RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < ... 192 193 194 195 196 [197] 198 199 200 201 202 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,14:42   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 19 2006,14:46)
No, I'm separating America as a political entity from preexisting political entities that share the same geography. I'm not saying that Euro History is more important than non-Euro history, only that it's distinct. You wouldn't conflate the Toltec and Aztec Empires would you? So why confuse tribal nations with America?

No offense, Bill, but it's hard enough to keep this thread on topic with AF Dave wandering all over the place trying to avoid having to support his "UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis." This discussion seems a bit more on-topic on your "Muslim" thread. At least the two are tangentially related.

--------------
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

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,15:36   

Mike PSS-- I would like to know more about the Minster graph of the 23 meteorites.  Does anyone here have free access to the paper so we can see all the data and the complete discussion?  Ditto for Deadman's moon rocks.

One thing I am noting is that we are basing this 4.5 Ga age number on a really small range of data ... the daughter ratios range from about 0.71 to 0.81, which is well within the range of naturally occurring ratios in both young and "old" rocks.

I do understand that this graph has the appearance of a legitimate age but I am not convinced yet.  This is 23 meteorites, true, but how many meteorites have been analyzed?  Maybe several hundred?  Do they fit on this line as well?  If not, why not?  And about these 23 meteorites ... why were they selected?  Were they chosen at random?  From a pool of how many?

As for mixing affecting meteorites, why could it not?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,16:01   

Quote
One thing I am noting is that we are basing this 4.5 Ga age number on a really small range of data ... the daughter ratios range from about 0.71 to 0.81, which is well within the range of naturally occurring ratios in both young and "old" rocks.


Uh, the samples I gave you from Apollo 11 were not enough? That's "too small a sample?" Yet NONE of the data obtained disagrees with it. Nonetheless, he's some more: the oldest dated lunar rocks -- all in billions of years before present:

Apollo 17 Rb-Sr isochron 4.55 +- 0.1
Apollo 17 Rb-Sr isochron 4.60 +- 0.1
Apollo 17 Rb-Sr isochron 4.49
Apollo 17 Rb-Sr isochron 4.43 +- 0.05
Apollo 17 Sm-Nd isochron 4.23 +- 0.05
Apollo 17 Sm-Nd isochron 4.34 +- 0.05
Apollo 16 40Ar/39Ar 4.47
Apollo 16 40Ar/39Ar 4.42

There's lots more than that, too. And look!--
The Earth's Oldest Rocks
(in billions of years)

Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) Rb-Sr isochron 3.70 +- 0.12
Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) 207Pb-206Pb isochron 3.80 +- 0.12
Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) U-Pb discordia 3.65 +- 0.05
Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) Th-Pb discordia 3.65 +- 0.08
Amitsoq gneisses (western Greenland) (zircons) Lu-Hf isochron 3.55 +- 0.22
Sand River gneisses (South Africa) Rb-Sr isochron 3.79 +- 0.06

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,16:37   

I didn't say "small sample" ... read it again and see if you can tell what I really said ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,16:48   

Quote
AFDave, any answers on this data you yourself have held up as evidence of your argument?
Let's be clear.  I am not using the Minster plot as evidence of my argument.  I posted it because Jon and Tracy were complaining about my hypothetical example.  

I then found the Overn article and I am currently in the process of evaluating everything I have learned so far.

I do think this is interesting ...

Google Scholar  All articles  
Recent articles  Results 1 - 10 of about 11,300 for whole rock age.  1981-1990
Recent articles  Results 1 - 10 of about 478 for mineral isochron 1981-1990

So Bill Overn was probably right about 90% of all the isochron "ages" out there being whole rock ... at least at the time he wrote the paper.

Sorry, Jon ... I guess Google Scholar doesn't like you :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,16:58   

If you're not using "range" in the vernacular then you *must*mean the difference between the highest and lowest values, as in stats -- of which set of data?

