Jump to content


Photo

Arguments Not To Use (Peer Review)


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#41 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2017 - 11:47 AM

 

 

 

Fjuri: - To include terms such as "creation", "design" and the like, without providing support for this "creator" or "designer" you are making a bare assertion fallacy. Based on that, creation literature up for peer review including these terms should be rejected, or requested to put up for a large revision at least.

 

 

A contradiction.

 

You can't say the usual features of intelligent design are "NOT" evidence of intelligent design. You can't say that cleverer designs (biomimetics) is "NOT" evidence of cleverer design. You're basically saying, "no, the evidence of intelligent design is an assertion, provide the evidence of intelligent design."

 

That's like saying, "no you haven't shown a differential in a car is designed by showing the arrangement of the gears, and how they solve wheelspin, and it is an assertion to use that terminology."

 

Lol. How can I argue design if you won't let the usual evidence of design count as design? Lol. "show me this bird flies, but showing the viable flight anatomy is bare assertion, show something else."

As with any scientific assessment, a claim is verified by contrasting it with its opposite. So if you want to claim something is designed in a scientific context, you'll want to contrast it with something naturally occurring. 

So any claim of "elements of design" should be those that are not naturally occurring. Since life is naturally occurring (in its current form), you cannot assess whether or not the "elements of design" you find in them are unique to design or not.



#42 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2017 - 11:56 AM

 

I'll restart because we're getting side tracked:
- My point is that the method to acquire knowledge is science.

it's one of several methods.
here are 2 other examples:
i witnessed a car crash, i have just acquired knowledge if i happened to know who was involved.

Sure.

 

I'll restart because we're getting side tracked:
- My point is that the method to acquire knowledge is science.

...

instincts, animals often instinctively "know" which way to go.
arctic terns navigate 1000s of miles of open water without ever making the trip before.

I'm not sure I'd count that as "knowing", but sure.

 

Neither of these methods allow for much depth of knowledge though, which is what I was referring to. (a car crash is a simple event, finding your way is a singular issue).

Both of these methods also have a history of unreliability. 

 

 

Embedded in the methods of science is peer reviewed publishing. While it has flaws it is the best available method to provide sufficient critical thinking with regards to results that are being published.

let's list a few of these flaws.
it's prone to abuse, it's worthless for detecting fraud, and it's somewhat like a lottery (my original typing was lootery, which was hilarious)

While I disagree with the lottery assessment, there are more flaws than those listed. :)

Despite that, its still the best method.

 

 

 

- When a peer rejects a paper, he/she needs to justify the rejection. "Because it might be true" isn't a reason to reject.

i think you need to point out that you aren't familiar with all the different institutions involved.

 

I think you need to point out that you aren't familiar with any of the different institutions involved...

See what I did there?



#43 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 30 June 2017 - 12:12 PM

I think you need to point out that you aren't familiar with any of the different institutions involved...
See what I did there?

i'm familiar with what the royal society has to say about the subject.
they SPECIFICALLY say there isn't much evidence for the effectiveness of peer review, but there is plenty of evidence of its deficiency.

this becomes especially problematic in connection with statistical analysis.
population genetics for example.
i've recently presented evidence that completely obliterates this analysis, but yet peer review has continually accepted it.

#44 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 July 2017 - 12:25 PM

I'll restart because we're getting side tracked:
- My point is that the method to acquire knowledge is science.

it's one of several methods.
here are 2 other examples:
i witnessed a car crash, i have just acquired knowledge if i happened to know who was involved.
Sure.
 

I'll restart because we're getting side tracked:
- My point is that the method to acquire knowledge is science.

...
instincts, animals often instinctively "know" which way to go.
arctic terns navigate 1000s of miles of open water without ever making the trip before.
I'm not sure I'd count that as "knowing", but sure.
 
Neither of these methods allow for much depth of knowledge though, which is what I was referring to. (a car crash is a simple event, finding your way is a singular issue).
Both of these methods also have a history of unreliability. 
 

Embedded in the methods of science is peer reviewed publishing. While it has flaws it is the best available method to provide sufficient critical thinking with regards to results that are being published.

let's list a few of these flaws.
it's prone to abuse, it's worthless for detecting fraud, and it's somewhat like a lottery (my original typing was lootery, which was hilarious)
While I disagree with the lottery assessment, there are more flaws than those listed. :)
Despite that, its still the best method.
 
 

- When a peer rejects a paper, he/she needs to justify the rejection. "Because it might be true" isn't a reason to reject.

i think you need to point out that you aren't familiar with all the different institutions involved.
I think you need to point out that you aren't familiar with any of the different institutions involved...
See what I did there?


instincts, animals often instinctively "know" which way to go.
arctic terns navigate 1000s of miles of open water without ever making the trip before.

"I'm not sure I'd count that as "knowing", but sure."


Thats right, just like the first self replicating DNA molecule, encoded with millions of lines of specified genetic information somehow assembled itself by accident in the beginning and arctic terns dont really "know" which way to fly 25,000 miles YET they somehow ALWAYS end up in the same place in Antarctica EVERY TIME... Is this where the tried and true tactic of the defenders of Darwin say..
"Prove it CANT happen?"

"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it."

(Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture,"

#45 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 July 2017 - 05:07 PM

instincts, animals often instinctively "know" which way to go.
arctic terns navigate 1000s of miles of open water without ever making the trip before.

"I'm not sure I'd count that as "knowing", but sure."


