himself as a fraud by trying to pull it all over people like RL who, even though he's misinformed, I dont believe hes dishonest. Wheras Austin should be flogged at a GSA meeting.

As far as wanting to know the age of a random rock, Im almost sure that a reputable lab would try to talk you out of doing such an analysis.

1 On what type of event were you trying to get a handle?

2 Do you have the funds to pay for such a single analysis?.

0 Replies

RL

Quote:

OK. For those of you who haven't recognized the circularity of the argument:

Q -- Why do you use XYZ method to 'date' your samples?

A -- Because the samples are millions of years old.

Q -- How do you know the samples you are testing are millions of years old??

A -- Because the results from XYZ method show that they are.

That is total ignorant driven bullshit there RL, your hero "DR" Austin had used your gullibility and trusting against you.
"How do I know that this sample is really young?"

A--Because Steve Austin applied a method(K/Ar, Ar/Ar, K/Ar/Ca) that he knew was incorrect and had somebody pay for an analysis that, had the lab known that this sample was younger than 100000 years +/- 2000, they would know that the method would be subject to errors of outgassing (artificial aged recording due to resetting the clock) OR artificially presented young dates (which wstes budgets and will get the scientists yelled at by the research director)_The people that work the labs are not idiots, so why give them an unknown? We always let the labs know the range of ages , otherwise they would screw up the settings on the Mass Specs.
If, by that little reference you imply that the labs cannot be trusted to provide correct answers if they are informed of the source material, that too is bullshit because the LAb STandards Protocols (called BLP's) require that the "raw" data and machine tapes be kept in the computers for future QA audits by clients , the US Govt (bureau of Standards) and anybody with the need to know.
All that record keeping doesnt prevent screw ups, it merely lets us know when and where theyve happened so that "anomalies" like Austins fraudulent samples, arent kept as QA'd examples. In fact< im certain that once thelabs found out that they were being "hoodwinked" by this charlatan, they could do their own QA and look at other components like Ca to see whether the "resetting of the nuclear clocks" were what gave the readings or whether it was a lab error.

See, fraud and deception will set off a chain of dta reconciliation because the labs "have to" know what went awry, if anything.

I noted that Austin did not record or even present the Ca and daughter data. Wheres all that??

"...When we practise to decieve..."

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

ros, as you stated in those conditions, it would not be prudent to be handed a rock and then try to "date it".

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you had something you thought might be a meteorite. But it also might be a piece of volcanic magma that was blown into the air by the Lava Creek Yellowstone event 650k years ago. Or it might be a Martian meteorite blasted off Mars by an impact.

The general question is how do you go about dating something when you don't have any baseline assumptions to start from? Forget about the cost of dating and forget about Steve Austin's little deception.

I'm just interested in understanding how the process is handled in theory.

Thanks,

0 Replies

Don't you also need to consider dated from what point i.e. formation of the present condition of the sample, versus prior formation event(s)?

This site seems good
http://www.meteoritestudies.com/protected_dating.htm

0 Replies

Quote:

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you had something you thought might be a meteorite. But it also might be a piece of volcanic magma that was blown into the air by the Lava Creek Yellowstone event 650k years ago. Or it might be a Martian meteorite blasted off Mars by an impact.

Id do a mineralogical suite identification to determine whether its any one of these. Each of the above youve mentioned has a unique structure of phenocrysts (large crystals of makeup). The Yellowstone event was a n andesitic type eruption with lots of ash and tephras and stuff. (these are iunique mineral assemblages that can be seen in polarized light microscopy and x-ray. A meteorite has a specific makeup also that can be seen by non organic carbon screening and/or Fe/Ni or rocks similar to basalts except with surface structures unique to meteorites. I may wish to date the meteorite since I knew it came from space so we compare its age by determining the ratios of specific isotopes that are left because in the beginning of the solar system we postulate that all the heavy (.At Wt 40) elements were in some kind of equilibrium so using isotopes is a relatively straightforward type testing, although "resetting" a clock may give ages that mean the meteorite may have been an ejecta from a planetary collision after the solar system was formed . So wed get a younger date. All the meteorite dates we have a re tentative based upon where the rocks may or may not have pinballed around.