Or do you see a function there giving you a set of all values?

Or are you just lost?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,17:22   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 19 2006,14:46)
Midnight Voice:

 
Quote
So are you asserting that America does not exist geographically?


No, I'm separating America as a political entity from preexisting political entities that share the same geography. I'm not saying that Euro History is more important than non-Euro history, only that it's distinct. You wouldn't conflate the Toltec and Aztec Empires would you? So why confuse tribal nations with America?

 
Quote
Or are you confusing a racist eurocetric view and reality?


As opposed to a racist Afrocentric view or a racist Oriental view?  :D  :D  :D

Poor liberal.

Hey, Paley, got that geocentric proof yet?

Or that proof that the earth is 6,000 years old?

Or that proof that the stars are just a few thousand miles away?

Nah, didn't think so.  

Poor wingnut.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,17:38   

I probably shouldn't have said that the Amitsoq samples were the "oldest."  The Acasta gneisses in the Canadian Shield near Great Slave Lake are older. Then there's the odd zircon from the Jack Hills in Western Australia, published in Nature...not that I want to talk about that ???

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,17:42   

AFDave,
You yourself stated that we should "...continue our discussion with this real world example."  (quote from right below the Minster graph near the top of your verbose message)

All I want to know is how your interpretation of this data supports your assertion against whole-rock Isochron methods.  And in this vernacular I mean the data showing a linear relation of the data set, not the age determination that is quoted (this age of course being the interpretation of the data by Minster).

You posted the graph and should have a reference somewhere, why ask the audience for further reference, just post a link to where you got the graph. :(

If we get to questions that require further reference then we can query further, but this plot creates a number of anomolies by itself.....
1)  How can whole-rock analysis of 23 independent samples from extra-terrestrial objects create a linear relation that is similar/same in relation to terrestrial plots that follow the same Isochron technique?
2)  Why is there no data points between a Rb/Sr ratio of 1.0 to 1.3?

Mike PSS

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,18:28   

If you want to know about meteorite dating, I suggest you drag your lazy creationist keister to a library and look up a few things:

**Alekeseev V.A. (1996): Uranium-thorium-helium and potassium-argon ages of ordinary chondrites. Sol. Syst. Res. 30, 243-250
**Faure, G. 1977. Principles of isotope geology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 464 pp.
**Murthy, V. R. & C. C. Patterson. 1962. Primary isochron of zero age for meteorites and the earth. Geophys. Res. J. 67: 1161.
**Smoliar M.I.,R.J. Walker,J.W. Morgan (1996): Re-Os Ages of Group IIA, IIIA, IVA, and IVB Iron Meteorites. Science 271, 1099-0
**Shukolyukov A.,Begemann F. (1996): Cosmogenic and fissiogenic noble gases and 81^Kr-Kr exposure age clusters of eucrites.Meteoritics Planet. Sci. 31, 60-72
**York, D. & R. M. Farquhar. 1972. The earth’s age and geochronology. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 178 pp.
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~manga....ites%22 (16 martian meteorites)
The lunar rock sample dates are found in : Head, J. W., III. 1976. Lunar volcanism in space and time. Geophys. Space Phys. Rev. 14: 265-299.

While you're there, you might want to ask yourself why all the radioactive elements we find on earth have half-lives greater than 80 million years...we don't find any with half-lives less than that-- those nuclides decayed themselves out of the picture. Deep Time, baby.

IF the Earth were created a mere 6000 or so years ago...where are the nuclides with a smaller half-life?
Accellerated decay that would melt the Earth?
Or did god create the EARTH with a fake appearance of age, as you claim happened with the stars, AirHead? "God made them look old" isn't science, that is a blind and misguided religious faith. It makes a liar out of God, to boot.
Do "the heavens declare the glory of God..." (Psalm 19) ? Apparently not, since the heavens (according to AirHead) mislead us about the nature and age of God's creation? They appear very old, but are quite young? The heavens declare the deception of the Creator?
You're an idiot, Dave, seriously.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,18:54   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 19 2006,21:37)
I didn't say "small sample" ... read it again and see if you can tell what I really said ...

