Consistent Radiometric Dates

[npetreley]

Originally posted by 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).

You actually represented my position accurately until you got to the part where they threw out tons of data. That was a clever way to make your sarcasm funny, but in so doing, you changed the entire point.

All they had to do was toss out one data point that they considered to be anomalous for my "accusation" (it is not an accusation but a suspicion) to be true, and to falsify the assertion that these various methods of radiometric dating always yield consistent results. Personally, I wouldn't trust the dates even if they DID yield consistent results, but that isn't the point of the article.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
All they had to do was toss out one data point that they considered to be anomalous for my "accusation" (it is not an accusation but a suspicion) to be true, and to falsify the assertion that these various methods of radiometric dating always yield consistent results.

So your "suspicion" is that scientists lie about the data. Is that right?

Personally, I wouldn't trust the dates even if they DID yield consistent results, but that isn't the point of the article.

I see. Your pet theory didn't quite pan out the way you expected, so now you'll just dismiss ALL of the data.

Whatever it takes to keep your Barney fantasy alive, I guess...

 

[Morat]

  The odd point is that Nick's "answer" is that it's not the reams of supporting dates he'd trust, but the anomolous ones.

   Why is that, Nick? If 99.999% of dates yield an "Old Earth" value, and 0.001% are outliers, why do you trust the outliers?

 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Good point Morat. I hadn't thought of that.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by npetreley

You actually represented my position accurately until you got to the part where they threw out tons of data. That was a clever way to make your sarcasm funny, but in so doing, you changed the entire point.

What makes the sarcasm funny is that it is true. You're not seriously trying to claim that your objections have nothing to do with what you believe the age of the earth to be, are you? Since you do believe that the age of the earth is young, then the only way to get the numbers that they did was to throwing out 99%+ of the values that they measured.

All they had to do was toss out one data point that they considered to be anomalous for my "accusation" (it is not an accusation but a suspicion) to be true, and to falsify the assertion that these various methods of radiometric dating always yield consistent results.

But they even included a data point that was considered anomalous, so no one was asserting that these dating methods always yield 100% consistent results, except you.

Personally, I wouldn't trust the dates even if they DID yield consistent results, but that isn't the point of the article.

That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Not that it comes as a surprise to any one. But it's funny how much effort you spend trying to discredit something that you wouldn't accept even if it were creditable.

 

[Baloo42]

Nick,

Do you think there is a single measuring method on the face of the planet which "always accurately" measures anything? Do you use odometers to measure the distance you drive on vacations? If I drive 20,000 vehicles of the same make and model around the same 100 mile track, do you think all 20,000 will give the same measurement? If one of them gives a measurement of 205 miles, does that mean odometers, in general, don't work? Or does it mean the 205-mile-vehicle should be closely scrutinized. If ten scales say I weigh 225 lbs, but one doesn't budge, and reads 0 lbs, is it time to give up on scales as means to weigh people? Or should we take a second look at the 0-lb-scale?

Just where the hell are you coming from when you assert that one bad measurement of a radiometric date, or any measurement for that matter, is sufficient to throw the whole idea out? I'm serious: what is actually going through your mind that makes such an assertion seem rational? Do you wince when you make such assertions? Or does cognitive disonance take over, covering you with a warm comfy blanket of self-assurance, telling you that your objections make complete sense?

But this thread is subtly different. Joe has done a series of tests AND DID NOT GET A SINGLE ANOMOLOUS RESULT (even though...paying attention?... even though such results are ACCEPTABLE given enough real-world measurements of any property of any object in the universe). Again: Bad measurements are EXPECTED to occur in any experiment, given enough measurements. In a collegiate or professional environment, the lack of anomolies is actually evidence of a very tightly run ship with great attention paid to every detail. The precise agreement of the data not "tossed out" is further evidence of a well run lab. Joe's ability to get grants is evidence of a scientist able to run a good lab - as is the utter lack of scientists unable to replicate his experiments (believe me, scientists competing with Joe for grants will have tried), and the utter lack of accusations of fraud from anyone in the scientific community against Joe. All evidence points towards Joe being a very capable and competent laboratory scientist. I'm still waiting for PIECE #1, EXHIBIT A, THE FIRST SCRAP of evidence, from you, to suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, do you realize how many anomolies are the cause of scientific breakthroughs? Read up on the annoying anomoly of blackbody radiation measurements back in the early 1900's. Aggraviting the hell out of many classical physicists, they just plain didn't match the predictions the physicists' models. Want to guess what that anomoly, in part, led to? (hint: it starts with a "Q"). Scientists, by and large, have learned to recognize anomolies as potential tips of iceburgs in a sea of expected results.

