Consistent Radiometric Dates

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by DocBrown
It's just not a perfect world.

(Temporary lapse into bad manners deleted)

There are good scientists and bad ones, good techs and bad ones. I'm noticing more and more on this board how people think scientists are to be worshipped as being perfect in every way. I'm here to burst your bubble, sorry, just not so. They put on their pants/skirts just like you we do. Is this the start of another church or something?

I'm not here to worship anyone. I'm here to talk about the data. Data that Mr. Petreley is making every possible effort to dismiss so that he can continue his little Barney fantasy that radiometric dating doesn't work.

 

[Joe Meert]

Let me clear up a couple of misconceptions right off the bat.  In the scientific community, most scientists conduct their own labwork either directly or using students who work under close supervision.  Most of these scientists (myself included) collect the specimens, prepare them and run the lab machines.  Most larger univerisities house the instruments in the building.  Secondly, the notion that bad dates are 'tossed out' is a fallacy.  When you invest the time and money to collect samples and run the analysis, it is important to also publish the complete results.  Let's look at a 'bad' age that I am currently preparing for publication.


(apparently, i cannot embed images, so click here)


http://gondwanaresearch.com/ar.jpg

How can we tell this is a 'bad age'?  The first clue comes from the shape of the argon release spectrum.  Notice that the early release steps (far left of graph) yield apparent ages of over 7 billion years and the ages 'step-down' to less than 1 billion years in the central part of the spectrum.  This gross inconsistency in ages with gas release is characteristic of what is known as 'excess argon' within a sample and indicates a basic problem with applying the Ar-Ar method to this suite of rocks.  If I had done what Austin and Snelling typically do, I would have simply sent this sample to geochron labs and asked for a K-Ar age.  The K-Ar age would have been determined at 1997 +/- 4 Ma (equivalent to the statistical sum of each step in the Ar-Ar release).  However, had I not completed an Ar-Ar study of the rock, I would have no way of knowing whether or not the age was problematic.  Nowadays, modern scientists will typically report Ar-Ar ages along with K-Ar ages.  Many of the older K-Ar ages have been re-examined using Ar-Ar methodology and some have suffer from excess argon (too old) or argon loss (too young).  Quite a few have been found to have suffered no problems (witness the table in the article cited earlier in this thread). 

Here is an example of a sample w/out argon loss or excess argon:

http://gondwanaresearch/str54.jpg

Note how the spectrum is flat (within statistical error) at about 500 million years for two different runs of the mineral.

  Thirdly, while one is free to insist that ages are 'tossed out' willy-nilly, it is imperative that the accuser supply such evidence.  Remember that scientists check up on each other and if you hide, manufacture or otherwise fiddle with the data, someone will catch up to you.  There is a certain ethical code that science operates under.  Abuses do occur (eg cold fusion), but by and large science goes about its business reporting the good, the bad and the ugly.  As far as the table provided in my link, the authors listed are all known to me directly or through co-authors.  For example, I spent a Fulbright year in Norway working with Torsvik and spent time in the field collecting with Torsvik's co-author and geochronologist Robert Tucker.  Dahlgren co-authored the Fen paper with me and has worked with Verschure, Andersen and Sundvoll.  I guess it's ok to accuse people of dishonesty on these venues, but so far as I could tell, you've offered no evidence in support of your claim.  Furthermore, it goes against my own personal experience as a practicing scientist.  Please understand that it is almost certainly true that somewhere and at sometime, data have been tossed aside because the scientist did not 'like' the result, but this is not the standard m.o. of science.   In the case of the Madagascar data reported in some of my other articles, the work was pioneering in that there were no ages for many of the rocks we sampled! 

