Circular Reasoning

[RickG]

well, uh, yeah, i guess discussing KNOWN problems would be helpful.
quote the particular passage of my source you have a problem with, or drop the matter entirely.

Really? PLEASE! Just what part of "it is what he does not explain" that is the problem do you not understand? The entire presentation does nothing more than to describe problems that may or may not be encountered with radiometric dating methods. By leaving out the very important part of how those problems are detected, solved and/or avoided, is the problem. The whole purpose of Dr. Pitmans presentation is to cast doubt on radiometric dating methods. In doing this he engages in intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty is the act of presenting only information that appears to support one's position while deliberately ignoring all credible information that does not support that position.
​

As for the specific example you ask for, review my post #122, where I describe how the Ar/Ar method accounts and corrects for any excess or diffused daughter material. The only discussion Pitman actually makes concerning the Ar/Ar method is to refer back to the list of assumptions, which is by the way, circular reasoning.

Now lets visit those assumptions. From your source:

• Beginning Conditions Known
• Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
• Constant Decay Rate
• No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
• All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
• There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes

Now, let's address them.



"Beginning Conditions Known": For those trained in Petrology and Geochemistry, no problem.


"Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known": That is not really assumed. If it were, then why are there specific methods that detect and correct for any excess daughter isotope.


"Constant decay rate": Again, not really assumed. Decay rates are constantly measured by scientists who work with them. There are a few "cosmogenic" isotopes that do vary their rate by an extremely small amount which are well within any margin of error, thus they really have no effect. And those are actually rate changes, rather oscillations. Furthermore, none of them are even used in radiometric dating. And how do we know over time that rates have not changed? There are two specific criteria there. First is basic physics and chemistry, it doesn't change. Second, decay rates have been detected and measured from from supernova emitting gamma rays that are hundreds of thousands and even millions of light years distant. Those measured decay rates are the same as those we measure on earth today.


"No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes": Again, that is not assumed. As I mentioned before, there are specific methods for detecting and accounting for this.


"All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years": Previously described above under the constant rate assumption.


"There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes". That simply is not true. With today's methods and technology, samples weighing only a few milligrams can be dated very precisely.

 

[RickG]

well, uh, yeah, i guess discussing KNOWN problems would be helpful.
quote the particular passage of my source you have a problem with, or drop the matter entirely.

Well then, let's put this into a context with which you should be able to understand.

The Holy Bible clearly states that there is no God.

Deuteronomy 32:39 "There is no God"
1 Kings 8:23 "There is no God"
2 Kings 1:16 "There is no God"
2 Chronicles 6:14 "There is no God"
Psalm 14:1 "There is no God"
Psalm 53:1 "There is no God"
Isaiah 44:6 "There is no God"
Isaiah 44:8 "There is no God"
Isaiah 45:5 "There is no God"
Isaiah 45:14 "There is no God"
Isaiah 45:21 "There is no God"
​

Oh! Pardon me! Am I leaving something out that shows the above not to be true? But the bible clearly makes those statements. Are you going to tell me the bible doesn't say this? I gave very specific examples directly from the bible.

 

[Split Rock]

i'm not claiming ANYTHING about creationism, you are the one that brought the subject up.
i have sated it over and over and over and over and over and over and over I AM NOT A CREATIONIST ! ! ! ! ! !

And yet you act like one, here. Why is that?

 

[whois]

Intellectual dishonesty is the act of presenting only information that appears to support one's position while deliberately ignoring all credible information that does not support that position.

well, let's see where you measure up to this

Now lets visit those assumptions. From your source:

• Beginning Conditions Known
• Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
• Constant Decay Rate
• No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
• All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
• There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes

Now, let's address them.

please refer to your quote immediately above.
my source says the above does not apply to isochron dating methods, which you fail to address.

 

[whois]

Well then, let's put this into a context with which you should be able to understand.

The Holy Bible clearly states that there is no God.

Deuteronomy 32:39 "There is no God"
1 Kings 8:23 "There is no God"
2 Kings 1:16 "There is no God"
2 Chronicles 6:14 "There is no God"
Psalm 14:1 "There is no God"
Psalm 53:1 "There is no God"
Isaiah 44:6 "There is no God"
Isaiah 44:8 "There is no God"
Isaiah 45:5 "There is no God"
Isaiah 45:14 "There is no God"
Isaiah 45:21 "There is no God"
​

Oh! Pardon me! Am I leaving something out that shows the above not to be true? But the bible clearly makes those statements. Are you going to tell me the bible doesn't say this? I gave very specific examples directly from the bible.

it seems that it's you that has a problem with god and or creationism.
i've stated over and over that i find the concept ludicrous.
don't believe me?
check my posting history

 

[bhsmte]

it seems that it's you that has a problem with god and or creationism.
i've stated over and over that i find the concept ludicrous.
don't believe me?
check my posting history

Ok, you find the concept of God and creation ludicrous.

It also seems, you find the concept of evolution to be ludicrous as well.

It would appear than by your posts, you don't believe in creationism and you don't believe in a God and you don't believe evolution is an accurate description of how life evolved.

So, what exactly do you believe in?

 

[Subduction Zone]

it seems that it's you that has a problem with god and or creationism.
i've stated over and over that i find the concept ludicrous.
don't believe me?
check my posting history

I have seen you claim not to be a creationist time after time, but you always use creationist arguments. Perhaps you have an odd definition of "creationist".

Let me ask you one question, do you accept common descent? If the answer is no, then you are definitely a creationist. Do you believe the Noah's Ark story? Since some of the evidence that debunks that tale is very tightly tied to evolution you are a creationist if you believe that tale.

