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

farmerman, Sounds like the same deal with a construction license in California. All they need is some "experience," and several citizens to say they are "worthy.' On top of all "that," many contractors show a CA license to practice in the state, but most consumers never check out with the state whether their license is current or a fraud.

0 Replies

Farmerman,

Do you agree with Dalrymple's statement:

Quote:

The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope.

If so, isn't dismissing the excess argon problem as 'group of anomalies' just a bit less than objective?

Having a flow of known recent origin kinda puts a kink in the wire sometimes , doesn't it?

Given the great variability in the amount of argon, even among various samples from the same flow, what gives us ANY confidence that we can determine how much (if any) argon was present in a flow of UNKNOWN age when it was formed?

And if we don't know how much was there when it was formed (if you don't agree there was zero), then only knowing how much there is now (or even ratios of various elements now), still does not give us any thing to compare to, and thus determine how much has been formed since the time the sample originated.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Geologists can't be sued for malpractice, so whether a geologist ignorantly or with willful deceit, fails to thoroughly test a sample, there is no remedy for the public to keep him honest.
Not so fast big guy. While I agree with most everything youve posted, this is incorrect. In 29 states, geologists are now registered as practicing professionals with each state having a code of ethics. If Austin prepared and delivered a K/Ar report to a client (say me) , I could have reported him to the ethics committee ,In this case , the most he would have been found against would be for the practice of geology without a license (hes not licensed in PA) and probably incompetence. A minimal competence is required for any licensure In PA its called Act167, "Requiring the Licensure o practice Engineering, Geology, and Land SUrveying, and Practices Thereof...Act"

Willful deceit is hard to prove. The only case I knew of was in
South Carolina, where someone , a licensed geologist , was selling "salted minelands"

Yeah, but in such cases, they are being prosecuted for committing criminal fraud, not for "malpractice" in simply making a statement. You can't sue Austin for lying about the samples testing--you could only sue him if he willfully practiced deceit while selling his services as a geologist, and you were able to convince a judge or jury that he was willfully practicing fraud.

0 Replies

Ok RL, what test do you have that tells me that the rock is only 12 years old?

Since you require irrefutable proof, please tell me what proof you have that this rock is 12 years old (w/o the pictures).

Better yet, what proof do you have that all of the worlds rocks are no more than 6000-7000 years old.

You can't use the bible, because it doesn't provide any proof as many non-young-earth creationists have been quick to point out. (the whole 7 days doesn't equal 7 days nonsense).

0 Replies

set

Quote:

you could only sue him if he willfully practiced deceit while selling his services as a geologist, and you were able to convince a judge or jury that he was willfully practicing fraud.

In that limited case , yes, however, the licensing board for engineers and geologists has disciplanary functions. I shant go over the code of practices and ethics, but one doesnt bring a lawsuit for unethical practice . A lAwsuit is a separate action, usually brought by an offended third party. We, via our disciplanary board , regulate our codes of professional conduct and govern such things as practicing without a license or improper use of seal, or not using a seal when required. Many states merely assume that , with meeting the minimal requirements for licensure and opearting under a licensed geologists supervision for 5 years and then taking a test, the terms of your license will be grounds for conditional approval of your job. Additional requirements on top of licensing are to a
ssure that proper QA requirements are met. As I said before , intent is always hard to prove, but say, drilling a well and missing the reservoir can get you sued for malpractice. Being dumb doesnt excuse bad performance. Thats why our liability and errors and omissions insurances are high (not quite as high as anesthesiologists though). Practicing without a license or commiting a crime using ones seal can be a felony .(depending on severity of action and whether theres a repeat offense).

RL, quoting Brent Dalrymple said

Quote:

The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope.

He did say that because obviously you quoted it. However that is only a half- valid statement for a 45 year old methodology that only looked at K/Ar and not any AR/Ar/Ar calibration and Ar/Ca fractionation of daughters> So Im darn firm about my assertion that AUstin was purposely being deceitful(mostly for some Creationist benefit) .
Ar/Ar calibration doesnt give a damn about the initial content of Ar in the "glassy feldspar" fraction, since the AR/Ar doesnt assume that the rock is a closed system and even Dalrymple himself has come to recognize that the method , using Ar/Ar is able to analyze for fairly young trachytes and other newly minted melt rock. However,there can be a infrequent problem with nucleation of "solid solution" rocks with older crsytal cores and in this method is that you can have a higher 'excess" Ar from the nucleus. However, why would anyone select a cryatlly zoned mineral in the first place, and why would one choose a XENOlith.(thats telling the world that you are trying to FAKE the results) Snelling and Austin shouldhave known the AR/Ar calibration methods since it was already in practise by 1986. Thats why Ive maintained that he was being deceitful all along. (Either that or he was being relly cheap because the Mass Spec needs are more complex and expensive in K/Ar/Ar/Ca).
With proper AR/Ar calibration and using K/Ar , theyve been able to accurately date the79AD Vesuvius eruption to within about 20 years of real time, but these were
Based on Pliny dates. (I assume they corrected them by Edmund the Diminutives correction s)