    Finally, scientists are humans.  We are Christians, Jews agnostics, atheists, Muslims and Buddhists (and I am sure many other faiths).  We seek to understand the world around us in the best possible manner.  It seems that because we have discovered something about the earth that makes you uncomfortable in your faith (eg old earth), then you must attack the integrity of the scientists.  It is perectly understandable that you do this and I have learned over the years that personal attacks are going to occur, but rarely is there good evidence behind them.  If you are interested in the original data, I suggest you go to your local college library and check the articles out or scan a few geology periodicals. 
 References to my works (some online) can be found:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert
 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Don't you get it? The table is all the data! Which part of Meert's reply don't you understand?

His reply is easy. What I don't understand is the part where YOU assume that what he says about his two dates must apply to all of the data. As far as I can see, he's only responsible for 2 dates in the table, and they use the same technique. So he could be telling the truth, he could be lying, but either way that doesn't tell you anything about the rest of the data.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joe Meert
Let me clear up a couple of misconceptions right off the bat.  In the scientific community, most scientists conduct their own labwork either directly or using students who work under close supervision.  Most of these scientists (myself included) collect the specimens, prepare them and run the lab machines.  Most larger univerisities house the instruments in the building.

Sounds like you are talking about an academic environment, which is only one of the ways these things get done.

Originally posted by Joe Meert
Thirdly, while one is free to insist that ages are 'tossed out' willy-nilly, it is imperative that the accuser supply such evidence.

If it has been tossed out, how could anyone supply the evidence? I suppose we could hire private investigators to dig through the trash of labs. Anyone want to send me donations to sponsor such a study?

Originally posted by Joe Meert
Remember that scientists check up on each other and if you hide, manufacture or otherwise fiddle with the data, someone will catch up to you.  There is a certain ethical code that science operates under.  Abuses do occur (eg cold fusion), but by and large science goes about its business reporting the good, the bad and the ugly.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Cold fusion raises a huge red flag. Concordant dates will never raise a red flag. If someone tosses out 3 dates because they are assumed to be anomalous and publishes only the one result that is concordant, why on earth would anyone be motivated to question it, since it harmonizes with their assumptions?

Originally posted by Joe Meert
As far as the table provided in my link, the authors listed are all known to me directly or through co-authors.

So are you saying that the results in the table are the only results they got? No "excess argon" results or the equivalent showed up in any of the tests? And you can verify that even for the 1958/1959 tests? Were you there at the time?

Originally posted by Joe Meert
Please understand that it is almost certainly true that somewhere and at sometime, data have been tossed aside because the scientist did not 'like' the result, but this is not the standard m.o. of science.

So what? Is that supposed to be a defense for a specific set of data? Would you go to court with a defense like that? "Your honor, I know that we haven't been able to demonstrate that the evidence in this case is conclusive, but it is the not the standard m.o. for people to rob other people, so I believe my client is innocent of theft."

Originally posted by Joe Meert
Finally, scientists are humans.  We are Christians, Jews agnostics, atheists, Muslims and Buddhists (and I am sure many other faiths).  We seek to understand the world around us in the best possible manner.  It seems that because we have discovered something about the earth that makes you uncomfortable in your faith (eg old earth), then you must attack the integrity of the scientists.

No, if anyone is attacking anyone's integrity, you are. I am not the least bit uncomfortable in my faith. I am also not attacking the integrity of scientists. All I'm saying is that the methodology itself produces concordant results regardless of the data. You trust what fits your preconceived dates and look for explanations as to why those dates that don't fit are anomalous (excess argon, etc.). That methodology will always produce concordant results.

Originally posted by Joe Meert
If you are interested in the original data, I suggest you go to your local college library and check the articles out or scan a few geology periodicals.

If you are going to make a case for concordant results, you should provide ALL of the results in your paper and not simply pick concordant results, publish them and say, "See? They're concordant." Otherwise your table is deceptive and meaningless.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley


His reply is easy. What I don't understand is the part where YOU assume that what he says about his two dates must apply to all of the data. As far as I can see, he's only responsible for 2 dates in the table, and they use the same technique. So he could be telling the truth, he could be lying, but either way that doesn't tell you anything about the rest of the data.

One more time, real slow:

There was no data thrown out in any of the studies cited...