Thats right, just like the first self replicating DNA molecule, encoded with millions of lines of specified genetic information . . .

i haven't seen anything that says DNA has millions of lines of genetic information.
it might have millions of base pairs, but this doesn't equate to millions of lines.
one gene can take up a great many base pairs, which i consider unexplainable.
one retro transposon can contain a large number of genes.
i think you should use base pairs instead of lines, because lines equate to a computer program, and it's unknown how many lines this program has. (even if it can be equated this way)

#46 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 July 2017 - 08:09 PM

instincts, animals often instinctively "know" which way to go.arctic terns navigate 1000s of miles of open water without ever making the trip before."I'm not sure I'd count that as "knowing", but sure."Thats right, just like the first self replicating DNA molecule, encoded with millions of lines of specified genetic information . . .

i haven't seen anything that says DNA has millions of lines of genetic information.it might have millions of base pairs, but this doesn't equate to millions of lines.one gene can take up a great many base pairs, which i consider unexplainable.one retro transposon can contain a large number of genes.i think you should use base pairs instead of lines, because lines equate to a computer program, and it's unknown how many lines this program has. (even if it can be equated this way)

"I haven't seen anything that says DNA has millions of lines of genetic information."

You are right.. Maybe I should have said DNA that is inscripted with Millions of base pairs.. I usually view a "Script" as lines of coded information but I get the semantical argument you are making and you are probably technically correct, but you will have to forgive me as I am not a geneticist, and the ovarall point I was trying to make is that DNA contains WAY too much specified complexity to have arisen through merely naturalistic processes, Or do you not agree witb that either?


The human genome contains the complete genetic information of the organism as DNA sequences stored in 23 chromosomes (22 autosomal chromosomes and one X or Y s@x chromosome), structures that are organized from DNA and protein. A DNA molecule consists of two strands that form the iconic double-helix “twisted ladder”, whose backbone, which made of sugar and phosphate molecules, is connected by rungs of nitrogen-containing bases. DNA is composed of 4 different bases: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine ©, and Guanine (G). These bases are always paired in such a way that Adenine connects to Thymine, and Cytosine connects to Guanine. These pairings produce 4 different base pair possibilities: A-T, T-A, G-C, and C-G. The haploid human genome (containing only 1 copy of each chromosome) consists of roughly 3 billion of these base pairs grouped into 23 chromosomes. A human being inherits two sets of genomes (one from each parent), and thus two sets of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes, representing the diploid genome, which contains about 6×10^9 base pairs.

#47 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 July 2017 - 02:47 AM

You are right.. Maybe I should have said DNA that is inscripted with Millions of base pairs.. I usually view a "Script" as lines of coded information but I get the semantical argument you are making and you are probably technically correct, but you will have to forgive me as I am not a geneticist, and the ovarall point I was trying to make is that DNA contains WAY too much specified complexity to have arisen through merely naturalistic processes, Or do you not agree witb that either?

i'm not going to comment on the specified complexity bit, but i WILL say the chances of this stuff coming together naturally is non existent.
well to be technically correct i'll have to say it's way less than one chance in 10^520
and that's in regards to the structure of DNA.
throw in epigenetics and regulatory networks, and that one chance practically vanishes.
science will never recreate it, it just won't happen.
  • mike the wiz and Blitzking like this

#48 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 11 July 2017 - 02:45 PM

 

 

Yet another strawman. Where did I say I can understand a science paper without background in the subject? Though it surprises me a bit that you say this because it reveals that you seem to think that if the information is unknown that the thinker is left brain-tied. But I can also refute claims about information I don't understand.

 

I done this recently when the poster "StormanNorman" posted a scientific post, and his argument was that the dating technique for K-Ar dating used to date newly formed Mt St Helens rock, produces a "noise" effect which means newer dates are negligible. So in about half an hour of reading I knew that if I concentrated on the information provided, I may be able to find a hole in his argument even though my scientific knowledge was 0%. I found out that the test for Mt St Helens was actually a different dating method without the noise problem called flame-photometry testing which gave a base date much smaller than the age for Mt St Helens. It was actually argued that the argon in the rock really did come not from age but from argon imbibed from phenocrysts. Logically, I won, but had a peer reviewer examined our argument he probably would have said Norman was correct, simply because he would only focus on the science and wouldn't in all probability, understand the relevance of my argument.

 

 

I admit, Mike, that I did not know that the Mt. St. Helens rock was dated by flame photometry instead of spectroscopy.  But, how does that allow you to make these statements above?  For example, how do you know flame photometry doesn't have a "noise problem?"  In fact, the book in the link below describes the sources and effects of noise in flame photometry measurements in some detail.  That's not surprising....as almost any measurement will have some noise sources making it exceedingly difficult to measure small amounts with low relative errors.  It's an older method, Mike, which based on my understanding has been mostly replaced by spectroscopy even though it is more expensive.  Got to think there is a reason for that, right? 

 

https://books.google...r noise&f=false



#49 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 July 2017 - 03:50 PM

Norman, the minimum date they give, the Mt St Helens rock date was six times greater than. I think there was a minimum of about 50,000 years, one date was 350,000 years.

 

So if we measure in milimetres, sure, millimetres aren't a good measurement for say 1mm or less, the smallest amount, but for something 6mm in length it is okay to measure in millimetres. I think it's reasonable to say the argon in that rock was simply way more than expected, and I definitely believe had they not known it was from the Mt St Helens eruption would have said it was hundreds of thousands of years old. A point evolutionists wouldn't concede it seems, but a point which seems highly likely.

 

I appreciate you've shown good form by admitting that mistake, by raising that example my intention wasn't to attack you or show you up, it's not a big deal that you made a mistake, I was just using it to illustrate a point I was making.



#50 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 11 July 2017 - 05:28 PM

Norman, the minimum date they give, the Mt St Helens rock date was six times greater than. I think there was a minimum of about 50,000 years, one date was 350,000 years.

 

So if we measure in milimetres, sure, millimetres aren't a good measurement for say 1mm or less, the smallest amount, but for something 6mm in length it is okay to measure in millimetres. I think it's reasonable to say the argon in that rock was simply way more than expected, and I definitely believe had they not known it was from the Mt St Helens eruption would have said it was hundreds of thousands of years old. A point evolutionists wouldn't concede it seems, but a point which seems highly likely.