0 Replies

Doesn't injury have to result from malpractice in order to sue?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

theyve been able to accurately date the79AD Vesuvius eruption to within about 20 years of real time,

Since they knew when it happened, then they were able to 'date' it. Well that's quite a breakthrough. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
theyve been able to accurately date the79AD Vesuvius eruption to within about 20 years of real time,

Since they knew when it happened, then they were able to 'date' it. Well that's quite a breakthrough.

The entire sentence from farmerman reads:

Quote:

With proper AR/Ar calibration and using K/Ar , theyve been able to accurately date the79AD Vesuvius eruption to within about 20 years of real time, but these were
based on Pliny dates.

Farmerman clearly means that the results of the scientific dating method agrees with the date given by Pliny, a first century Roman who was actually stationed near Mount Vesuvius when it erupted.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
theyve been able to accurately date the79AD Vesuvius eruption to within about 20 years of real time,

Since they knew when it happened, then they were able to 'date' it. Well that's quite a breakthrough.

Care to take a shot at this one RL?

maporsche wrote:

Ok RL, what test do you have that tells me that the rock is only 12 years old?

Since you require irrefutable proof, please tell me what proof you have that this rock is 12 years old (w/o the pictures).

Better yet, what proof do you have that all of the worlds rocks are no more than 6000-7000 years old.

You can't use the bible, because it doesn't provide any proof as many non-young-earth creationists have been quick to point out. (the whole 7 days doesn't equal 7 days nonsense).

0 Replies

geez, rl, try to get it thru your head--that's one of the ways science works. You croos-check and cross-correlate to verify. If you have a dating method you want to check, and you have a sample that you know from other sources (in this case historical records), and your dating method gives you the same date (within the error bars), then it's an indication that the method works. If the dates don't agree, you've got problems. That's precisely what you claim Austin was doing, except the evidence cited to date by Farmerman and others points pretty damningly to Austin being either incompetent or intentionally deceptive.

0 Replies

username: "...others points pretty damningly to Austin being either incompetent or intentionally deceptive."

Austin reminds me a great deal of Bush Jr.; incompetent and intentionally deceptive.

0 Replies

username wrote:

That's precisely what you claim Austin was doing, except the evidence cited to date by Farmerman and others points pretty damningly to Austin being either incompetent or intentionally deceptive.

Of more interest is Austin's creationist colleague from Australia, Snelling. If you have read, or do read the link i provided from another Australian geologist, Snelling has one story (young earth) when he is writing for the Australian creationist web site (which likely generates a handsome extra income for him, with speaking engagements and book sales, and has an entirely different story in his capacity of a working geologist in the field. Snelling specializes in uranium, a valuable commodity. You can bet your bottom dollar he doesn't haul out that young earth crap when he's being paid to identify geological formations in which uranium is likely to be found in amounts worth the effort and expense of a mining operation. The article by Dr. Ritchie of the Australian Museum proves conclusively that Snelling uses "old earth" dating methods and terminology when writing in his capacity of a working geologist, rather than a creationist propagandist. The evidence is conclusive that Snelling is being willfully deceitful.

I'll put the link in again, for anyone interesting in reading it.

Dr. Ritchies comments on Mr. Snellings "geological honesty."

From that source:

Quote:

For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

Now that the "Creation Science Foundation, Ltd. has been scooped up by "Answers in Genesis," i'm sure Mr. Snelling is making an even better income on the side practicing deceit.

0 Replies

I particularly like the postscript to Dr. Ritchie's criticisms of Snelling:

Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart - Noah's Flood - The Geological Case For and Against.

I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
theyve been able to accurately date the79AD Vesuvius eruption to within about 20 years of real time,

Since they knew when it happened, then they were able to 'date' it. Well that's quite a breakthrough.