You did say "small sample." Read it again and see if you can tell what you really said.

--------------
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

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2006,21:15   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 19 2006,06:55)
Crabby ... you are displaying some monumental ignorance of basic history ...

The Hebrews didn't even exist as a people until after 2000BC.  They probably used the same writing systems as the Egyptians until they left Egypt, when they began using vellum (hopefully you know what vellum is).  When I talk about the book of Genesis being a written account of eyewitness history, I'm talking about the tablet records which comprise what we now know as Genesis 1:1-37:2a.  All these were composed prior to birth of the Hebrew nation.  Moses was simply a compiler of these records, plus he wrote his own record.

I'm displaying ignorance? Heh.

5000 year old quipus (hopefully you know what a quipu is, eh?) have been unearthed that predate your 2000 BCE Hebrews. It'd be pretty hard for the sons of Abraham to make it to the New World before that Patriarch was born would it not? Keep in mind you've admitted post flood dating works!

Golly gee, American History goes wayback Mr. Peabody!

So much for the "theory" that Native Americans are one of the "Lost Tribes of Israel". Go stand in the corner with Joseph Smith, boy and leave the moldy rye bread alone.

Yet you're still spouting nonsense about nomads carrying around tablets that record all that begatting and speculating that the Hebrews were using Egyptian writing systems, hieroglyphs on stone or clay tablets,  vellum or papyrus?

Where in the world is the evidence for any of this claptrap DDTTD?

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,00:53   

Wow are we ever getting confused, boys ...

Crabby ... I didn't say anything about Native Americans being a lost tribe of Israel ... go argue that with Paley somewhere else ... I also am not interested in talking about geocentrism ... I am a heliocentrist.

Mike PSS ...
Quote
All I want to know is how your interpretation of this data supports your assertion against whole-rock Isochron methods.
It does not support my assertion, nor does it refute it by itself.  I still want to discuss it, though.  It is from the RATE Book 1 so I do not have the original paper by Minster.  If no one here has free access to it, I may buy it.

Eric...AFD said...
Quote
One thing I am noting is that we are basing this 4.5 Ga age number on a really small range of data ... the daughter ratios range from about 0.71 to 0.81, which is well within the range of naturally occurring ratios in both young and "old" rocks.

Now, YOU read it again until you get it.  "really small range of data" is not the same as "small sample," see?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,01:23   



Mike PSS--  

Here is my guess of what we might have if we analyzed MANY meteorites.  With this data set, you can have MANY lines with all different slopes ... if this is the real situation, then of course, there is no age significance at all.  

But I would like to see the paper and find out more.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,02:36   

you don't dick about statistics, do you dumbass?

do you know what a linear regression is?

do you even know what a standard deviation is?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,03:10   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 20 2006,07:36)
you don't dick about statistics, do you dumbass?

do you know what a linear regression is?

do you even know what a standard deviation is?

In fairness, regression analysis is not part of most engineering programs.  As an industrial engineer, I probably had a half-dozen or more upper level courses that used applied statistics and regression analysis.  But I wouldn't expect an EE to know an R-square from a T-square.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,03:46   

Got it straight on where the intial daugher ratio comes from now, Davie-doofus?  You were wrong about us assuming it, weren't you!

Learned anything about chemistry and soldification kinetics?
 
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,07:23)
[img]Here is my guess of what we might have if we analyzed MANY meteorites.  With this data set, you can have MANY lines with all different slopes ... if this is the real situation, then of course, there is no age significance at all.

Your fantasies are not evidence.  We have analyzed many meteorites.  See Radioisotopic evidences for age of earth (and solar system) for a table of many meteorite analyses (at the end).
 