 

 

I don't agree with this statement at all, Mike.  If I recall correctly, Geochron (who did the measurements) said on their website that they could not accurately measure rocks that were less than two million years old.  What that means to me is that their equipment could not accurately measure the amount of argon that you would expect from a perfectly good sample (no argon after solidification) after less than 2 million years of radioactive decay.  Basically, 1 mm for Geochron is about 2 million years.  So, if you get answers like 50,000 years or 350,000 years from them, then I would NOT take those results as valid results based on their stated limitations of their equipment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate you've shown good form by admitting that mistake, by raising that example my intention wasn't to attack you or show you up, it's not a big deal that you made a mistake, I was just using it to illustrate a point I was making.

 

I didn't think you were attacking me.  I just think you were extrapolating my mistake into incorrect statements of your own.



#51 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 July 2017 - 07:13 PM

Norman, the minimum date they give, the Mt St Helens rock date was six times greater than. I think there was a minimum of about 50,000 years, one date was 350,000 years.
 
So if we measure in milimetres, sure, millimetres aren't a good measurement for say 1mm or less, the smallest amount, but for something 6mm in length it is okay to measure in millimetres. I think it's reasonable to say the argon in that rock was simply way more than expected, and I definitely believe had they not known it was from the Mt St Helens eruption would have said it was hundreds of thousands of years old. A point evolutionists wouldn't concede it seems, but a point which seems highly likely.

 
I don't agree with this statement at all, Mike.  If I recall correctly, Geochron (who did the measurements) said on their website that they could not accurately measure rocks that were less than two million years old.  What that means to me is that their equipment could not accurately measure the amount of argon that you would expect from a perfectly good sample (no argon after solidification) after less than 2 million years of radioactive decay.  Basically, 1 mm for Geochron is about 2 million years.  So, if you get answers like 50,000 years or 350,000 years from them, then I would NOT take those results as valid results based on their stated limitations of their equipment.
 
 

 
 
I appreciate you've shown good form by admitting that mistake, by raising that example my intention wasn't to attack you or show you up, it's not a big deal that you made a mistake, I was just using it to illustrate a point I was making.

 
I didn't think you were attacking me.  I just think you were extrapolating my mistake into incorrect statements of your own.


"Geochron (who did the measurements) said on their website that they could not accurately measure rocks that were less than two million years old."

I smell a logical fallacy here.. Maybe afirmation of the consequent or a begging the question epithet. Logical fallacies (Of which this CERTAINLY IS ONE) are not going to work in Mikey's classroom thats for sure..

BTW

Of course one could ask the question about what methodology was used to determine that the rocks were "less than 2 million years" old..(By the way, claiming it is true because one's high school science teacher asserted it to be so doesn't count) But I digress..


"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

#52 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 11 July 2017 - 07:54 PM

 

 

Norman, the minimum date they give, the Mt St Helens rock date was six times greater than. I think there was a minimum of about 50,000 years, one date was 350,000 years.
 
So if we measure in milimetres, sure, millimetres aren't a good measurement for say 1mm or less, the smallest amount, but for something 6mm in length it is okay to measure in millimetres. I think it's reasonable to say the argon in that rock was simply way more than expected, and I definitely believe had they not known it was from the Mt St Helens eruption would have said it was hundreds of thousands of years old. A point evolutionists wouldn't concede it seems, but a point which seems highly likely.

 
I don't agree with this statement at all, Mike.  If I recall correctly, Geochron (who did the measurements) said on their website that they could not accurately measure rocks that were less than two million years old.  What that means to me is that their equipment could not accurately measure the amount of argon that you would expect from a perfectly good sample (no argon after solidification) after less than 2 million years of radioactive decay.  Basically, 1 mm for Geochron is about 2 million years.  So, if you get answers like 50,000 years or 350,000 years from them, then I would NOT take those results as valid results based on their stated limitations of their equipment.
 
 

 

 
 
I appreciate you've shown good form by admitting that mistake, by raising that example my intention wasn't to attack you or show you up, it's not a big deal that you made a mistake, I was just using it to illustrate a point I was making.

 
I didn't think you were attacking me.  I just think you were extrapolating my mistake into incorrect statements of your own.


"Geochron (who did the measurements) said on their website that they could not accurately measure rocks that were less than two million years old."

I smell a logical fallacy here.. Maybe afirmation of the consequent or a begging the question epithet. Logical fallacies (Of which this CERTAINLY IS ONE) are not going to work in Mikey's classroom thats for sure..

BTW

Of course one could ask the question about what methodology was used to determine that the rocks were "less than 2 million years" old..(By the way, claiming it is true because one's high school science teacher asserted it to be so doesn't count) But I digress..


"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

 

 

This discussion actually started in a different thread and is not a debate about the deep ages of different rocks.  The two million years is irrelevant to the discussion in that regard.  In fact, we know exactly how old the rocks in question are ....about 40 years old.  The debate has focused instead on how accurately different techniques and equipment can measure the amounts of certain isotopes in those young rocks particularly when the amounts are very small.  Now, in that light, Geochron's 2 million year disclaimer is relevant to the discussion as it is a description of just that, e.g., how accurately they can measure small amounts of argon in a rock sample.  So, no logical fallacy here, my friend...



#53 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 July 2017 - 08:32 PM

Norman, the minimum date they give, the Mt St Helens rock date was six times greater than. I think there was a minimum of about 50,000 years, one date was 350,000 years.
 So if we measure in milimetres, sure, millimetres aren't a good measurement for say 1mm or less, the smallest amount, but for something 6mm in length it is okay to measure in millimetres. I think it's reasonable to say the argon in that rock was simply way more than expected, and I definitely believe had they not known it was from the Mt St Helens eruption would have said it was hundreds of thousands of years old. A point evolutionists wouldn't concede it seems, but a point which seems highly likely.

