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

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Leaving aside the witlessness of "real life's" assertions, and the implications of his ignorance, one must assume that "real life" considers that the people in testing labs are willingly dishonest.

Not at all, Setanta.

I've simply stated that in science, reliance on assumption leads to error.

If a test produces the same result for samples 'millions of years' old as it does for samples of a known recent age, (a decade old) , then can the results be considered reliable?

How can we assume that sample 'X' MUST be millions of years old, when the SAME test will produce the SAME results for sample 'Y' that is know to be just a decade old?

I think Farmerman has explaind this ad naseum to you. Your arguement has been defeated, nobody needs you to understand it as well for this subject to be closed.

You seem to think that the same test is being done in both cases, but you are wrong. If the same test were being done in both cases, you would calibrate the system. your champion knew this but acted as if this inforamtion was trivial. What you fail to see is that what he did wa actually not the same test.

You can continue to waste others time with your banter, but even IF the test were false, there is no test that supports your beliefs.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Leaving aside the witlessness of "real life's" assertions, and the implications of his ignorance, one must assume that "real life" considers that the people in testing labs are willingly dishonest.

Not at all, Setanta.

I've simply stated that in science, reliance on assumption leads to error.

That you have stated as much does not make it so. Additionally, one could as easily argue that your assumption that there is a god, and that the "bible" is a reliable source for that god's will made manifest has lead you into error.

You display your ignorance of science, but more than that, you make yet another of your simple-minded and failed efforts to deploy logic. No investigation of a thesis can proceed without assumption. Your imaginary friend thesis, for example, is only of value to you, and remains illusory, until such time as you can found that thesis (that assumption) upon a plausible basis. Unless and until you can demonstrate that your assumption that a god exists is founded upon plausible evidence, it will remain nothing more than a silly assumption on your part. By the terms of your statement, it is an assumption that leads you into error.

Quote:

If a test produces the same result for samples 'millions of years' old as it does for samples of a known recent age, (a decade old) , then can the results be considered reliable?

It has already been pointed out to that the misapplication of a testing method is not evidence that the method is unreliable. If all you have is a yard stick, then any item from one inch to two feet eleven inches in length will yield the same result--that the item is "one yard long." That misuse of the measuring tool does not mean that the yard stick is not a yard long. Parados has already pointed this out to you, but i note that you chose not to respond to him.

Quote:

How can we assume that sample 'X' MUST be millions of years old, when the SAME test will produce the SAME results for sample 'Y' that is know to be just a decade old?

"We" wouldn't make such an assumption. We would assume that sample X is millions of years old, and that sample Y is millions of years old or less. Just as we would assume that sample A was one yard in length, and that sample B was one yard or less in length.

Essentially, though, you are just up to your old trick of attempting to discredit scientific research on the basis of your particular ignorance of how it proceeds. You seem to think that if you can discredit science (something at which you consistently fail), you then get to claim that you have "proven" that your imaginary friend did it. That only works as an explanation for those as gullible as you are, or as gullible as you hope that those who read here are.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Dr Austin's sample was of KNOWN recent origin.

All the more reason that one should be offended that the method was not calibrated.

real life wrote:

Everyone knew when Mt St Helens erupted.

All the more reason that one should be offended that the method was not calibrated.

real life wrote:

Nobody had to ASSUME a date.

This is only relavant, if you can prove that no method would produce a valid date. I'm sure farmerman could provide the background on how an individual could go about dating such a young rock.

Do you think you understand this method to the degree which you are critisizing it?

real life wrote:

However the test 'dated' the sample at 'millions of years'.

proving nothing.

All the more reason that one should be offended that the method was not calibrated.

real life wrote:

Do you see something amiss with that, or are you completely comfortable with it?

I am very alarmed by the result. The only thing amiss is that your Dr. Aisten has committed fraud. Worse over is that some people actually believe it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

However the test 'dated' the sample at 'millions of years'.

Actually, the test probably didn't produce a 'date' at all. What it probably produced was a ratio of isotopes. And that ratio was probably completely accurate.