Anyway, it seems you're backing off the point entirely...

I wouldn't trust the dates even if they DID yield consistent results...

It seems you're now saying this argument was a complete red herring from the start: that despite sound, precise, reproducible, and consistent measurments of the age of the objects in question, the measurements are still fundamentally flawed.

Begging the question: Why the red herring to start with? Is it the lack of any other ground from which you can hope to reject the conclusions of radiometric dating?

 

[Morat]

  Just a note: The lack of anomolies is often a good reason to give the data a second look. Too perfect data can be a sign someone has been forcing the issue. Instrument errors, operator errors, less-than-perfect samples...you should have some error rate. If you plot your data and get a perfect fit, it's time to doublecheck your tools.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
So your "suspicion" is that scientists lie about the data. Is that right?

Did you forget to take your medication today?

My suspicion is that they toss out what they consider to be anomalous dates, and in some cases do not consider it necessary to report them because they are "anomalous". And when they DO report them, that doesn't mean the anomalous dates go into the publication of the results. Anything more that you want to read into that is from your own head, not mine.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader
What makes the sarcasm funny is that it is true. You're not seriously trying to claim that your objections have nothing to do with what you believe the age of the earth to be, are you? Since you do believe that the age of the earth is young, then the only way to get the numbers that they did was to throwing out 99%+ of the values that they measured.

You're changing the subject now. This had nothing to do with a young or old earth. The article aimed to demonstrate that different dating methods ARE concordant, and failed to address the issue of anomalous dates. As I said much earlier, the methodology produces the concordance, not the actual evidence. If you pick the dates that are close to what you expect, then of course the dates will agree. How could they NOT agree? And this has nothing to do with a young or old earth.

 

[choccy]

My suspicion is that they toss out what they consider to be anomalous dates, and in some cases do not consider it necessary to report them because they are "anomalous". And when they DO report them, that doesn't mean the anomalous dates go into the publication of the results. Anything more that you want to read into that is from your own head, not mine.

So you're claiming they toss out the dates they don't like, don't report that they tossed them out, and then claim that their results are all consistent. How is that not lying?

Choccy

 

[Morat]

  Once again, Nick: Why do you consider 0.0001% of dates (the anomolous ones, often easily shown to be the result of one problem or another) to be so important, but not the 99.9999% of good ones?

   What sort of weird world do you live in where you treat outliers as more important and telling than the vast majority of the sample?

  

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Baloo42
Joe has done a series of tests AND DID NOT GET A SINGLE ANOMOLOUS RESULT

How wonderful. Now, did Joe do the tests attributed to all the other people? Did he also do the tests in the 1950s? Was he doing these tests under aliases, which explains why there are other names in that column?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by choccy


So you're claiming they toss out the dates they don't like, don't report that they tossed them out, and then claim that their results are all consistent. How is that not lying?

Thank you Choccy. I was beginning to think that maybe I needed to be on medication.

 

[Morat]

  What sort of bizarro world do you live in, Nick? According to your weird and twisted view of statistics, if I compiled the date of birth and death for everyone born in the 1850, and calculated a lifespan of 52.3 years, you'd point to someone who died of crib death and use that as "proof" no one lived past the age of 10!

 

 

[blader]

You're changing the subject now. This had nothing to do with a young or old earth. The article aimed to demonstrate that different dating methods ARE concordant, and failed to address the issue of anomalous dates. As I said much earlier, the methodology produces the concordance, not the actual evidence. If you pick the dates that are close to what you expect, then of course the dates will agree. How could they NOT agree? And this has nothing to do with a young or old earth.

You are the one that's trying to change the subject. The study in question measuring is the age of the earth, so it has every thing to do with it. You are making the claim that the only reason why the dates agree so well is because the scientists ignore the anomalous results, and not because the age of the earth is actually close to 4.5 billion years, correct? You can not seperate your belief in a young earth from this claim. This claim, combined with your devout belief, means that you think the scientists threw out 99%+ of the supposed "accurate" dates, and kept only the EXTREME outliers of 4.5 billion years, to make them agree.

Even assuming you are correct, and that there may be anomalous readings thrown out, the only way that the "real" results can agree with an old earth means that the scientists threw out 99%+ of the "real results."

So, once again, do answer Morat's question:

"Once again, Nick: Why do you consider 0.0001% of dates (the anomolous ones, often easily shown to be the result of one problem or another) to be so important, but not the 99.9999% of good ones?"

