Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

They weren't. They were published.The replacement of them was done in the plain light of day with reasons given in detail.Milton or others have to attack those reasons.

I owe responses in this present exchange.If the veiled threat of banishment is not carried out I will post a response to each reply ASAP. You are the first god-damn evo to admit to anything that is perceived to harm your position - how gratifying !Our point about KBS Tuff is that all the "successfull" datings are instantly cast as self-fulfilling predictions based upon the cat out of the bag/criteria for discard dates/accept dates. This AND the rare incidences of age independantly discovered AFTER dating the material (or already known prior) equates to the only true independant accuracy checks.IOW, all the silently successful dating determinations are not falsifiable - we must accept the date that the technique produces = invulnerable declaration = concept anathema to the claims of scientific enquiry.

Nobody, ever, has proposed that every single radiodating attempt will always return perfect results. After all, humans have to do it, and humans fuck stuff up. Tests - any tests at all - only give valid results when you do them correctly, and when you're testing something that the test can test.A bathroom scale won't weigh a feather, and a scientific pan-balance will break if you try to stand on it. We use different tools for different scales of measurements, and its no surprise to get bad results when you pick the wrong tool. Not so. If there wasn't validity to the measurements, Percy would be right - there would be hundreds of different competing schools of thought about what were the "right" ages and what were the "wrong" ones. But the fact that all legitimate scientists agree on the age of the Earth proves that there really is something there that they're measuring. The vast, vast majority of dating results are exactly what we expect them to be. If the measurement was invalid, they wouldn't be.It's the correlation that validates them; it would be a lack of correlation that would falsify them. If it turned out that we were throwing out more results than we kept, that would mean the dating was bogus.But it isn't like that at all.

Since the dating is being "fixed" by throwing dates out all the various organizations like ICR have to do is commission carefully monitored collection of independant samples, over see the lab processes and publication of the results.They don't have to keep ranting, they can use controlled sceintific processes to show that this is all wrong.They haven't, they won't and they know why not. They are liars.

Sure. "We took 10 samples, of 100 different rocks, each rock representing a situation that the evos claimed radiodating would be accurate for, and sent them, anonymously, to 10 different analysis labs."If the results from each lab for each rock are about the same, then the dating must be valid. If ICR and WT are right, then they should get 10 wildly different results for each rock.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-23-2004 05:11 PM

Close, but I don't think he'd accept that as a valid test. I sure wouldn't, based on his argument. (Which I don't support, but that's irrelevant)The problem isn't that the numbers are consistent with each other. The problem is that the actual number they yield isn't accepted by all.It's tricky to answer such an argument because it isn't about the actual method but rather about the 'scientific politics' surrounding it.Even if all 10 laboratories says something like "the ratio of elements are close to x%" you still need to interpret what x% means when you convert it to years.

That's why it should be done using more than one decay series. If they agree then it gets very hard to argue with what is going on other than the old "god the liar" explanation.

That's exactly what his argument is, though. That the results of dating are all over the map, but scientists secretly discard all the dating results except for those that match some arbitrary geologic timeline.I assert that no such discarded, secret results exist; I assert that the wastebins of dating labs are not, in fact, filled with rejected results. I maintain that the opposite is true - the vast, vast majority of dating results are right in line with our expectations, and we very rarely have to reject results because their enormous divergence indicates procedural error.But it would be easy to prove me wrong - have 10 labs test the same samples, collect the data before the Scientific Conspiracy has a chance to throw it out, and show it to us.

OK, since no-ones called you on this, I will.It's totally false.The paper Milton alleges he refers to called:
Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)My bold in the title.What it's about is this. Hawaiian lava is, relatively speaking, cool, and carries along with it lumps of solid rock which are left as inclusions when the lava cools down.What the paper was about was seeing if you could get a date of the underlying magma from these inclusions. Theory said no, there would be Argon outgassing but, like good scientists, the authors of the paper checked it to see.They first dataed the lava and duly returned a date of 0. They then dated the inclusions and got dates all over the place.Conclusion: inclusiomns cannot be accurately dated: just as theory had predicted.Now, look further at this. Milton quoted the paper's title accurately, if incompletely; and thus must have read it. Therefore he knows what the paper said. Therefore he's lying to you Willowtree.See here for more details. The story of recent Hawaiian lava dating old is wrong.

thanks, I'm saving that site for the NEXT time volcanic dating comes up...

For further details you might be interested in this article and this article .I didn't think Milton was that gullible or dishonest but it appears that I am mistaken.

Everything Milton says is pure unbiased evidence.How about Dalrymple ?It is your opinion that his assertions are evidence, yet every objective person knows that his dates cannot be checked for accuracy except by some other scheme whose dates cannot be independantly verified either. I think the same about you - how any evidence which is seen to prove a major theist point = instant subjective declaration insisting that whatever you decide is objective already matter of fact truth.Like I said, its your Forum - too bad you must win by the threat of exclusion if somebody doesn't bow to your capriciousness. All this literature was produced by people on your side of the discussion = untrustworthy.When I supported my height claims you cried fraud.Well I finally understand your point - anything produced by someone who agrees with the evidence being offered is fraud.IOW, you are asserting anything which supports your cows to be evidence and anything which does not is not evidence.Seeing how this is your Debate Forum you can do that and get away with it but everyone knows this is not how validity is determined.

That is the independant verification, though. Using another method. They verify each other, and are independant, because they're based on independant mechanisms.How else would you verify something? It's pretty clear that you have no concept of what "independant verification" would mean.

When methods fail unplanned accuracy checks and dating events which age of material is known THEN this is the basis to deem them unreliable.Even though discard dates are admitted to exist no sweetheart exemption will be given for what everyone should have without saying: honesty.The point here is the method producing the scatter and the "objective scientific" decision which accepts a date that always coincides with everything ever published. Why date to begin with if you are going to settle on a date previously decided ?The only true independant accuracy check is the unplanned and previous known date of a material. Everything else is internal and cannot escape the criticism of a database of self-fulfilling predictions.

They haven't, though. The research you posted was not an "unplanned accuracy check", it was an attempt to try to date something thought to be undatable.Surprise, they were right. It was undatable. Decided by who? The Scientific Conspiracy? Oooo! Spooky! Don't you know they're watching?WT, I've told you what you have to do to prove your point. Why don'y you go out and do it? You're just wasting my time, and yours. How would you get these "previous known dates" if not by dating, via some method?At any rate, radiometric dating has never failed such a test. The only data you've posted attempted to date material with no known date.