 

[whois]

I have seen you claim not to be a creationist time after time, but you always use creationist arguments. Perhaps you have an odd definition of "creationist".

perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.
i do not "always use" creationist arguments.
as a matter of fact i don't remember using "creationist arguments" anywhere on this board.

 

[bhsmte]

All irony meters everywhere, just exploded.

 

[dad]

Let me ask you one question, do you accept common descent? If the answer is no, then you are definitely a creationist..

That is somewhat misleading. Species likely have a common descent from the two kinds on the ark. Perhaps it is better to rephrase the question somehing like

'Do you believe you share direct relative with flatworms, literally, and that the unknown first lifeform existed, and from it came all life on earth'?

 

[crjmurray]

All irony meters everywhere, just exploded.

Really? It was dishonestamometer that went off the charts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.
i do not "always use" creationist arguments.
as a matter of fact i don't remember using "creationist arguments" anywhere on this board.

I have pointed out when you have used creationist arguments in the past. Others have said the same.

And why did you avoid clarifying your beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is somewhat misleading. Species likely have a common descent from the two kinds on the ark. Perhaps it is better to rephrase the question somehing like

'Do you believe you share direct relative with flatworms, literally, and that the unknown first lifeform existed, and from it came all life on earth'?

Wrong. My phrasing was perfectly clear. If you can't understand it that is not my fault. There is no reason to use your strawman version.

 

[bhsmte]

Really? It was dishonestamometer that went off the charts.

Close enough.

 

[dad]

Wrong. My phrasing was perfectly clear. If you can't understand it that is not my fault. There is no reason to use your strawman version.

That is somewhat misleading. Species likely have a common descent from the two kinds on the ark. Perhaps it is better to rephrase the question somehing like

'Do you believe you share direct relative with flatworms, literally, and that the unknown first lifeform existed, and from it came all life on earth'?

Be honest, do you not believe that life on earth came from a common first life form? Who do you think can be fooled here? Be clear.

 

[whois]

I have pointed out when you have used creationist arguments in the past. Others have said the same.

link to the post where i used a "creationist argument"

And why did you avoid clarifying your beliefs?

because you consistently refuse to clarify anything i post, that's why.
for example:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
-eugene koonin, the origin at 150, sourced from NCBI

and:
there is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so. nevertheless eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists. this increase of complexity was achieved by major evolutionary changes.
-john maynard smith, nature vol. 374 1995


is the above why you keep referring to me as a creationist?

 

[crjmurray]

link to the post where i used a "creationist argument"
Snip

You've continually quote mined Sepkoski, Ayala, and Koonin. You've used these quotes as "evidence" that there is a problem with the TOE. That is a creationist tactic.

You linked to a letter on the website revolution against evolution, a creationist website. Using creationist sources to back up your point is a creationist argument.

Now I don't think I need to link to these posts as long as you're willing to be honest and admit that you have actually done what I've mentioned above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is somewhat misleading. Species likely have a common descent from the two kinds on the ark. Perhaps it is better to rephrase the question somehing like

'Do you believe you share direct relative with flatworms, literally, and that the unknown first lifeform existed, and from it came all life on earth'?

Be honest, do you not believe that life on earth came from a common first life form? Who do you think can be fooled here? Be clear.

Now dad, don't be silly. You know that there was no flood. This is a scientific discussion which like it or not means that we are going to use scientific terms. In regard to "common descent", it has only one meaning in this context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

link to the post where i used a "creationist argument"

because you consistently refuse to clarify anything i post, that's why.
for example:
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.


and:
there is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity with time, and no empirical evidence that they do so. nevertheless eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic ones, animals and plants are more complex than protists. this increase of complexity was achieved by major evolutionary changes.


is the above why you keep referring to me as a creationist?

crjmurray dealt with your earlier incorrect claim. So I will deal with the latter, which is a creationist argument by the way.

Horizontal gene transfer is limited mostly to single celled life. It may be how sexual reproduction started. It is not a threat to the theory of evolution nor does it destroy the tree of life. You do not seem to understand the science that you site.

 

[RickG]

well, let's see where you measure up to this

please refer to your quote immediately above.
my source says the above does not apply to isochron dating methods, which you fail to address.

Perhaps because we are not discussing isochrons. However, what Pitman states is that isochron dating is better and actually provides a fair description of it. When first reading his isochron description it would seem he has no problem with the method. However, reading on we find the following:

So, it is starting to look like isochron dating has solved some of the major problems of other dating methods. However, isochron dating is still based on certain assumptions.​

1. All areas of a given specimen formed at the same time
   
2. The specimen was entirely homogenous when it formed (not layered or incompletely mixed)
3. Limited Contamination (contamination can form straight lines that are misleading)
4. Isochrons that are based on intra-specimen crystals can be extrapolated to date the whole specimen

The fact is that none of that is "assumed". Even items 1 and 4 conflict with one another. In fact, by not assuming those so called assumptions is the premiss of isochron dating.

Also in reading through his isochron discussion he specifically cites a so called problem with disgussed in a Nature paper (Zashu et al, 1989) (one of his references) where some cubic diamonds yielded an impossible age of 6 billion years through the isochron dating method. It took me a little time to source the paper but I did. What Pitman failed to include that was was the paper was about, how it happens and how it is fixed. Of course, we do know that Dr. Pitman has no background in geochemistry and obviously gleaned that bit of "quote mining" from an ICR article by Andrew Snelling.

And for the gizillionth time, where did "you" come up with the idea that the Ar/Ar method is no longer used.