Isometric dating: Recipe for fudge

[npetreley]

I said...

In other words, the complaint was that if they had simply told the lab which dates were correct, the lab would have returned correct dates.

and...

The article says that the results were skewed because the proper way to get "accurate" results from dating methods is to tell the lab the target to shoot for so it can discard "anomalies."

You said...

The article in question does not make that claim in any way whatsoever.

The article says...

Austin and Snelling ... never gave individuals at Geochron expected ages or locations for the samples. Because Geochron personnel had no way of knowing the origins and ages of the anonymous samples, they could not have known which dates were reasonable and which were not.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You said:

The article says that the results were skewed because the proper way to get "accurate" results from dating methods is to tell the lab the target to shoot for so it can discard "anomalies."

Which does NOT (as you already know) follow from what the web-site said:

Austin and Snelling ... never gave individuals at Geochron expected ages or locations for the samples. Because Geochron personnel had no way of knowing the origins and ages of the anonymous samples, they could not have known which dates were reasonable and which were not.

because the web-site never makes ANY indication that an estimation of age is required in order to give correct results: only that no estimation of age was given whereby the lab COULD have fudged their data, therefore the fact that the data still does not represent a random "pool" from which "fudging" that you and John Woodmorappe believe takes place, is evidence AGAINST that consipacy theory, but it WOULDN'T BE if Austin HAD submitted a "TARGET" date. But he DIDN'T so the evidence that there is no random pool from which to select dates is STRONG.

FURTHER as LFOD pointed out, occasionally estimations ARE provided to laboratories, but NOT so that data that disagrees with prior expectations can be thrown out.

If you pretend not to understand after this, then there is only one conclusion to draw.

 

[npetreley]

Austin and Snelling ... never gave individuals at Geochron expected ages or locations for the samples. Because Geochron personnel had no way of knowing the origins and ages of the anonymous samples, they could not have known which dates were reasonable and which were not.

Those dates which are "reasonable" are the ones that match the expected dates. Those dates which are "not reasonable" are those that do not match the expected dates.

So if you simply tell the lab which dates are correct, the lab will return the correct dates.

You can't get much more clear than that.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Those dates which are "reasonable" are the ones that match the expected dates. Those dates which are "not reasonable" are those that do not match the expected dates.

So if you simply tell the lab which dates are correct, the lab will return the correct dates.

You can't get much more clear than that.

Yes, that is the hypothesis that the authors were falsifying, as I explained:

because the web-site never makes ANY indication that an estimation of age is required in order to give correct results: only that no estimation of age was given whereby the lab COULD have fudged their data, therefore the fact that the data still does not represent a random "pool" from which "fudging" that you and John Woodmorappe believe takes place, is evidence AGAINST that consipacy theory, but it WOULDN'T BE if Austin HAD submitted a "TARGET" date. But he DIDN'T so the evidence that there is no random pool from which to select dates is STRONG.

FURTHER as LFOD pointed out, occasionally estimations ARE provided to laboratories, but NOT so that data that disagrees with prior expectations can be thrown out.

If you pretend not to understand after this, then there is only one conclusion to draw.

Your continued insistence can only mean one or two things

 

[LouisBooth]

"He should have used Ar/Ar dating because his sample called for it. Hell, if Ar/Ar dating was cheap, everyone would use it instead of K/Ar, because it doesn't suffer from the same limitations. "

So now you think there is a price tag on truth? ..Interesting...

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
So if you simply tell the lab which dates are correct, the lab will return the correct dates.

This sounds like a great hypothesis for some creationist to test. 

Why hasn't the ICR, with all their funding, done this already and exposed the whole thing as a sham?

 

 

[LouisBooth]

live, I do believe you will find several articles talking about some of the flaws in testing on that site.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


This sounds like a great hypothesis for some creationist to test. 

Why hasn't the ICR, with all their funding, done this already and exposed the whole thing as a sham?

 

I reckin thar skeered ta.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
live, I do believe you will find several articles talking about some of the flaws in testing on that site.

Louis, he probably would. He won't find this test, though, because if they have done it, they have found out that it doesn't bear out their hypothesis & so haven't posted the results. The other "flaws" they discuss most likely have more to do with intentional flaws in methodology that are easily avoided by real scientists than they do with the dating methods themselves. If you read the article that started this thread, you may see what I am talking about.

 

[LouisBooth]

If you say so Jerry. Have you read all the articles there or are you just speculating?

 

[LouisBooth]

Oh..jerry, I am in no way trying to be sarcastic in the above post. My appoliges if it seems that way. *clarification*

 

[Jerry Smith]

Louis,

I have not read all of the articles there, but I have read enough to satisfy myself that the ICR web-site isn't a reliable source of information. Honestly, I prefer AIG - they do make some effort to keep their arguments honest and up-to-date. I think that Kurt Wise had a positive influence on some of them. The "dating" arguments that go 'round are fairly old. I have yet to find one with merit: after a while you give up & just assume that any new ones you come across are bogus. If there were a meritorious argument about radiometric dating, surely it would have been found and dissemenated by now, and surely scientists would have corrected what data they could, thrown out what couldn't be corrected, and adjusted their methods accordingly.

The "new" dating arguments tend to be merely a "new" rehash of the old ones, IMHO.

I didn't take you as being sarcastic. I understand & the answer is yes, it is an educated guess that there isn't anything of importance to be learned about radiometric dating from the ICR.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
live, I do believe you will find several articles talking about some of the flaws in testing on that site.

I'm not interested in flaws.  No one denies that isochron dating is imperfect.

I want to see evidence that if you tell the lab what date you expect, that is the date they will give you.

Go to the gravel pit, grab ten random rocks, and send them to Geochron Labs.  Tell them they are all 900Myr old.  See what you get back.  Simple, quick, and radiometric dating is forever discredited if what Nick says is true.

 

[LouisBooth]

okay, so you assume they are all bad..okay...AIG huh? Good for future ref. As far as the sarcasum thing...there is no tone of voice or "body language" on the net..so I wanted to be sure.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
okay, so you assume they are all bad..okay...

Yes.. it's boy-who-cried-wolf syndrome.

 

[LouisBooth]

hmm...funny I would find many that could say the same about the talks site as well as others...if you're using that logic..science is a culpurit too

 

[Jerry Smith]

I disagree.

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way, no science is done on the TO site. It is a science advocacy site, and one designed to defend science against the claims of science-deniers. As such, they do a good job, with a high standard of scholarship and a high standard of honesty. They make mistakes (they are human), and they sometimes even overstate a case on some point (as randman will no doubt point out). Over-all, I have found them very trustworthy and reliable.
If I should be wrong in my opinion of TO, that would be no indictment against science: only against science-advocates.

 

[TheBear]

The true test of any method or model, is results. One could hoot and holler one way or the other, and cunjure up all kinds of logical reasoning. However, positive results and advancements, are the prime goal. To some extreme theory, the scientific community could come up with all kinds of theory and method scams. Money may be the motivation of many, (some say). But, the bottom line would be a disapointed general public, and in the long run, all funding would dry up.

Question: How many positive results and advancements, based on the use of Isometric Dating, are in existance?

John

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

I thought Isometrics was some kind of exercise program.

Is Isometric Dating some kind of singles forum for people who practice isometrics?