Quote
One thing I am noting is that we are basing this 4.5 Ga age number on a really small range of data ... the daughter ratios range from about 0.71 to 0.81, which is well within the range of naturally occurring ratios in both young and "old" rocks.

"Really small" is a relative term, meaningless without a referent. It's gigantic relative to the sensitivity, precision, and accuracy of the instrumentation, which arguably is the one realistic referent.  It's not "really small" relative to the total range of observed values, being approximately 1/2 the range we see and much more than 1/2 of the most commonly encountered ranges.  So, Davie-piddles, "really small" relative to what?
 
Quote
Sorry, Jon ... I guess Google Scholar doesn't like you

We've already pointed out the problems with Google Scholar searches for such counting, not the least of which is the choice of keywords.  Boots on the ground, Davie-doodles.  That's the only way.

{ABE:}
 Geez, Davie-moron, I just noticed your extreme dishonesty in your Google search. You almost slipped that one by!!
Quote
Google Scholar  All articles  
Recent articles  Results 1 - 10 of about 11,300 for whole rock age.  1981-1990
Recent articles  Results 1 - 10 of about 478 for mineral isochron 1981-1990

You searched for "whole rock age", picking up all sorts of dating methods, but "mineral isochron", trying to limit it to isochrons!  Naughty, naughty, Davie-dork!  Of course, I don't think that a Google Scholar search is particularly meaningful, but let's see why Davie did that:

Google Scholar, all articles, 1981-1990:

Code Sample

"whole rock isochron" (phrase)      145
whole rock isochron (all words)      443
"mineral isochron" (phrase)             41
mineral isochron (all words)           478

"whole rock age" (phrase)              103
whole rock age (all words)            11,600
"mineral age" (phrase)                     69
mineral age (all words)                 12,400

So, Davie-doodles, you didn't like that result, did you?  If you believe in such Google Scholar searches, your (and Arndts and Overns' ) claim is refuted.  No matter how you slice it, comparing comparable searches doesn't come close to 90% whole rock. So you had to do something fraudulent, didn't you?  That explains your love for Snelling; frauds of a feather flock together.
{end ABE}

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,03:57   

Quote (Ichthyic @ Sep. 20 2006,08:36)
you don't dick about statistics, do you dumbass?

do you know what a linear regression is?

do you even know what a standard deviation is?

I'm sure he doesn't know any of that, nor what r^2 is or means, or why Arndts and Overn's data don't support their hypothesis (not even counting the mountains of evidence that they've ignored that refute their hypothesis).

I just want to note that line-fitting to geochronological data is a very advanced subject, and few of us (including myself) are really knowledgable in that field.  Ordinary least-squares regression comes fairly close to an optimum line, but not close enough for the accuracy and significance we want, and similarly r^2 is a very crude measure of significance.  The major problem is that least-squares fitting assumes that the X-axis values are all known exactly and all the errors are in the Y-axis values.  This is known false in the case of geochronological data; in fact, usually the errors in X and Y dat are correlated.  Mean Sum of Weighted Deviates (MSWD) is the appropriate measure of goodness-of-fit and linearity of the data.  The canonical reference is  York, D., 1969, Least squares fitting of a straight line with correlated errors, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 5, 320-324.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,05:12   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,07:23)


Mike PSS--  

Here is my guess of what we might have if we analyzed MANY meteorites.  With this data set, you can have MANY lines with all different slopes ... if this is the real situation, then of course, there is no age significance at all.  

But I would like to see the paper and find out more.

AFDave,
Just as one person would say to another person "Your fly is undone."  I say to you...
"Your cognitive dissonance is showing!!" :)

I asked you to interpret the data that you presented, that I now find out was from RATE 1.  What is your interpretation of the data presented.  Wild guesses reflecting your imagination aren't part of the discussion of the data set that you brought to the table.

