JonF
Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Oh, Davie-doofus, what percentage of published isochron dates in the mid 90's were whole-rock isochron dates? What did a Google Scholar search indicate? Seems to me that either Google Scholar searches are not valid counts of the use of particular dating methods and/or Overn's claim is wrong. What do you think?
And exactly where did I say lava is sedimentary? You keep claiming that I did but can't point to where. Now that's shameful, Davie-poo.
| Quote (afdave @ Sep. 20 2006,12:36) | | Quote | | 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. |
And you have posted how much evidence for this claim? ZERO. Yet you preach to me. Shameful. |
I've posted links to the papers themselves, and listed the objective and repeatable and valid reasons for rejecting particular dates. I.e., lots of evidence. The "zero evidence" must be referring to your unsupported claims.
| Quote | | Quote | | Any evidence or calculations for that claim? Of course not. |
Didn't claim I have evidence ... YET ... I'm cheap like you ... I don't want to spend the $30 unless I have to. |
If you don't have the evidence to back up your claims, don't make claims.
| Quote | | Quote | | 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. |
Calm down. Calm down. The fact is that you and I BOTH misread one another once in a while. I just admitted misreading you and you have just demonstrated that you misread me. (Not that you will ever admit it, but nonetheless, you did) |
I misread nothing. You didn't (and don't) know anything about solidification, you made a bunch of wild-ass claims about solidification, and you claimed that individual mineral crystallization is irrelevant to whole-rock samples when in fact it's key. You're a moron, Davie.
Neither you nor they have addressed the fatal flaws in Arndts and Overn's arguments:
- Passing the mixing test is not sufficient evidence for a mixing line.
- Their own data doesn't support their conclusion; many of their samples failed the mxing test! They have no evidence that it is even reasonable to interpret those isochrons as mixing lines.
- Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron slopes.
- Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of isochron intercepts.
- Mixing does not explain the observed pattern of agreement with other dating methods that are not susceptible to mixing. No matter what you think of the individual dating methods, the pattern is there and must be explained by any viable hypothesis.
| Quote | | 2) DALRYMPLE ENGAGED THEM PUBLICLY, BUT AVOIDED A DEFENSE OF WHOLE ROCK DATING. |
Dalrymple pointed out the fatal flaws in their arguments. There's no need to engage them further until they come up with something new.
| Quote | | 3) ALL WHOLE ROCK DATING CAN BE INTERPRETED AS NOTHING MORE THAN MIXING |
Only by ignoring the vast majority of the facts.
| Quote | | YOU YOURSELF HAVE IMPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE FAILURE OF WHOLE ROCK DATING BECAUSE YOU POINT TO OTHER TYPES OF DATING AS THE "LATEST AND GREATEST" |
Isochron dating has not failed; it's good for some situations, other methods are good in other situations. It so happens that isochron dating usualy can't yield sub-1% accuracy, so methods that can are mor popular now. But isochron methods are stilly widely used in isotope geochemistry.
| Quote | | 5) I HAVE GIVEN YOU A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE LINEARITY OF THE MINSTER PLOT AND MANY OTHER PLOTS LIKE IT - PREFERENTIAL SELECTION OF DATA |
How, by photoshopping a lot of imaginary dots and imaginary lines on top of the graph? Are you even fooling yourself? You sure ain't fooling anyone else.
Let's see your evidence for preferential selection of datas. If you don't have the evidence, don't make the claim.
It's got the references to the papers. You're the one that's trying to prove preferential selection or mixing or whatever; I've given you a good start, you go to the library and dig up the papers. If you haven't got the evidence, don't make the claim.
|
<< me bowing to stevestory's superior satirical and sarcastic skills. Sensei! (look! -- it's ID, 'cause it's alliterative)