Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)

After reading through his stuff, I'm convinced he's a troll.CheersJoe Meert

Peaceharris has stated in several posts, the following:

quote:

---

My faith in your word is weak.

​

Let's put it this way: I'm not questioning your integrity, but your method.

​

What if I can find statistical tests that prove that the raw data (not the common Pb corrected data) fits my model better than yours? Will you then admit that I am the only one who understands the data?

​

I believe JM has not manipulated the raw data.

​

I believe that if JM gives me the raw data, he will not give me manipulated data.

​

I have doubts on your methods and calculation, so I want the raw measured data.

​

Who am I to ask JM to do the calculations for me? I prefer to do it myself.

---

Then I give him what he asks for and what happens? He asks for a little more. Here's where it stands, you have the raw data you need to do everything you want. You claim to 'understand radiometry' (why radiometry is important here I cannot fathom), but then go on to ask me to calculate the first step for you. I won't do that because if the data don't work in your favor, you will accuse me of manipulating that step. You have the raw data, you claimed to be knowledgeable about what you are doing, so stop asking and show me how these limited data demonstrate the earth is 6000 years old. Then explain to me why you you need statistics to verify your faith.CheersJoe Meert

ICP is basically the poor mans SHRIMP. SHRIMP analysis uses a smaller beam and therefore you can actually map zones within a single zircon. The size of the beam in the ICP is slightly larger so you can still map zones (just not on as fine a level). Errors in measurement on the SHRIMP and ICP are nearly comparable (SHRIMP gives slightly smaller analytical errors) while TIMS claims the most precision. For detrital zircon work TIMS is tedious because it requires wet chemistry for each zircon and would take years to finish. Given that we want populations of zircon ages, either ICP or SHRIMP is fine and given that we have an ICP and the nearest SHRIMP is in Stanford, we chose to use our machine. We are getting some pretty good results for standard zircon dating with the ICP though the 2 sigma errors are slightly larger than TIMS measurements.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

What geologists do when the data doesn't fit their Concordia curve, is start making speculative excuses such as meteorites bombarded these zircons, therefore Pb was removed.

---

LOL, reference please.CheersJoe Meert

peaceharris writes

quote:

---

In your opinion, if the measured data correlates better with my model, do you think any geologist will change his mind, or will they still resort to speculative ideas such as Pb removal, Pb addition, U removal and U addition?

---

Two points, you'll have to publish your model. From what I can tell, your model is a simple statistical test. It tells us nothing about the absolute ages of the rocks (does it?) and only casts aspersions on the methods of modern geochron. You bring up Aristotle, but fail to mention that Aristotle's world is very different than the one we live in. There are labs around the world trying to make the next big breakthrough (hence the development of ICP and SHRIMP for example). You have people who can test the ideas put forth by others in a transparent peer-reviewed method. You have people actively trying to find errors and ommissions in modern methods. You have people cross-checking results with other methods. In short, you have created a very false image of geology whereby everyone is hiding something in order to preserve an old earth. In truth, it was the fact that work came out into the open and that people challenged each other that the age of the earth was determined. You should read Cherry Lewis' book "The Dating Game" for a good history of geochron. That is after you read some of technical books so you understand geochron. Based on your statements here and the links given about your debate a few years ago, it seems you clung to your previous misunderstandings hoping to impress a new audience. If you want to impress, you'd be better off on a board where everyone wants to remain ignorant (there are plenty of religious boards where debate is not welcome and people pat each other on the back in beejesus agreement). Too many people on here are going to check your oil and, because you are so bold, are not going to be kind when they point out your mistakes.CheersJoe MeertEdited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

Talk about seeing what you want! I think culling data from a paper without reading the paper is very dangerous. Your analysis shows (assuming you've done things correctly) that the zircons from La Virgen volcano to be indistinguishable from concordia or your 'model'. So, nothing can be said about favoring your model over that which was applied in this study. Zircons (cores and rims) were all plotted together for La Reforma and do not fit your 'concordia' or your model! I'm afraid you've assumed your model correct and can't see the forest for the trees. The data you used do not support your model in any convincing fashion. You even state this same fact and then tout your model as superior. It's not. I'm curious why you did not plot the Aguajito data. They fall on a straight line, but it does not regress through zero. So, for the 3 examples from this paper, your model performs as followsCase 1: Good line through origin fits your simple regression.Case 2: Poor line does not fit your model does not regress through zero.Case 3: Good line, does not regress through zero and therefore does not fit your model.Your comparison to concordia using these data has a fundamental flaw in logic (do you know what that is?). So, of the three analyses only one fits your model (but also fits your concordia curve, thus provides us with no hint that your model is superior). The other two do not fit. I'd say you are 0/3 or if I am being nice 1/3. Not a good start for your model.CheersJoe Meert