 

[Morat]

  Another problem with "tossing the dates" is the tiny problem of cost.

   Dating samples isn't cheap.

 

[Joe Meert]

Originally posted by npetreley


Sounds like you are talking about an academic environment, which is only one of the ways these things get done.

JM: It's where most of the ages are generated.

If it has been tossed out, how could anyone supply the evidence? I suppose we could hire private investigators to dig through the trash of labs. Anyone want to send me donations to sponsor such a study?

JM: What you are claiming is some mysterious conspiracy on the part of geochronologists to supress data.  When asked to supply evidence, you claim it isn't available.  Having worked in the business, I do know how the work is done and bad ages are reported alongside good ages (heck I even gave you an example).  Secondly, you seem not to understand that scientists check each others work both during the publication process and afterwards.  If people are hiding data or tossing it out, those omissions and anomalies would show up sooner or later.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Cold fusion raises a huge red flag. Concordant dates will never raise a red flag. If someone tosses out 3 dates because they are assumed to be anomalous and publishes only the one result that is concordant, why on earth would anyone be motivated to question it, since it harmonizes with their assumptions?

JM: It was not an analogy, it was an example of poor science being corrected.  Same things happen with ages, people retest the same rocks.   You create a mythical conspiracy and provide no evidence for your conspiracy and then want people to take you seriously?   

So are you saying that the results in the table are the only results they got? No "excess argon" results or the equivalent showed up in any of the tests? And you can verify that even for the 1958/1959 tests? Were you there at the time?

JM: Yes, I am saying that.  Either myself or my colleagues have been privvy to the original datasets.  Can you provide evidence that excess argon IS present or that the original results were faked?  However, let's say that someone faked the pioneering studies on the Fen rocks and that the 1950's results are totally bogus.  You next imply that I am not about to overturn those results and therefore I simply used the results in line with the earlier ones.  That shows how much you know about science and scientists in general.  We ALL want to overturn someone else's work!

So what? Is that supposed to be a defense for a specific set of data? Would you go to court with a defense like that? "Your honor, I know that we haven't been able to demonstrate that the evidence in this case is conclusive, but it is the not the standard m.o. for people to rob other people, so I believe my client is innocent of theft."

JM: Apparently you would go to court and say "They toss out the data.  We have no evidence to support this, but how else could the data agree?  Yes sir, your honor, this is grand conspiracy against fundamental christianity and an affront to God hisself.  Your honor, we expect you to find these scientists guilty because. well, just because I say so!".  We can invent conspiracies until the cows come home and you can accuse me (and my colleagues) of dishonesty for even longer if you want.  What you cannot do, is supply anything more than innuendo. 

No, if anyone is attacking anyone's integrity, you are. I am not the least bit uncomfortable in my faith. I am also not attacking the integrity of scientists.

JM: Umm, you are accusing scientists of hiding data?  I must say that such an accusation is a personal attack.  Apparently, concordant ages DO make you uncomfortable enough to manufacture a conspiracy theory to convince yourself that they are not real.

 All I'm saying is that the methodology itself produces concordant results regardless of the data.

JM: ..and you are absolutely wrong and I posted an example of one case where the data do not produce concordant results.  So your statement is easily falsified and we are left with a conspiracy hypothesis sans evidence.  If that's where you want to hang your hat at the end of the day, I cannot open blind eyes.

 You trust what fits your preconceived dates and look for explanations as to why those dates that don't fit are anomalous (excess argon, etc.). That methodology will always produce concordant results.

JM: Actually, I showed you a picture of actual data with REAL excess argon!  There's no interpretation needed or mirrors or anything else.  Look, it's a complete waste of time and energy to discuss this further since you've already made your conclusion.  I've given you examples of both concordant and discordant results and all you can do is deny that I gave you these examples.  Once you deny these examples, you are forced to make specious claims about my integrity and that of my co-authors.  If you care to discuss the science of radiometric dating and how one detects excess argon, then fine.  If you just want to say "Well yea you guys get concordant results cuz you are all out to support each other", then it is obvious that you know little about how real science is done.    