The entire sentence from farmerman reads:
Quote:
With proper AR/Ar calibration and using K/Ar , theyve been able to accurately date the79AD Vesuvius eruption to within about 20 years of real time, but these were
based on Pliny dates.

Farmerman clearly means that the results of the scientific dating method agrees with the date given by Pliny, a first century Roman who was actually stationed near Mount Vesuvius when it erupted.

hi wandeljw,

Yes, I understood Farmerman's point. The humor that I saw in it is that it is easy to 'date' a specimen if you already know how old it is.

Coming from the other direction, Austin gave the lab a sample that he knew the age of, but the lab didn't. And the lab results did not indicate a correct date, not even close.

Why should the lab need to know the answer before they can supply the correct answer?

To call that a 'scientific' method is to stretch the meaning of the word, IMHO. Real scientists don't need 'cheat sheets' , do they?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
theyve been able to accurately date the79AD Vesuvius eruption to within about 20 years of real time,

Since they knew when it happened, then they were able to 'date' it. Well that's quite a breakthrough.

Care to take a shot at this one RL?

maporsche wrote:

Ok RL, what test do you have that tells me that the rock is only 12 years old?

Since you require irrefutable proof, please tell me what proof you have that this rock is 12 years old (w/o the pictures).

Better yet, what proof do you have that all of the worlds rocks are no more than 6000-7000 years old.

You can't use the bible, because it doesn't provide any proof as many non-young-earth creationists have been quick to point out. (the whole 7 days doesn't equal 7 days nonsense).

Not sure what you want a response to, ma. I haven't 'required irrefutable proof' (even when some A2Kers told me that evidence of an old earth is irrefutable).

As for proof that the sample was a decade old, maybe you should go back and read the thread so you understand the context. Austin , in 1996 , took lava from the Mt St Helens eruption a decade earlier and sent them to a lab for 'dating'. Everybody knew when MSH erupted. There is little need for 'proof' of it.

0 Replies

username wrote:

If the dates don't agree, you've got problems. That's precisely what you claim Austin was doing, except the evidence cited to date by Farmerman and others points pretty damningly to Austin being either incompetent or intentionally deceptive.

So because Austin exposed a problem with the dating method, he is pilloried as 'deceptive' and 'incompetent'.

Regardless of what one thinks of Austin, Snelling, etc here is the issue from square one:

-- when a sample is tested by the lab, there is no way to know how much argon (or anything else ) was present in it at the time of formation.

So, simply measuring what's there now ( or the ratio of this-to-that now) still doesn't give you any basis for determining how much of it was there originally and/or how much formed since that time.

It's very simple, but it's an issue that is danced around but never addressed by the proponents of these methods.

0 Replies

from http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp

Quote:

Andrew Snelling answers Alex Ritchie

(a response by Dr. Andrew Snelling of critcism posted on the Christian Apologetics
& Research Ministry [CARM] bulletin board by Dr. Alex Ritchie)
© 1998 Dr. Andrew Snelling. All Rights Reserved.

have never hidden my allegiances or beliefs. For example, when I left the employment of mining companies in 1983 I made it perfectly clear where I was going, what I believed and what I was doing. I also told other research scientists that I was working with, and even offered to be a silent partner in the research work if my involvement embarrassed them or compromised them in any way. None of them in any way backed off, respecting me and the position I'd taken even if they didn't agree.
When I came to write the paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit, it was at the request of the mining company who knew exactly where I stood. The paper was for a book on Australian ore deposits with an editor who had strict guidelines as to how the papers should be written. When I wrote the paper I had no option but to take the standard conventional terminology, and what all the critics have overlooked is that I fully reference all the comments that they are slamming me with. In other words, as far as I was concerned I was making it perfectly clear that this is what everyone else believes, and what is the standard wisdom about this ore deposit and its geological setting. It so happens that the editor of the volume when he did the work was still in the employ of one of the mining companies that I had worked for that knew my position, so nothing was hidden from the public in any way.

The problem is that these hard-line evolutionists are so blinkered that they can't see how a person like myself in such a situation is forced to use their evolutionary terminology whether we like it or not. In other words, even though I could have appealed to the editor of the monograph it would have been to no avail, because the reviewers would have also insisted on the conventional terminology, particularly as one of the reviewers was one of the researchers having done the standard work on the regional geology of that area. It is ludicrous to suggest any hypocrisy or two-facedness. Besides, if you look at some of my papers in the creationist literature, and those of other creationist geologists such as Steve Austin and Kurt Wise, you will notice that we still use the same labels for the rock units as the evolutionists, not by way of compromise, but so everyone knows that we are talking about the same rock units, except we make it clear that we don't agree with the millions of years associated with them. In other words, even in the creationist literature we use the same terminology, though stripped on its conventionaal evolutionary/uniformitaria interpretation.

