24 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead“If two or more different methods are used on the same sample and result in the same date then they confirm that they are both accurate.”
Both I an scotishinnz have answered this one already. But since you are too lazy to look back a few posts or too intentionally blind to see I will reiterate.
If two or more different methods are used on the same sample and result in the same date then they confirm that they are both accurate. If that is repeated over samples covering a wide date range th t now could I? So claiming that I am simultaneously an ignoramus and a liar is contradictory.
No, they do not prove they are accurate, it only proves that they get the same rate, defining what
accurate is another topic altogether. You can have two methods get the same wrong answer, this does
not turn a wrong answer right, it only gives you consistent wrong answers. The fact that you and
Scott both said this show two sources can give you wrong answers, even if you repeat it over and
over the same way each time.
“If that is repeated over samples covering a wide date range then it is even more confirmation though only one sample test is actually required to prove the point. “
Again, repeatability only shows you repeatability, accurate methods of rates requires more than
just being able to get the same answer over and over even with several sources, it may mean
what you think is true, and it may not.
Kelly
24 May 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf two or more different methods are used on the same sample and result in the same date then they confirm that they are both accurate.
Both I an scotishinnz have answered this one already. But since you are too lazy to look back a few posts or too intentionally blind to see I will reiterate.
If two or more different methods are used on the same sample and result in the same date then they confirm that they are both accurate. If that is repeated over samples covering a wide date range th ...[text shortened]... t now could I? So claiming that I am simultaneously an ignoramus and a liar is contradictory.
Not if they both use the same fallacious assumptions that are unprovable and if there is evidence to suggest that the made assumptions are in serous question.
It would equally well prove that the results of both the samples are equally wrong.
Ignoramus.
If that is repeated over samples covering a wide date range then it is even more confirmation though only one sample test is actually required to prove the point.
Yes, it equally well proves the point that wrong assumptions give you the wrong answers.
Again, get a dictionary and look up the word 'ignoramus' you are using it wrongly. In fact I could hardly be lying if I did not know what was correct now could I? So claiming that I am simultaneously an ignoramus and a liar is contradictory.
Being a liar and an ignoramus is not mutually exclusive. Being an ignoramus and telling lies at the same time makes you a lying ignoramus.
Ignoramus.
25 May 07
Originally posted by PhuzudakaNot if they both use the same fallacious assumptions that are unprovable and if there is evidence to suggest that the made assumptions are in serous question.
[b]If two or more different methods are used on the same sample and result in the same date then they confirm that they are both accurate.
Not if they both use the same fallacious assumptions that are unprovable and if there is evidence to suggest that the made assumptions are in serous question.
It would equally well prove that the results of b ...[text shortened]... ing an ignoramus and telling lies at the same time makes you a lying ignoramus.
Ignoramus.[/b]
The decay constants would differ by varying amounts, if your argument was right, and they'd give commensurately different answers.
Of course, you might be right, but our understanding of nuclear physics would all need serious re-thinking and, without you coming up with a new revised physics, then I'll take my chances with this one being right. After all, 50,000 nuclear warheads can't be wrong, right?
25 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThe fact that you and Scott both said this show two sources can give you wrong answers
“If two or more different methods are used on the same sample and result in the same date then they confirm that they are both accurate.”
No, they do not prove they are accurate, it only proves that they get the same rate, defining what
accurate is another topic altogether. You can have two methods get the same wrong answer, this does
not turn a wrong ...[text shortened]... and over even with several sources, it may mean
what you think is true, and it may not.
Kelly
The fact that you and 2 billion other idiots say the world is 6,000 years old just shows exactly how mass stupidity can occur. Like you said, in your usual condescending tone, that doesn't make it true. However, when we have multiple methods, with differing decay constants, coming up independently with the same answer, from different samples, from different locations, by different labs, then I'll trust it over your book any day. Even the most basic evidence, like ice cores, the time required for the earth to cool, or lake sediments totally invalidates a 6,000 year old earth.
Go crawl back under your rock.
25 May 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzNice seeing you Scott hope all is well with you and yours.
[b]The fact that you and Scott both said this show two sources can give you wrong answers
The fact that you and 2 billion other idiots say the world is 6,000 years old just shows exactly how mass stupidity can occur. Like you said, in your usual condescending tone, that doesn't make it true. However, when we have multiple methods, with differin ...[text shortened]... r lake sediments totally invalidates a 6,000 year old earth.
Go crawl back under your rock.[/b]
Kelly
25 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayEverything is fantastic with me and mine.
Nice seeing you Scott hope all is well with you and yours.
Kelly
Now, are you going to back up your assertion that I'm wrong about the age of the earth, or merely attempt to cast doubt upon everything without either (a) taking a position yourself or (b) making any sort of definite statement on any debate you join.
25 May 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou cannot be proven wrong, my point if you follow the discussion
Everything is fantastic with me and mine.
Now, are you going to back up your assertion that I'm wrong about the age of the earth, or merely attempt to cast doubt upon everything without either (a) taking a position yourself or (b) making any sort of definite statement on any debate you join.
is that simply getting two tests saying the same thing does not
mean you are getting it right either, only that you have two tests
saying the same thing.
If you cannot handle someone casting doubt on something that
cannot be proven wrong, you should give up posting.
I made a clear statement that two tests giving the same answer does
not mean that you are getting right results you think you are, what we
do know for sure is that we are getting the same answer.