As far as the Yellowstone (you say its a "maybe") we would only date it if it was in some kind of stratigraphic context. If it were lying in someones garden . hell no. BUT, if it were seen to be lying within the Yellowstone bentonite layers from the last eruption (Ill accept your date) and were similarly composed, then we could date by several means. One of the easiest is t do remnant magnetism by marking the magnetic declination of the iron minerals and comparing it to the magnetic "stripes" of the earth (In this case it would be within the Brunhes magnetic stage) If the rock did not fit Brunhes declination, then it was dumped there later and maybe just a rock that some Indians used to make a fire pit . The fire would remobilize the iron and when the rocks cooled to their Curie point, theyd take on the Stripe of post Brunhes .

In any fashion, the rock, if it were found deep enough in the ash , ciould be part of the ejecta. or have been placed in a pile of it at some later time. Then and only then, (when we can establish a context for the rock and some event) would we even consider dating it.

Like anything else in science, we dont do certain things without some damn good reasons. Youd never consider setting off a nuclear bomb just to see what itd do to microwave appliances. (although they did do this in the 50's and all we learned was that we could blow stuff up real good),.The only people who do this kind of stuff is"Dr" Steve Austin (apparently) and the "Mythbusters".

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Just for the sake of argument, let's say you had something you thought might be a meteorite. But it also might be a piece of volcanic magma that was blown into the air by the Lava Creek Yellowstone event 650k years ago. Or it might be a Martian meteorite blasted off Mars by an impact.

Id do a mineralogical suite identification to determine whether its any one of these. Each of the above youve mentioned has a unique structure of phenocrysts (large crystals of makeup). The Yellowstone event was a n andesitic type eruption with lots of ash and tephras and stuff. (these are iunique mineral assemblages that can be seen in polarized light microscopy and x-ray. A meteorite has a specific makeup also that can be seen by non organic carbon screening and/or Fe/Ni or rocks similar to basalts except with surface structures unique to meteorites. I may wish to date the meteorite since I knew it came from space so we compare its age by determining the ratios of specific isotopes that are left because in the beginning of the solar system we postulate that all the heavy (.At Wt 40) elements were in some kind of equilibrium so using isotopes is a relatively straightforward type testing, although "resetting" a clock may give ages that mean the meteorite may have been an ejecta from a planetary collision after the solar system was formed . So wed get a younger date. All the meteorite dates we have a re tentative based upon where the rocks may or may not have pinballed around.

As far as the Yellowstone (you say its a "maybe") we would only date it if it was in some kind of stratigraphic context. If it were lying in someones garden . hell no. BUT, if it were seen to be lying within the Yellowstone bentonite layers from the last eruption (Ill accept your date) and were similarly composed, then we could date by several means. One of the easiest is t do remnant magnetism by marking the magnetic declination of the iron minerals and comparing it to the magnetic "stripes" of the earth (In this case it would be within the Brunhes magnetic stage) If the rock did not fit Brunhes declination, then it was dumped there later and maybe just a rock that some Indians used to make a fire pit . The fire would remobilize the iron and when the rocks cooled to their Curie point, theyd take on the Stripe of post Brunhes .

In any fashion, the rock, if it were found deep enough in the ash , ciould be part of the ejecta. or have been placed in a pile of it at some later time. Then and only then, (when we can establish a context for the rock and some event) would we even consider dating it.

I hate to say this FM, but what you're basically saying with all this is that RL's simplistic observation is correct: We always DO start with some assumption from which we estimate the veracity of the tests we choose for measurement.