"What sort of weird world do you live in where you treat outliers as more important and telling than the vast majority of the sample?"

 

[Baloo42]

Originally posted by npetreley


How wonderful. Now, did Joe do the tests attributed to all the other people? Did he also do the tests in the 1950s? Was he doing these tests under aliases, which explains why there are other names in that column?

Historically, stories abound of criminals trying to avoid search parties by distracting the search party dogs (hot on their trails) with attractive scents. One of the more effective and widely known scents was that of fish. Specifically, stories exist of criminals using peppered herrings, which have a smell attractive to dogs and a distinct red shade, to fool dog-led search parties. Though the "red peppered-herring" method dropped in popularity as dogs became better trained and the method less effective, it served as an extremely fitting analogy in the realm of formal and informal debating. And thus the phrase "red herring" has come to refer to the last ditch efforts of a debator who, soundly defeated and without hope of winning on the main issue, hopes to sidebar the main issue altogether, and distract onlookers (and perhaps even opponents) from the fact that he has been handed his rear-end on the fundamental issue(s) of the debate.

Oops! I swear, sometimes I just lose track of myself... sorry! Now, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, that's right! Nick was about to explain why, given that ANY valid scientific method of measurement is EXPECTED to have a certain number of errors, HOW DOES IT FOLLOW that IF radiometric dating yields even ONE SINGLE ERROR, it is not a valid scientific method of measurment.

 

[JGMEERT]

Another question might be. Suppose that the majority of results were anomalous and that old ages were produced only .1% of the time and 99% yielded young earth ages. Suppose that the grand conspiracy that Nick has created was breached by some young upstart and he proclaimed that radiometric dating actually shows the earth to be 6000 years old. Nick has admitted that he would not trust those ages either. This entire argument has nothing to do with how ages are produced, how radiometric dating proceeds or anything to do with the science. It's about calling the integrity of scientists into question in the hope that this will win points with the readers of the page. What an odd approach to take from a Christian perspective.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by choccy
So you're claiming they toss out the dates they don't like, don't report that they tossed them out, and then claim that their results are all consistent. How is that not lying?

No, that's not what I'm claiming at all. I'm claiming that they toss out the dates they consider to be anomalous, and because these "anomalous" dates are unreported at one or another step in the process, only the "correct" dates are published. Then someone like Meert collects that data along with some of his own, and presents it as evidence that the various methods are concordant. The people who did the tests aren't lying at all. They're simply reporting what they feel are accurate results.

I can see how you might conclude that Joe Meert is lying, however, or at least being deceptive (although whether or not it is intentional is another question).

Let's give his table the benefit of the doubt and assume that ALL of the dates he presented in his table represent ALL of the data that was collected for ALL of the samples collected to get the dates for that table. Let's assume that nobody -- not even the people who did the tests in the 1950s -- got any other results than what you see in that table, and there isn't even the possibility that there's an unreported data point.

So what? Plenty of people have used EXACTLY the same radiometric dating techniques represented in this table and have gotten plenty of "anomalous" dates that disagree with the dates in his table. So what exactly has Meert proven? That if you collect a bunch of dates that agree and put them in a table, they willl all agree. He could have just said that and it would have saved him a lot of trouble.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
  What sort of bizarro world do you live in, Nick? According to your weird and twisted view of statistics, if I compiled the date of birth and death for everyone born in the 1850, and calculated a lifespan of 52.3 years, you'd point to someone who died of crib death and use that as "proof" no one lived past the age of 10!

That's the worst analogy I've ever read. At issue here is whether or not your differring techniques produce results that agree, and are therefore whether or not the results are likely to be reliable.

 

[Morat]

  And the answer is rather obviously "Yes, yes they do". We had a geologist pop up and attest to it himself, and point to a large database of such.

  Then you start nattering about them "throwing out dates". Well, let's grant you a big assumption. Let's say they do throw out dates. 1% of them are outliers. Now, roughly half would be older and half younger then the mean. Let's say (as is mostly the case) that 90% of those dates can be resolved as instrument or sample problems (like excess argon).

  You are now left with 0.1% of all radiometric dates don't agree to a given age.

   That's a better margin of error than most of the parts in my car, Nick. If 99.9% of radiometric dates agree to a given age, why on earth would you take the 0.1% over the 99.9%?

 

   (Actually, it's worse. Outliers go both ways. It'd be roughly 0.05%, and most of those would be within a few standard deviations. To get "Young Earth" type dates would place it way out there....a much tinier percentage).