 
I don't agree with this statement at all, Mike.  If I recall correctly, Geochron (who did the measurements) said on their website that they could not accurately measure rocks that were less than two million years old.  What that means to me is that their equipment could not accurately measure the amount of argon that you would expect from a perfectly good sample (no argon after solidification) after less than 2 million years of radioactive decay.  Basically, 1 mm for Geochron is about 2 million years.  So, if you get answers like 50,000 years or 350,000 years from them, then I would NOT take those results as valid results based on their stated limitations of their equipment.
 
 

 
 I appreciate you've shown good form by admitting that mistake, by raising that example my intention wasn't to attack you or show you up, it's not a big deal that you made a mistake, I was just using it to illustrate a point I was making.

 
I didn't think you were attacking me.  I just think you were extrapolating my mistake into incorrect statements of your own.

"Geochron (who did the measurements) said on their website that they could not accurately measure rocks that were less than two million years old."
I smell a logical fallacy here.. Maybe afirmation of the consequent or a begging the question epithet. Logical fallacies (Of which this CERTAINLY IS ONE) are not going to work in Mikey's classroom thats for sure..
BTW
Of course one could ask the question about what methodology was used to determine that the rocks were "less than 2 million years" old..(By the way, claiming it is true because one's high school science teacher asserted it to be so doesn't count) But I digress..
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)
 
This discussion actually started in a different thread and is not a debate about the deep ages of different rocks.  The two million years is irrelevant to the discussion in that regard.  In fact, we know exactly how old the rocks in question are ....about 40 years old.  The debate has focused instead on how accurately different techniques and equipment can measure the amounts of certain isotopes in those young rocks particularly when the amounts are very small.  Now, in that light, Geochron's 2 million year disclaimer is relevant to the discussion as it is a description of just that, e.g., how accurately they can measure small amounts of argon in a rock sample.  So, no logical fallacy here, my friend...


"Now, in that light, Geochron's 2 million year disclaimer is relevant to the discussion as it is a description of just that,"


Quite redundant to make outlandish claims of "2 million year old" when the rocks are probabaly less than 10,000 years old..

I love these people who go around trying to convince people they have secret time machine that allows them to make such assertions based on nothing more than hopeful assumptions and circular reasoning..


"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

(Dr. Ronald R. West)

#54 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 July 2017 - 02:32 AM

Norman, I think you've added 2 and 2 and come up with 5. My 350,000 year date wasn't the only one, the largest was above your threshold, and was 2.8 million years for pyroxene.

 

 

 

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

 

(Note the highlighted part) That difference is also found in the grand canyon, from the same rock flows you get WILDLY different dates.

 

Here is the ages from Geochron, for Mt St Helens rock which at the time was only about 20 years old if I remember correctly;

 

Attached File  mt st helens.jpg   31.6KB   0 downloads

 

To be honest I would never trust this dating method again after this. How can you not know that rock that is say 500 years old isn't going to be measured by this test to be 10 X older? The point is you can't know, which is an important example of critical thinking, which I believe was the point of raising this issue. I note this type of critical analysis is absent from your own writings.

 

 

 

So the logical argument is: if the assumptions are correct, then a rock younger than the lower range should not have existed long enough for enough detectable Ar-40 (daughter isotope) to have been produced by decay of K-40 (parent isotope). Thus, according to the critic, we should not expect to be able to use the method. However, we find plenty of detectable Ar-40 in rocks known to be much younger. Therefore, by the logically valid argumentknown as denying the consequent or modus tollens, at least one of the assumptions behind radiometric dating is false: that there was no daughter isotope in the rock to start with.

 

So his point is there shouldn't be any Ar in the rock for it to yet even be detectable. To say 2.8 million years isn't a sample enough to be detectable Norman, is plain FALSEHOOD. The fact is new rocks contain argon meaning the assumption it takes millions of years for that argon to decay from potassium, is false, meaning how can you date "older" rocks without knowing how much of the daughter isotope was initially present?

 

Conclusion; It seems to me you're just trying to play down the results of the data, which clearly indicate a sizable amount of argon was present in the newly formed rocks from Mt St Helens. And it's not just Mt St Helens Norm';

 

 

 

 In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old.3 

 

 

Is this dating failure from Mount St Helens an isolated case of radioisotope dating giving wrong results for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple,1 one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, Creation magazine reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.2

http://creation.com/...ating-in-rubble

 

So Norman, does 2 to 3.5 million years go "above" the line? You have no way of knowing why you get the dates, they even dated the top part of the grand canyon they believe 1 million years old using one method, and got a date of 1 billion.

 

LOL!

 

Finally, you are wrong about the precision of measurement, the -/+ sign would only be there, if it meant something, as he explains here;

 

 

 

The results presented in Table 1 of Mr Swenson’s article shows that there was plenty of argon in the Mt St Helens samples. There was an equivalent of 2.8 million years of argon in the pyroxene sample. It was so abundant that the instrument could measure it to a precision of ±0.6 million years. The feldspar sample also had lots of argon and gave an age of 340,000 years. It was some six times more abundant than the precision of measurement which was equivalent to ±60,000 years.

 

The reason they give the -/+ date is that is how much room for doubt there is, that is the limits of the test. Think about it - why would it give wiggle-room if that wiggle-room is false? That is tantamount to saying the evolutionists that tested the rock are LIARS by giving wiggle room of 600,000 years. So it's special pleading fallacy to say, "that wiggle room is acceptable with dates much older".

 

Notice there is a different "wiggle factor" for different dates but the dates themselves are many times greater than the wiggle-factor.

 

(Think Norman.....think.............don't just collect data in your head, but think through the consequences of that data; for there should be no argon at all, if argon only gets there from decay over millions of years, meaning that logically this proves that K-Ar dating can't give you accurate dates because you don't know how much daughter isotope was created at the time the rock formed. For all you know world-scale lava flows from a catastrophe could create even greater inflations. Have you tested that scenario?