From the answers you gave, it sounds like mechanical dating techniques by themselves aren't ever sufficient to derive the age of things. Instead, age-dating is a result of correlating many different paradigms to see where there is an overlap of agreement. But each paradigm contains some core assumption(s).

In the examples I was using above, I was trying to propose some object which was totally unknown in origin to see how science would go about dating such an object. But the answers you gave all involved trying to understand the physical nature of an object, along with its native environment as an adjunct to using dating techniques.

Is there no way to derive the age (time since last molten) of a given sample (a rock) with purely objective atomic mechanisms? Or must we always rely on conditional information to augment the testing mechanism?

0 Replies

I think farmerman can explain these different methods of dating, but I'll post them as general information for those interested.

Dating is not necessary to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. Chronological sequence is all that is really required. However, human beings love to see factual precision, and we want to know how old something is.

Please remember that all dating methods, even those termed "absolute," are subject to margins of error. We say the Earth is 4.56 ± 0.02 billion years old. That is a very small amount of possible error range. There are 20 methods shown here. Modern studies almost always use two or more methods to confirm dating work and to build confidence in the results obtained.

Superposition -- It's a Law : One of the most fundamental principles of archaeology is the Law of Superposition. The law states that strata that are younger will be deposited on top of strata that are older, given normal conditions of deposition. This law is the guiding principle of stratigraphy, or the study of geological or soil layers. Stratigraphy is still the single best method that archaeologists have for determining the relative ages of archaeological materials.

Geologic Time: Relative Time Scale : James Hutton and William Smith advanced the concept of geologic time and strengthened the belief in an ancient world. Hutton, a Scottish geologist, first proposed formally the fundamental principle used to classify rocks according to their relative ages. He concluded, after studying rocks at many outcrops, that each layer represented a specific interval of geologic time. Further, he proposed that wherever uncontorted layers were exposed, the bottom layer was deposited first and was, therefore, the oldest layer exposed; each succeeding layer, up to the topmost one, was progressively younger. The Major Divisions of Geologic Time are shown here, arranged in chronological order with the oldest division at the bottom, the youngest at the top.

Stratigraphy
Dendrochronology
Radiocarbon C14
Radiometric Dating Methods
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
Fission-track Dating
Ice Cores
Varves
Pollens
Corals
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
Patination
Dendrochronology
Radiocarbon C14
Radiometric Dating Methods
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating

0 Replies

escellent list ci, the only one Id take exception is amino acid Racemization It really has not shown to work well at all. IMHO. In this method, all living proteins are L rotatory (they coil left) when the creature dies, the amino acids begin a change and the L rotatory ones either disappear or are comverted to D rotatory. (Right coiled). Belknap and Wehmiller 2002 have shown that this often doesnt work at all.Also, your list seems to repeat itself toward the bottom, Im not sure what the "patination" was doing beneath , say isotopes other than C14.

Ros, Im sorry I dont give you any comfort (and my points have never been to completely take a counterview to RL, if that were so , then Id just be another spendi). We always start with assumptions , and the CONTEXT of rocks is as important as some point information that you desire. Age ating by whatever isotope means is like (and this is an example), being given an arrowhead , manufactured by some indian. Without any context or location , or some sort of other in,formation, you just have a pointy stone. Of course, even with an arrowhead we have some sign of working that helps us with a relative time s.cale (paleoindian, Archaic, transition, early/late woodland, contact period etc). A rock has no need for any extreme testing until theres a context. Whats the point? There is no"just for arguments sake" dating, because we have to be looking at some feature in earths history that were trying to interpret, and a rock is merelya minor tool. Its not even the main point. We find a fossil T rex in the sediment we want to find out everything about his place of deposition and "mine" out all the matrix data we can. We even take oriented samples of the matrix for remnant magnetism. Most of the age dating done on dinosaurs is stratigraphic correlation where , by the superposition laws , we interpret what lies atop what else and from that we narrow down the age of The T rex. Then we look at isotopes in bone and some of the strata. in those cases we usually get a "no younger than" date. Most of the actual dating is done by a combination of other means.