Looking at the above graph with my red filter glasses on I now only see measured and verified data in a linear relation of MANY meteorite samples.  In my vernacular MANY has a meaning related to counting...  e.g.  "One..... Two..... MANY...." ;)   Since there are 23 independent meteorites than this fits my definition of MANY.  I'll assume you agree with me on this definition and carry on. :)  {AFDave, please don't quibble about this definition since you have argued in the past about parts of your hypothesis based upon One data point, namely your KJV-v3.8.25}

AFDave, I will admit to you that I am not revealing all that I know on this subject.  I am certainly no expert in radiometric dating however I have some experience in radio-nucleides (on-stream density measurement of fluid flow in a pipe for example), chemistry, engineering and material science.  In other words I know enough to be dangerous (to myself or others remains to be seen).  If I'm wrong in my interpretations of the data that you brought to the table and someone calls me on it then I will admit my error and accept the correction.

So...........
Accepting that we have MANY meteorites already sampled and putting your red filter glasses on and looking at the above graph, what is your interpretation of the data set presented and why does the data result in a linear relation? *

I'll drop my second question about the Rb/Sr ratio gap since JonF has already argued this point in the past.  I'll give you extra credit if you can state how my question relates to one of JonF's previous arguments that you didn't agree with (may be tough, you disagree with JonF quite a bit so there are MANY  :O arguments to choose from).

Mike PSS

* Why do I get the feeling that AFDave will put on his black filter glasses instead of his red ones? :D

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,05:21   



Ichthyic and JonF ... You are chopping wood with scalpels designed for brain surgery.   You are getting all high and mighty about the finer points of curve fitting and linear regressions, and missing a very obvious point that should be as plain as the nose on your face.

The point, again, is this ... the Minster report only gives us 23 data points ... I see on closer reading, it's not even 23 seperate meteorites.  My chart above shows the probable situation that we really have if we considered many more meteorites.  As you can see, there is no need to do any fancy linear regressions to know that there is no age significance whatsoever to the data.  You can fit lines every which way with both positive and negative slope and with no slope at all.

Now I don't know what the data really is and you don't either, so the chart above is hypothetical, but my point is ... we cannot really conclude anything from the Minster plot unless we ...

a) see the paper and the data
b) answer the question about OTHER meteorites

I can tell you this ... the more I get into real papers that do real analyses of rocks, the more I see that much data is simply discarded because it does not fit pre-conceived ideas about the age of the earth.  I hope to post 2 examples later today of REAL data from real rocks, with NOTHING discarded.

*************************************

Jon--  I'm glad to see you've decided Google Scholar is not so bad after all ...

My search terms ARE appropriate and are better than yours ...

"Mineral age" has no relevance to radiometric dating.  

"Whole rock age" does.  Go look at the results you get and you will see this is so.

JonF...
Quote
Got it straight on where the intial daugher ratio comes from now, Davie-doofus?  You were wrong about us assuming it, weren't you!
I have always understood that the Y-intercept is the initial daughter ratio ... you are just quite desperate to portray me as stupid so you jump on anything (sort of like Icthy jumping up and down about linear regression)  (sort of like your fantasy that I said lava was sedimentary when actually YOU were the one that said that) ... my question of how do you calculate it came because something you said made me think that you were saying that the OTHER values (not on the Y-intercept) were also calculated, not measured.  I see now that you do not think that.  Whew!  

JonF...
Quote
Learned anything about chemistry and soldification kinetics?
No, already knew it.  I'm learning alot about RM dating, though, and also about how gullible you are to believe whole rock isochrons give valid dates, when Dalrymple himself doesn't even defend them.  You also were given the EB quote that said how unreliable Rb-Sr dating is.  Your little analogy of white balls and black balls was yet another example of just how desperate you are to try to portray me as ignorant.  You tried to portray me as not understanding the uptake of different size atoms into crystals, when we weren't talking about individual mineral crystals at all.  We were talking about whole rock samples.  I even pointed this out to you in the Overn article and yet here you are, still trying to pretend that I don't understand that Rb and Sr are emplaced into crystal structures differently.