#55 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 July 2017 - 03:16 AM

 

 

Norman: "Now, in that light, Geochron's 2 million year disclaimer is relevant to the discussion as it is a description of just that

 

WHEN did they make that diclaimer? It contradicts the "wiggle factor" they gave for the Mt St Helens rock.

 

It's like me saying this; "I love creationists and HATE evolutionists and I believe all evolutionists will score on an IQ test I have made, 10 or below." Now imagine someone anonymously scores 80, and I later find out the person was an evolutionist so I release a new comment saying; "I believe anyone of an IQ of 85 or less is a retard."

 

I haven't heard Geochron say anything, all I have heard is some hearsay from your lips, that they said something.

 

As a critical analyser my questions are therefore this;

 

1. did they really say it, and did it mean what Norman thinks it meant?

2. WHEN did they say it? Did they say it in response to claims that young rock has been dated as old?

3. There own "wiggle" factor means that if they date a rock to 1 million years old and there is a wiggle-factor of 600 thousand years then mathematically and logically that rock MUST have argon in it that is an equivalent amount of  at least 400,000 years old, which contradicts their claim that "2 million" years is the wiggle factor, because it is sufficient evidence that amount of argon is present.

 

I believe their website and what it says NOW, is no longer relevant to the tests done decades ago, when the website didn't exist and I'm not sure the internet even existed.

 

If you are saying, "now more modern methods would say these dates are wrong" then you have to apply that logic to all of the dates for rock which evolutionists say are millions of years old, for if they used that method they also have to be thrown out. 

 

Using a more modern method, the excess argon would still be present in the Mt St Helens rock. That isn't disputed even by experts, but because you don't know enough about this issue, it's clear to me that you are making guesses about these tests, but the tests themselves find certain types of argon present. Austin explains that in his article on Mt St Helens. The argon is there, that isn't debated, which proves argon can be present in new rocks.



#56 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 July 2017 - 03:37 AM

You see Norman, it seems to me you think scientists don't admit to excess argon in rocks. It's known about, there are even experiments like this, which 100% prove the argon can get there, without decaying, when exposed to heat;

 

 

 

 

When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar "ages" of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon (40Ar*).2 In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% Ar at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4,000 atmospheres.3 This is approximately 2,500 times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed to exclude Ar when they crystallize.

http://www.icr.org/a...em-excess-argo/



#57 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 12 July 2017 - 09:28 AM

The debate has focused instead on how accurately different techniques and equipment can measure the amounts of certain isotopes in those young rocks particularly when the amounts are very small.  Now, in that light, Geochron's 2 million year disclaimer is relevant to the discussion as it is a description of just that, e.g., how accurately they can measure small amounts of argon in a rock sample.  So, no logical fallacy here, my friend...

they can measure argon right down to the last atom, and the date inferred could easily be in error by orders of magnitude.

you still have to deal with infusion, diffusion, and contamination.

the problem is, you have to make some assumptions along the line somewhere, and it's these assumptions that allows errors to creep in.

i've seen documentation that makes me seriously question these types of dating methods.

#58 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 12 July 2017 - 09:39 AM

While I disagree with the lottery assessment, there are more flaws than those listed. :)
Despite that, its (peer review) still the best method.

being "the best method" in no way says it is effective.
hypothetical scenario:
you have 3 methods rated at 0, 3, and 10 percent effective respectively.
i hardly call 10% "effective".

question:
do you believe it was "peer review" that exposed arrowsmith and his fraud?
he isn't going to show up here, because he knows he's a cornered rat.

#59 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,113 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 12 July 2017 - 10:21 AM

Norman, I think you've added 2 and 2 and come up with 5. My 350,000 year date wasn't the only one, the largest was above your threshold, and was 2.8 million years for pyroxene.

 

 

 

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

 

(Note the highlighted part) That difference is also found in the grand canyon, from the same rock flows you get WILDLY different dates.

 

Here is the ages from Geochron, for Mt St Helens rock which at the time was only about 20 years old if I remember correctly;

 

attachicon.gifmt st helens.jpg

 

To be honest I would never trust this dating method again after this. How can you not know that rock that is say 500 years old isn't going to be measured by this test to be 10 X older? The point is you can't know, which is an important example of critical thinking, which I believe was the point of raising this issue. I note this type of critical analysis is absent from your own writings.

 

Well, if you use it on rocks that are outside the equipment specifications, then you shouldn't trust it.  If it's a perfect sample and too young, then they it will drastically overestimate its age with large relative errors.  If the sample is not perfect, e.g., excess argon at formation or eternal contamination, and the resulting extra argon is large compared to the natural argon (from radioactive decay), then again it will drastically overestimate its age with large relative errors.

 

 

 

 

But, that doesn't mean that the you should automatically discard the method.  It depends on your data set.  If the amount of argon rises above the noise floor and inherent errors in the system and you get consistent answers across multiple disparate samples, then you will have more confidence (perhaps even statistically meaningful) that you are getting good data with low relative errors.

 

Also, the Blue highlighted text is indicative that you are actually measuring noise which is more random in nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the logical argument is: if the assumptions are correct, then a rock younger than the lower range should not have existed long enough for enough detectable Ar-40 (daughter isotope) to have been produced by decay of K-40 (parent isotope). Thus, according to the critic, we should not expect to be able to use the method. However, we find plenty of detectable Ar-40 in rocks known to be much younger. Therefore, by the logically valid argumentknown as denying the consequent or modus tollens, at least one of the assumptions behind radiometric dating is false: that there was no daughter isotope in the rock to start with.