As far as starting with assumptions, I can live with them because they are quite accurate and have been tested nd retested so as to be quite robust.

All the information that the public takes for granted in "Discovery Channel" or "National Geographic" programs has been painstakingly researched. We( as science info consumers) are so used to being spoon fed the information that eg "Suzy the T rex ws found in an ancient stream bed where she drowned and was quickly covered by a meandering stream that debauches into a coastal flood plain, and she died about 67 million years ago". We accept all this information with a shrug, while I am totally blown away with how much wok it took to provide you with that 10 second spiehl of results while you are being kept entertained. There is almost no"Radio" isotopic dating involved in any of "Suzy's neighorhood story"There is a lot of stable isotope data however.

Quote:

I hate to say this FM, but what you're basically saying with all this is that RL's simplistic observation is correct: We always DO start with some assumption from which we estimate the veracity of the tests we choose for measurement.

Yeah I have to admit that we make assumptions. SO WHAT?, The difference is that the assumptions we make are all valid, otherwise theyd crumble quickly. We see a rock lying within a sediment, is it in place or is it a "dropped in later"? rock. We have ways of doing the work but we always assume that the rock is critical to our needs, if not, we pass it by. ALL SCIENCE STARTS WITH SOME VALID ASSUMPTIONS (gravity and magnetic constants, wave propogation properties for seismics. we even assume that aquifers are infinite in extent, just so the math can work)
I never claimed that I have all the answers for you. I have many areas of knowledege that are deep and other areas that are quite limited and in those areas I rely upon other specialists to help me out. However, my lack of understanding of the spectrum of physical/chemical principles, is at a much higher level than is RL's. He aint even in the playbook to understand the significance of these "assumptions" Hes just parroting something he read from a Creationist whose heavily invested in using fraud and deception in disproving standard science.
This is all an example of environmental forensics, if it aint shown to be true , a methodology will soon be debunked and the perp will go down in flames (just like Austin did--hes not even pursuing this line of reasoning anymore, I thin k hes been whipped up enough by incredulous geochronologists and geoscientists that we wont see his face in this arena much beyond Liberty College or Ave Maria University)
However, an admission of ignorance is not a shortcoming in our field. Actually, its a great tool to better understand how things ultimately came to be. Of course RL will try to oversimplify and characterize all our assumptions as circular. Thats just fun for me. Exposing complete frauds like Austin is an example of how a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing when Creationists are unknowingly fed crap from an Evangelical Hustler. If youve noticed, I havent had any trouble correcting RL in all his critiques and havent had to resort to resources (except when Im trying to find a piece of literature that he can read) Ive been telling him of the WIens paper about "Isotopes for Christians" and he refuses to read it .
BAsically, accurately knowing the rules of the road in isotope dating (limitations, preparation, fundamental sample custody , analyses etc) all are part of an arcane but necessary train of evidence that must be followed. Thats why, when I get students past their 4th semetser and we still have them, they are hooked. Most geologists arent a bunch of Indiana Jones's stomping all over making quick pronouncements on sample ages. The work is most often detailed, time consuming, all consuming, divorce making obsessive behavior, much like deciphering spin constants on atoms. Its a pain in the ass but . Somebody's gotta do it Sorry if its inconsistent with your wants and needs for data. My admonition for anything thats a "second interest" to any of us , is to spend some time with the literature and not the popular press and TV. Even Scientific American has a nasty habit of glossing over how thinking processes are manifest in the geosciences. The deductive resoning part is, after all, boring and takes months and years. (You notice that Dr Schweitzer has still not come out with a detailed monograph on the T rex flexible tissue that was discovered in 2005--They have announced little snippets , but the conclusions are still not published) It may take them another few years to get it all done, and hey are now finding other examples of flexible fossil tissue inside fossil bones)

One thing in science--we dont run away from our limitations, we go to work on them and try to find answers. (EXcept for the Chinese) we dont celebrate fraud and we try not to engage in morally corrupt science like Austin or Hovind, Woodmorape, or Humphries, Gish, or even Behe.

