Radioactive dating

[dad]

Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I "should" do. In fact, when you say science only has fables, you are bearing false witness, because science uses evidence.

Not for the models of creation or the future. They use only religion.

You always say that science cannot trust the evidence they trust,

Nope. I say they molest evidence with godless beliefs.

Now, perhaps you could answer this question: 'how could the bible be wrong when it says Christ created all things, without exception'?

 

[Zosimus]

Well by that argument you must let the criminal free from jail, because any assertion that his fingerprints were found at the scene must overcome the argument that we cannot know there is no other way to make those fingerprints . . . therefore we must not convict him.

I think you are making a great leap of faith here. Even experts cannot say that the defendant's fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. Fingerprints are invariably smudged and experts usually use a point system to determine a certain number of coinciding features. However, there are no universal standards of matching points.. "...the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen."

We need look no further than the case of Brandon Mayfield who was arrested for terrorism because "A federal judge signed the material witness warrant authorizing Mayfield’s arrest based on a supporting affidavit by FBI agent Richard K. Werder. The affidavit’s lynchpin was the allegation that senior FBI fingerprint examiner Terry Green identified 'in excess of 15 points of identification during his comparison' of Mayfield’s prints on file with the Army and the FBI, and a 'photograph image' of a print recovered from a plastic bag containing several detonators found in a stolen van near where three of the bombed trains departed. 3 The affidavit further alleges that the fingerprint identification was verified by an FBI fingerprint supervisor and a retired FBI fingerprint examiner with 30 years of experience on contract with the lab’s Latent Fingerprint Section."
-----------------------
It sure sounded bad for Brandon. However, he was later exonerated. In fact, he had never travelled to Spain. What was the problem? Why did fingerprint evidence pick him up? I quote:

"How can fingerprint analysis be so unreliable that three FBI experts and an independent analyst could mistake the print of a mild-mannered family man with an expired passport who has never been to Spain, for that of an international terrorist? The answer lies in understanding the foundation of fingerprint theory rests on three assumptions - two that are scientifically unproven and one that has been empirically disproven....

"The third assumption – that fingerprint examiners have the skill to infallibly determine [whether] print samples from different sources originated from the same person – has been empirically disproven. The many people falsely implicated in a crime by an erroneous fingerprint ID is consistent with proficiency tests over the past several decades that have resulted in failure rates by experienced examiners of over 50%. That lack of expertise is predictable considering fingerprint analysis is an artful technique that depends on a human interpreter’s subjective evaluation. In 1892, Francis Galton, one of the fathers of fingerprinting, was honest enough to write, “A complex pattern [such as fingerprints] is capable of suggesting various readings, as the figuring on a wallpaper may suggest a variety of forms and faces to those who have such fancies.” 23 One hundred and ten years later Scotland’s Justice Minister echoed Galton’s assessment by acknowledging fingerprinting “was not an exact science.” That observation was in response to the August 2002 reversal of David Asbury’s murder conviction when fingerprint evidence used against him was discredited. The FBI is disingenuous by claiming fingerprinting is scientific, while acknowledging its lab’s dependence on subjective fingerprint examination techniques. The agency claims reliance on “human experience” and intuition rather than a rigorous process results in a more accurate analysis."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not for the models of creation or the future. They use only religion.
Nope. I say they molest evidence with godless beliefs.

Mere assertion without reasons for the assertion.

Now, perhaps you could answer this question: 'how could the bible be wrong when it says Christ created all things, without exception'?

You'd have to ask someone who thinks the Bible is wrong about that, to answer the question, and that would not be me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think you are making a great leap of faith here. Even experts cannot say that the defendant's fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. Fingerprints are invariably smudged and experts usually use a point system to determine a certain number of coinciding features. However, there are no universal standards of matching points.. "...the FBI has stated that there should be no minimum standard and that the determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner. The same is applied in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, other countries have set standards. For example, Australia has a minimum standard of twelve matching ridge characteristics whereas France and Italy have sixteen."

