13 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't realize you were the world's leading expert on dating methods. 😛
I agree, even a bad theory can and will cause us to move forward
in knowledge as we figure it out. My point about the past which you
have seen me say over and over is that you don't know all there is to
know! You admit our knowledge isn't a 100%, yet you can accept it
as nearly truthful when someone gives a percentage about what they
think is true as t ...[text shortened]... that doesn’t mean
that the date is true; it only means that the test used shows it so.
Kelly
14 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you were talking about only single tests I would agree. However, isochron dating does not suffer the problems that you discuss, it gives an absolute date, with a margin of error.
I agree, even a bad theory can and will cause us to move forward
in knowledge as we figure it out. My point about the past which you
have seen me say over and over is that you don't know all there is to
know! You admit our knowledge isn't a 100%, yet you can accept it
as nearly truthful when someone gives a percentage about what they
think is true as t ...[text shortened]... that doesn’t mean
that the date is true; it only means that the test used shows it so.
Kelly
14 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, if you do not have all the variables in play, you do not have the
If you were talking about only single tests I would agree. However, isochron dating does not suffer the problems that you discuss, it gives an absolute date, with a margin of error.
ability to tell me what the margin of error is.
Kelly
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't realise you were an expert on radiometric dating now?
No, if you do not have all the variables in play, you do not have the
ability to tell me what the margin of error is.
Kelly
Stop trying to throw dust in people's eyes when you have NOTHING. I'm STILL waiting on your rebuttal of the Zhang (2002) paper. It's been about a year, that should have given you plenty of time.
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou do not have to be an expert to know that if you do not know
I didn't realise you were an expert on radiometric dating now?
Stop trying to throw dust in people's eyes when you have NOTHING. I'm STILL waiting on your rebuttal of the Zhang (2002) paper. It's been about a year, that should have given you plenty of time.
all that can alter your outcomes, you cannot predict with any
certainty what your outcomes will be. To suggest that is the case
minimizes this truth, and makes it more about personalities than
the conditions we are discussing.
Kelly
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is why we use multiple independant methods. Methods which, whilst relying on different assumptions, still give the same result. The chances of that happenning by random chance are thousands of billions to one. You STILL have not given any real reason to have any doubts about radiometric dating, or about science in general.
You do not have to be an expert to know that if you do not know
all that can alter your outcomes, you cannot predict with any
certainty what your outcomes will be. To suggest that is the case
minimizes this truth, and makes it more about personalities than
the conditions we are discussing.
Kelly
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAll you do is talk, talk, talk with zero credibility. Probability deals with EXACTLY what you are bitching about, not knowing everything about and outcome, which MAXIMIZES the truth and makes it MUCH less about personalities than the conditions under discussion. See, I can obfusacate with you all day long.
You do not have to be an expert to know that if you do not know
all that can alter your outcomes, you cannot predict with any
certainty what your outcomes will be. To suggest that is the case
minimizes this truth, and makes it more about personalities than
the conditions we are discussing.
Kelly
15 Jun 08
Kelly,
Do you understand how radiometric dating works?
If so, I would be interested to see a short summery paragraph outlining the basis of how it works and why you think it is not reliable.
You ignored my previous request to explain what you know about Relativity, (made weeks ago, I cant remember in which thread) but radiometric dating is much simpler.
I am genuinely interested to see what you know on the subject.
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by MattPBeen out for a while, traveling in Mexico. Couldn't help but notice this shining example of KJ's astounding ability to comment on something he has little if any comprehension ofo. If your wondering, KJ knows little if anything about RM dating. However is capable of believing everything he reads which confirms what his preexsisting beliefs, furthermore he has an amazing ability to disregard actual facts if this literature has given him some nonsense reason that sounds logical if you dont read to deeply into it. As far as I can gather, he has never studied geology, physics or chemistry. One of which is necessary to understand the basics of the various RM dating systems, furthermore. To understand with enough competence to comment on the error margins, and variables invloved, one needs to have been studing many data sets for a long long time. My thesis was on U/Pb and K/Ar/Ar system.
Kelly,
Do you understand how radiometric dating works?
If so, I would be interested to see a short summery paragraph outlining the basis of how it works and why you think it is not reliable.
You ignored my previous request to explain what you know about Relativity, (made weeks ago, I cant remember in which thread) but radiometric dating is much simpler.
I am genuinely interested to see what you know on the subject.
16 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ you are right to a very small yet inappropriate degree.
You do not have to be an expert to know that if you do not know
all that can alter your outcomes, you cannot predict with any
certainty what your outcomes will be. To suggest that is the case
minimizes this truth, and makes it more about personalities than
the conditions we are discussing.
Kelly
I agree it is impossible to predict with any certainty, IF you have limited information and IF this is the first time you are making a prediction with regards to your hypothesis. This is obviously a shot in the dark.......
However, the predictions of the various radiometric dating systems are based on lots of knowledge and the predictions have been tried and testing many many times from many independent sources, additionally backed up by other dating systems and geological principles, for a number of years.
If an appropriate system is selected then the dating systems are accurate......... no anomolies have been found.
(i.e Don't use carbon dating for anything above ~50,000 years - if you have some knowledge surrounding "half lifes" you will know why)
Edit: Also you have to ensure the sample you are dating is not contaminated, otherwise you may be dating something you are not intending to date.
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by timebombtedPrediction: He will take that last statement and run with it, 'See, you KNOW there are weaknesses in the system so the whole thing is worthless'.
KJ you are right to a very small yet inappropriate degree.
I agree it is impossible to predict with any certainty, IF you have limited information and IF this is the first time you are making a prediction with regards to your hypothesis. This is obviously a shot in the dark.......
However, the predictions of the various radiometric dating systems a ...[text shortened]... ing is not contaminated, otherwise you may be dating something you are not intending to date.
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by MexicoThen from his POV, you are on of the enemy and as such, totally bought off and will proglimate whatever untruth your employers force you to foist on an unsuspecting world....
Been out for a while, traveling in Mexico. Couldn't help but notice this shining example of KJ's astounding ability to comment on something he has little if any comprehension ofo. If your wondering, KJ knows little if anything about RM dating. However is capable of believing everything he reads which confirms what his preexsisting beliefs, furthermore he has ...[text shortened]... ve been studing many data sets for a long long time. My thesis was on U/Pb and K/Ar/Ar system.
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by sonhouseThen I shoot him down with something along the lines of, "Oh yeah, so how come we see such good correspondence between independent samples taken from differing locations by different people and subject to different tests? What's more likely, that all the samples were independantly contaminated by exactly the same amount of exactly the same material, or that the measurements might correspond because that really is the age of the sample??"
Prediction: He will take that last statement and run with it, 'See, you KNOW there are weaknesses in the system so the whole thing is worthless'.
Just a prediction, mind you.
16 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIf scientists did not consider contamination there would be some weight in that argument (if raised), but its a known area where problems could arise so processes are put in place to avoid this scenario......
Prediction: He will take that last statement and run with it, 'See, you KNOW there are weaknesses in the system so the whole thing is worthless'.
Contamination is something scientists are aware of in many areas of science, often controls are used to test for contamination....... if contamination is found then results are ignored. Well they certainly are if i find contamination when doing PCR's for example.
Edit: Knowing the weaknesses etc are a good thing