0 Replies

ros, maybe one area that would help explain the assumption thing is going back to the original point that RL made.
HE claimed that Mt St Helens was not "Old" but that standard science methods incorrectly dated its lava dome as old. (Hee heee heee gotcha , says Dr STeve)The assumption made here was that .

WHY would we even consider an isotopic ratio analyses to determine tha age of the lava dome, when we could watch it growing on TV??

Dr Steve relied on mishandling another assumption (that volcanic degassing resets the isotope clock for K/Ar dating). Thus , the incresed Ar ratio was not because the sample was old, it was because the K feldspars had been removed by heat and fracture. In so doing, and by denying the geochron labs of this vital information, Dr Steve assumed that he could pull the Creationist Two-step on the labs and "prove that radioisotopic dating by K/Ar was hokum for this (and therefore ALL) datings". The misuse of his assumption has been totally missed by the trusting Christians, eager for validation of their "science" . and Austin was originally allowed to slide, until Geochron labs called him out when they re did their own QA.

This kind of invalid assumption mongering is quite common among the creation scientsits. They give a very little damn about how they traomp all over science and how they diddle with methods to try to prove their sacred beliefs. Remember the 11 th Commandment
"Thou shalt not screw with data".

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Ros, Im sorry I dont give you any comfort (and my points have never been to completely take a counterview to RL, if that were so , then Id just be another spendi).

Don't worry FM, I'm not looking for any comfort, I was just taking a bit of a devils advocate position to try to understand the details of the process better. And I think I've learned something from this exchange already, so I appreciate your input.

RL makes a lot of completely bogus claims based on creationist propaganda, but every now and then he comes up with a piece of logic which challenges some basic assumptions, and I often find that I learn the most about things when I start to question very fundamental assumptions.

farmerman wrote:

As far as starting with assumptions, I can live with them because they are quite accurate and have been tested nd retested so as to be quite robust.

What I've realized here is the act of age-dating something (rock, bone, whatever) is never done in isolation. It's always done as a composite across multiple disciplines and overlapping tests. And yes, there are core assumptions, but I'm seeing that THE core assumption is methodological naturalism. I guess I already knew that would be the case, but it was interesting to arrive at it by backtracking the evidence rather than eliminating irrational philosophies.

farmerman wrote:

Yeah I have to admit that we make assumptions. SO WHAT?, The difference is that the assumptions we make are all valid, otherwise theyd crumble quickly.

Well, this is where RL's basic challenge comes in, and why I wanted to drill down a bit deeper. You say all our (science's) assumptions are valid, but that's not demonstratable in a linear case if all related tests are dependant on the original assumption. This is the core of RL's challenge of circularity.

The reason his challenge doesn't work isn't because it's logically wrong, but because it isn't an accurate representation of science.

First of all, science doesn't seek absolute truths, it seeks high probabilities. Also, it doesn't rely on isolated quanlities of data in order to arrive at conclusions, it seeks the highest probability overlap between multiple tests. The only core assumption which is consistent across all of science is methodological naturalism.

farmerman wrote:

I never claimed that I have all the answers for you. I have many areas of knowledege that are deep and other areas that are quite limited and in those areas I rely upon other specialists to help me out. However, my lack of understanding of the spectrum of physical/chemical principles, is at a much higher level than is RL's.

Don't worry FM, I'm not complaining Smile

And I'm not about to change my entire view of reality just because RL can come up with an interesting piece of logic which I thought was worth exploring.

farmerman wrote:

Of course RL will try to oversimplify and characterize all our assumptions as circular. Thats just fun for me.

Me too, and sometimes I learn something from the challenge. I just though we were glossing over this particular challenge too quickly and wanted to dig in a bit deeper to understand the details and core assumptions.