Shame on you!

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,05:43   

JonF...
Quote
We have analyzed many meteorites.  See Radioisotopic evidences for age of earth (and solar system) for a table of many meteorite analyses (at the end).
Er ... I tried your link and got some site called "Lord I Believe" or something ... didn't see anything about meteorites and the link to the article on "radiometric dating" was broken ...

Maybe try again and give me a more specific link for your supposed massive meteorite data?

Mike PSS-- I have explained to you already why I posted the Minster plot. I could have posted ANY plot from the literature and it would have looked similar.  What I am saying, though, is that this plot is a SELECTION of data.  (It's not even 23 meteorites I see)

Of course, if this was a random sampling of all the meteorites out there, and no data was discarded as "erroneous" for whatever reason, then this would be interesting and possibly indicate Deep Time.

But alas for Deep Timers, it is quite possibly not.

Now if YOU want to pick up the baton for the Deep TIme crowd and try to prove to me why the Minster data proves Deep Time, then have at it.  Spend your $30 and get the paper as a starting point and I will be glad to discuss it with you.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,05:50   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,05:53)
Eric...AFD said...  
Quote
One thing I am noting is that we are basing this 4.5 Ga age number on a really small range of data ... the daughter ratios range from about 0.71 to 0.81, which is well within the range of naturally occurring ratios in both young and "old" rocks.

Now, YOU read it again until you get it.  "really small range of data" is not the same as "small sample," see?

Dave, you can't even keep track of what you're saying, let alone what anyone else is saying.

I'm not confusing "small range of data" with "small sample"; you are. Here's what you said:

 
Quote
I do understand that this graph has the appearance of a legitimate age but I am not convinced yet.  This is 23 meteorites, true, but how many meteorites have been analyzed?  Maybe several hundred?  Do they fit on this line as well?  If not, why not?  And about these 23 meteorites ... why were they selected?  Were they chosen at random?  From a pool of how many?


That's a complaint about small sample size, genius. And as if we needed more evidence that that's what you're complaining about, you come back with this:

 
Quote
Here is my guess of what we might have if we analyzed MANY meteorites.  With this data set, you can have MANY lines with all different slopes ... if this is the real situation, then of course, there is no age significance at all.  


Still saying you're not complaining about a small sample size, Dave?

--------------
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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,05:58   

Quote (ericmurphy @ Sep. 20 2006,10:50)
Still saying you're not complaining about a small sample size, Dave?

And after reading further, I see that you are still complaining about small sample size. But you think I'm confusing "small range of data" with "small sample"?

And need I point out once more that it only takes one accurate date of more than 6,000 years to blow your "hypothesis" away? You think you're going to discredit every single one of the millions of dates greater than 6,000 years, all by yourself?

--------------
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

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,05:59   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,11:43)
JonF...  
Quote
We have analyzed many meteorites.  See Radioisotopic evidences for age of earth (and solar system) for a table of many meteorite analyses (at the end).
Er ... I tried your link and got some site called "Lord I Believe" or something ... didn't see anything about meteorites and the link to the article on "radiometric dating" was broken ...

You didn't read carefully enough, and you were trying the wrong link.  Use this one.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,06:02   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,11:43)
Mike PSS-- I have explained to you already why I posted the Minster plot. I could have posted ANY plot from the literature and it would have looked similar.

You mean with a single, distinct line?  Wow, you're doing a great job of making the case against yourself.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,06:08   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,11:21)
My chart above shows the probable situation that we really have if we considered many more meteorites.  As you can see, there is no need to do any fancy linear regressions to know that there is no age significance whatsoever to the data.  You can fit lines every which way with both positive and negative slope and with no slope at all.

