|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Suggestions for the as-yet unapproved radiometric dating thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I eagerly await the approval of the fascinating Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column: A Critique thread, but it's very long opening post is likely to be a barrier to its approval. As I'm not an admin, I can't make suggestions in it's proposal thread, so I thought I'd put some thoughts down here.
As a suggestion, I would reccomend to Anti-Climacus that he excise the quotes that constitute so much of the bulk of his posts; the data he quotes should be sufficient to prove his point. Scientists taken out of context are irrelevant to his argument. That more than anything else should speed this topic through approval.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Harlequin Inactive Member |
Yes, he should get rid of the quote mining since I don't believe for one second that he has actually examined them in the original. People should rely on primary sources and not what someone said of them whenever possible. If one must use a secondary source (and often one must) then one should indicate the source: i.e. X book by Y author, z page cited by A author in B article. I strongly suspect that many of his quotes came from John Woodmorappe who is not a credible source given his repeated use of flagrant out-of-context quotations. Many quotes are out-of-date.
He also gave this data:
quote: This one a use of data which I don't think he actually looked at. This is commonly cited by YECs. I have personally looked at the article several years ago. The false age come from older material embedded in the lava. The article specifically states that no radiogenic argon within experimental error when only looked at the lava itself and not the inclusions. In other words, what was molten in 200 year old rocks dated to the present day. He also cited data from an early Dalrymple article on K-Ar unaware that Darymple found that the method was mostly reliable. He will be subject to intense criticism if his post gets approved and he cites them. He will also get criticized for attacking K-Ar not realizing it is now been replaced with the Ar-Ar method which does not have the problems which resulted which gave the incorrect results that Dalrymple reported in 1969. I make the following suggestions: Critize one method at a time or argue that they don't agreewith each other. Look up sources cited if possible, indicate secondary source ifthe primary source was not consulted. Cut down the quote mining. That will not convince anyone familar with the tactics of creationists. Be prepared to provide the text of any texual deletions, etc. Be sure to read about these methods from mainstream science sources (and not just "pop" science sources) and don't rely on what YEC authors said about them. Make sure sources are reasonably recent. I don't think many of us are going to be impressed by loads of citations from the 1960s.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
I, too, would like this topic approved. The quotes listed are not well documented quote mines from Woodmorappe, but his legacy of quote mines is quite extensive. As an example, check out John Woodmorappe's Geochronology .
Take out the quotes and we can discuss the rest. Or, leave in the quotes and have Woody's dishonesty shown to all. I think the listing of discrepancies is worthy of a topic itself. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-07-2004 05:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Geez, and I'm going out of town .. I'll be looking in but I won't have my library available. Bummer.
He will also get criticized for attacking K-Ar not realizing it is now been replaced with the Ar-Ar method which does not have the problems which resulted which gave the incorrect results that Dalrymple reported in 1969. Harlequin, you're usually more precise than this . Ar-Ar has not replaced K-Ar, there's still quite a bit of K-Ar being done. It's low-cost, well understood, and is quite accurate on appropriate samples with appropriate cross-checks. I hear from an isotope geochemist over at iidb that Ar-Ar is running into difficulties with post 9/11 federal regulations on handling irradiated material, so Ar-Ar usage may actually go down. (edited to add: Nowadays, K-Ar dating and Ar-Ar dating are about 30% of the dating analyses performed. Details in Message 1.) This message has been edited by JonF, 12-07-2004 05:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
His second attempt is better, much shorter, but he still needs to ditch the quotes. They add nothing except length.
Let's keep it to suggestions in this thread, people? When the topic is approved, we can address his actual argument. I know we're all chompin' at the bit to do so so I hope the admins pay careful attention to that thread, and approve it quickly as soon as it meets their standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
I'll comment here.
Anti-Climacus posted at http://EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy..... -->EvC Forum: What would we think if Percy.....:
quote: This refers to http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth, which indeed does have a monster message 1. 1) I wondered, who approved this monster?-- No topic move message found. 2) Let's check the "Proposed Topics" archive.-- No archived version found. 3) Check date topic was started.-- 3-21-2004. We started the "Proposed New Topic" system 4-13-2004. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Ohmigawd!
That means evolution is false! I'm so ashamed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I wouldn't hold your breath on this one, folks. I won't let this one out of the box without obtaining either an attribution to the original source of the lengthy dissertation, or some level of assurance that MorpheusFaith wrote it himself, understands it, and can intelligently discuss it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I'd like to know the source of the data for the age-dating table. Never mind, I found it. But I think the reference should be included in the current post.
What are the chances of finding that book in a library??? This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-07-2004 10:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
I wouldn't hold your breath on this one, folks. I won't let this one out of the box without obtaining either an attribution to the original source of the lengthy dissertation, or some level of assurance that MorpheusFaith wrote it himself, understands it, and can intelligently discuss it. Yah, he quoted a lot, but what he said on his own seems to lend credence to his ability to articulate and contribute as an intelligent science debater here. He seems to be the quality of poster we need on the creo side of the isle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Yah, he quoted a lot, but what he said on his own... My phrase "lengthy dissertation" was a sarcastic reference not to his quotes but to his prose. I suspect that he did not write the expository portions of his linked reference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
My phrase "lengthy dissertation" was a sarcastic reference not to his quotes but to his prose. I suspect that he did not write the expository portions of his linked reference. I see what you're saying, Percy and understand your concern. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
My phrase "lengthy dissertation" was a sarcastic reference not to his quotes but to his prose. I suspect that he did not write the expository portions of his linked reference. I just read this reply in the revised new topic thread.