 

So his point is there shouldn't be any Ar in the rock for it to yet even be detectable. To say 2.8 million years isn't a sample enough to be detectable Norman, is plain FALSEHOOD. The fact is new rocks contain argon meaning the assumption it takes millions of years for that argon to decay from potassium, is false, meaning how can you date "older" rocks without knowing how much of the daughter isotope was initially present?

 

Conclusion; It seems to me you're just trying to play down the results of the data, which clearly indicate a sizable amount of argon was present in the newly formed rocks from Mt St Helens. And it's not just Mt St Helens Norm';

 

 

 

 In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old.3 

 

 

Is this dating failure from Mount St Helens an isolated case of radioisotope dating giving wrong results for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple,1 one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, Creation magazine reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.2

http://creation.com/...ating-in-rubble

 

So Norman, does 2 to 3.5 million years go "above" the line? You have no way of knowing why you get the dates, they even dated the top part of the grand canyon they believe 1 million years old using one method, and got a date of 1 billion.

 

LOL!

 

Possibly, but it depends, Mike.  Specifically, it depends on the noise / error sigma within their system / equipment.  For example, if sigma = 1 million years, then the probability of getting at least one in four measurements above 2 million years (strictly from noise and error alone) is about 44%.  So, actually Mike, that's not that improbable.  If there sigma is 500,000 years, then the probability becomes much less....less than 1 %....and in that case you could make a stronger argument for some of the samples having external / excess argon.  

 

I don't know what Geochron's sigma was....it would depend on their own self-defined accuracy threshold.

 

 

 

 

Finally, you are wrong about the precision of measurement, the -/+ sign would only be there, if it meant something, as he explains here;

 

 

 

The results presented in Table 1 of Mr Swenson’s article shows that there was plenty of argon in the Mt St Helens samples. There was an equivalent of 2.8 million years of argon in the pyroxene sample. It was so abundant that the instrument could measure it to a precision of ±0.6 million years. The feldspar sample also had lots of argon and gave an age of 340,000 years. It was some six times more abundant than the precision of measurement which was equivalent to ±60,000 years.

 

The reason they give the -/+ date is that is how much room for doubt there is, that is the limits of the test. Think about it - why would it give wiggle-room if that wiggle-room is false? That is tantamount to saying the evolutionists that tested the rock are LIARS by giving wiggle room of 600,000 years. So it's special pleading fallacy to say, "that wiggle room is acceptable with dates much older".

 

Notice there is a different "wiggle factor" for different dates but the dates themselves are many times greater than the wiggle-factor.

 

 

 

So, Mike, how many individual samples are included in the 600,000 figure?  Because that value is always included in their confidence interval estimates.  As i described in detail in the previous thread, the reason for this is that the noise / error component or vector is often considered independent from sample to sample....and that's a good thing.  If you have a strong, consistent argon signal throughout your samples and they are well above the noise / error floor, then you can reduce your confidence bounds on the order of ~SQRT(N) (based on the Central Limit Theorem) where N is the number of samples.  However, this becomes less and less true the closer and closer the argon signals get to the noise / error floor defined by the equipment.  If the signals are below the noise / error floor, then it doesn't apply at all.

 

So, in short, Mike, the 2 million and 600,000 year values are not necessarily incompatible as it's somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison.  The 600,000 years applies to a given number of individual samples with argon signals well above the noise / error floor which for Geochron seems to have been the amount of argon from ~ 2 million years of decay.

 

 

(Think Norman.....think.............don't just collect data in your head, but think through the consequences of that data; for there should be no argon at all, if argon only gets there from decay over millions of years, meaning that logically this proves that K-Ar dating can't give you accurate dates because you don't know how much daughter isotope was created at the time the rock formed. For all you know world-scale lava flows from a catastrophe could create even greater inflations. Have you tested that scenario?

 

Again, Mike, based on that post of mine, this is completely wrong.  Even if there is no argon present, they will always measure some level of argon.  It's unavoidable.  Now, how much they measure depends on the quality of the equipment.  

 

 

 

 

Norman: "Now, in that light, Geochron's 2 million year disclaimer is relevant to the discussion as it is a description of just that

 

WHEN did they make that diclaimer? It contradicts the "wiggle factor" they gave for the Mt St Helens rock.

 

It's like me saying this; "I love creationists and HATE evolutionists and I believe all evolutionists will score on an IQ test I have made, 10 or below." Now imagine someone anonymously scores 80, and I later find out the person was an evolutionist so I release a new comment saying; "I believe anyone of an IQ of 85 or less is a retard."

 

I haven't heard Geochron say anything, all I have heard is some hearsay from your lips, that they said something.

 

 

I've read it numerous times.  Have I seen it from Geochron themselves?  No.  I recently went to their website and they did not have that disclaimer up.  But, they also don't do K-Ar dating anymore.

 

 

 

 

You said that they used  flame photometry....and most everything that I have read about it describes it as an older (developed in the 40s), cruder (but cheaper) method than spectroscopy.  So, I don't find the 2 million year very hard to believe.   But, if you wish to think otherwise, that's your business.

 

 

 

 

As a critical analyser my questions are therefore this;

 

1. did they really say it, and did it mean what Norman thinks it meant?

2. WHEN did they say it? Did they say it in response to claims that young rock has been dated as old?

3. There own "wiggle" factor means that if they date a rock to 1 million years old and there is a wiggle-factor of 600 thousand years then mathematically and logically that rock MUST have argon in it that is an equivalent amount of  at least 400,000 years old, which contradicts their claim that "2 million" years is the wiggle factor, because it is sufficient evidence that amount of argon is present.

 

I believe their website and what it says NOW, is no longer relevant to the tests done decades ago, when the website didn't exist and I'm not sure the internet even existed.

 

If you are saying, "now more modern methods would say these dates are wrong" then you have to apply that logic to all of the dates for rock which evolutionists say are millions of years old, for if they used that method they also have to be thrown out. 