If you are going to make a case for concordant results, you should provide ALL of the results in your paper and not simply pick concordant results, publish them and say, "See? They're concordant." Otherwise your table is deceptive and meaningless.

JM: Again with the accusation that there are data hidden out there that I did not publish.  This is again an ad-hominem attack on my integrity as a scientist.  You are free to do this, ad nauseum, but the results are there and they are concordant and no data are hidden away or tossed out to get them.  Let me ask you a question.  What is the motivation for a scientist to toss out data? 

Then let's take a case study.  The Cambrian was thought to span the period from ~570-505 million years ago.  In fact, if you pick up a textbook from the early to mid 1990's, you will find these ages quoted.  According to your conspiracy theory, this age range cannot be challenged.  The total duration of the Cambrian was thought to be 65 million years.  When Grotzinger, Bowring and others dated the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary, they got ages of 543 million years.  According to your conspiracy theory, these ages should have been tossed into the garbage bin because they shortened the Cambrian by nearly 30 million years!  Yet, these data are published as are new data showing that the Cambrian ended some 15 million years later than we thought in the early 1990's.  Now the Cambrian has a range of 543-490 million years.  This should never have happened according to your conspiracy theory of geochronology.   You see, most of us who actually do this sort of thing for a living HOPE to push the boundaries and refine the time scale.  Our knowledge of geologic time gets better as we analyze rocks (the good, the bad and the ugly).  We know something about the chemical behavior of elements and how to detect discordance and concordance.  We TEST our results and those of others.  I know this all seems foreign to someone who has been painted a picture of conspiracy, but that's how it really works.  If you want to read the views of a Christian scientist on radiometric dating, I encourage you do a search on Roger Wiens (CalTech). 

    As I said, if you want to discuss the science of geochronology, I'd be happy to continue.  If you are only going to continue to suggest that science is a grand conspiracy, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

Cheers

 

Joe Meert

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Joe Meert


JM: Actually, I showed you a picture of actual data with REAL excess argon!  There's no interpretation needed or mirrors or anything else.  Look, it's a complete waste of time and energy to discuss this further since you've already made your conclusion.  I've given you examples of both concordant and discordant results and all you can do is deny that I gave you these examples.  Once you deny these examples, you are forced to make specious claims about my integrity and that of my co-authors.  If you care to discuss the science of radiometric dating and how one detects excess argon, then fine.  If you just want to say "Well yea you guys get concordant results cuz you are all out to support each other", then it is obvious that you know little about how real science is done.  

Cheers 


Joe Meert

Well, you've hit on the problem here.  As long as test results don't come back with handy little instructions naturally occuring in the rock samples themselves that say "this means that this rock is dated 6mya!!," Nick and others like him will cry foul and claim that the conclusions are "interpretation."  Even if you show him the step by step process, he'll cling to claims of interpretation of evidence and suggest that you reach your conclusions based on a priori assumptions.  It's a never-ending circle with this guy.

By the way, welcome to the forums.  You have provided a great deal of valuable information already.  Thanks.

-brett

 

[blader]

...no data are hidden away or tossed out to get them.

There you have it. Either npetreley's saying Joe Meert is lying, or, npetreley is wrong.

The conclusion is obvious. Joe Meert must be lying, because npetreley is never, ever, EVER, wrong.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

BTW, I should apologize to DocBrown for my rather crude and flippant response. While I still feel his post was rather patronizing, I should have dealt with it in a more mature manner.

Sorry, Doc.

 

[npetreley]

JM, perhaps you should see a doctor about this paranoia about people questioning your integrity and suggesting conspiracies. I certainly never mentioned anything of the kind nor did I suggest anything like it. I suggested that there is data that is dismissed as anomalous, and if I question anything about you and your data, it's that I question whether or not you are aware of any data that was discarded as anomalous. You haven't produced any evidence that nothing was ever discarded when getting these results. You have only said that either must I believe you know everything about the history of the data (including the data from 1958/1959), or if I don't believe you, then I must be dreaming up some anti-creationist conspiracy.

