Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,565 Year: 3,822/9,624 Month: 693/974 Week: 20/286 Day: 20/58 Hour: 8/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Suggestions for the as-yet unapproved radiometric dating thread
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1 of 24 (165953)
12-07-2004 3:48 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2004 5:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 24 (165978)
12-07-2004 5:21 PM


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 Many quotes are out-of-date.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:
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii
known age.circa 200 y.a. (1800 A.D.)
radiometric age..circa 2,600,000-2,960,000,000 y.a.
[Funkhouser, J.G. and Naughton, J.J., Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, Journal of Geophysical Research, 73 (1968), pp. 4601—4607.]

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 agree
with each other.
Look up sources cited if possible, indicate secondary source if
the 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


Message 3 of 24 (165983)
12-07-2004 5:31 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 12-07-2004 5:40 PM Loudmouth has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 192 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 4 of 24 (165987)
12-07-2004 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth
12-07-2004 5:31 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 12-07-2004 5:31 PM Loudmouth has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 24 (165988)
12-07-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
12-07-2004 3:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2004 3:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 6 of 24 (166002)
12-07-2004 7:20 PM


Since this topic is available...
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:
I modeled my post to be shorter than RAZD's opening post in the "Age Correlations and an Old Earth" thread.
My post is actually shorter than his. Are you sure I need to shorten it more?
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by JonF, posted 12-07-2004 7:23 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 192 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 7 of 24 (166005)
12-07-2004 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Adminnemooseus
12-07-2004 7:20 PM


Re: Since this topic is available...
Ohmigawd!
That means evolution is false!
I'm so ashamed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-07-2004 7:20 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13025
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 8 of 24 (166016)
12-07-2004 8:07 PM


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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2004 10:52 PM Admin has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1012 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 9 of 24 (166036)
12-07-2004 10:14 PM


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


Message 10 of 24 (166043)
12-07-2004 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Admin
12-07-2004 8:07 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 12-07-2004 8:07 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 12-07-2004 11:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13025
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 11 of 24 (166048)
12-07-2004 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
12-07-2004 10:52 PM


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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2004 10:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2004 11:24 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2004 11:42 PM Admin has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 24 (166049)
12-07-2004 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Admin
12-07-2004 11:18 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 12-07-2004 11:18 PM Admin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 24 (166058)
12-07-2004 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Admin
12-07-2004 11:18 PM


This Looks Positive.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 12-07-2004 11:18 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-07-2004 11:47 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 16 by Admin, posted 12-08-2004 12:02 AM Buzsaw has replied

Anti-Climacus
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 24 (166060)
12-07-2004 11:44 PM


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:
Woodmorappe (1999) presents numerous examples of what he claims are "discrepant" radiometric dates that contradict each other, fossil data, field structures and/or stratigraphic evidence. For example, Woodmorappe (1999, p. 41) quotes the following statement from Swisher et al. (1993, p. 1994) to "demonstrate" that dates from Evernden et al. (1964), which were once highly regarded and characterized as state-of-the-art, are now considered unreliable: The same unit was most likely the one dated by Evernden et al. (1964) at 66.4 Ma [Ma ]. These ages are most likely too old, owing to the inclusion of detrital grains in the mineral separates.
Yet, how anomalously old are Evernden et al.'s results? We find the answer in the proceeding sentences, which Woodmorappe (1999, p. 41) chooses to ignore. Here's a more complete quotation from Swisher et al. (1993, p. 1993-1994): Obradovich and Cobban (1975) and Obradovich (1984) dated biocide from dacitic pumice located approximately 22 [meters] above the K-P [Cretaceous-Tertiary (Paleocene)] boundary at 65.9 Ma by K-Ar and 65.8 +/- 0.3 Ma (2 sigma) by 40Ar/39Ar methods. The same unit was most likely the one dated by Evernden et al. (1964) at 66.4 Ma. These ages are most likely too old, owing to the inclusion of detrital grains in the mineral separates.
Swisher et al. (1993, p. 1993-1994) are arguing over trivial errors of about 1% and Woodmorappe (1999, p. 41, 52) is misleading us into believing that these errors are huge and fatal to radiometric dating!
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:
Myth: Further, scientists are routinely able to detect open-system behavior and to correct or ignore data from open systems.
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:
Apart from everything else that has been discussed in this section of the paper, the fallacy of the claims advanced by Leveson and Seidemann is proven by the many cases of dates which are recognized as reliable, only to be later discarded in favor of some other presumably-reliable dates which contradict the first set of erstwhile-reliable dates. Many such examples are given in this paper. Let me give another: Some U-Pb zircon dates from the Adirondack Mountain region of New York (McLelland et al 1997, p.A-466), based on bulk-zircon dating, yielded values up to 1416 million years old. These had been accepted as reliable — that is, until single-grain dates yielded results some 250 million years younger. All of a sudden, the earlier ostensibly-reliable dates had to be rejected.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2004 1:35 AM Anti-Climacus has not replied
 Message 21 by JonF, posted 12-08-2004 8:31 AM Anti-Climacus has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 15 of 24 (166062)
12-07-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
12-07-2004 11:42 PM


Re: This Looks Positive.
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


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2004 11:42 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 12-08-2004 12:11 AM AdminAsgara has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024