Your ability to draw imaginary lines through imaginary points is not evidence. (ANd none of those lines fit any set of points nearly as well as the real line fits the real points). "Probable situation", hum?  Any evidence or calculations for that claim?  Of course not.
 
Quote
I can tell you this ... the more I get into real papers that do real analyses of rocks, the more I see that much data is simply discarded because it does not fit pre-conceived ideas about the age of the earth.

Then why haven't you posted any references to such papers?  The KBS Tuff dates and Dalrymple's GC dates that were rejected were rejected not because they didn't fit preconceived ideas .. many of them did ... but for objective and repeatable and valid reasons.  Your ability to repeat unsupported claims is not evidence.
 
Quote
Jon--  I'm glad to see you've decided Google Scholar is not so bad after all ...

I stated explicitly that I still think Google scholar searches are meaningless for this kind of investigation.
Quote
My search terms ARE appropriate and are better than yours ...

Nope, Davie-doodles, your search terms are not appropriate at all.  Overn's claim is that "All whole-rock "isochrons" are mixing, and they are approximately 90% of all published.".  All published what? Not dates, that's ridiculous on the face of it, and he's only discussing isochrons, and the referent must be to something that appeared just previously; the referent is clear, and it's isochrons.  The only possible reading is that he's claiming they are approximately 90% of all published isochrons are whole-rock.  And therefore "whole rock age", a ridiculous term no matter what Overn claimed, is totally out of the ballpark.  "Whole rock isochron" and "mineral isochron" are the only ones that might be valid, but there's so many things that hit both and/or aren't dating studies that those are meaningless too.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Got it straight on where the intial daugher ratio comes from now, Davie-doofus?  You were wrong about us assuming it, weren't you!
I have always understood that the Y-intercept is the initial daughter ratio ... you are just quite desperate to portray me as stupid so you jump on anything (sort of like Icthy jumping up and down about linear regression)

Sure, Davie-doofus.  I believe you, really really I do. The fact that there's lots of evidence that you're lying shouldn't led me to suspect you're lying.
 
Quote
(sort of like your fantasy that I said lava was sedimentary when actually YOU were the one that said that)

Never said any such thing, Davie-moron.  You keep claiming I said it, but you can't point to where.  The whole thread is downloadable and easily searchable ... let's see the reference.
 
Quote
my question of how do you calculate it came because something you said made me think that you were saying that the OTHER values (not on the Y-intercept) were also calculated, not measured.  I see now that you do not think that.  Whew!

Oh, yeah, sure, Davie-doofus.  Exactly what did I write that made you think that?  And why did you label the inital daughter ratio as "assumed"?
 
Quote
Jon is correct that (at least from this real world example) the assumed Initial Daughter Ratio is closer to 0.7 for the Rb/Sr analyses.

And, when I replied:
 
Quote
Not assumed.  Calculated.  Big difference.

you replied:
 
Quote
Oh really?  How?

That's not the question of one who knows the answer and is testing my knowledge, it's the question of a doofus who hasn't figured out the basics yet but assumes all sorts of wild fantasies.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Learned anything about chemistry and soldification kinetics?
No, already knew it.

Oh, yeah, sure, Davie-doodles. You knew it all. That's why you thought the units of isochron axes were quantities, not ratios. That's why you thought there was no reason for there to be any 87Sr in a rock. That's why you thought there was no reason for the initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio to be the same for cogenetic samples.  That's why you thought the 87Rb/86Sr ratio was tied to the 87Sr/86Sr ratio. That's why you thought that the 87Rb/87Sr ratio had to be the same for cogenetic samples.  You really are pathetically incompetent in your frantic efforts to avoid admitting your many errors.
 
Quote
You tried to portray me as not understanding the uptake of different size atoms into crystals, when we weren't talking about individual mineral crystals at all.  We were talking about whole rock samples.