Thanks,

(and Thanks RL Smile

)

0 Replies

From Wikipedia:

Science
Unexplained phenomena are an indication that a particular scientific theory does not provide a satisfactory model sufficient to explain or predict all outcomes. For example, the wave theory of light does not explain the photoelectric effect, though it successfully predicts the results of the double-slit experiment. However, later theories based around quantum mechanics provide an adequate explanatory model of both.

It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God. This variant is known as the God-of-the-gaps argument.

For example, the current lack of evidence about unexplained aspects of evolution is claimed by some to indicate that the theory of evolution is incomplete, rather than necessarily incorrect. The theory of evolution has yet to successfully explain how most species have evolved stepwise in a "punctuated equilibrium" pattern rather than in continuous random fashion (anagenesis). The lack of current evidence adequate to verify and explain these specific aspects of evolution is, in itself, not properly taken as an indication either that they do not occur, or that there are not natural causes for these empirical phenomena. In fact, there are new theories such as koinophilia and frozen plasticity which try to explain this "punctuated equilibrium".

0 Replies

ci

Quote:

The theory of evolution has yet to successfully explain how most species have evolved stepwise in a "punctuated equilibrium" pattern rather than in continuous random fashion (anagenesis)

The underlying assumption here is derived. Itstaes that Punctuated Equilibrium is correct . Theres no majority agreement on this and a number of papers have challenged Gould and Eldredge's model from the very fossil beds freom which Gould and Eldredge had worked. Im more cautious about the entire mechanism when I look at how little the geologic record actually preserves, I have my doubts of Punctuated Equilibriums usefulness.

Ros, my discussions re assumptions dont go as far deeply as the "naturalism" end of the pool. Im more or less saying that our"going in" assumptions include such basics as "uniformitarianism works" The Cretaceous is always broken into the same sequences of ages worldwide; The atomic clocks are universally running at the same rate through time and many can be reset by tectonism and vulcanism; Superposition works; limestones always lie atop shales and : faults cutting rock layers have occured after the beds were deposited. Many of these assumptions are quite obvious,(like the last one), but need to be stated at the outset to review which direction the data seems to be directing us. We dont ever direct our findings, thats sort of another assumption, we may have a "working model" but it too has a tenuous existence only as long as data can support it.

Im glad you see how RL's points are often deserving of careful answer , he does ask the questions that "keep us honest". However, before making this an RL love-fest, I have to add that , Im often disappointed in some of the examples he uses to make his points. EG , the Dr STeve isotope sampling event in MT ST Helens is such an abomination to scientific methodology that I get a kick out of how far some of the "Creationist "Drs" will go, apparently, they dont have to state their own assumptions, and when they are wrong, they dont just fess up and move off.

0 Replies

...like true science does.

farmerman, Thanks for explaining your cautions about Punctuated Equilibrium and it's usefulness. I'm not familiar with these processes or assumptions, so I can't take any position of them, but I value your input.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

ci
Quote:
The theory of evolution has yet to successfully explain how most species have evolved stepwise in a "punctuated equilibrium" pattern rather than in continuous random fashion (anagenesis)

The underlying assumption here is derived. Itstaes that Punctuated Equilibrium is correct . Theres no majority agreement on this and a number of papers have challenged Gould and Eldredge's model from the very fossil beds freom which Gould and Eldredge had worked. Im more cautious about the entire mechanism when I look at how little the geologic record actually preserves, I have my doubts of Punctuated Equilibriums usefulness.

Ros, my discussions re assumptions dont go as far deeply as the "naturalism" end of the pool. Im more or less saying that our"going in" assumptions include such basics as "uniformitarianism works" The Cretaceous is always broken into the same sequences of ages worldwide; The atomic clocks are universally running at the same rate through time and many can be reset by tectonism and vulcanism; Superposition works; limestones always lie atop shales and : faults cutting rock layers have occured after the beds were deposited. Many of these assumptions are quite obvious,(like the last one), but need to be stated at the outset to review which direction the data seems to be directing us. We dont ever direct our findings, thats sort of another assumption, we may have a "working model" but it too has a tenuous existence only as long as data can support it.