 

 

Again, Mike, this is faulty logic; you need to go back and read my post from the other thread where I walk through the math pretty thoroughly.  When the argon signal is strong and well above the noise floor, then you can measure the amount of argon much more accurately than you can if the argon signal is weak and drowned out by the noise / error in the system.  It's just good old fashion math.  If you want me to provide you with real numerical examples, I will.

 

 

Using a more modern method, the excess argon would still be present in the Mt St Helens rock. That isn't disputed even by experts, but because you don't know enough about this issue, it's clear to me that you are making guesses about these tests, but the tests themselves find certain types of argon present. Austin explains that in his article on Mt St Helens. The argon is there, that isn't debated, which proves argon can be present in new rocks.

 

Whether or not excess argon is present and how much is independent of the method used.  The question is how small of an amount of argon can be accurately measured.  I've read that modern spectroscopy methods can get the lower age bound down to ~100,000 years.  If a sample gives you an answer back that is less than that, then it's hard to discern what you are actually measuring.

 

You see Norman, it seems to me you think scientists don't admit to excess argon in rocks. It's known about, there are even experiments like this, which 100% prove the argon can get there, without decaying, when exposed to heat;

 

 

 

 

When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar "ages" of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon (40Ar*).2 In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% Ar at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4,000 atmospheres.3 This is approximately 2,500 times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed to exclude Ar when they crystallize.

http://www.icr.org/a...em-excess-argo/

 

I never made such a claim; there are well-known examples of excess argon as well as argon contamination.  The debate here is centered on determining the amount of excess argon...or any argon for that matter that is present in a given sample.  And I would suggest that using old outdated methods and equipment on very young rocks is not the best way to do that.



#60 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 July 2017 - 10:43 AM

Norman, I think you've added 2 and 2 and come up with 5. My 350,000 year date wasn't the only one, the largest was above your threshold, and was 2.8 million years for pyroxene.
 

 
 
The results of this analysis are shown in [/size]Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. [/size]Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other[/size].[/size]

 
(Note the highlighted part) That difference is also found in the grand canyon, from the same rock flows you get WILDLY different dates.
 
Here is the ages from Geochron, for Mt St Helens rock which at the time was only about 20 years old if I remember correctly;
 
attachicon.gifmt st helens.jpg
 
To be honest I would never trust this dating method again after this. How can you not know that rock that is say 500 years old isn't going to be measured by this test to be 10 X older? The point is you can't know, which is an important example of critical thinking, which I believe was the point of raising this issue. I note this type of critical analysis is absent from your own writings.
 
Well, if you use it on rocks that are outside the equipment specifications, then you shouldn't trust it.  If it's a perfect sample and too young, then they it will drastically overestimate its age with large relative errors.  If the sample is not perfect, e.g., excess argon at formation or eternal contamination, and the resulting extra argon is large compared to the natural argon (from radioactive decay), then again it will drastically overestimate its age with large relative errors.[/size]
 
 [/size]
 
 
But, that doesn't mean that the you should automatically discard the method.  It depends on your data set.  If the amount of argon rises above the noise floor and inherent errors in the system and you get consistent answers across multiple disparate samples, then you will have more confidence (perhaps even statistically meaningful) that you are getting good data with low relative errors.[/size]
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
So the logical argument is: [/size]if the assumptions are correct, then a rock younger than the lower range should not have existed long enough for enough detectable Ar-40 (daughter isotope) to have been produced by decay of K-40 (parent isotope). Thus, according to the critic, we should not expect to be able to use the method. However, we find plenty of detectable Ar-40 in rocks known to be much younger. Therefore, by the [/size]logically valid argumentknown as denying the consequent or [/size]modus tollens, at least one of the assumptions behind radiometric dating is false: that there was no daughter isotope in the rock to start with.[/size]

 
So his point is there shouldn't be any Ar in the rock for it to yet even be detectable. To say 2.8 million years isn't a sample enough to be detectable Norman, is plain FALSEHOOD. The fact is new rocks contain argon meaning the assumption it takes millions of years for that argon to decay from potassium, is false, meaning how can you date "older" rocks without knowing how much of the daughter isotope was initially present?
 
Conclusion; It seems to me you're just trying to play down the results of the data, which clearly indicate a sizable amount of argon was present in the newly formed rocks from Mt St Helens. And it's not just Mt St Helens Norm';
 

 
 
 In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old.[/size]3 [/size]

 
 
Is this dating failure from Mount St Helens an isolated case of radioisotope dating giving wrong results for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple,[/size]1 one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows ([/size]Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, [/size]Creation magazine reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.[/size]2

http://creation.com/...ating-in-rubble
 
So Norman, does 2 to 3.5 million years go "above" the line? You have no way of knowing why you get the dates, they even dated the top part of the grand canyon they believe 1 million years old using one method, and got a date of 1 billion.
 
LOL!
 
Possibly, but it depends, Mike.  Specifically, it depends on the noise / error sigma within their system / equipment.  For example, if sigma = 1 million years, then the probability of getting at least one in four measurements above 2 million years (strictly from noise and error alone) is about 44%.  So, actually Mike, that's not that improbable.  If there sigma is 500,000 years, then the probability becomes much less....less than 1 %....and in that case you could make a stronger argument for some of the samples having external / excess argon.  
 
I don't know what there sigma was....it would depend on their defined accuracy threshold.
 
 
 

 
Finally, you are wrong about the precision of measurement, the -/+ sign would only be there, if it meant something, as he explains here;
 

 
 
The results presented in Table 1 of Mr Swenson’s article shows that there was plenty of argon in the Mt St Helens samples. There was an equivalent of 2.8 million years of argon in the pyroxene sample. It was so abundant that the instrument could measure it to a precision of ±0.6 million years. The feldspar sample also had lots of argon and gave an age of 340,000 years. It was some six times more abundant than the precision of measurement which was equivalent to ±60,000 years.[/size]

 
The reason they give the -/+ date is that is how much room for doubt there is, that is the limits of the test. Think about it - why would it give wiggle-room if that wiggle-room is false? That is tantamount to saying the evolutionists that tested the rock are LIARS by giving wiggle room of 600,000 years. So it's special pleading fallacy to say, "that wiggle room is acceptable with dates much older".
 