You have an issue with that?
Kelly
25 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayNot when it's 2 tests. When it's 20 independent tests, with different assumptions, giving the same result, I'd trust it though.
You cannot be proven wrong, my point if you follow the discussion
is that simply getting two tests saying the same thing does not
mean you are getting it right either, only that you have two tests
saying the same thing.
If you cannot handle someone casting doubt on something that
cannot be proven wrong, you should give up posting.
I made a clear s ...[text shortened]...
do know for sure is that we are getting the same answer.
You have an issue with that?
Kelly
The latter is a more correct representation of the situation.
What is wrong with this position?
I have no problems with appropriate levels of scrutiny being observed, indeed as a scientist, I demand it. HOWEVER, what you are doing is not an appropriate measure of scrutiny. You are using ridiculously excessive levels of scrutiny to attack something you dislike based upon dogma, rather than logic or reason.
25 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzOh, now you change the subject to 20 independent tests, wow.
Not when it's 2 tests. When it's 20 independent tests, with different assumptions, giving the same result, I'd trust it though.
The latter is a more correct representation of the situation.
What is wrong with this position?
I have no problems with [b]appropriate levels of scrutiny being observed, indeed as a scientist, I demand it. HO ...[text shortened]... ls of scrutiny to attack something you dislike based upon dogma, rather than logic or reason.[/b]
We were speaking about 2, now it is 20.
Okay, and the 20 are...links, books, papers, show me 20 that all
same the same thing please that are independent tests with different
assumptions. We can discuss them.
Kelly
25 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI never said 2.
Oh, now you change the subject to 20 independent tests, wow.
We were speaking about 2, now it is 20.
Okay, and the 20 are...links, books, papers, show me 20 that all
same the same thing please that are independent tests with different
assumptions. We can discuss them.
Kelly
I've ALWAYS maintained that the greatest evidence for an old earth id the fact that multiple tests give the same result.
For example, this is a good paper that I've posted in the past.
Title: The age and accretion of the Earth
Author(s): Zhang YX
Source: EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS 59 (1-4): 235-263 NOV 2002
Document Type: Review
Language: English
Cited References: 150 Times Cited: 3 Find Related Records Information
Abstract: Culminating a long series of effort, the monumental work of Patterson [Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 10 (1956) 230] showed that the age of the earth was close to that of most meteorites at 4.55 Ga. Later refinements have consistently arrived at a younger age for the earth, shedding light on the accretion history of the earth. A review of progresses after Patterson's work is presented on ages for core formation, Xe closure, and formation of the earliest crust using U-Pb, Hf-W, I-Pu-U-Xe, Sm-Nd, and Nb-Zr systems; consistency among the systems is examined; and discrepancies are decoded. The combination of U-Pb and Hf-W systems can rule out some models of rapid earth accretion (at similar to4.55 Ga) followed by smooth and continuous core formation, but allow at least two different models. I-Pu-U-Xe systematics reveals a consistent and young age of 4.45 +/- 0.02 Ga for Xe closure. The systematics also allows an estimation of primordial Xe-130 concentration in the bulk silicate earth to be 0.034
[GRAPHICS]
3 ppt, and I concentration to be 15.5
[GRAPHICS]
2.8 ppb. Earliest crustal formation age constrained by U-Pb ages of detrital zircon, coupled Sm-Nd system, and Nb-Zr system is about 4.45 +/- 0.05 Ga. The combination of all the isotopic constraints shows that they are consistent with either one of the following two scenarios for the accretion and differentiation of the earth: (i) A single age of 4.45 0.02 Ga for all events in the context of instantaneous differentiation, younger than Patterson's 4.55 Ga by about 100 Myr. This age would most likely represent the time of the last giant impact by an impactor of the size of Mars or greater, from which the earth was rehomogenized and reborn. The age would probably also signify the time when the earth reached about 80-90% of its present mass. In this scenario, the history of the proto-earth before 4.45 Ga was obliterated by the giant impact at similar to 4.45 Ga. (ii) Continuous earth accretion and simultaneous core formation with a mean age of 4.53 Ga (mean accretion time of 30 Myr). The continuous accretion was infrequently disrupted by giant impacts that were not powerful enough to rehomogenize the whole earth. The last of such impacts (by a body the size of the moon or greater) occurred at about 4.45 Ga, which stripped the atmosphere from the earth and remelted the crust of the earth. In this scenario, some history of the protoearth before 4.45 Ga is still preserved in the isotopic records. If the measurement precision of W-182/W-114 ratio can be improved by a factor of 10, or if earliest crust formation age can be further constrained, it will be possible to rule out one of the scenarios and further constrain the accretion history of the earth. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
25 May 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe decay constants would differ by varying amounts, if your argument was right, and they'd give commensurately different answers.
[b]Not if they both use the same fallacious assumptions that are unprovable and if there is evidence to suggest that the made assumptions are in serous question.
The decay constants would differ by varying amounts, if your argument was right, and they'd give commensurately different answers.
Of course, you might be right, but our under ...[text shortened]... chances with this one being right. After all, 50,000 nuclear warheads can't be wrong, right?[/b]
How do you KNOW that the half-life of an element is x? You ASSUME it is x using the CURRENT RATE OF DECAY. But you do NOT KNOW that the current rate of decay has been the same for the past x billion years...
Of course you will find the same answers if you use the same type of circular reasoning for all the different types of radioactive elements.