I wrote it. I would be more than happy to give you my login ID (morpheusfaith) and password on that discussion forum so that you can verify it. I will not post my password on a open thread for all to see. I will send it to your email address if you like. Also, I will try to reorganize and post a condensed version (with a link to the original) some time over the next few days. It appears that he/she's showing himself/herself to be reliable here. I hope this person is not being discouraged and being sent off for good. "Some time over the next few days," appears to be, maybe, "So long, I'm outa here."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anti-Climacus Inactive Member |
I noticed this thread as I was surfing. I would like to toss out a brief response prior to my posting of the thread to come.
Crashfrog: As a suggestion, I would recommend to Anti-Climacus that he excise the quotes that constitute so much of the bulk of his posts; the data he quotes should be sufficient to prove his point. Scientists taken out of context are irrelevant to his argument. Reply: Is this what I have to look forward to at the EVC forum? Unsubstantiated accusations? Until someone can demonstrate that a high number of my cited references are taken out of context, this claim is unwarranted. Harlequin: Yes, he should get rid of the quote mining since I don't believe for one second that he has actually examined them in the original. People should rely on primary sources and not what someone said of them whenever possible. Reply: Unless, of course, the secondary source is a modern evolutionary theorist. In that case, I’m sure, no further verification is required. And I am also sure that when DarwinDefender fundamentalists like Gould and Dawkins or internet sites like the Holy Talk Origins make citations to supporting literature, you’re off and running to confirm their claims by reviewing every scientific journal article referenced. In any case, I select a sample size from secondary sources that I compile and trace them to primary sources. A test that, I suspect, many others on this forum do not frequently perform. This is true for my geochronology research as it is for paleontology research (for which I have read through 2 comprehensive resources: Robert L. Carroll’s Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution and Barbara Stahl’s Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution) — two state-of-the-art resources that most evolutionists I know have not even read, yet relentlessly charge me for . . . not reading. Harlequin: I strongly suspect that many of his quotes came from John Woodmorappe who is not a credible source given his repeated use of flagrant out-of-context quotations. Many quotes are out-of-date. Reply: I have read the critiques of Woodmorappe’s works, as well as the on-line articles that criticize him for taking citations out of context. Ironic, it seems, that the very critics who charge him of invalid quote mining must take his statements out of context to make their case. For example, I will arbitrarily take the first criticism from Henke. quote: But when one reads Woodmorappe’s book, one notices that it is segregated into 100 separate sub-topics, for which each section within a given subtopic attempts to address a specific issue. Henke gives the impression that Woodmorappe was trying to establish gross discrepancies, and was misleading the reader. So, what is the title of the actual subsection from which the apparent invalid reference was used to support?
quote: Oh? So Woodmorappe was only attempting to refute the detection of open-system behavior regardless of the spread of dates. And this is precisely why he cited the reference from Evernden et al. In fact, Woodmorappe, on page 40 (the page immediately preceding the one cited by Henke), stated the following:
quote: Why would Woodmorappe go out of his way to take a 2 mya discordance out of context when he already cited a 200 mya discordance in the same subsection? Could it be, perhaps, that he was only attempting to refute the detection of open-system behavior regardless of the spread of dates. Ironically, Henke never addressed the 200 mya spread at his website. He was apparently too busy taking quotes out of context. Harlequin: The article specifically states that no radiogenic argon within experimental error when only looked at the lava itself and not the inclusions. In other words, what was molten in 200 year old rocks dated to the present day. Reply: I was simply listing anomalous ages regardless of the reliability criteria used to reject discordances. I address the apparent reliability criteria in another subsection of my article. Ironically, in many cases, xenoliths (used to identify argon contamination) are frequently not noticeable. Loudmouth: The quotes listed are not well documented quote mines from Woodmorappe, but his legacy of quote mines is quite extensive. Reply: Your holy Talk Origins reference was replied to by Woodmorappe himself here. Loudmouth: Take out the quotes and we can discuss the rest. Or, leave in the quotes and have Woody's dishonesty shown to all. I think the listing of discrepancies is worthy of a topic itself. Reply: A comment of notable interest. How many of the contributors to this forum have actually read Woodmorappe’s works? I doubt there is even one. I suspect that you gentlemen would rather read critiques written by those who agree with your views than actually read the initial literature yourself for a proper comparison. You would find that it is not Woodmorappe who is taking quotes out of context but instead his critics. I cannot argue with the kind of self-contradictory logic that leaves my soon-to-be opponents throwing stones from a glass house. This message has been edited by Anti-Climacus, 12-08-2004 12:22 AM This, that a man’s eye cannot see by the light by which the majority see could be because he is used to darkness; but it could also be because he is used to a still clearer light, and when this is so, it is no laughing matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2331 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Buz darlin', our new friend is posting in the The Definition and Description of a "Transitional"
He doesn't seem to have been discouraged. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com-Change in Moderation? - Thread Reopen Requests -Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum -Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024