Im glad you see how RL's points are often deserving of careful answer , he does ask the questions that "keep us honest". However, before making this an RL love-fest, I have to add that , Im often disappointed in some of the examples he uses to make his points. EG , the Dr STeve isotope sampling event in MT ST Helens is such an abomination to scientific methodology that I get a kick out of how far some of the "Creationist "Drs" will go, apparently, they dont have to state their own assumptions, and when they are wrong, they dont just fess up and move off.

Hi Farmerman,

You continue to trash Austin when he is not the issue.

The method produces false dates for samples of recent known origin.

Austin's samples were indisputably of recent origin, no matter what you think of him personally or professionally.

What assurance do you have that other samples that are 'dated' thus in millions of years, are not actually of fairly recent origin?

The method produces false dates that reinforce your original assumption (btw citing other methods that rely on the same assumptions and have the same shortcomings doesn't score points for cross-corroboration).

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

You continue to trash Austin when he is not the issue.

The method produces false dates for samples of recent known origin.

Austin's samples were indisputably of recent origin, no matter what you think of him personally or professionally.

The method does NOT produce false results. It produces accurate data of a method incorrectly utilized. Austin should have known about "resetting the clock" and he used the method anyway. He didnt show his Ca and Ar/Ar calibration data. (I think he omitted any QA data because he knew that Geochron Labs would have blown the whistle) Now whos cynically and knowingly duping his audience?.Continue as you wish but AUstin IS the issue . Deceit has no place in science as well as everyday life. What kind of lesson does this "Christian scholar" present? Hes no more than some practitioner of Consequentialist Ethics.

Quote:

The method produces false dates that reinforce your original assumption (btw citing other methods that rely on the same assumptions and have the same shortcomings doesn't score points for cross-corroboration).

Point to where I have said anywhere that I believe that the lava dome inMt St Helens is a few million years old? They do not reinforce any of MY ORIGINAL ASSUMPTIONS. I knew that the lava dome in Mt St Helens was less than a decade old. We have excellent photography from land and space to attest to that. Austin was merely trying to decieve YOU by using a method that is incorrect for that application.Theres nothing wrong with the method, he just purposely misapplied it knowing that guys like you would try to make Creationist Hay out of it. (Actually youre not helping yourself at all)
I thought I was quite clear aboutthe calibration of K/Ar with Ca and Ar/Ar, or are you hoping that everyone has merely forgotten about Austin's fauxpas. Actually , had this been presented to a classroom in some Universities, it would have been considered a misdemeanor.

AS far as the method of K/Ar, its been cross verified along with about 40 other radioisotopic dating techniques. They have been rigorously calibrated and the method applications and possible misapplications are well documented in a number of methods texts. Hugh Ross, an Old Earth Creationist and a nuclear scientist, has produced a work called "The Age Of The Earth" , in which he provides the numerous calibrations and cross calibrations implicit in K/Ar and a few other methods. So here we have an OEC and A YEC fighting it out . In the case of Ross, he reminded us that many YEC's are out there misapplying methods hoping to establish credibility. Like someone using C14 on 65 million year old fossils and finding some, even though the half life is unequivocally established, and is without the shadow of a doubt.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
You continue to trash Austin when he is not the issue.

The method produces false dates for samples of recent known origin.

Austin's samples were indisputably of recent origin, no matter what you think of him personally or professionally.