If you think those are the only two choices, then you do need help, and that tells me I can't trust anything you say about the history of the data regardless of what you say.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley
JM, perhaps you should see a doctor about this paranoia about people questioning your integrity and suggesting conspiracies. I certainly never mentioned anything of the kind nor did I suggest anything like it. I suggested that there is data that is dismissed as anomalous, and if I question anything about you and your data, it's that I question whether or not you are aware of any data that was discarded as anomalous. You haven't produced any evidence that nothing was ever discarded when getting these results. You have only said that either must I believe you know everything about the history of the data (including the data from 1958/1959), or if I don't believe you, then I must be dreaming up some anti-creationist conspiracy.

If you think those are the only two choices, then you do need help, and that tells me I can't trust anything you say about the history of the data regardless of what you say.

So what's the other possibility, then? You're just honestly skeptical about the dates that was thrown in (despite the fact that it included anomalous dates as well), and this has nothing to do with your own religious beliefs? If you expect someone to believe that, then that someone's an idiot. And I can't trust idiots about anything they have to say.

Gee, let's think about this here. Suppose the earth was young. The only way to get values even remotely close the values that we did get is to assume that scientists just throw out the SUPPOSED MAJORITY (assuming the earth is young) of all readings that indicates the earth is about 5000 years old, and keeping all the readings (which should be a small minority of the total, assuming the earth is young), where it says it's older.

AND THEN, they'll have to toss out 99% of THAT SMALL MINORITY of "INACCURATE" dates to get these "wrong" values to match within 2% of 4.5 bn years. The only way to get values to agree like that, assuming a young earth, would be to accept one out of every THOUSAND radiological measurements, and that's being EXTREMELY generous.

I mean, how do you explain such a imaginative theory, other than with the word,"conspiracy?"

 

[DocBrown]

Joe wrote: "In the scientific community, most scientists conduct their own labwork either directly or using students who work under close supervision. Most of these scientists (myself included) collect the specimens, prepare them and run the lab machines. Most larger univerisities house the instruments in the building. Secondly, the notion that bad dates are 'tossed out' is a fallacy. "

The company I worked for had anywhere between 1000-2000 scientists on staff in each of our 71 locations worldwide. This is only one large corp and there are a many but I dont' know how many exactly. But you might be correct, as I don't know how many univerisities there are and how many scientists are employed there. I have to say that I DON'T KNOW because I haven't studied this enough to make any broad statement like "most scientists conduct their own labwork", however you as a scientist must have done this study as you have made this statement, can you give us the fact that you based this on? Or do you "feel" this is the case without data? From my observations I would say most look for where the money is in order to do their research, and working for a large corp they wouldn't be able to conduct their own labwork as it's not company policy. Those who follow their labwork from start to finish by being present during the testing were always welcomed and thought of in high regard, but we were not students but trained lab techs. As one who worked in the lab my theory here has been observed and tested. However I haven't observed all scientist in all fields, so I really must back away from saying that most scientist don't do their own labwork, only those I've seen with my eyes.

On this board your word is accepted over anyone else's as you are a scientist and here you are considered infallible. Don't be surprised if some people here start asking you to forgive their sins.

Thanks,

Doc

 

[blader]

On this board your word is accepted over anyone else's as you are a scientist and here you are considered infallible. Don't be surprised if some people here start asking you to forgive their sins.

Oh brother. You and your worship complex.

Yes, we scientologists here worship scientists. They are our priests and we kiss their feet whenever we see one. They probably walk on water, too. Yessir, better a scientist than Jesus, that's us.

 

[Baloo42]

Basically, all Nick is saying is that the rocks do, in fact date to 5,000 years old. However, some radiometric measurements are, by the very nature of scientific experimentation, a bit off (in much the same way, I might weight 225 lbs, but step on three scales and see weights of 225, 226, and 228 lbs). Similarly, a rock that is actually say, 5,267 years, will have radiometric measurements that do not exactly match this age.

