ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ Nov. 06 2006,11:45) | I made quite clear which part of the dating methodology I objected to ...
"Calibrating" RM dating results with fossils.
Translation: Rejecting results which do not agree with the accepted, fossil determined dates of the strata and accepting only those dates that DO agree. |
Dave, you have absolutely no idea why specific RM results were kept, and why others were discarded. You're assuming it was due to making them concordant with expectations from the fossil record, but that assumption founders on the shoals of different expectations from different paleoanthropologists as to what exactly those dates should be.
It is far more reasonable to suppose that dates which were discarded were discarded for reasons that had nothing to do with the expected ages of fossils. Those reasons could be known errors in methodologies, mistakes in experimental techniques, etc. Since those results have been subjected to peer review, it is your burden to show that results were rejected on arbitrary grounds, and you cannot carry that burden.
In other words, you don't have any evidence as to why particular dates were accepted and others were rejected. Once again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. You think the expected dates for fossils were used to "calibrate" the ages of coeval minerals, but you don't have the tiniest speck of evidence to support such a belief.
After all this time, Dave, you still have a pretty murky understanding of what the word "evidence" really means.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
