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

Quote:

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

Quote:

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

(partial list of disingenuous creationist questions)

0 Replies

I Stereo wrote:

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?

Real life read the Bible. That's all he needs to know. That makes him well qualified to tell science they don't know squat.

0 Replies

Quote:

You werent there, so how can you know for sure that it happened?

Another one.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

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.

I haven't asserted that any labs 'are populated with frauds'

You want to change the subject because you don't like hearing that the process produces false dates. But it did and it does.

Any method that 'dates' samples of a few years age at 'millions of years' is basically useless.

How do you know that every single date that comes out of that lab as 'millions' isn't 'dozens' instead?

Oh yeah I forgot, because you just know it CAN'T be.

0 Replies

Quote:

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

Quote:

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Quote:

You weren't there, so how can you know for sure that it happened?

(partial list of disingenuous creationist questions)

0 Replies

Even if "you" were there, what makes you think your perception of the event will be the same as all the others?

0 Replies

wandeljw,

Can you tell me why you consider a dating method that 'dates' a sample of known recent origin at 'millions of years' to be valid and reliable?

0 Replies

just like an xray machine cant detect metals in concentration less than 12%, doesnt mean that the metals arent in a sample, we just use another method.
Im not going to continue arguing a point that I think Ive satisfactorilly "put to bed". You cant admit that a method, improperly used, will give invalid results. I know of NO REAL SCIENTISTS that date volcanic domes and recent lavas by any isotope methods (except for one method(Sa/Nd) that dates the parent material of a melt)
,also only one isotiope known has a slightly variable decay rate and thats Be7 which can vary by a huge 1%(when its under a huge amount of pressure)

Earth &Planetary . Science .Lett.2002, v195 p131,

Im so sorry to burst your balloon RL, However, I know you will disregard anything I say and wont bother with no steenken scholarship when you have an inerrant Bible.

Quote:

Can you tell me why you consider a dating method that 'dates' a sample of known recent origin at 'millions of years' to be valid and reliable?

Once again you repeat your mantra. Do I detect a bit of a sound of desparation in your voice there RL? Remember Austin is the only one who did this and for reasons that were only apparent to him . He certainly duidnt prove the calculation flawed at all. He merely showed us that anyone, sufficiently motivated, can pull the wool over many peoples eyes.

0 Replies

And we have been shown that real is one of them.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I know of NO REAL SCIENTISTS that date ... recent lavas by any isotope methods.

Of course not. Laughing

They only use these methods on lavas that they have prejudged (determined prior to 'dating' them) to be 'old'. And then the method conveniently confirms it by producing an 'old' date.

farmerman wrote:

real life wrote:
Can you tell me why you consider a dating method that 'dates' a sample of known recent origin at 'millions of years' to be valid and reliable?

Once again you repeat your mantra. Do I detect a bit of a sound of desparation in your voice there RL?

Not at all. Don't lose any sleep over me.

I'm not the one who can't answer a simple question or two:

Why is a method that gives a date of 'millions of years' on a sample of known recent origin still considered a reliable method?

How many other 'old' samples have been labeled 'millions of years old' when the results from 'dating' were indistinguishable from a sample that is just a decade old?

0 Replies

Quote:

They only use these methods on lavas that they have prejudged (determined prior to 'dating' them) to be 'old'. And then the method conveniently confirms it by producing an 'old' date.

. Wrong RL, there is so much that you dont even have a clue on that I may have to declare you ineducable. Apparently you dont even let a little light shine in that skull when it comes to isotope dating. Youve been schlepping this same "convenient methods" argument for as long as Ive been calling your attention to your error. Ive supplied you with reading material which you still have apparently not read. Ive read more Creationist stuff than youve read science. I think that you, at least in the interest of sounding a bit smarter, would pursue some standard science literature.

In order for your assertions to even be half believable, there would have to be this massive cover-up by science to hide the "truth" of isotopes and how would we all get together and decide that the monzonite from Yosemite 's Half Dome , are of Campanian age. How would we all get together and decide on these "old dates"?. Geologists , like most other scientists are secretive about their own reerach, are not willing to share data until after its published , and are always busting each others chops about the third decimal point in an isotopic age. Yet here comes "Dr" Austin, a once decent geochemist who discovers he can make more ripples in a pond full of Creationists than he can with the more competitive world of research geochem. He pulls a fast one with some data (which, BTW you havent acknowledged that you do or dont accept the mass spectrometry data as accurate in his lava determinations ), and the only people to jump are a relatively small bunch of Creationist "pseudo scientists".

As far as losing sleep, Im certainly not going to be the one who has to reconcile what I know to be accurate with what I wish to believe. They are both the same thing for me. I dont think you can say the same eh?.

0 Replies

Hi Farmerman,

I've not alleged any coverup.

What I have said is that reliance on assumptions leads to error.

The method in question produced unquestionably false dates.