Well, you were (and, I bet, still are) ignorant of the uptake of different size and chemically different atoms into crystals ... which is both germane and critical to understanding whole rock samples. Whole rock samples are made up of varying proportions of individual mineral crystals.  Therefore individual mineral crystals and how they form are relevant and important to understanding the properties of whole rock samples.  Moron.  Your inability to comprehend the basics of crystallization leads immediately to your inability to understand whole-rock samples.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,06:11   

Geez AFD .....no wonder the Air Force sidelined you.

Did they figure out if you didn't like something ....you just told a bunch of lies to make it look like they were wrong.

I'll bet they were glad to rid of you.

You're just a weak, half assed, lying scam artist.

Scum.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,06:15   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,10:43)
Now if YOU want to pick up the baton for the Deep TIme crowd and try to prove to me why the Minster data proves Deep Time, then have at it.  Spend your $30 and get the paper as a starting point and I will be glad to discuss it with you.

Dave, are you ever going to get clear on who has the burden of proof here? It's your freaking "hypothesis." You have to prove the earth is only 6,000 years old. It's not our job to prove deep time to you.

You're just like every other dishonest and deceitful creationist out there. You came in with this wild-ass "hypothesis" about the Bible in general and Genesis in particular being literally true and that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So far, you have presented—wait for it—ZERO evidence to back up either one of those assertions. Instead, you've spent all your time discussing everything but evidence for your "hypothesis." But you expect other people to spend money supporting a theory they subscribe to? Why would they do that? We're not supposed to be even discussing other theories, and certainly shouldn't be required to defend them.

But on the other hand, if you weren't spending all your time trying (to absolutely no effect) to refute other theories, you'd have nothing to talk about at all, would you?

--------------
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

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,06:22   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,11:43)
Quote
We have analyzed many meteorites.  See Radioisotopic evidences for age of earth (and solar system) for a table of many meteorite analyses (at the end).
Er ... I tried your link and got some site called "Lord I Believe" or something ... didn't see anything about meteorites and the link to the article on "radiometric dating" was broken ...

Whoops, I linked to the page above the one I wanted, although it would do you good to read all that's linked from that page ... lots of good info there.  As improvious pointed out, the proper link is Radioisotopic evidences for age of earth (and solar system).  And the link to it from the page I linked to is not broken, although the link to Wien's paper appears to be.  But, of course, since you've been investigating radiometric dating and have been pointed to Wien's paper many times, you've already read it thoroughly, right?
Quote
Now if YOU want to pick up the baton for the Deep TIme crowd and try to prove to me why the Minster data proves Deep Time, then have at it.  Spend your $30 and get the paper as a starting point and I will be glad to discuss it with you.

The Minster data prima facie proves deep time.  If you can't come up with some discussion of real (not fantasized) problems with the study, then that's just one more item on the mountain of evidence that proves the Earth and life are far older than 6,000 years.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2006,06:35   

Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,10:21)
The point, again, is this ... the Minster report only gives us 23 data points ... I see on closer reading, it's not even 23 seperate meteorites.  My chart above shows the probable situation that we really have if we considered many more meteorites.  As you can see, there is no need to do any fancy linear regressions to know that there is no age significance whatsoever to the data.  You can fit lines every which way with both positive and negative slope and with no slope at all.

You can eyeball many lines, but linear regression only provides one answer that best fits the data.  But, tell you what.  Why don't you take the fitted line and all your made-up lines and calculate the least squares sum and r-square.  If you are right, it should be immediately obvious that the fitted line isn't much better than any other.

Now, I do note that JonF has indicated that linear regression provides a reasonable fit, but not at a great enough level of accuracy. But, (correct me if I am wrong, Jon) linear regression on each of these lines ought to provide us enough information to at least compare their relative suitability.

EDIT:  Wait a minute. You put the red dots on the chart yourself?  Never mind.  First, go get yourself some real data then show us how you can fit multiple lines to the same data.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < ... 192 193 194 195 196 [197] 198 199 200 201 202 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]