We need look no further than the case of Brandon Mayfield who was arrested for terrorism because "A federal judge signed the material witness warrant authorizing Mayfield’s arrest based on a supporting affidavit by FBI agent Richard K. Werder. The affidavit’s lynchpin was the allegation that senior FBI fingerprint examiner Terry Green identified 'in excess of 15 points of identification during his comparison' of Mayfield’s prints on file with the Army and the FBI, and a 'photograph image' of a print recovered from a plastic bag containing several detonators found in a stolen van near where three of the bombed trains departed. 3 The affidavit further alleges that the fingerprint identification was verified by an FBI fingerprint supervisor and a retired FBI fingerprint examiner with 30 years of experience on contract with the lab’s Latent Fingerprint Section."
-----------------------
It sure sounded bad for Brandon. However, he was later exonerated. In fact, he had never travelled to Spain. What was the problem? Why did fingerprint evidence pick him up? I quote:

"How can fingerprint analysis be so unreliable that three FBI experts and an independent analyst could mistake the print of a mild-mannered family man with an expired passport who has never been to Spain, for that of an international terrorist? The answer lies in understanding the foundation of fingerprint theory rests on three assumptions - two that are scientifically unproven and one that has been empirically disproven....

"The third assumption – that fingerprint examiners have the skill to infallibly determine [whether] print samples from different sources originated from the same person – has been empirically disproven. The many people falsely implicated in a crime by an erroneous fingerprint ID is consistent with proficiency tests over the past several decades that have resulted in failure rates by experienced examiners of over 50%. That lack of expertise is predictable considering fingerprint analysis is an artful technique that depends on a human interpreter’s subjective evaluation. In 1892, Francis Galton, one of the fathers of fingerprinting, was honest enough to write, “A complex pattern [such as fingerprints] is capable of suggesting various readings, as the figuring on a wallpaper may suggest a variety of forms and faces to those who have such fancies.” 23 One hundred and ten years later Scotland’s Justice Minister echoed Galton’s assessment by acknowledging fingerprinting “was not an exact science.” That observation was in response to the August 2002 reversal of David Asbury’s murder conviction when fingerprint evidence used against him was discredited. The FBI is disingenuous by claiming fingerprinting is scientific, while acknowledging its lab’s dependence on subjective fingerprint examination techniques. The agency claims reliance on “human experience” and intuition rather than a rigorous process results in a more accurate analysis."

Well I take such comments as indicating fingerprint evidence can be wrongly interpreted at times, but I also happen to think fingerprint evidence can be correctly interpreted at times. You don't intend to say fingerprint evidence can never be used, do you?

 

[Zosimus]

Well I take such comments as indicating fingerprint evidence can be wrongly interpreted at times, but I also happen to think fingerprint evidence can be correctly interpreted at times. You don't intend to say fingerprint evidence can never be used, do you?

If you can answer this one question, or link me to any study anywhere that can even kind of hint at an answer of any kind, then I'll accept that fingerprint evidence should be used in court.

Situation:

A crime is committed and a smudged fingerprint is found. It is found to have 7 points of coincidence with the prints of the guy who lives next door.

In a city the size of Los Angeles, how many people are there whose fingerprints would also have 7 points of coincidence?

1?
10?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
100,000?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If you can answer this one question, or link me to any study anywhere that can even kind of hint at an answer of any kind, then I'll accept that fingerprint evidence should be used in court.

Situation:

A crime is committed and a smudged fingerprint is found. It is found to have 7 points of coincidence with the prints of the guy who lives next door.

In a city the size of Los Angeles, how many people are there whose fingerprints would also have 7 points of coincidence?

1?
10?
100?
1,000?
10,000?
100,000?

I don't know enough about fingerprints to answer that question.

 

[Zosimus]

I don't know enough about fingerprints to answer that question.

Well, let me show you the article that kind of answers the question.

"Although it is known that different individuals can share certain ridge characteristics, the chance of two individuals sharing any given number of identifying characteristics is not known. How likely is it that two people could have four points of resemblance, or five, or eight? Are the odds of two partial prints from different people matching one in a thousand, one in a hundred thousand, or one in a billion? No fingerprint examiner can honestly answer such questions, even though the answers are critical to evaluating the probative value of the evidence of a match. Moreover, with the partial, potentially smudged fingerprints typical of forensic identification, the chance that two prints will appear to share similar characteristics remains equally uncertain....

