Reliable Radiometric Dates as an Artifact of Assumptions

RyanR:I’ll tell you what, you bring me radiometric dating instruments and I’ll get started right away.It doesn’t make sense to suggest I could, if I don’t have access to the equipment, the calibration or the actual results before the outliers land in the garbage.I can’t analyze what I don’t have data for, and that only leaves me with assurances that don’t account for the assumptions.

Ryan R:
Because people always have interpretations that they championed as consistent explanations of the evidence, and by the time the interpretations are developed and graphed in those pretty charts that you often include in your posts, it all looks good and neat and tidy, but the actual data doesn’t look anything like that.When you look at quantitative charting of the data, like strata, it looks nothing like those pretty, colour coded interpretations. Nothing at all.From that evolutionists and Creationists can come up with their interpretations, test them, if they’re not outright contradicted by the observational science according to the assumptions they employed then it’s positioned as truth and presented in a pretty little graph, all the while updating, revising or outright replacing the last seemingly consistent interpretations of truth.It’s an ongoing cycle of untrustworthy interpretations based on assumptions, to which weight should not be applied.Let me explain something about applying weight to data, you have to have a multiplier based on calculated representative numbers versus actual numbers. You can't say that a quantitative method has a certain weight, unless that weight is calculated by a multiplier.You keep saying the evolutionary views hold weight, but unless you can show me a multiplier matrix then that’s not even quantitatively accurate. That’s something you’re saying as though it has merit, but in point of fact you’re not weighting anything, you’re valuing things qualitatively. The words you're using have the pretence of empiricism, but are simply value statements.There really is so much pretence of evolutionary authority, and it’s veiled in these pseudo-quantitative claims that aren’t actually quantifiably. Non-quantitative is qualitative, and is therefore founded not on evidence but on feelings.

NoNukes writes:The truth is that no scientist is doing work aimed at verifying or rejecting literal Bible dates using carbon or any other radiometric dating.

Percy writes:You might have meant to express this a bit differently?

Intinerant writes:but were simply somehow unaware of their own bias that was skewing their results. . .somehow. . .or something

Scientists aren't calculating the margin of error for radiometric dating accurately
-Scientists are ignoring anomalous dates that don't agree and
thus misrepresent the data
-Scientists aren't calibrating their testing equipment correctly

Ryan R:I've already told you why I'm skeptical of outliers and such, and you were trying to get me that data. If you do, I'll be able to show you how those outliers are treated and what that implies and, if you provide me with data from multiple tests used on the same sample and a description of how the instruments are calibrated, I'll be able to show you whether or not there are relationships in the data (correlations), or if they're coincidence (based on insufficiency of data to establish relationship or frequency of falling outside the appropriate standard deviations on either side within the accepted confidence interval), or if they are actually codependents (as in calibrated off of one another or according to similar assumptions).