Back to my scale analogy, it is feasible that with ENOUGH different measurements on ENOUGH different scales, I'll see some sporadic measurements that greatly differ from my actual 225 lbs (e.g. a scale with a few rusty springs reads "300 lbs"). In fact, if I repeat my experiment enough times, in theory, there is NO UPPER BOUND above which a "noisy measurement" would not be read; nor is there a limit on the number of times a reading will exceed any arbitrary point. In more concrete terms, with ENOUGH measurements, a "> 300 pound" measurement will be recorded, multiple times.

Now, enter the Blinded-by-dogma scientist Dr. JM. He, due to his philosophical dogma, has decided (before performing any experiment), that I weigh 300 pounds. So, he takes 10,000 measurements; and sure enough, the 4 highest measurements are 260, 305, 310 and 330 lbs. Though all of his data, collectively, gives a reading of 225.342 +/- .005 lbs, JM decides that 9,996 of those measurements are "noise", discards them, and concludes the experiment has weighed me in at 301.25 +/- 30 lbs.

We give JM the benefit of the doubt that filtering out the 225-lb measurements was an unconcious mistake - after all, if he'd already decided that I weighed 300 lbs, it's only natural that he would see a 226 lb measurement as, well, ludicrous. If the entire scientific community were similarly blinded by the "Baloo42 weighs 300 lbs" philosophy, it is understandable that JM's results would get published, and anyone (like a lab tech) trying to publish the "actual data" would be laughed out of the community.

Similarly, Nick is simply saying that Joe Meert, blinded by his "this rock is exactly 500 million years old" philosophical dogma, took enough measurements of a 5,000 year old rock, and eventually got some measurements of 6,000 years, a few at 7,000 years, etc, etc. With enough patience and work, Joe was finally able to compile a large number of measurments a bit larger than 7,000... even several measurements that exceeded the 5,200 year-old age by 5 orders of magnitude. (In my analogy, this would be JM eventually getting several readings of 15,000 tons - about 1/10th the weight of the Sears Tower). Statistically speaking, yeah, he'd have to perform about 10^10^100 or so experiments to get these readings, but working quickly, it's not unreasonable to guess he was able to do this over a period of time just slightly longer than the age of the known universe. And so, at the end of the proverbial day, Joe simply swept the 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999...[,999]^10^99...,999,999,999,999,982 "bad readings" of about 5,200 years under the carpet, jotted down the 18 "good readings", concluded that the evidence supported an approximate age of 500 million years, and published his results.

Again, it's not that Nick is accusing Joe, or any other "500 million year-old-rock" dogmatic scientists of being dishonest... he's saying they just mistakenly discard the wrong set of results from a given experiment. And since the "good readings" were discarded, it is ridiculous to ask for evidence they ever existed (the scrap of readout containing the good readings would probably be as small as, say, the Milky Way galaxy - and Joe could have hidden it anywhere, like in the middle of the Orion constellation or something).

Which pretty much leaves us at an impass - two totally rational interpretations of the same data, and all lurkers able to decide which most closely fits with their worldview...

Now, can't we all just get along?

 

[Morat]

  Hehehehe. Hehe. Good post.

 

 

[blader]

Subtle. But effective. =)

 

[DocBrown]

Originally posted by blader


Oh brother. You and your worship complex.

Yes, we scientologists here worship scientists. They are our priests and we kiss their feet whenever we see one. They probably walk on water, too. Yessir, better a scientist than Jesus, that's us.

It's nice to see that you admit this.

Doc

 

 

 

[Joe Meert]

NEVERMIND!

E. latella

 

 

[Baloo42]

Ahem. Um, sometimes I've been accused of being too subtle in my sarcasm. Joe, I was not accusing you of throwing out "bad data", I was merely demonstrating the logical consequences of such an accusation (namely, that you would have had to have run more experiments than there are particles in the universe FOR Nick's accusations to be true).