"So what’s the bottom line: Is fingerprinting reliable or isn’t it? The point is that we cannot answer that question on the basis of what is presently known, except to say that its reliability is surprisingly untested. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that the pursuit of meaningful proficiency tests that actually challenge examiners with difficult identifications, more sophisticated efforts to develop a sound statistical basis for fingerprinting, and additional empirical study will combine to reveal that latent fingerprinting is indeed a reliable identification method. But until this careful study is done, we ought, at a minimum, to treat fingerprint identification with greater skepticism, for the gold standard could turn out to be tarnished brass."

 

[dad]

You'd have to ask someone who thinks the Bible is wrong about that, to answer the question, and that would not be me.

So the bible was right that Jesus created the universe. OK. You think that is right. OK. He spoke it into existence right?

 

[[serious]]

Well, let me show you the article that kind of answers the question.

"Although it is known that different individuals can share certain ridge characteristics, the chance of two individuals sharing any given number of identifying characteristics is not known. How likely is it that two people could have four points of resemblance, or five, or eight? Are the odds of two partial prints from different people matching one in a thousand, one in a hundred thousand, or one in a billion? No fingerprint examiner can honestly answer such questions, even though the answers are critical to evaluating the probative value of the evidence of a match. Moreover, with the partial, potentially smudged fingerprints typical of forensic identification, the chance that two prints will appear to share similar characteristics remains equally uncertain....

"So what’s the bottom line: Is fingerprinting reliable or isn’t it? The point is that we cannot answer that question on the basis of what is presently known, except to say that its reliability is surprisingly untested. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that the pursuit of meaningful proficiency tests that actually challenge examiners with difficult identifications, more sophisticated efforts to develop a sound statistical basis for fingerprinting, and additional empirical study will combine to reveal that latent fingerprinting is indeed a reliable identification method. But until this careful study is done, we ought, at a minimum, to treat fingerprint identification with greater skepticism, for the gold standard could turn out to be tarnished brass."

The question is a bit broader though. Can any crime ever be prosecuted lacking an eye witness or video recording? Is there anything that we can use by which we can infer events in the past? That is the question the OP is raising. One individual method of identification may add only a small degree of confidence, but can the totality of evidence be sufficient?

 

[Zosimus]

The question is a bit broader though. Can any crime ever be prosecuted lacking an eye witness or video recording? Is there anything that we can use by which we can infer events in the past? That is the question the OP is raising. One individual method of identification may add only a small degree of confidence, but can the totality of evidence be sufficient?

Personally, I think the whole topic shows the real point of science. Six, seven, eight, 12, 16 points of coincidence. What does it really mean? No one can be certain.

HOWEVER...

...when you find a fingerprint that doesn't match the suspect, then that is something. Fingerprints on the gun that definitely do not match with John's fingerprints–that's something because it makes for a valid modus tollens argument.

If John fired the gun, his fingerprints will be on the gun.
Someone else's fingerprints are on the gun.
Therefore, John didn't fire the gun!

The possession of fingerprints ajenas makes a powerful argument in favor of John's innocence whereas smudged fingerprints with a certain number of coincidences do not make a powerful argument either way.

 

[[serious]]

Personally, I think the whole topic shows the real point of science. Six, seven, eight, 12, 16 points of coincidence. What does it really mean? No one can be certain.

HOWEVER...

...when you find a fingerprint that doesn't match the suspect, then that is something. Fingerprints on the gun that definitely do not match with John's fingerprints–that's something because it makes for a valid modus tollens argument.

If John fired the gun, his fingerprints will be on the gun.
Someone else's fingerprints are on the gun.
Therefore, John didn't fire the gun!

The possession of fingerprints ajenas makes a powerful argument in favor of John's innocence whereas smudged fingerprints with a certain number of coincidences do not make a powerful argument either way.

There are any number of reasons his fingerprints might not be on the gun though. He could have worn gloves, he could have wiped them off, etc.

A better analogy would be DNA. If the murderer left DNA evidence at the scene, maybe due to a struggle, and John's DNA wasn't a match, that would tend to clear him.

I agree with what I think your broader point is though. At it's purest, evidence can only disprove a theory, never conclusively prove it. Just as in criminal cases we thus talk about something being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so to in science we talk about theories being well supported rather than absolutely proven.

 

[dad]

Is there anything that we can use by which we can infer events in the past? That is the question the OP is raising.

One simply would need to know that the laws were the same. That would mean we had remains that we could read right. As it is, there are no human remains in the Cambrian that were preserved. Of course man was here since the getgo.