Your proposed remedy is to defend the status quo.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Hi Farmerman,

I've not alleged any coverup.

What I have said is that reliance on assumptions leads to error.

The method in question produced unquestionably false dates.

Your proposed remedy is to defend the status quo.

The reason the false dates came out of the computer is false information was put in.

Ever hear of GIGO?

Dr. Austin committed fraud by deliberately withholding information needed to give an accurate result. He knew putting false information into the system would result in a false result.

Why do you insist on defending Dr. Austin's fraud? I thought you were a Christian and as such would condemn such behavior.

0 Replies

xingu, You are asking a christian to sacrifice all that is sacred; creationism. They can't do that, because their life depends on believing anything to support their religion. Otherwise, their whole world collapses. After a life-long committment, it's virtually impossible to change their belief. That's the crux.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
Hi Farmerman,

I've not alleged any coverup.

What I have said is that reliance on assumptions leads to error.

The method in question produced unquestionably false dates.

Your proposed remedy is to defend the status quo.

The reason the false dates came out of the computer is false information was put in.

Ever hear of GIGO?

Dr. Austin committed fraud by deliberately withholding information needed to give an accurate result. He knew putting false information into the system would result in a false result.

Why do you insist on defending Dr. Austin's fraud? I thought you were a Christian and as such would condemn such behavior.

Austin is not the issue, xingu.

A 'dating method' which cannot distinguish between a million year old sample and a sample a decade old is not much of a tool.

0 Replies

RL, lemme try an example. We can determine the amount of gold in a substance by combining it with certain chemicals that "bind" it into a mass that acts as a "grabber". This grabber ,is mixed into a known volume of dissolved gold solution. However, if we leave out a key ingredient, we dont get an accurate reading of the gold, in fact , it shows up as "NOT DETECTED" and what could be a highly marketable deposit of dissolved gold in natural water goes unnoticed becuase of bad methods.

"Dr" Austin, forgot (yeh, right) to have the "key ingredient", the calibration of K/Ar against the known other daughters and the argon breakdown products themselves. So, the dates werent incorrect, the method was totally incorrectly employed.

I dont know how much simpler it needs to be, and, no matter what you say, Austin IS the issue. Hes the dishonest one, youre just a dupe who believes his garbage.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

A 'dating method' which cannot distinguish between a million year old sample and a sample a decade old is not much of a tool.

Unless the method was never intended to test for such a young range.

If you have a thermometer which goes from zero to a hundred in farenheit, and you dip it in liquid nitrogen it isn't going to give you accurate results. That doesn't mean that the thermometer is wrong, it just wasn't designed to respond to the conditions it was exposed to. It's the same with the dating method above.

As you can see from my previous challenges along these lines, FM explained that the dating techniques selected for a particular sample are not chose in isolation from all other information. This is a necessity because different methods are only accurate within certain ranges.

I anticipate that the core of your challenge to this is that *some* assumption must be made in order to begin a valid analysis process, and you will probably note that if our initial assumptions are invalid then all results are invalid.

You seem to be seeking the *primary* assumption upon which science begins to do analysis, and as I mentioned to FM in a previous post, if we trace everything back to its roots, I think we will arrive at the fundamental assumptions of science; methodological naturalism.

0 Replies

I think RL would prefer to believe in a lie that supports his religious dogma than a truth that conflicts with it. I think that's the way it is with all Biblicial literalist. Their moral values will take them right up to the point where something conflicts with their beliefs, then they abandon their morality. They do it but they don't have the courage to admit it.

RL is doing that now. He's trying to twist everything every possible way to make a lie look like truth.

In a way I'm glad he's doing that. I'm getting a free education on a subject I like from farmerman. Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
A 'dating method' which cannot distinguish between a million year old sample and a sample a decade old is not much of a tool.

Unless the method was never intended to test for such a young range.

If you have a thermometer which goes from zero to a hundred in farenheit, and you dip it in liquid nitrogen it isn't going to give you accurate results. That doesn't mean that the thermometer is wrong, it just wasn't designed to respond to the conditions it was exposed to. It's the same with the dating method above.

So if the thermometer gave a reading of 72 degrees Fahrenheit for the liquid nitrogen, would that mean that I was deceptive for not telling the researcher that we were dealing with liquid nitrogen?

Or would you say the thermometer was most likely defective?

The method in question gives indistinguishable results for samples millions of years old and for samples a decade old.

Is that the fault of the researcher, or a fatal flaw in the method? (Not a tough question.)

0 Replies

Quote:

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

Quote:

If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Quote:

You weren't there, so how can you know for sure that it happened?

Quote:

So if the thermometer gave a reading of 72 degrees Fahrenheit for the liquid nitrogen, would that mean that I was deceptive for not telling the researcher that we were dealing with liquid nitrogen?

(partial list of disingenuous creationist questions)

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know