I believe that specific responses to the article by Alex Ritchie and similar claims by Ian Plimer are available on the Answers in Genesis website, the address for which is:

Please don't misunderstand me, but I have long ago given up trying to defend myself against these kinds of accusations, not through any arrogance or lack of submission to accountability on my part, but simply because it is a great waste of time that distracts me from what the Lord has called me to do. Besides, these people will not be convinced and they are really out for my destruction. The parallel in the Scriptures is with Nehemiah. His enemies tried all sorts of tricks to distract him from doing the work of rebuilding the walls, but their only intention was to kill him and make sure the walls were not rebuilt. I am in no way saying that I am any equal to Nehemiah, but I am resolute in being available to the Lord to do His bidding as He directs, whatever the consequences, and even if we don't appear successful in the world's eyes. The Lord calls us to be faithful - the success is up to Him as He sees fit so that He gets all the glory.

By the way, let me dispell the myth that somehow I make a lot of money out of any of this. Quite the opposite. As far as the consulting work is concerned there has been very little of it, probably averaging around 1 week to 10 days per year at most over the last 15 years. The bulk of livelihood I need to support my family comes from working with the Creation Science Foundation/Answers in Genesis, and the remuneration here, understandably, has been, and is, less than one-third or one-quarter of what I could receive in the mining industry, about the one-third or one-half what I would receive in an academic post, or about one-tenth of what I would receive in consulting. Mind you, I am not complaining one bit, as the Lord has been good to us in so many ways nonetheless.

Andrew Snelling

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So because Austin exposed a problem with the dating method, he is pilloried as 'deceptive' and 'incompetent'.

Austin is not being "pilloried," he's being justifiably criticized for practicing deceit. Have no doubt that he continues to make a good living milking the credulity of those who want to have their assumptions about the age of the earth by someone to whom they can point as a qualified geologist. It is not his competence which is being challenged--far from it, he is being branded as deceitful precisely because he uses his competence disingenuously to knowingly make a false claim.

Quote:

From square one -- when a sample is tested by the lab, there is no way to know how much argon (or anything else ) was present in it at the time of formation.

This is not strictly true, which is why there is a reliable dating method. As has been shown in FMs statements from authority based upon his education and his professional expertise, and as has been shown in quoted and linked materials, excess Ar40 is only present in anomalously large amounts in 25% or fewer of cases. That is why it is important to provide information about what is known about the age or suspected age of the sample when sending it for testing. If the known age or suspected age of the sample falls in the range of lowest reliable measurement (c.f. the "yardstick" metaphor previously referred to several times) it can provide useful information for making the dating method more reliable. So, in fact, Austin not only practices deceit, but the money for the testing was wasted in a circumstance in which honesty could have helped to improve the method.

[qoute]So, simply measuring what's there now ( or the ratio of this-to-that now) still doesn't give you any basis for determining how much of it was there originally and/or how much formed since that time.[/quote]

This is either disingenuous on your part, or you've forgotten or failed to absorb what FM has been talking about. It is the analysis of the ratios of isotopes which is used to eliminate false positive or false negative assessments. Austin understood that, and he didn't ask for comparisons of isotopes, which kept the cost of the test down at the same time that it allowed him to allege (falsely) that the method is unreliable.

Quote:

It's very simple, but it's an issue that is danced around but never addressed by the proponents of these methods.

You're the only one here who is dancing, and your steps are dictated by your determination not to acknowledge precisely how Austin willfully practiced deceit.

0 Replies

Interesting, isn't it, that 'excess argon' is only found in flows of known age.

In samples of unknown age, it's never found. Laughing

Wonder how they know that there wasn't argon present at the time of the formation of these samples?

0 Replies

Oh. He maintains he's just telling the mining companies what they want to hear, and that all those samples he's having analyzed, not just Mt. St. Helen ones, not just recent volcanic ones, are not in fact millions of years old, despite what the dating says? I would like to see some documentation of why he thinks all those samples in fact are wrong. And why he thinks all the methods of dating are millions of years off.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know