Notice there is a different "wiggle factor" for different dates but the dates themselves are many times greater than the wiggle-factor.
 
 
So, Mike, how many individual samples are included in the 600,000 figure?  Because that value is always included in their confidence interval estimates.  As i described in detail in the previous thread, the reason for this is that the noise / error component or vector is often considered independent from sample to sample....and that's a good thing.  If you have a strong, consistent argon signal throughout your samples and they are well above the noise / error floor, then you can reduce your confidence bounds on the order of ~SQRT(N) (based on the Central Limit Theorem) where N is the number of samples.  However, this becomes less and less true the closer and closer the argon signals get to the noise / error floor defined by the equipment.  If the signals are below the noise / error floor, then it doesn't apply at all.
 
So, in short, Mike, the 2 million and 600,000 year values are not necessarily incompatible as it's somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison.  The 600,000 years applies to a given number of individual samples with argon signals well above the noise / error floor which for Geochron seems to have been the amount of argon from ~ 2 million years of decay.
 

 
(Think Norman.....think.............don't just collect data in your head, but think through the consequences of that data; for there should be no argon at all, if argon only gets there from decay over millions of years, meaning that logically this proves that K-Ar dating can't give you accurate dates because you don't know how much daughter isotope was created at the time the rock formed. For all you know world-scale lava flows from a catastrophe could create even greater inflations. Have you tested that scenario?

 
Again, Mike, based on that post of mine, this is completely wrong.  Even if there is no argon present, they will always measure some level of argon.  It's unavoidable.  Now, how much they measure depends on the quality of the equipment.  
 

 
 
Norman: "Now, in that light, Geochron's 2 million year disclaimer is relevant to the discussion as it is a description of just that

 
WHEN did they make that diclaimer? It contradicts the "wiggle factor" they gave for the Mt St Helens rock.
 
It's like me saying this; "I love creationists and HATE evolutionists and I believe all evolutionists will score on an IQ test I have made, 10 or below." Now imagine someone anonymously scores 80, and I later find out the person was an evolutionist so I release a new comment saying; "I believe anyone of an IQ of 85 or less is a retard."
 
I haven't heard Geochron say anything, all I have heard is some hearsay from your lips, that they said something.
 
I've read it numerous times.  Have I seen it from Geochron themselves?  No.  I recently went to their website and they did not have that disclaimer up.  But, they also don't do K-Ar dating anymore.[/size]
 
 [/size]
 
 
You said that they used  flame photometry....and most everything that I have read about it describes it as an older (developed in the 40s), cruder (but cheaper) method than spectroscopy.  So, I don't find the 2 million year very hard to believe.   But, if you wish to think otherwise, that's your business.[/size]
 
 
 

 
As a critical analyser my questions are therefore this;
 
1. did they really say it, and did it mean what Norman thinks it meant?
2. WHEN did they say it? Did they say it in response to claims that young rock has been dated as old?
3. There own "wiggle" factor means that if they date a rock to 1 million years old and there is a wiggle-factor of 600 thousand years then mathematically and logically that rock MUST have argon in it that is an equivalent amount of  at least 400,000 years old, which contradicts their claim that "2 million" years is the wiggle factor, because it is sufficient evidence that amount of argon is present.
 
I believe their website and what it says NOW, is no longer relevant to the tests done decades ago, when the website didn't exist and I'm not sure the internet even existed.
 
If you are saying, "now more modern methods would say these dates are wrong" then you have to apply that logic to all of the dates for rock which evolutionists say are millions of years old, for if they used that method they also have to be thrown out. 

 
Again, Mike, this is faulty logic; you need to go back and read my post from the other thread where I walk through the math pretty thoroughly.  When the argon signal is strong and well above the noise floor, then you can measure the amount of argon much more accurately than you can if the argon signal is weak and drowned out by the noise / error in the system.  It's just math.  If you want me to provide you with real numerical examples, I will.
 

 
Using a more modern method, the excess argon would still be present in the Mt St Helens rock. That isn't disputed even by experts, but because you don't know enough about this issue, it's clear to me that you are making guesses about these tests, but the tests themselves find certain types of argon present. Austin explains that in his article on Mt St Helens. The argon is there, that isn't debated, which proves argon can be present in new rocks.

 
Whether or not excess argon is present and how much is independent of the method used.  The question is how small of an amount of argon can be accurately measured.  I've read that modern spectroscopy methods can get the lower age bound down to ~100,000 years.  If a sample gives you an answer back that is less than that, then it's hard to discern what you are measuring.
 

You see Norman, it seems to me you think scientists don't admit to excess argon in rocks. It's known about, there are even experiments like this, which 100% prove the argon can get there, without decaying, when exposed to heat;
 
 

 
 
When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar "ages" of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon ([/size]40[/size]Ar[/size]*[/size]).[/size]2[/size] In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% Ar at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4,000 atmospheres.[/size]3[/size] This is approximately 2,500 times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed to exclude Ar when they crystallize.[/size]

http://www.icr.org/a...em-excess-argo/
 
I never made such a claim; there are well-known examples of excess argon as well as argon contamination.  The debate here is centered on determining the amount of excess argon...or any argon for that matter that is present in a given sample.  And I would suggest that using old outdated methods and equipment on very young rocks is not the best way to do that.


"Well, if you use it on rocks that are outside the equipment specifications, then you shouldn't trust it."

What would be an example of rocks that are "outside the equipment specifications"?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users