The method does NOT produce false results. It produces accurate data of a method incorrectly utilized. Austin should have known about "resetting the clock" and he used the method anyway. He didnt show his Ca and Ar/Ar calibration data. (I think he omitted any QA data because he knew that Geochron Labs would have blown the whistle) Now whos cynically and knowingly duping his audience?.Continue as you wish but AUstin IS the issue . Deceit has no place in science as well as everyday life. What kind of lesson does this "Christian scholar" present? Hes no more than some practitioner of Consequentialist Ethics.
Quote:
The method produces false dates that reinforce your original assumption (btw citing other methods that rely on the same assumptions and have the same shortcomings doesn't score points for cross-corroboration).
Point to where I have said anywhere that I believe that the lava dome inMt St Helens is a few million years old? They do not reinforce any of MY ORIGINAL ASSUMPTIONS. I knew that the lava dome in Mt St Helens was less than a decade old. We have excellent photography from land and space to attest to that. Austin was merely trying to decieve YOU by using a method that is incorrect for that application.Theres nothing wrong with the method, he just purposely misapplied it knowing that guys like you would try to make Creationist Hay out of it. (Actually youre not helping yourself at all)
I thought I was quite clear aboutthe calibration of K/Ar with Ca and Ar/Ar, or are you hoping that everyone has merely forgotten about Austin's fauxpas. Actually , had this been presented to a classroom in some Universities, it would have been considered a misdemeanor.

AS far as the method of K/Ar, its been cross verified along with about 40 other radioisotopic dating techniques. They have been rigorously calibrated and the method applications and possible misapplications are well documented in a number of methods texts. Hugh Ross, an Old Earth Creationist and a nuclear scientist, has produced a work called "The Age Of The Earth" , in which he provides the numerous calibrations and cross calibrations implicit in K/Ar and a few other methods. So here we have an OEC and A YEC fighting it out . In the case of Ross, he reminded us that many YEC's are out there misapplying methods hoping to establish credibility. Like someone using C14 on 65 million year old fossils and finding some, even though the half life is unequivocally established, and is without the shadow of a doubt.

The method without question produced false dates.

If the lab must be told the expected age of the sample before testing it, then why test it?

How many other samples have labs confidently pasted 'dates' to , labeling them 'millions of years old', when they could actually be just a few years old and produce exactly the SAME 'date' ?

C'mon.

0 Replies

Real Life - Are you a scientist? I'm just confused as to how you feel you can argue about things you aren't qualified in?

0 Replies

Quote:

The method without question produced false dates.

If the lab must be told the expected age of the sample before testing it, then why test it?

The "method" merely is merely a lab protocol for which the MS analyzes a sample and produces a result for K/Ar39/Ar40/and Ca. You have no argument with the labs ability to correctly analyze for the isotopes?

A Calculation, based upon the total ratios of K/Ar; Ar/Ar; and K/Ca are all compared and any deviation says that the samples have been either reset or are within the range that half life results would predict.

The data isnt wrong, the scientist doing the calculations should have had all the QA data, (and apparently didnt, that was the deception to you Creationists).
If you can succesfully argue why "Dr" Austin should NOT be considered a fraud then please let me know, dont merely keep repeating that
"The ages are wrong ,The ages are wrong"!! because you dont seem to get it.

As far as telling a lab what to expect. we always do that for just about everything in chemistry. The world of the "unknown quantity" is for CSI.
If, for example, your physician expects a specific condition affecting your health, that physician will tell the labs exactly what tests to run no?
If you make steel and your ideal mix of Fe/Cr/and Ni is 33/33/33, then the labds are looking for a deviation from an "ideal alloy"

We dedicate lab equipment to specific ranges of substances expeted , just so we dont mess up the detectors or other circuitry.
I fear getting any more technical because I think Id be wasting time as long as yer mind is hermetically sealed.

In radioisotope dating, we always report which formations that the samples came from, the mineralogy, and the expected dates. The L:ABS are on their own QA, that must be adhered to, you seem to be asserting (without any previous training) that labs are all poulated with frauds. Maybe your dealings with people like Steve Austin has made you so jaded.

0 Replies

farmerman: "...yer mind is hermetically sealed."

ROFLMAO His mind is locked in more topics than anyone can imagine.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know