 

[[serious]]

One simply would need to know that the laws were the same. That would mean we had remains that we could read right. As it is, there are no human remains in the Cambrian that were preserved. Of course man was here since the getgo.

How does one know that the laws were the same in the recent past? Why would the principles we use to determine that the laws were the same last week not apply to longer time frames? Both are the past after all.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well, let me show you the article that kind of answers the question.

"Although it is known that different individuals can share certain ridge characteristics, the chance of two individuals sharing any given number of identifying characteristics is not known. How likely is it that two people could have four points of resemblance, or five, or eight? Are the odds of two partial prints from different people matching one in a thousand, one in a hundred thousand, or one in a billion? No fingerprint examiner can honestly answer such questions, even though the answers are critical to evaluating the probative value of the evidence of a match. Moreover, with the partial, potentially smudged fingerprints typical of forensic identification, the chance that two prints will appear to share similar characteristics remains equally uncertain....

"So what’s the bottom line: Is fingerprinting reliable or isn’t it? The point is that we cannot answer that question on the basis of what is presently known, except to say that its reliability is surprisingly untested. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that the pursuit of meaningful proficiency tests that actually challenge examiners with difficult identifications, more sophisticated efforts to develop a sound statistical basis for fingerprinting, and additional empirical study will combine to reveal that latent fingerprinting is indeed a reliable identification method. But until this careful study is done, we ought, at a minimum, to treat fingerprint identification with greater skepticism, for the gold standard could turn out to be tarnished brass."

Fingerprint identification is likely more reliable than eyewitness identification.

And in your example of the neighbor . . . how far apart are those other possible matches on the average? If there is a test that rules out 999 out of a thousand, and the neighbor is one not ruled out . . . this definitely makes that neighbor worth another look, don't you think?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

One simply would need to know that the laws were the same. That would mean we had remains that we could read right. As it is, there are no human remains in the Cambrian that were preserved. Of course man was here since the getgo.

Well, if the chemistry of living things was working at the time, then it couldn't have been awfully different. And if the light from other stars seen over millions of light years distant show the same spectrum lines in the elements as spectrum lines around here and now, then it couldn't have been awfully different. And if the decay products that accumulate in rocks over time is the same kind of decay products that accumulate now, then it couldn't have been awfully different.

It would be a very peculiar "different state" that left those kind of evidences around for "same state". We can safely ignore that possibility.

 

[Zosimus]

Fingerprint identification is likely more reliable than eyewitness identification.

Properly administered eyewitness identification is better than 96 percent accurate. The key is the phrase properly administered. That doesn't mean that the police officer knows who the main suspect is and keeps asking you, "Are you sure it isn't #2???" Eyewitness identification suffers from all the same cognitive biases that cause most published research findings to be false, and the solutions are the same.

And in your example of the neighbor . . . how far apart are those other possible matches on the average? If there is a test that rules out 999 out of a thousand, and the neighbor is one not ruled out . . . this definitely makes that neighbor worth another look, don't you think?

If there were studies that indicated that the chances of a false positive were 1 in 100,000 then that would be good. However, without studies that cannot be done. Do you want to convince me that fingerprinting is worthwhile? Do some actual studies, get them published in a peer-reviewed journal, and have the studies reproduced. Until then, you are just defending somebody's gut instinct as it flaps in the wind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Personally, I think the whole topic shows the real point of science. Six, seven, eight, 12, 16 points of coincidence. What does it really mean? No one can be certain.

Then why do you keep asking for the math and p values if you are just going to turn around and ignore them?

 

[Zosimus]

Then why do you keep asking for the math and p values if you are just going to turn around and ignore them?

The argument's over, Loudmouth. Your side lost. You should show up once in awhile if you want to participate.

 

[Loudmouth]

The argument's over, Loudmouth. Your side lost. You should show up once in awhile if you want to participate.

My side won when you decided to ignore the math.

 

[Zosimus]

My side won when you decided to ignore the math.

All right. Educate me on the math. Point me to one randomized study that shows how many people there are in a city the size of Los Angeles who would have 7 points of similarity between their prints and those of smudged prints found at the scene of a crime. Then show me that things have improved since 1995 when 34 percent of fingerprint "experts" could not pass a test to determine whether two fingerprints matched.

If you can overcome those two hurdles then, and only then, will I bother to start debating the subject seriously by mentioning cognitive bias studies.