Isometric dating: Recipe for fudge

If one could assume that these labs always return ALL RESULTS, then this section would not have been necessary.

Click to expand...

The section was necessary to counter the creationist claim that not all resluts are returned.

Is Woodmorappe's claim falsified by the article or not?

Choccy

That's not what it says and you know it. It says that because Austin etc. didn't tell GEOCHRON the ages of the samples, GEOCHRON wouldn't have known which dates are "unreasonable." Why would that matter if the lab wouldn't have discarded these results as anomalies? If one could assume that these labs always return ALL RESULTS, then this section would not have been necessary.

Click to expand...

  So your whole problem with this is that the author was being meticulous, and covering all his bases?

  You're proof of his need to make the statement right here.

   You're claiming the lab doesn't return "bad" results. Right now. And yet you're somehow upset that the author felt you were predictable enough to head off that "objection" at the pass.

 

If one could assume that these labs always return ALL RESULTS, then this section would not have been necessary.

Click to expand...

John Woodmorappe doesn't assume that the labs always return all results: therefore this section was necessary.

If you are truly curious about the various labs' policies on which results they return under what circumstances, and what the rational for withholding some results (if it is done under some circumstances) is, why not try to find out?

Ask a geologist who works with the labs. There are probably even one or two creationists working in the oil industry who have to work with the radiometric dating labs.

Go to the labs' web-site ( http://www.geochronlabs.com/ ), click the "contact us" button and ask them about their policies for identifying and reporting anomalous data.

Do a test like LFOD suggested. Find some random rocks from different strata, tell the lab you want a 3my date on all of them, and see what results they return. Compare results to the estimated "real" age of the strata from which you pulled the rocks.

A gazillion ways to accomplish your purpose, other than twisting the words of someone else's article to suit your purpose.

The creationist claim? What creationist claim?

Click to expand...

How about your's in your first post in this thread:

He says this is reasonable, but this is actually tantamount to handing samples to the lab and saying, "These samples should be about 700 million years old." The lab tests one sample. "500 million years old. That's a bad one, toss it out. 1 billion years old. Bad one, toss it out. 710 million years old. Good one. Ok, here are your results. The samples are 710 million years old."

Click to expand...

Or Woody's claim that the article is a response too?

Or pretty much every YEC I've ever discussed with.

As has been explained, the point of the article was to show that radiometric dating does not yield random results. He could have used dates obtained by real scientists to show that, but the obvious reply from every creationists ever born would be that the test was useless because the bad results were already thrown out by the lab, which is the common creationist claim when it comes to radiometric dating. Therefore he used results obtained by creationists and went to great lengths to explain to even the slow ones that there was no way the results could have been fudged by the lab, because they had no idea what the actual date was. That should be proof enough that all the results were returned and none discarded. Then he goes on to show that the results obtained are not random, and therefore Woody's claim is false. it's as simple as that.

The article did a decent job of pointing out that the dates weren't random, although a margin of error of 400 million years is pretty funny, IMO. As I said in an earlier post, I'd love to see someone apply that to our current assumptions. "The dinosaurs went extinct 64 million years ago -- give or take 200 million years."

Click to expand...

As undoubtedly you and everyone else know, it's the relative error that matters, not the absolute. The results were 780+/-204 million years. That's a margin of error of 26%. Not all that good, but considering the flaws in the methods used, what can you expect? Applied to your example that would be: "The dinosaurs went exticnt 64 million years ago - give our take 16 million years." And I don't need your money to go buy myself a sense of humour.

But I said in my original post that the article had some good info in it. The fact that it wasn't truly random data wasn't the issue I was addressing.

Click to expand...

But that was the issue the article was addressing. Why did you choose that article if you wanted to address a completely different issue?

Choccy

  I think anyone that read the article you pulled the quote from has a really good idea who is "dense".

 

A claim that isometric dates are totally random? Where did you find that in my post?

Click to expand...

Nope, here's what I said:

The section was necessary to counter the creationist claim that not all resluts are returned.

Click to expand...

Here's what you said in your first post:

He says this is reasonable, but this is actually tantamount to handing samples to the lab and saying, "These samples should be about 700 million years old." The lab tests one sample. "500 million years old. That's a bad one, toss it out. 1 billion years old. Bad one, toss it out. 710 million years old. Good one. Ok, here are your results. The samples are 710 million years old."

Click to expand...

Seems to me you're claiming that not all results are returned, but please enligthen me if I'm wrong.

Because it contained the admission I was talking about. Are you really that dense, or are you simply trying to wear me out?

Click to expand...

What admission? That all the results for the now infamous test were returned? That's the only admission in the article as far as I can see. Or is the fact that the author bothered to point out that all results were returned and none of them fudged enough for you to conclude that the common practice in radiometric dating is to throw out all anomalous results? Pretty poor evidence if you ask me.

Choccy