(I'm not certain exactly how this particular test works, but most of these things don't produce 'dates', they produce measurements of component elements in relation to each other)

But the ratio result was 'interpreted' to represent a 'date' which was millions of years old due to the 'assumption' that the item submitted for testing was not outside of the valid range for testing.

So in a way, you are right, the assumptions about the test object were invalid and that led to invalid inferences from the result of the test.

This is exactly why data is tested in many different ways before extrordinary results can be accepted. Scientific knowledge isn't built around isolated tests and conditions, it's a confluence of matching results across disciplines which leads to the highest probability of truth.

0 Replies

Quote:

Dr Austin's sample was of KNOWN recent origin.

The very point He used a test that wouldnt show any ARgon, nor did he tell the lab to calibrate the Calcium and the Argon 40/Argon 39 ratios.He didnt tell the lab that it was a sample of a recent lava dome. HE WAS BEING DECEPTIVE, period. He needs no excuses from you, deception should be most "unChristian No?"

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Dr Austin's sample was of KNOWN recent origin.

The very point He used a test that wouldnt show any ARgon, nor did he tell the lab to calibrate the Calcium and the Argon 40/Argon 39 ratios.He didnt tell the lab that it was a sample of a recent lava dome. HE WAS BEING DECEPTIVE, period. He needs no excuses from you, deception should be most "unChristian No?"

Deception and lies are very Christian if they defend Creationism and dogma.

Is that correct Real?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Dr Austin's sample was of KNOWN recent origin.

The very point He used a test that wouldnt show any ARgon, nor did he tell the lab to calibrate the Calcium and the Argon 40/Argon 39 ratios.He didnt tell the lab that it was a sample of a recent lava dome. HE WAS BEING DECEPTIVE, period. He needs no excuses from you, deception should be most "unChristian No?"

Actually the test did show argon. That is why it 'appeared' old.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp

0 Replies

ros

Quote:

(I'm not certain exactly how this particular test works, but most of these things don't produce 'dates', they produce measurements of component elements in relation to each other)

Exactly. Ive said that at least twice in the previous pages and RL is just being obtuse (purposely ?). The methods require a certain series of duplicates , calibrations, point calibration with known solutions and all the jazz that lab machines do. The actual dating is a calculation that is done on a computer with fixed inputs and calibration information. The calibration we talk of in this method, has to do with purge of Argon and collection of daughter Calcium so that the calculations can even be done. Ive found a website that critiques Austins samples and , atrangely enough, the word fraud was discussed.
I think RL has been shown the errors and hes merely demonstrating how closed-mindedness can rule some peoples thinking.

0 Replies

me saying to RL

Quote:

He used a test that wouldnt show any ARgon, nor did he tell the lab to calibrate the Calcium and the Argon 40/Argon 39 ratios

to which RL swaid

Quote:

Actually the test did show argon. That is why it 'appeared' old.

You are now being deceptive, the Ar ratios of Ar 39/Ar40 is the important ratio. This is an "extra" in the lab procedure. Tell me whether Austin DID request calibration runs of the two Ar species? Ill bet not. It wouldnt give him anything to write about.

I cant believe that this was done in 1986 and you Creationists are still trying to milk "bad Science" to give a quart of good.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

me saying to RL
Quote:
He used a test that wouldnt show any ARgon, nor did he tell the lab to calibrate the Calcium and the Argon 40/Argon 39 ratios

to which RL swaid
Quote:
Actually the test did show argon. That is why it 'appeared' old.

You are now being deceptive, the Ar ratios of Ar 39/Ar40 is the important ratio. This is an "extra" in the lab procedure. Tell me whether Austin DID request calibration runs of the two Ar species? Ill bet not. It wouldnt give him anything to write about.

I cant believe that this was done in 1986 and you Creationists are still trying to milk "bad Science" to give a quart of good.

Austin states

Quote:

Do you agree?

0 Replies

Quote:

The fundamental dating assumption (is that) ?no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed?

, BUT, when K 40 decays, it decays in a fixed ratio of Ar39/Ar40/Ca40. Austin apparently only looked at Ar40 and didnt do any ratios. A subtle mineralogical point that will mean nothing to you is that clinopyroxenes and orthopyroxenes can accrete in Nucleation episodes. Initial augite , diopside, spodumene etc can form over crystals of a central grainwhich shows up like "layers" inn the rock-forming mineral. The central layers could be much older and have different ratios and actual allocthanous argon and do have authigenic calcium. Clinopyroxenes are similar (cept different crystal chemistry and usually have little Calcium)

HOWEVER, none of the original Ca is radiogenic, so if Austin didnt look for radioCalcium and just ignored it, he would have missed 88.8% of the decay product of the K. Its convenient how he only mentions Ar40 as a daughtrer product, when its not as simple as he wants you to believe.

Most people familiar with mineralogy and radiometric dating will agree that AUstin was being tricky. Its ok if you keep believing AIG, they have an agenda, and it aint objective science.
The argument over the factors involved in K/Ar dating are almost 45 years old, and the glitches have been worked out years ago.
Using this dating technique against you is as pitiful a ruse as are the Paluxey River(Texas) "human tracks" of Cretaceous age.

0 Replies

Since the fundamental assumption of this method is false, it seems that you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, farmerman.

Hope you're having a great day.

0 Replies

Quote:

Since the fundamental assumption of this method is false, it seems that you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, farmerman.

Bought into, hook line and sinker and said just like any good Creationist who has no idea about what hes talking. RL, You too, have a good dogmatic day. PS, dont give up your day job, cause the rigors of science dont seem to appeal to your "sound byte mind"

Just ask Ham and Austin(maybe Safarti also), In 1986, when they did this "experiment" why didnt they at least follow the established methods for K/Ar analyses? And how can they parade such poor science out here as definitive "proof" of concept, when they failed to follow the methods? ALso, why didnt the wildly variable age differences from different minerals in the same sample give them any clues that maybe they were missing some important data?(They reported "radio ages" of between 0.3 my to over 2.9 my)Thats almost a 1000% variance of age dates from within different minerals of the same dacite rock. The fact that they found argon wsnt the issue, where did the argon come from , was. They didnt attempt to QA anything and merely plopped the data out there with no explanations. The only conclusion they wished drawn was that K/Ar wasnt accurate at young ages. Well , any decent isotope analyst coulda told em that without them wsting their lunch money.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

What I Think About Evolution
by Sam Brownback

That was the biggest pile of fence-sitting, spin-doctored, squirming under the bright light, pandering jargon I've ever seen.

Good job Mr. Politician.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Since the fundamental assumption of this method is false, it seems that you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, farmerman.

Hope you're having a great day.

Translation: Since FM came up with a cogent explanation of the flaws which point to the deception which Austin is practicing, and i, "real life," lack the knowledge to discuss the subtleties of radiometric dating in geological samples, i'll just say something which i think sounds clever and devastating. After all, i'm more interested in suckering the gullible than in actually presenting a plausible case.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

i, "real life," lack the knowledge to discuss the subtleties of radiometric dating in geological samples, i'll just say something which i think sounds clever and devastating. After all, i'm more interested in suckering the gullible than in actually presenting a plausible case.

Have you seen the movie, "Thank You for Smoking"? I think RL probably took debating lessons from the main character in that story.

By the way, it's a great movie, very funny and a little bit frightening with the accuracy of its satire.

0 Replies

I've never seen it, Ros . . . i'll check it out . . . anything, including just sitting around picking one's nose, is a more intellectually enlightening experience than reading posts by "real life" . . .

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

stlstrike3 wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

What I Think About Evolution
by Sam Brownback

That was the biggest pile of fence-sitting, spin-doctored, squirming under the bright light, pandering jargon I've ever seen.

Good job Mr. Politician.

My favorite bit:

Quote:

Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Confirmation bias, anyone?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
i, "real life," lack the knowledge to discuss the subtleties of radiometric dating in geological samples, i'll just say something which i think sounds clever and devastating. After all, i'm more interested in suckering the gullible than in actually presenting a plausible case.

Have you seen the movie, "Thank You for Smoking"? I think RL probably took debating lessons from the main character in that story.

By the way, it's a great movie, very funny and a little bit frightening with the accuracy of its satire.

I concur....great movie.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know